File No. 819.55/68.
Minister Price to the
Secretary of State.
No. 422.]
American Legation,
Panama,
February 25, 1915.
Sir: Referring to my despatches Nos. 400 and
415 [414] of the dates respectively of February 5 and 18 last, regarding
additional anti-Chinese legislation, I have the honor to report that the
National Assembly of Panama, before which same was pending, adjourned on
yesterday without the amended bill being passed.
For the purpose of properly expressing appreciation to Sr. Lefevre,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Panama, for his services in checking
said legislation, and the further purpose of making a record of the
assurances given to me and the Chinese Consul General that certain
severe provisions of Law 50 of 1913 would be continued in suspense as
they have been in the past, even if this last Assembly should fail to
ratify the agreement heretofore made by the Panaman Foreign Office
regarding same, I have transmitted a Foreign Office note to Sr. Lefevre,
a copy of which I enclose.
I have [etc.]
[Inclosure.]
Minister Price to
the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs.
No. 142.]
American Legation,
Panama,
February 25, 1915.
Excellency: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of the valued note of your excellency No.
S–5672 of February 12 last, respecting the proposed
[Page 1270]
legislation amending Law 50 of 1913,
affecting the Chinese, and to express appreciation for your kind
services in the whole matter, resulting in the National Assembly of
Panama adjourning without enacting the restrictions proposed, which
seemed to be of a character that would work unnecessary hardship and
injustice, though it is conceded that your excellency entertained no
such intention with reference to the suggestions submitted by your
excellency’s office, but had in view the purposes stated in said
note.
It is a pleasure, too, to express gratefulness for the assurance of
your excellency on February 2, 1915, to the Chinese Consul General
and myself while acting in the capacity of extending the good
offices of my Government in this matter, that certain severe
provisions of Law 50 of 1913, would continue unenforced as in the
past.
Judging from your excellency’s response that there has been a
misconception of the purport of the reference by me to the
applicability of treaty provisions in this matter, the phraseology
of that portion of my note is called attention to as containing the
expression of hope that measures might not attain the sanction of
law the practical carrying out of which might
bring into question treaty rights and obligations.
I avail [etc.]
