715.1715/231
The Honduran Minister ( Lopez G. ) to the Secretary of State
Most Excellent Mr. Secretary of State: Referring to Your Excellency’s note, dated October 27, of last year,80 in which you recommend that the award of His Majesty the King of Spain on the boundary dispute between Honduras and Nicaragua be referred to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of this country for his decision as to its validity, I duly informed by word of mouth, Dr. Dana G. Munro, who was the Acting Chief of the Latin American Division of the Department of State, of my Government’s answer on the subject.
I now deem it expedient to copy a few paragraphs of the said answer in order that, by taking into account the weighty reasons upon which the Government of my country bases its nonacceptance of the said recommendation, Your Excellency will do justice to my Government, and, in return, if you should find it convenient, suggest a friendly solution to the dispute, since that was the object sought when the case was laid before the Department of State. Above all, we wish to know what is the present status of the friendly mediation, now that Nicaragua has proposed to lay the case before the Court of the League of Nations.
[Page 444]The paragraphs of the note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Honduras to which I refer are as follows:
“You are pleased to remark that what the Department of State proposes is not a new arbitration on the boundary dispute, but merely one on the validity of the award which Nicaragua claims is vitiated by certain irregularities that make it inapplicable; that the Department of State makes this recommendation officially so as to carry to an end its friendly mediation which was tendered and accepted by both parties more than three years ago; that the Government of Nicaragua has already accepted the recommendation mentioned above, and that you are awaiting the decision of the Government of Honduras on this point, as you have to return a final answer in the shortest possible time; that relying on the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States—acknowledged the world over—who has on more than one occasion rendered decisions against his own Government, there is reason to expect that he will do us full justice.”
“In reply, I have the honor to say to you, with respect to the dispute with Nicaragua, that the mediation so generously offered by the Department of State, according to the notes of August 22 and 26, 1918, exchanged with the American Legation, copies of which I enclose,82 has nothing to do with a discussion over the validity of the award by the King of Spain; that in a note of February 25, 1921, sent to the Department of State by our special representative in Washington, of which I also enclose a copy,83 it was stated that the last proposal made by the delegation of Nicaragua was not acceptable, and that the two contesting Governments must comply with the original engagement; and out of respect for the Honorable Mediator must listen to his friendly suggestion, retaining the liberty to accept it or decline it after they were notified; it was pointed out that the original engagement was ratified in Article 2 of the Journal of the Conference of Amapala held by the Presidents of Honduras and Nicaragua. It was also stated that if the delegation of Nicaragua persisted in its oral insinuations to bring the mediation to an end, or to change its nature, our representative deemed it indispensable to beg the Honorable Mediator to request, in writing, a statement of that intention, in order that he, in turn, might decide upon the status of the case; so that if the mediation were to be regarded as having failed—for which failure Honduras would bear no responsibility—this Government would be released of the engagements made in accepting it, which, as above stated, were ratified at the Amapala Conference; that according to a note of our representative dated the 3d of March following, of which I also enclose a copy,83 it was stated that it was understood, although not put into writing, that the declarations of the delegation of Nicaragua were confirmed, and that the mediator, believing he was without further authority to give a decision, tacitly, in consequence, considered the mediation ended; it was stated further that since the Delegation of Nicaragua had created an anomalous situation, which left that delegation to decide of its own [Page 445] will whether the mediation was still proceeding or had terminated, our representative made an express reservation in behalf of the Government of Honduras to consult also our interests when, in turn, it would be called upon to consider and decide that same point, and for that purpose would communicate to the Honorable Mediator the antecedents in the case; again declaring that neither then nor thereafter would it hold itself responsible for the failure of the good intentions of the Government of the United States and of the great labor it had undertaken as also the labor and time wasted by the two Governments concerned and large expenditures incurred to no purpose by their respective countries.
“Later on, our special representative’s resignation was accepted, and the permanent legation was commissioned to endeavor to arrive at an understanding with the delegation of Nicaragua to obtain, if possible, the Honorable Mediator’s opinion on the points agreed to at the time the mediation was constituted.
“In this sense, the Government hopes that the negotiations undertaken will be carried on, but it could not accept as a point for discussion the validity of the award of the King of Spain which was not included in the convention which gave birth to the aforesaid mediation, this action in no wise meaning that the Government fails to acknowledge the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America or that he would not do us full justice as it would have the greatest confidence in the honesty of his decision, if there were occasion to submit the controversy to such decision.”
With assurances [etc.]
- File translation revised.↩
- Ibid., p. 235.↩
- Not printed; see Department’s telegrams of Aug. 21 and Aug. 28, Foreign Relations, 1918, pp. 32, 34.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