to obligatory arbitral jurisdiction. I suggest that not more than two delegates be named by each country. You are instructed to inform the Government of Brazil of these suggestions and to inquire if they are acceptable to that Government. 69 On the subject of conciliation you are undoubtedly aware that a Treaty to Avoid or Prevent Conflicts Between the American States (commonly known as the Gondra Treaty) was signed at Santiago, Chile, on May 3, 1923, by sixteen republics parties to the Pan American Union; viz., the United States, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina. It was subsequently signed by Mexico. To date it has been ratified by the following states and the ratifications duly deposited at Santiago, Chile,-the United States, Mexico, Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Venezuela, Brazil and Paraguay. The information available to the Department indicates that the following nations have ratified the treaty but have not yet officially deposited their ratifications-Guatemala, Panama and Uruguay. On March 29, 1928, at the invitation of the Acting Secretary of State, the diplomatic representatives of Uruguay, Panama and Colombia, as the three diplomatic agents longest accredited before this Government, met in the Department of State and organized the Permanent Commission to be established at Washington in accordance with Article III of this Treaty." The Minister of Uruguay was chosen as Chairman of this Commission. The Gondra Treaty, similar to the Bryan Treaty which the United States has concluded with about eighteen countries," would seem to cover questions of conciliation; and, as you are probably aware, the last Pan American Conference adopted a resolution, a copy of which is enclosed, requesting all states parties to the Pan American Union to ratify this Treaty as quickly as possible. I desire you confidentially and discreetly to obtain such information as may be possible with regard to the attitude of the Brazilian Government on the question of arbitration and conciliation. Brazil has ratified the Gondra Treaty and it would therefore seem as though that subject has been properly taken care of; but the Department desires to know the attitude of the Government of Brazil with regard to the arbitration of juridical questions. I am [etc.] "Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. 1, p. 308. To See pp. 644 ff. FRANK B. KELLOGG "For Bryan treaties for the advancement of general peace, see Foreign Relations, 1914, index, p. 1130; 1915, index, p. 1328; 1916, index, p. 1007. 710.1012 Washington/21 The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Argentina (Bliss)" No. 71 WASHINGTON, April 14, 1928. SIR: [Here follow five paragraphs, the same, mutatis mutandis, as the first five paragraphs in instruction No. 1364, April 14, 1928, to the Ambassador in Brazil, printed supra.] I desire you confidentially and discreetly to obtain such information as may be possible with regard to the attitude of the Argentine Government on the question of arbitration and conciliation. I also desire that you informally and discreetly suggest to the Government of Argentina that, as the Gondra Treaty has been signed and ratified by a majority of the countries members of the Pan American Union, it would be a decided step forward on the subject of conciliation if the Gondra Treaty could become effective as to all the countries members of the Pan American Union before the conference meets in Washington next December. This would leave the subject of arbitration for primary consideration at the conference. You may informally state to the Government of Argentina that the United States Government sincerely hopes that the Government of Argentina will see its way to ratify the Gondra Treaty and deposit ratification thereof at Santiago, Chile, before the conference. I am [etc.] FRANK B. KELLOGG 710.1012 Washington/24 The Chargé in Cuba (Curtis) to the Secretary of State No. 219 SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Department's instruction No. 125 of April 14, 1928,78 requesting the Embassy to ascertain from the Cuban Government whether the suggestions therein advanced by the Department in relation to the conference, which is to take place in Washington in conformity with the Resolution of February 18, 1928 on the subject of obligatory arbitration for the pacific settlement of international differences of a juridical nature, are acceptable to that Government. The matter was informally broached to the Secretary of State on April 25 who, after consultation "The same, mutatis mutandis, on the same date, to the chiefs of missions in Bolivia (No. 346), Colombia (No. 1057), Costa Rica (No. 447), Dominican Republic (No. 239), Guatemala (No. 1070), Honduras (No. 250), Nicaragua (No. 346), Panama (No. 631), Peru (No. 432), and Salvador (No. 124). A similar instruction was sent to the mission in Ecuador on May 9, 1928 as No. 586. "See footnote 66, p. 621. on the subject, orally replied on the 28th that the date of December 10, 1928, suggested by the Department for the convening of the conference, is agreeable to the Cuban Government. The recommendation is likewise acceptable that not more than two delegates shall be named by each country. As to the attitude of the Cuban Government towards the subject of arbitration and conciliation, when the recommendations of the Department were brought to his attention, Secretary Martínez Ortiz remarked that in principle he is favorable to arbitration provided local laws are adequately safe-guarded. Anything that can be done towards making war more unlikely is worthwhile in his opinion. He added, in effect, that Cuba would, as the Embassy knows, accord with the United States in such matters-not alone because it is its desire to adjust its foreign policy to that of the United States, but also because the United States sees so clearly with regard to subjects involving the preservation of peace, as, for example, is evidenced in the recent arbitration negotiations with France. Perhaps more significant than the above remarks, since the neutral character of the audience