No. 50.
Mr. Scruggs
to Mr. Fish.
Bogotá, April 7, 1876. (Received May 9.)
Sir: In his annual report to the National Congress, (transmitted herewith,) the Colombian secretary of foreign affairs says the relations of this republic with foreign powers are in a satisfactory condition; that all questions of a serious character have been discussed in a spirit of moderation and amity, and that “some of the more important issues have been decided by means of arbitration, the most conciliatory and expeditious method adopted by modern civilization,” &c. (P. 99.)
With the exception of a few petty reclamations growing out of public disturbances on the coast, there is not, according to the honorable secretary, any questions pending between Colombian and European powers.
The reclamations by the government of Great Britain, on behalf of Messrs. Cotesworth & Powell, merchants, of London, having been satisfactorily adjusted by arbitration, there remains no question of importance with that government. (Pp. 104; also 164 to 200.)
[Page 85]The reclamation preferred by the United States for the seizure and occupation of the steamer Montijo, in April, 1871, has, he says, “been finally decided, according to the terms of the convention of August 17, 1874, resulting in an award of $33,401 in favor of the Messrs Schuber, as owners of the vessel named.” (P. 120.)
Of the Centennial he says:
The Government of the United States did us the honor to invite our participation in the international exhibition at Philadelphia; a festival of civilization proposed by that powerful nation as the centennial of its independence; and our Congress, in its two former sessions, appropriated $25,000 for this important object, thus giving proof of our sincere appreciation and of our earnest desire to be represented therein.
Meantime Mr. Scruggs, the minister resident of that republic, transmitted to this department photographs, maps, and plans of the grounds and buildings of the exposition, from which it was seen that our country had a space allotted therein * ; * * nevertheless the government, in spite of its desire to be represented, could not give its attention to the subject in due time, because the last Congress had barely closed its session before it became evident that all our resources would be necessary for the preservation of public order. The constant fear of revolution, and the apprehension that all available resources would become necessary to prevent it or put it down, rendered any expenditures, other than those of the most urgent necessity, unadvisable. Hence we found ourselves under the necessity of foregoing this opportunity of making our industries known among the greatest peoples of the world,” &c. (P. 121.)
The controversy with Venezuela respecting boundary limits “remains substantially where it did at the beginning of last year.” The discussions at Caracas and Bogotá resulted in a proposition by Colombia to refer the whole matter to arbitration. This was declined on the part of the Venezuelan government, which subsequently recalled its minister plenipotentiary, General Marques. Some time afterward a Dr. Blanco was sent to Bogotá, by the Venezuelan government, in the capacity of cabinet courier, with instructions to renew negotiations, provided Colombia would withdraw a certain objectionable note addressed to General Marques by the then secretary for foreign affairs. The note referred to contained the word “usurpations,” as applied to Venezuela, for occupying the disputed territory.
This condition being declined, except upon the further condition that Venezuela would withdraw from the territory named, Dr. Blanco took his immmediate leave, some months since. (Pp. 122, 123.)
Similar questions of boundary, but in somewhat less aggravated form, are still pending between Colombia and the republics of Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Peru, as also with the empire of Brazil. The latter is quite an old one, and may at anytime become fruitful of trouble. (Pp. 129 to 139.)
The secretary concludes his elaborate report with some pertinent remarks relative to the existing legislation of the republic in its application to resident foreigners. The Department is already aware that, by an absurd law of April 16, 1867, the strictest neutrality is enjoined upon the federal government in all cases where a portion of the population of any state may rise in arms against the local authorities with a view of overthrowing the state government, and of establishing a revolutionary one in its stead. (“Law of public order,” April 16, 1867.)
The honorable secretary thinks that while this law may be in accordance with the spirit of the Colombian constitution, and admirably adapted to that political equilibrium which renders local tyranny impossible, it is nevertheless a fruitful source of controversy with foreign powers, who hold the general government responsible under treaty stipulations for infringements upon the rights of their citizens resident or doing business within Colombian territory. Nearly every local revolution, he says, brings its rich harvest of foreign reclamations against [Page 86] the federal treasury, and this must continue so long as the general government remains powerless to interfere in the states for the preservation of order. He therefore recommends the repeal or modification of the law referred to.
Speaking of the numerous diplomatic questions and heavy reclamations resulting from the inability of the national government to protect life and property in the states, the attorney-general, Dr. Gomez, frankly concedes that, under existing legislation, and the precedents growing out of these reclamations, it is better to be a resident foreigner than a native citizen.
* * * * * * *
I have, &c.,