File No. 2491/96.
Chargé Weitzel to the Secretary of State.
Panama, December 2, 1909.
Sir: I have the honor to report to the department, with reference to telegraphic instruction of November 30, the result of my informal inquiry as to whether the Government of Panama is now prepared to instruct its minister at Washington in the matter of the boundary controversy with Costa Rica.
The secretary for foreign affairs informs me that in accordance with the suggestion made by way of inquiry in department’s note, dated October 20, addressed to Minister Arosemena, he, the secretary, has already prepared the necessary full powers authorizing the Panama minister to sign the proposed agreement of arbitration, said powers being drawn in blank to await the pleasure of the President of Panama as to the propriety of appointing a special envoy, just as Costa Rica has done in the case of Dr. Luis Anderson.
But his excellency further informs me that he considers the department’s note, dated November 2, addressed to Minister Arosemena, to contain a material variation from the terms of the note dated October 20 in this, to wit, that the note of October 20 accepts the proposals of the memorandum dated July 10, 1909 (inclosed in the Arosemena note of July 30), which provides for the submission to arbitration of the question which of the two lines described in said memorandum should be adopted as the proper interpretation of the Loubet award, whereas the note of November 2 provides for the submission of the question which of two other lines, the one contended for by Dr. Anderson or the one contended for by Panama, is the proper interpretation of the said award.
In other words, the memorandum of July 10 limits the arbitration to two lines, neither of which is that contended for by Dr. Anderson.
The note of November 2 is said to contain a further variance, in that it disavows any intention on the part of the United States to guarantee that the arbitration decree when rendered will be acquiesced in by the parties signatory, whereas the note of October 20, so he says, contains a very strong intimation of such guaranty.
[Page 800]And, finally, the Secretary stated to me that he would forward by this mail, if possible, the powers above mentioned to his minister at Washington, and at the same time embody his views, outlined above, in his instructions to Minister Arosemena as a reply to the latter’s dispatch inclosing the department note of November 2.
Before this can be done the whole matter must be referred to the President for approval, and some delay may ensue if there be any difference of opinion between them.
I have, etc.,