File No. 422.11 G93/757.
In view of the importance of the suggestions and proposals therein made,
I have thought it proper, before making formal reply thereto, to submit
the note to the Department for instructions.
[Inclosure—Translation.]
The Minister for Foreign
Affairs to Minister Hartman.
No. 192.]
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Quito,
June 22, 1914.
Mr. Minister:* * * In reply to your
excellency’s courteous communication it is my duty to say to your
excellency the following:
My Government being desirous of maintaining with that of your
excellency the closest relations of international cordiality,
because it has always regarded that they are far above other kinds
of interests, has given to your excellency’s Government very high
proofs of respect and very special deference, even going beyond the
limits fixed by the practice between nations which deserve to be on
the moral level at which international law places them.
In support of such an affirmation I may mention to your excellency
the note from this Ministry, No. 275, of May 6, 1912,7 and the “Memoria” (memorandum) addressed by it
on the same date to His Excellency the President of the United
States, regarding the existing difficulties with the Railway
Company.
But in consideration of sacred and much more valuable interests for
our Governments than any other ones, as are those referring to the
maintenance and strengthening of the cordial and reciprocal
relations between them, it seems to me that the opportunity has
arrived cordially to suggest to your excellency, in a serene and
high spirit of international justice and advantages, the necessity
of limiting diplomatic intervention to the bounds fixed by
international law, that is to say, to cases of denial of
justice.
Fortunately for our respective Governments, the case which has given
ground to your excellency’s note to which I reply, is not one of
those which can justify diplomatic intervention. It is not a
question of denial of justice. It is a question of reserving the
rights of a private commercial enterprise—which although American
surely has not the character of a public institution of the United
States—against the eventual prejudice which it supposes a contract
entered into by my Government may cause it.
Had said enterprise appealed to our Ministry of Public Works, it
would have already been given the most ample assurance to the effect
that its interests will not be prejudiced but, on the contrary,
enormously benefited by the White contract and by the achievement of
the works to which it refers.
But if the appealing of the Railway Company to your excellency’s
Government involves the intention of impressing on my Government the
high moral and material respectability of that of your excellency,
the acceptance and endorsing of its petition on the part of your
Government implies perhaps on your excellency’s Government a
conception so excessively wide and generous regarding protection of
interests of American citizens in Ecuador that it may seem
incompatible with the high spirit of justice with which that
Government—I am absolutely sure—desires to inspire all its acts.
The conception that justice, equity and reciprocal consideration are
4he bases of international law, to the growth of which the
illustrious Government of your excellency has cooperated does not
obscure the high criterion and ample knowledge of your excellency
which I am pleased to recognize.
[Page 280]
My Government appeals to them (to justice, equity, and reciprocal
consideration), Mr. Minister, to suggest to your excellency’s
Government that it is the Railway Company’s duty to deal with my
Government direct, with the assurance that the claims it may present
shall be favorably accepted, provided that they be just.
Regarding the case of the White contract, my Government congratulates
itself that that of your excellency properly presumes that my
Government does not consider the realization of said contract as
contrary to the guaranty given to the Railway Company in accordance
with the contract of June 14, 1897.
I avail [etc.]
