File No. 816.032/14.
[Inclosure—Translation—Extract.]
[Untitled]
The Executive being jealous for all that intimately affects the
important interests of the nation, and in view of the desire of the
United States of America to establish a naval station in the Gulf of
Fonseca, instructions were given to the Minister of Salvador in
Washington to present a protest to the American Department of State,
and this was done1 under date of October 21, 1913, and was
answered2 by the Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan, on
February 18, 1914, in terms which will be furnished you by the
appropriate office.
The reply made to this note by our Minister in Washington, Dr.
Francisco Dueñas, was limited to the refutation in moderate and
prudent terms of the allegations of the American note, and the
clearer exposition of the justice of our cause.3
Animated by the spirit of Central American loyalty, and owing to the
fact that the Nicaraguan treaty is now pending ratification by the
American Senate, in which treaty a stipulation is made for an
American protectorate over our sister Republic, instructions were
sent to our diplomatic representative in Washington, Dr. Carlos A.
Meza, to make a new protest after consultation with the diplomatic
representative of Costa Rica. This was done on July 8, 1914, in a
note to the American Department of State,4 which will
be reported to you by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
The reply5 of the
American Government, because of its conciliatory tone, and the sense
and scope which good diplomacy must give to the substantial
recognition of our right to forbid any infringement of Central
American law and order to our detriment, deserves to be given to you
in full, as follows:
[Quotes the Department’s note of July 16, 1914.4]
Our Legation wishing to conclude an understanding in which
unequivocal form should be given to the recognition of our right to
maintain inviolate the autonomy of Central America, another note of
explanation was written, July 22 [21], 1914 which deserves
reproduction here because of the importance of the question and the
invulnerability of the position assumed by Salvador. It is as
follows:
[Quotes Mr. Meza’s note of July 21, 1914.]6
