BOLIVIA. COMMERCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN BOLIVIA AND PERU. No. 200.] Minister Sorsby to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, La Paz, September 14, 1905. SIR: Referring to previous dispatches relative to the treaty of peace and friendship celebrated between Chile and Bolivia on October 20, 1904, I have the honor to report that on the 10th instant an agree ment was signed by the Chilean minister here and the Bolivian minister for foreign affairs with respect to the free or reciprocal introduction of the manufactures and products of each country, respectively, the basis of which is as follows: a In conformity with the treaty of October 20, 1904, and until the Government of Bolivia realizes its purpose to cancel the privilege of the freedom from custom dues which the manufactures and products of Peru now enjoy, the manufactures and products of Chile exported to Bolivia and the manufactures and products of Bolivia exported to Chile reciprocally shall enjoy exemption from the customs duties of each country, respectively. In this connection I have to say that under the terms of the PeruBolivia treaty of October 26, 1878, the manufactures and products of each country, respectively, were exempted from custom duties. On December 15, 1903, a modification of this treaty provided that for a term of two years therefrom cotton domestics or cloths manufactured in Peru should pay a Bolivian import duty of 10 per cent. The treaty of October 26, 1878, was terminable at the option of either party. The Chilean-Bolivian treaty of peace and friendship of October 20, 1904, displaced the Chile-Bolivia treaty of truce of April 4, 1884, which contained the same conditions with respect to reciprocal customs duties exemptions as that of the Peru-Bolivia treaty of October 26, 1878; the Chile-Bolivia treaty of October 20, 1904, provided that Bolivia should be free to regulate her customs tariffs, and that Chile should enjoy (only) the same customs privileges as might be granted any other nation; and it was in view of this abrogation of the special customs privileges embodied in the treaty of truce that Bolivia sought in June last to clear the way for the rearrangement of her customs tariff system by declaring to Peru, through the Bolivian minister at Lima, that it was her purpose to abrogate the treaty of October 26, 1878; and the agreement of the 10th instant between Chile and Bolivia was in view of the protest by Peru against the purpose of Bolivia to abrogate the treaty of October 26, 1878, without having given a reasonable time in which she might be able to adjust her commercial affairs with Bolivia so as to meet the new conditions. It is understood that Peru is endeavoring to agree with Bolivia upon another commercial treaty to be substituted for that of October 26, 1878. I have, etc., a Printed under Chile, p. 104. WILLIAM B. SORSBY. No. 206.] Minister Sorsby to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, La Paz, Bolivia, November 16, 1905. SIR: Referring to my No. 200, of September 14 last, relative to the commercial relations between Chile-Bolivia and Peru-Bolivia, respectively, I have the honor to report that on October 26 last the Bolivian minister at Lima, Peru, acting upon precise instructions from his government to that effect, notified the Peruvian Government that Bolivia had canceled or declared void the "treaty of commerce and customs" of June 7, 1881, together with several protocols based thereon (referred to in my No. 200, of September 14 last, as the treaty of October 26, 1878), and has definitely fixed the 31st day of December, 1905, as the final day of its operation or existence. The Bolivian minister also proposed that a treaty better adapted to the mutual interests of both countries should be substituted. Replying to the Bolivian minister, the Peruvian minister for foreign affairs, his excellency Dr. J. Prado Ugarteche, protested strongly against the action of Bolivia, declaring said action to be abrupt and unjust; and further, that the Peruvian Government would not recognize the power of Bolivia alone and exclusively to determine the final period for the termination of the treaty and the protocols relative thereto. And his excellency expressed the hope that the sense of justice of a neighboring and friendly country, such as Bolivia, would not permit it to persist in maintaining a position which would oblige the Government of Peru, much to its regret, to discontinue the privilege of free transit. Since June of the present year both countries have in vain sought to reach a mutual understanding with respect to the arrangement of the bases for a new treaty to replace that of June 7, 1881, and its respective protocols; and now, in the discussions with respect to Bolivia's cancellation of the said treaty and protocols and her having fixed the 31st day of December of the present year for the termination of the same, it is understood that Bolivia has offered to make a concession by changing the date for the final termination of the treaty from December 31, 1905, to July 1, 1906, but that Peru refuses to accept the proposed concession and insists upon at least a period of one year, counting from January 1, 1906. At this writing it seems probable that no agreement as to the bases for a new treaty will be reached within the period of time to which Bolivia may agree to prolong the life of said treaty of 1881, and that as a consequence Peru will impose a transit duty upon all cargo to and from Bolivia, commencing with the actual annulment by Bolivia of the treaty of 1881 and the relating protocols. I have, etc., No. 209.] WILLIAM B. SORSBY. Minister Sorsby to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, La Paz, Bolivia, November 30, 1905. SIR: Referring to my No. 206, of the 16th instant, relative to the Peruvian-Bolivian commercial relations and the proposed annulment of the commercial treaty of 1881 by Bolivia, I have the honor to report that an agreement has been reached by the two countries whereby the said treaty will remain in force and effect until June 30, 1906; and that a new treaty of commerce to supersede that of 1881 has been signed at Lima by the Peruvian minister for foreign affairs and the Bolivian minister at Lima, and it is expected that it will be at once submitted to the Congresses of the respective countries for ratification." I have, etc., WILLIAM B. SORSBY. No. 65.] The Secretary of State to Minister Sorsby. