File No. 821.032/10.
I have the honor also to enclose an English translation of that part of
the message under the section assigned to foreign relations which refers
to the United States. Dr. Restrepo mentions your peace proposal and the
A. B. C. mediation and also gives a short history of the precedents to
the negotiation of the treaty of April 6 last.
The Department will note that the last administration was in favor of
using the indemnity solely for works of public improvements.
Dr. Restrepo’s message as a whole is in the nature of a defense of his
four years of administration from 1910 to 1914.
[Inclosure—Translation—Extract.]
president Wilson’s peace proposal.
Last year His Excellency the President of the United States, desiring
to put in practice his noble aspirations for the peace of all
nations, presented to the consideration of friendly countries
through his diplomatic representatives the project to facilitate the
settlement of differences, in order to avoid war, in the event of
failure by diplomatic negotiations.1
In this project it is agreed that all questions which may cause an
international difference shall be submitted to the study and report
of a commission. The parties shall abstain from declaring war or
opening hostilities until the commission has made its report, which
shall be rendered within a period previously agreed upon, and the
investigation shall be officially undertaken by the commission upon
its own initiative, without it being necessary for either of the
parties so to petition it. The said parties reserve to themselves
the right to act independently upon the question in dispute once the
report is presented. The Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan, suggests
that the commission be composed of five members and indicates the
mode of their election.
Naturally, this Government received the proposal with keen sympathy,
since it was so much in accord with the traditions of the Republic,
but informed the American Government that this matter, as was the
case with various others, should be given special attention after
the termination of our questions with the United States relative to
the separation of the Isthmus of Panama, through the ratification by
the Legislatures of both countries of the treaty of April 6,
1914.2
[Page 141]
south american mediation.
Owing to the deplorable conflict between the United States and Mexico
during this year, the countries of South America, headed by
Argentina, Brazil and Chile, offered them their friendly services in
the capacity of mediators; the two Republics accepted the
intervention and the result was a real triumph, since the
differences are about to be settled in a fully satisfactory
manner.
Colombia adhered to the mediation and lent all the moral assistance
possible.
Besides the immediate material result of the friendly interposition,
we should not fail to appreciate and applaud its international
importance in the politics of the civilized world; the advantageous
situation in which it has placed the Latin peoples of this
continent; its significance for the united defense of their mutual
interests, and its strength as a practical basis for interamerican
fraternity.
treaty with the united states.
Both the Treaty of April 6 and Law 14 of June 9 of this year, “for
the settlement of the differences growing out of the events which
took place in the Isthmus of Panama in November 1903,” are well
known; this knowledge will be perfected by the special report2 which is presented to
the Congress of this year by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with
all the necessary details.
The precedents of the treaty in the opening days of the present
administration and the difficulties which had to be overcome to
reach the actual results are less well known.
In a note dated October 26, 1909, the American Minister, Mr.
Northcott, informed our Chancellor that his Government could not
conclude any arrangement with Colombia alone, insisting upon the
original idea of a tripartite treaty.3
The last Minister for Foreign Affairs of the late Administration
presented to the said Mr. Northcott several new bases for an
arrangement on December 28, 1909.4 They were transmitted to the Secretary of State of the
United States but his Government refrained from considering
them.5
The present Colombian Administration moreover did not find these
bases acceptable, and, taking advantage of the good will of the then
American Minister, agreed with him to embody and express their ideas
in a note6 addressed to the Colombian Legation at
Washington, which was done on November 30, 1910. These ideas
indicated the formation of an arbitral tribunal to fix the proper
interpretation that should be given the Treaty of 1846 and the
consequences which would ensue from this interpretation.
The Chargé d’Affaires, Mr. Frazier, acknowledged the receipt of the
memorandum and reported that he had forwarded it to Washington. The
Minister instructed first Dr. Borda and afterwards General Ospina to
sound the intention of President Taft and Secretary Knox, with a
view to initiating an arrangement upon bases of a real reparation to
Colombia. Although there existed no official declaration, yet it was
quite evident that the decision of the Government at Washington had
been modified in a sense favorable for a new and a direct
negotiation with Colombia, laying aside every project for
arbitration.
