Office of the Historian

715.1715/232a: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in Honduras (Morales)

Washington, August 15, 1922—5 p.m.

28. On October 27, 1921,84 the Department addressed a note to the Ministers of Honduras and Nicaragua in Washington with regard to the boundary dispute between their two countries stating that the Department had declined to express any opinion upon the validity of the award of the King of Spain defining the boundary between the two Republics, but had sought to find a solution of the controversy which would be agreeable to both parties, and, therefore, suggested, as a means of reaching a permanent settlement of this boundary dispute, (1) that the following question, “is the award defining the boundary rendered by the King of Spain in 1906 valid?”, be submitted for determination to the Chief Justice of the United States, and that (2) in the event that the arbitrator should hold the award of the King of Spain to be invalid, and the boundary line fixed by that award consequently inapplicable, the [Page 446] Chief Justice of the United States be entrusted with the duty of determining the boundary which shall be established between the two Republics, taking into consideration all facts, circumstances and antecedents relating thereto, with the prior understanding that the Government of Honduras and the Government of Nicaragua shall accept the decision so rendered as final and conclusive.

Two days later, on October 29, the Nicaraguan Minister replied to the Department’s note stating that he was instructed by his Government to accept in toto the bases of settlement proposed by the Department.86 The Honduran Government has not yet replied.

The Department is of the opinion that the coming conference in Fonseca Bay87 offers an exceptionally good opportunity for the settlement of this question, and, accordingly, desires you to bring this matter immediately to the attention of the President informing him that the Department would be extremely pleased to have him bring the matter up in the conference and would be most gratified if this question could be settled along the lines suggested in the Department’s note of October 27, 1921. Keep the Department fully informed with regard to this matter.

Hughes
  1. Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. i, p. 235.↩
  2. Foreign Relations, 1921, vol. i, p. 236.↩
  3. Conference of Presidents held on the U. S. S. Tacoma, in Fonseca Bay, Aug. 19 and 20, see pp. 417 ff.↩