Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Governments of Colombia and Nicaragua engage themselves immediately to give effect to this agreement by means of a public treaty.

The United States and Colombia agree that the dominion of the Roncador, Serranilla and Quita Sueño Keys shall be settled by an arbitration convention between Colombia and the United States to whose terms the two Parties will agree later.

717.2114/52 The Minister in Nicaragua (Eberhardt) to the Secretary of State No. 464

MANAGUA, August 31, 1927.

[Received September 19.] SIR: With no instructions or comment from the Department to refer to in connection with my telegram No. 181 of July 28, 4 P. M., I have the honor to advise the Department that I have nevertheless discussed this entire question informally with President Diaz and intimated that I saw no reason why preliminary negotiations with the Colombian Minister should not be undertaken. I am informed that this has been done. I hope my action in the matter will have the approval of the Department. It would, however, be appreciated by both President Diaz and this Legation if the Department would indicate whether a settlement along the lines proposed by the Department in its instruction No. 212 of March 25 [21], 1925,85 still seems advisable to the Department, or what, if any, additional representations and points might be brought up in negotiations tending toward the settlement of this old question. I have [etc.]

CHARLES C. EBERHARDT

717.2114/51 : Telegram

The Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro) to the Secretary of State MANAGUA, September 13, 1927—5 p. m.

[Received 9:10 p. m.] 241. Legation's 181, July 28, 4 p. m. President Diaz informed the Minister yesterday that he expected the Colombian Minister to take

up the San Andrés Archipelago question with him in the near future and that he was therefore anxious to learn whether the Department had any views to express. Is the Department now ready to make any suggestion to the Nicaraguan Government regarding this matter?

MUNRO

* Foreign Relations, 1925, vol. I, p. 431.

717.2114/51 : Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro)

WASHINGTON, September 14, 1927–5 p. m. 141. Your 241 September 13, 5 p. m. Department is giving serious consideration to this question and instructions will be forwarded to you in the near future.

KELLOGG

717.2114/53: Telegram

The Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro) to the Secretary of State

MANAGUA, October 4, 1927—2 p. m.

[Received 5:15 p. m.] 260. Department's May (September] 14, 5 p. m. The President asked me today to ascertain when the Department would be ready to express an opinion regarding the San Andrés Archipelago question.

MUNRO

717.2114/53 : Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro)

WASHINGTON, October 6, 1927–6 p. m. 151. Your 260, October 4, 2 p. m. It has been necessary to consult another Department in connection with this question and your instructions have been delayed pending receipt of reply. It is hoped that it may be possible to send instructions to you before long.

KELLOGG

717.2114/54 : Telegram

The Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro) to the Secretary of State

MANAGUA, October 8, 1927— p. m.

[Received 8:20 p. m.] [270.] ® Department's telegram October 6, 6 p. m. The Colombian Minister has proposed a settlement leaving the San Andrés Archipelago to Colombia and the Corn Islands and the Mosquito Coast to Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan Government apparently regards this proposal with some favor but wishes to do nothing until it hears from the Department. The delay is prejudicial to the chances of a settlement because the prolonged discussion of the matter by the newspapers and by the bipartisan advisory commission, which the Government has appointed, can only do harm.

"Number supplied from the Charge's despatch No. 515, Oct. 20, 1927 (not printed).

· The Minister for Foreign Affairs told me today that he had been privately informed by a Nicaraguan in Bogotá that the Colombian Government might be persuaded to pay an indemnity of $500,000 for the relinquishment of Nicaragua's claim to the San Andrés Archipelago if a Nicaraguan Minister were sent to Bogotá to discuss the matter. I endeavored to discourage this idea.

MUNRO

717.2114/57 : Telegram T'he Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro) to the Secretary of State MANAQUA, November 11, 1927-11 a. m.

[Received 2 p. m.] 327. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has asked me to inquire again when the Department will be ready to express an opinion on the question of the San Andrés Archipelago.

MUNRO

717.2114/57 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro)

WASHINGTON, November 11, 1927—4 p. m. 190. Your 327, November 11, 11 a. m. Department expects to be able to give you an answer next week.