imposes no necessity for polite phraseology, are the words which the Secretary of State will use in a discourse at the annual meeting of the Cuban Society of International Law to be held on May 7. In translation he will say on that occasion: ["] We have purposely left for the end of this synthetic outline of the work of the Sixth Conference some of the resolutions adopted on matters of great difficulty which today have the attention of the entire world, and in regard to which up to the present time the nations have not been able to find a satisfactory solution. One is obligatory arbitration. The following was resolved: (Here follows the text of the resolution on obligatory arbitration.) There is nothing more transcendental than what has been mentioned, this having, nevertheless, been taken up in a high spirit of conciliation and of hope for reaching the desired goal. Let us hope that during the coming year and as a consequence of the resolution transcribed, a definite step forward may be taken toward universal peace, or at least peace among the most cultured nations of the world, and that it shall be our America which, for its own glory, shall achieve the final success in that which constitutes the coming hope of humanity." With regard to the Cuban attitude on the Gondra Treaty, as the Department observes, Cuba's ratification of the Treaty would seem to speak for itself. Moreover, while the Secretary of State ventured no remarks relative to Cuba's position on the Treaty, it is believed that his favorable observations concerning any agreement which leads to the preservation of amity between the nations may be interpreted as equally applicable to the Gondra Treaty. I have [etc.] C. B. CURTIS 710.1012 Washington/30 The Minister in Honduras (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State No. 594 74 TEGUCIGALPA, May 5, 1928. SIR: I have the honor to refer to the Department's instruction No. 250 of April 14, 1928 relative to a conference of Pan American states planned to be held at Washington in December next for the purpose of drawing up a convention of conciliation and arbitration. In reply to representations relative to this matter made to the Government of Honduras, I have received a reply, under date of May 5, in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs states that the Government of Honduras is in perfect accord with the suggestions made by the Government of the United States in regard to the projected Conference and that it will participate therein and will take all necessary steps for its official representation. I may add that it will unfortunately not be possible for Honduras to ratify the treaty known as the Gondra Treaty before the Conference meets in December, for the necessary power for ratification rests with the National Congress which will not convene again before January 1, 1929. I have [etc.] GEORGE T. SUMMERLIN 710.1012 Washington/32 The Minister in Panama (South) to the Secretary of State No. 1700 PANAMA, May 8, 1928. SIR: I have the honor to report that, pursuant to the Department's instruction No. 631 of April 14, 1928,74 I pointed out to the Panaman Minister of Foreign Affairs in conversation yesterday the interest felt by my Government in having the Gondra treaty become effective as to all countries members of the Pan American Union before the proposed conference of conciliation and arbitration met at Washington at the end of this year. The Foreign Minister replied that this would be done, so far as Panama was concerned, and added that he had already mailed his Government's ratification of the treaty to Santiago for deposit with the Government of Chile. With regard to the attitude of the Panaman Government toward arbitration and conciliation, I believe that there is no doubt whatever of Panama's readiness to adhere to the proposed convention "See footnote 72, p. 623. on these subjects. Panama is a small nation. One of her international boundaries is in dispute and the other has not been delimited. Her boundary question with Costa Rica is of a serious and involved character." In my opinion, Panama would not only consent to submit this question to arbitration, but would also welcome an opportunity of becoming a party to such a convention for the purpose of submitting thereunder, if possible, another question which has been agitated by the present administration, namely, the sovereignty of the Panama Canal. I have [etc.] 710.1012 Washington/49 J. G. SOUTH The Chargé in Uruguay (Gade) to the Secretary of State No. 620 MONTEVIDEO, May 10, 1928. [Received June 8.] SIR: In compliance with the Department's instruction No. 129 of April 14, 1928," I have the honor to report that I today presented to the Minister for Foreign Affairs a note concerning the proposed Conference of Arbitration and Conciliation to be held at Washington on December 10, 1928. In a conversation with the Chief of Protocol (Director de Secciones e Introductor de Embajadores) before my interview with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sr. Yeregui volunteered the information that the Department's proposals would surely receive a hearty acceptance as Uruguay was unreservedly in favor of arbitration. He further declared that Uruguay had up to now refused to conclude arbitration treaties which contained reservations, even on matters of sovereignty. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sr. Dominguez, upon receiving the note stated that Uruguay was in favor of the principle of arbitration and that an early answer might be expected. I have [etc.] 710.1012 Washington/34 GERHARD GADE The Minister in the Dominican Republic (Young) to the Secretary of No. 885 State SANTO DOMINGO, May 11, 1928. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the Department's instruction No. 239 of April 14, 1928 78 relative to the Conference of Conciliation and Arbitration to be held in Washington, and to enclose herewith a copy of the Legation's note to the Foreign Office" inform "See Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 539 ff. "See footnote 66, p. 621. T See footnote 72, p. 623. " Not printed. |