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 18, 1905. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch No. 206, of the 16th ultimo, by which you advise the Department that Bolivia has notified Peru of the termination of the commercial treaty of 1881, and Peru has denied Bolivia's right to determine the period of the treaty. Article IX of the Peru-Bolivia treaty of commerce and customs, signed June 7, 1881, provides that the treaty shall remain in force until Bolivia and Peru shall have come to a final decision concerning the federal pact entered into between the governments of both countries. This provision is not modified by the later agreement of July 3, 1900. (British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 92, p. 793.) The stipulated condition does not appear to have been fulfilled and the treaty does not contain any provision for earlier denunciation by either party. It is to be hoped that the two governments may be able to come to some understanding in regard to its termination by mutual consent. I am, etc., a Printed under Peru, p. 738. ELIHU ROOT. No. 20.] BRAZIL. MISUSE OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES. Ambassador Thompson to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN EMBASSY, Petropolis, April 4, 1905. SIR: For the information of the Department of State I inclose herewith copy of a letter received from the consul at Bahia, under date of February 10, with reference to the Brazilian schooner Oliveira, of Alcobaça, State of Bahia, which has recently entered the port of Bahia flying at the foremast a flag resembling our national ensign. The matter was brought to the attention of the Brazilian Government in my note to the foreign office dated February 21, with the request that it take such action as seemed proper. Under date of March 2 a note was received in reply, saying that it had been referred to the minister of marine with the request that he give it due consideration. I also inclose copy of this note to the foreign office and translation of the reply. When the matter is further heard from the Department will be informed. I have, etc., D. E. THOMPSON. [Inclosure 1.] Consul Furniss to Ambassador Thompson. AMERICAN CONSULATE, DEAR SIR: I beg leave to call your attention to the fact that the Brazilian schooner Oliveira, of Alcobaça, Bahia, (captain, Joaquim Loures, and owner, Pedro Muniz d'Oliveira) has twice recently entered this port flying at the foremast a flag which so much resembles the flag of the United States of America that it can not be differentiated when at a distance, even by the use of a glass. I have sent the clerk on board and had a copy of the flag drawn, and inclose the same for your information. You can see from the drawing how easy it would be to mistake this flag for ours, and I have therefore to suggest that action be taken to prevent its further use. I am, etc., H. W. FURNISS. [Inclosure 2.] Ambassador Thompson to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. AMERICAN EMBASSY, Petropolis, February 21, 1905. MR. MINISTER: I have to inform you that the Brazilian schooner Oliveira, of Alcobaça, Bahia, of which Messrs. Joaquim Loures and Pedro Muniz d'Oliveira are captain and owner, respectively, has twice recently entered the port of Bahia flying a flag so much resembling that of the United States that at a distance it could be not differentiated, even by the use of a glass. FR 1905- -7 97 For your further information is inclosed a drawing of the flag used by the Oliveira, and you will see that confusion might easily arise from the similarity between the two, and that Brazilian port officials, as well as our consular officers, might well mistake a Brazilian ship for an American or an American for a Brazilian. In view of the fact that your excellency used your good offices in a previous case of a somewhat like character,a with the effect that another flag was substituted for that so similar to the national ensign of the United States, I venture to call your attention for such action by the proper officials as may seem to you and them proper. D. E. THOMPSON. [Inclosure 3.-Translation.] The Minister of Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Thompson. MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MR. AMBASSADOR: I had the honor of receiving, and have brought to the knowledge of the minister of marine with the request that he take it into due consideration, the note which your excellency directed me on the 21st of February last in respect to the Brazilian schooner Oliveira, of Alcobaça, which carried a flag very similar to the American, as is shown by the respective design appended to the note above cited. I improve the occasion, etc., RIO BRANCO. The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Thompson. No. 15.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 20, of 4th ultimo, transmitting copies of your correspondence with the Brazilian Government in regard to the use by a Brazilian schooner of a flag resembling that of the United States. Your course is approved by the Department. No. 47.] F. B. LOOMIS. Ambassador Thompson to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN EMBASSY, Petropolis, June 18, 1905. SIR: Referring to my dispatch, No. 20, of April 4, 1905, reporting a protest made to the Brazilian foreign office against the use by a Brazilian schooner, the Oliveira, of a flag similar to our national ensign, I inclose herewith copy of a note received under date of the 14th instant, saying that such instructions have been given as will cause the retirement of the objectionable banner and will prevent the recurrence of like incidents. I also inclose a copy of my note of acknowledgment of the same of this date. I have, etc., a See Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 101. D. E. THOMPSON. |