File N. 422.11 G 93/625.

The American Chargé d’Affaires to the Secretary of State.

[No. 202.]

Sir: I have the honor, with further reference to my despatch No. 200, dated April 3, 1913, to enclose herewith duplicate copies and translation of Dr. Janes letter of the 2nd instant to the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Modesto A. Penaherrera. This letter is in reply to the letter from the Minister of the Interior, sent as enclosure No. 5, to the Department, in despatch No. 200, above noted.

I have [etc.]

Rutherfurd Bingham.
[Inclosure—Translation.]

The American Arbitrator to the Minister of the Interior.

My Dear Mr. Minister: I take pleasure in acknowledging receipt of your communication, dated the 31st ultimo, which reached my hands yesterday morning, and to hasten to reply in order that any doubts that may have prevailed in your superior intelligence as to the conception I have of the nature of the high duties with which I have been charged by the President of the United States of America may at once he banished.

It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that I must beg to differ from you as to the chief points you urge regarding the character of the tribunal provided for the settlement of the disputes arising between the government of Ecuador and the Guayaquil and Quito Railway Company. However, these are points which, both because of the importance as well as the intrinsic nature thereof, should be properly left for friendly diplomatic consideration and adjustment. I desire to make it quite clear that I do not regard it either as expedient or within my province to enter now upon a discussion with you of these matters, and of others which were mentioned in your greatly esteemed letter. I am convinced that this should be taken up through the diplomatic channels by way of which the present Arbitral Tribunal as well as that of 1907 came to be formed.

Nevertheless, before closing, I deem it my duty to correct an erroneous impression which seems to have been received by you and to be reflected in your courteous communication under acknowledgment, as to the nature and effect I ascribe to the oath which arbitrators before beginning their labor are, in accordance with the most common practice, wont to take. I have never at any time been of the opinion that such oath should be instrumental in placing me in possession of the charge of arbitrator; which, on the contrary, I have already received from the hands of the President of the United States of America, without the intervention of any judge nor through the act of contending parties. I do not consider that such oath can furnish more than a protocolar guaranty in controlling the conclusions of the Arbitrators or Umpire taking it.

In this connection it has given me pleasure, however, to note your personal assurance that the administering of the oath by a judicial magistrate of Ecuador can not be taken to imply “that the Arbitrators would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Judge of Letters, as they would not be either to the Supreme Court, if, according to what was suggested to the Railway Company, the latter had presented its petition before the President of said Court.” So far as the constitution of the present Arbitral Tribunal is concerned, it is then a subject of entire indifference, in fact, whether the oath be taken before the Juez de [Page 492] Letras, or the President of the Supreme Court, or whether a simple declaration be subscribed by the Arbitrators.

I therefore must beg leave to terminate this correspondence in order to await the result of the friendly diplomatic exchange of views already initiated, and to subscribe myself again,

Sincerely your friend,

Henry L. Janes.