The Secretary of State to
Minister Dawson.
[Telegram.]
Department of State,
Washington, March 19,
1909.
Your undated telegram received 18th concerning punctuation and intent of
article 6. Colombian minister has also brought the matter to my
attention. The comma in the Spanish text is obviously
[Page 379]
misplaced. Equivalence to sense of the
English text requires comma after comercio and none after refugio. The
change can be initialed on the original by the Colombian minister and
Mr. Root, and you can do the same with the Colombian minister for
foreign affairs on his text.
You are authorized to write the Colombian minister in the sense you
suggest concerning the use of Colombian ports for shelter in case of
stress or need for vessels using or bound for the canal. We understand
that all the first part of article 6 does is to recognize the
long-standing doctrine of international law concerning the friendly
shelter of vessels in stress or need plus a gracious waiver of anchorage
or tonnage dues which Colombia could rightfully impose by virtue of her
sovereignty over such ports.
[Memorandum.]
Department of State,
Washington, March 19,
1909.
Referring to Mr. Dawson’s telegram.
The comma in the Spanish text of article 6 is obviously misplaced. To
render the sense of the equivalent English text the comma should be
after “comercio” and there should be none after “refugio.” This
change is immaterial and can be made by Mr. Cortes and Mr. Root
simply initialing it on the margin of the original signed treaty
here.1
Article 6 merely grants the use of Colombian ports as places of
refuge (shelter would have been a better word) in case of stress or
needs for vessels passing through or bound to pass through the
canal.
That such use is merely by favor and without prejudice to the
sovereignty of Colombia is shown by the rest of the article, which
(1) subjects the granted favor to Colombia’s duty to enforce
neutrality in time of war; and (2) by granting the further favor of
exemption from anchorage or tonnage dues, which, without such
concession, Colombia would collect in virtue of her sovereignty.
I can see no possible objection to Mr. Dawson exchanging notes with
the Colombian minister for foreign affairs in the sense of the
concluding paragraph of his telegram. We understand that all the
article does is to recognize the standing doctrine of international
law concerning the friendly shelter of vessels in stress or need
plus the concession of exemption from anchorage or tonnage dues in
such case.
(Note that the privilege is not in favor of American vessels as such,
but favors all vessels, of whatever flag, using or bound to use the
canal.)
