711.21/507: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Colombia ( Philip )
Washington
,
October 13, 1919, 10
p.m.
Your telegrams September 26, 10 a.m., September 26, 11 a.m., October 1, 10 a.m., October 2, noon, October 3, 3 p.m.32
Department is considering the advisability of transmitting in another telegram a note to be sent to Foreign Office to be made public in lieu of statement suggested in your October 2, noon. The situation here seems to be as follows:
- (1)
- It appears to be the expectation of our Senate that an agreement along the lines of that transmitted in the Department’s September [August?] 28, 6 p.m.33 is the appropriate way to prevent future misunderstandings and this attitude is not maintained selfishly because Colombia will be the ultimate beneficiary as much as ourselves.
- (2)
- With the signing of such an agreement, favorable action here probably could be obtained on the 1914 treaty modified as it stands in our Senate and to which modifications Colombia was understood to have agreed in February 1919. Our Senate prefers to make no other alterations. Exchange of ratifications of the modified treaty and the proposed new agreement should be simultaneous.
- (3)
- It is the hope of the United States that the new proposed agreement with Colombia may be so reasonable in its nature as to admit of its serving as a basis for similar agreements with other countries which would welcome the development of their natural resources.
- (4)
- The declaration of the Colombian Senate as reported in your October 3, 3 p.m., is not pleasing, as we understand it, insofar as it relates to the Colombian Senate’s erroneous idea of what has been said in our Senate and their allusion to our alleged violation of Article 35 of Treaty of 1846. After considering the Colombian Senate’s declaration it is felt by our Senate that such an agreement as is suggested in paragraph 1 of this telegram is the surest way to relieve Americans and Colombians of any future possible need to settle controversies concerning a question of sub-soil deposits.
- (5)
- There seems to be no reason why the proposed agreement may not appear as an amplification of provisions of the Treaty of 1846, as suggested by Colombia.
Please await action until you receive Department’s next telegram.
Lansing