KELLOGO

Colombia and Peru

721.2315/326 : Telegram The Ambassador in Peru (Poindexter) to the Secretary of State

LIMA, December 30, 1926–6 p.m.

[Received December 31–12:45 a, m.] 110. Colombian Minister has just called and states that on account of the repeated specific promises of the President and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru that the Colombian boundary treaty 6 would be promptly submitted to Congress for its consideration and the failure up to this time to comply with these promises has created a critical situation in his country, one of the leading papers with much influence urging the military occupation of the territory in dispute.

Continued from Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 534-539. « Treaty of Mar. 24, 1922, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. III, p. 9; see also Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Peru, Tratados, Convenciones y Acuerdos vigentes entre el Peru y otros Estados (Lima, Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1988), vol. 1, p. 251.

Curletti, Chairman of the Committee Foreign Relations of the Senate and of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House, promised Lozano 69 December 9th that within 10 days he would make his report to the Senate on the treaty. Since then Curletti has taken no steps to comply with his promise and has not submitted his report. The Colombian Minister states that he interviewed Minister for Foreign Affairs today and that the latter told him that the discussion of Tacna-Arica 70 would not interfere with the approval of the Colombian boundary treaty and assured Lozano that he would immediately again interview Curletti at length and that positively the treaty would be acted upon by Congress in the early days of January.

However Congress will be in vacation for several days during new year and the extra session will adjourn about January 20th and it is not known that another extra session will be called during the year and on account of the repeated disappointments in this respect Lozano feels that no action will be taken in which case he states there will be no occasion for him to remain longer as Minister in Peru and that he fears a serious rupture in the relations of the two countries.

I have repeatedly recently urged upon both the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs the advisability of the prompt ratification of the treaty and have been assured by both that such action will be taken but I have been informed that since then largely on account of the Tacna-Arica question there has been an unfavorable reaction in Congress towards the boundary treaty.

It is possible that some [paraphrase) inquiry of Velarde 71 regarding the status of the treaty might help.

POINDEXTER

721.2315/325 : Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Peru (Poindexter)

[Paraphrase)

WASHINGTON, January 6, 1927–10 a, m. 1. Embassy's telegram number 110, December 30, 6 p. m. It being important to have as many causes of dissension between the Latin American Republics as possible removed before the Pan American Conference convenes," you should take up this question again with the Foreign Minister or with the President, or both. The Depart

Colombian Minister in Peru.
* See Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, pp. 260 ff.
* Hernán Velarde, Peruvian Ambassador at Washington.
*2 Convened at Habana, Jan. 16 to Feb. 20, 1928.

ment has been informed that there is real danger that Colombia may sever diplomatic relations if the treaty is not ratified after repeated promises of President Leguía. Such action would naturally cause serious embarrassment to the Government of the United States which sponsored the protocol.73

The Department does not think there is any use in discussing the question with Velarde.

KELLOGG

[ocr errors]

721.2315/326 : Telegram

The Ambassador in Peru (Poindextcr) to the Secretary of State

(Paraphrase)

LIMA, January 12, 1927—6 p. m.

[Received 9:50 p. m.] 4. President Leguía told the Colombian Minister that, due to the delicate situation occasioned by the Tacna-Arica question, he would be unable to submit the boundary treaty to the present Congress. The Colombian Minister replied that, because of reiterated promises made by the President and the Foreign Office on various specific occasions during the last few years and especially during the last few months that the treaty would be submitted to Congress and promptly ratified and the fact that they had failed to fulfill any of these promises, he considered it useless to negotiate further on this subject with the Government of Peru and he would not return again to discuss the subject with him.

The Colombian Minister also told President Leguía that if the treaty were not submitted and approved by this Congress, a dangerous condition of public opinion in Colombia would be created. President Leguía seemed greatly embarrassed and assured the Colombian Minister that the present state of affairs was due to circumstances beyond his control. He begged him to be patient, and again assured him that his intention to have the treaty ratified at some future date was as strong as ever.

The Colombian Minister appears to have little confidence in this and has informed his Government of the present state of affairs.

POINDEXTER

** See procès-verbal of a meeting between representatives of the United States, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil, Mar. 4, 1925, at Washington, Foreign Relations, 1925, vol. I, p. 461.

« PreviousContinue »