In a note dated June 14, 1911, General Ospina, at that time in charge
of our Legation at Washington, refers to an interview between an
important American and President Taft, from which our Minister
deduced that the chief magistrate of the United States at that time
was favorably disposed to a direct arrangement upon a basis of an
indemnity to Colombia for her rights in the Panama Railroad. And
dating from the same month of June of that year our Legation at
Washington began to report upon the movement in the public opinion
of the United States in favor of Colombia, in the initiation of
which the resolution presented by Mr. Rainey in the Foreign
Relations Committee of the House of Representatives of the United
States played a principal ró1e. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
authorized the Legation to make every effort to enlighten American
public opinion. At the same time also General Ospina was instructed
to address a note to the Government of the United States to renew
the request to submit to arbitration the pending questions arising
out of the events which took place in Panama in November, 1903,
which was carried out by our Minister [Page 142] in a note7 dated
November 23 [25], 1911, addressed to the Secretary of State and
which received no reply.
In 1911 there was accredited as Minister of the United States to the
Government of Colombia Mr. James T. DuBois, an intelligent diplomat,
a just man and perfect gentleman. Unfortunately his good will was
far superior to the instructions which he had received from his
Government, and my Government greatly regretted to have to reject
the proposals for a settlement presented by Mr. DuBois.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs made an opportune and minute
report8 upon these
proposals and the reasons for not accepting them. It is sufficient
to recall that they implied a diminution of the national sovereignty
over the Islands of San Andres and Providencia and the Choco, and
that those proposals which were susceptible of discussion were
declared by Mr. DuBois himself to be informal in character and were
disapproved by the American Minister of State.
Notwithstanding, I only perform a duty of justice in recalling the
gratitude which Colombia owes Mr. DuBois, both for his noble and
chivalrous conduct when he was amongst us as well as for the
constant and fervent defense which he has continued to make in his
home for our cause and for our rights.
There is no reason for me to call to mind in this place those painful
incidents in which my Government had to proceed energetically and
implacably but in the surety—both at that time and confirmed
to-day—that without such conduct our relations with the United
States would have been impossible as also its consolidation by the
treaty of April 6th.
Mr. DuBois was replaced by Mr. Thaddeus A. Thomson, endowed with
natural gifts of prudence and equity similar to those of his
predecessor. His good intentions and those of his Government were
very evident from the time of the first conference which upon his
arrival he had with the President of the Republic; inasmuch as the
latter informed him that no settlement could be initiated except
upon the basis that Colombia should make no concession whatsoever to
the United States, seeing that she owed nothing, the Minister
categorically stated that he had instructions from his Government to
request nothing and to make, above all, a perfectly clean
proposition.
Upon this basis, which was fulfilled with entire probity, there
commenced the discussion of the treaty, which the nation has well
known and which it has judged favorably.
The treaty was denounced as unconstitutional before the Supreme Court
of Justice; but this high tribunal declared itself disqualified to
take note of international pacts, and consequently the law approving
the treaty remains in full force.
Up to the moment of drafting this message the discussions of the pact
have not yet terminated in the American Congress, where it has
undergone lively investigation.
In the event, as many of us fondly hope, that the treaty be approved
in the United States, I deem it my duty to express my opinion upon
the use which should be made of the indemnity of $25,000,000.
It is quite simple: apply the money solely to those essentially
national works of an urgent character; railways from Bogota to
Buenaventura and from Bogota to Puerto Wilches or to any commodious
and permanently navigable port of the Magdalena River; railway from
Cucueta to Tamalameque or to some equivalent point; and to the
sanitation and improvement of the ports of Tumaco, Buenaventura,
Cartagena, Puerto Colombia (or Bocas de Ceniza), and Santa Marta.
Neither more nor less.
