Mr. McKinney to Mr.
Gresham.
Legation of the United States,
Bogota, January 12,
1894. (Received February 6.)
No. 34.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your No. 32, of November 27, regarding the complaint of the
Colombian minister that the tone of my communication, by which I
transmitted your desire regarding the Costa Rica boundary question to
the Colombian Government, was not in harmony with the spirit of the
friendly relations existing between the two Governments. In
communicating your instructions, I followed very closely the language of
your letter, as you will see by the copy I inclose. I withdrew this
letter at the request of the minister of foreign affairs, because he
said he preferred to deal with the American legation on questions of
this kind by private interviews. He said they were preparing a
proposition to Costa Rica for a treaty; that they desired the good
services of the United States in urging Costa Rica to accept it, and
promised to send a copy of the proposition to this legation before it
should be forwarded to Costa Rica.
They failed to comply with this seeming friendly promise, and we did not
receive a copy until two weeks after its transmission to Costa Rica,
when it had been published in the official organ of the Government.
I learned then that the Colombian Government did not wish to acknowledge
the right of our Government to interfere in any way between two South
American governments. I called the attention of the minister of foreign
affairs to his failure to fulfill his promise, and politely intimated to
him that his action in the matter, under the circumstances, was in the
nature of a slight to the United States. He disclaimed any such
intentions, and explained that on account of the great length of the
document, and the time required to copy it, they had decided to wait for
its publication before transmitting it to this legation. I am now
convinced that his request for the withdrawal of my note was not
inspired by the strong spirit of friendship which he professed, but
through a desire to prevent any record being made of interference by the
Department at Washington.
If there is any cause of complaint in this matter, it seems to me it
should come from the Government of the United States.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 34.]
Mr. McKinney to
Mr. Suárez.
Legation of the United States,
Bogota, August 21, 1893.
Sir: I am instructed by the Department of
State at Washington, to communicate to you the earnest desire of the
Government of the United States for the settlement of the boundary
dispute between
[Page 181]
Colombia
and Costa Rica, as agreed in the convention between the two States,
of December 25, 1880, and the additional convention signed at Paris,
January 20, 1886.
The Government of the United States, maintaining friendly relations
with both the parties to the dispute, is as indisposed to support
the claim of Costa Rica, that the arbitration is still validly open,
as it is to accept the converse claim of Colombia, that it has
lapsed.
Not being in any sense a party to the arbitration, it is moved only
by the desire to preserve the rights of its citizens in the
territory in dispute, and to fulfill the international obligations
of existing treaties.
The United States are by the treaty of 1846 with New Grenada, now
Colombia, guarantors of the rights of sovereignty and property which
Colombia has and possesses over the territory of the Isthmus of
Panama, “from its southern extremity until the boundary of Costa
Rica.”
The Government is therefore interested in knowing the limits of the
guaranty it has assumed, and regards it as a duty of friendship to
do what it can toward the determination of its own rights and duties
in respect to a territory the bounds of which are unsettled and in
controversy.
Without therefore expressing any opinion touching the merits of the
dispute now pending between Colombia and Costa Rica, the United
States, in a spirit of complete disinterestedness, feels constrained
to represent to the Government of Colombia, as also of Costa Rica,
its earnest desire and hope that they shall waive the comparatively
trivial obstacle to the accomplishment of the larger purpose of
amicable arbitration, which they have both advocated, and that they
shall come to an understanding whereby that high aim shall be
realized either by the continuance of the arbitration under Her
Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain, or if Her Majesty be indisposed
to renew the functions, then by the alternative method already
agreed upon, or by resort to any impartial arbitrator.
The President, in directing me to convey these views to the
Government of Colombia, desires me to impress upon your excellency
his sincere conviction “that the agreement of arbitration entered
into by the two nations constitute an obligation between them which
neither is morally free to disregard on grounds of technical
formality, and his confidence that both Governments will endeavor to
promote its successful issue.”
I avail, etc.,
