721.2315/142: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Brazil ( Morgan )

[Paraphrase]

1. You are referred to Department’s instruction No. 850 of January 22, 1924,95 and instruction No. 955 of December 11, 1924.96

On December 12 Senhor Gracie, the Brazilian Chargé, left a confidential memorandum with the Secretary95 regarding the treaty of March 24, 1922, concluded between Colombia and Peru,97 and expressed the desire of his Government that the American Government lend its good offices to have treaty modified or replaced by another arrangement in which the interest of Brazil would not be affected.

This subject was informally discussed with the Colombian Minister who, acting upon instructions from his Government, has suggested the following as a basis of settlement:

1.
That Brazil withdraw its memorandum to Peru protesting against Peru’s ratification of the Colombia-Peru boundary treaty.
2.
That the above treaty be ratified.
3.
That Brazil and Colombia settle this boundary between Apaporis and Tabatinga.

Regarding this last point the Colombian Government presented the following for consideration:

The Apaporis-Tabatinga line represents, and has always represented, Brazil’s maximum claim in this boundary dispute. An equitable solution would be to recognize as belonging to Colombia a section of territory east of this line. The Apaporis-Tabatinga line could, for instance, be divided into two sections: the first from Apaporis to the Putumayo River, and the other from the Putumayo to Tabatinga. The Government of Colombia would accept either the one or the other.

Colombia also desires to stipulate that if an agreement is reached on the boundary line between her and Brazil, the free navigation of the Amazon, the Putumayo, and the Caquetá Rivers must be established in perpetuity as well as in general all the rivers common to the two countries.

I handed to the Brazilian Chargé on January 6 a memorandum95 embodying the Colombian suggestion and stating that, animated by [Page 437] the sincerest desire to be of service to both Governments in arriving at a satisfactory solution of the present difficulties, the Government of the United States would be glad to transmit the views of the Government of Brazil in the premises to that of Colombia, should this action be the desire of the Brazilian Government.

I read this memorandum to the Brazilian Chargé and asked him if he knew what his Government’s attitude would be toward establishing the boundary by recognizing a section of land east of the Apaporis-Tabatinga line as Colombian territory. Senhor Gracie answered no, but said that he would cable to his Government for instructions.

I added that I took for granted that any settlement of this question would involve the withdrawal of Brazilian opposition to the Colombian-Peruvian treaty and I then stated confidentially that should the Government of Brazil decline to recognize as Colombian any territory east of the Apaporis-Tabatinga line, and should Brazil be willing to grant freedom of navigation of the rivers mentioned in perpetuity to Colombia, as was granted for 10 years by the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation signed on August 21, 1908, at Rio de Janeiro between Brazil and Colombia, I should be disposed to use my good offices to obtain Colombia’s recognition of the Apaporis-Tabatinga line as had been done by the Colombian Executive in the unratified treaty of 1853 between Brazil and Colombia.

The Chargé assured me that he would regard my statement as strictly confidential and would not transmit it to his Government; you may, therefore, should the matter be discussed between the Brazilian authorities and yourself, state as your personal opinion that the Government of the United States might be disposed to use its good offices, should the Government of Brazil express its readiness to grant freedom of navigation of the rivers in question, to have the Apaporis-Tabatinga line recognized by Colombia. You will cable fully all developments.

Hughes
  1. Not printed.
  2. Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 303.
  3. Not printed.
  4. League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. lxxiv, p. 9.
  5. Not printed.