721.2315/169: Telegram
The Ambassador in Peru (Poindexter) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 27—1:05 a.m.]
5. Your 3, February 25, 4 p.m. Had conversation with the President and Salomón7 together. President expressed surprise at news that Brazilian Government was reported as favorably inclined to agreement outlined in procès-verbal since Peruvian Government was unable to get corroboration of this from Brazil though request had been made by Peruvian Government by cable to Rio de Janeiro for answer of Brazilian Government. He stated that proposed formal change in procès-verbal was satisfactory though as a matter of fact Brazil had made formal protest on account of which ratification of the treaty had been suspended by Peru. President promised he would immediately press Brazil for reply and stated further that latest advice from Brazil was that Brazil would not agree to establish free [Page 447] navigation of Amazon and other rivers common to the two countries in favor of Colombia except on condition that strip of land bordering the Amazon allocated to Colombia by pending treaty be retained by Peru. Foreign Minister stated his latest information from Rio de Janeiro was Brazil would not instruct its representative to sign procès-verbal and expressed surprise at news from Washington. Foreign Minister stated further that Peru could not decide the question of instructing Ambassador Velarde until he had heard from Brazilian Government. Please refer to my despatch No. 312, November 17th, 1924, 2d paragraph, page 7.8 I beg to suggest that Department approach Brazilian Government through Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro as to Peruvian representations.
Both President and Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed surprise at statement that all three countries had requested friendly offices of the Department and stated that no such request had been authorized by Peruvian Government.
- Peruvian Minister for Foreign Affairs.↩
- The paragraph to which reference is made, has been omitted from the telegram as printed in Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 296.↩