710.F002/191a

The Secretary of State to the American Delegation7

Sirs: The International Conference of American States to which you have been designated as representatives of our country is the sixth conference of this type to be held on the Western Hemisphere, covering a period of approximately forty years. It is an established principle of our international policy that: “Among the Foreign Relations of the United States as they fall into categories, the Pan American policy takes first place in our diplomacy.”

In this regard I wish to express your Government’s appreciation of the importance of the occasion and its sense of the responsibility you have undertaken in accepting appointment to represent it at a gathering where there will be present delegates from all the American Republics.

Our country has occupied a unique position with regard to the nations of Latin America. Our national individuality and independence were acquired before theirs, and when they achieved independence, they turned to us for moral guidance and support. But today and for many years past, they have stood alone, free, independent, self-reliant. The United States does not desire and in no sense can it be contemplated that any of the American peoples should be in a state of tutelage. We wish the fullest possible development of the national life of the republics of America in complete accord with their own national characteristics and aptitudes. If it is possible for us to assist them in any way, through our development and our achievements in science and industry, we shall be glad to extend such assistance in the most friendly manner, but we shall not proffer it unless it is desired. The policy of the Government of the United States towards the Republics of Latin America is one of mutually beneficial cooperation, and it is of paramount importance that the spirit of this policy be manifested in your attitude and action at the Conference.

To the task of these conferences, which in the first instance was consultative and recommendatory only, has been added that of approval. The programs of the various conferences, which dealt primarily with political, commercial and social matters included subjects concerning which an element of controversy was notably absent. Only those topics were inserted about which the American States held similar opinions and where a complete accord might be looked for through a friendly and frank exchange of views. In this connection, [Page 535]and as stated in the instructions to the American delegates to the Fifth Pan American Conference:8 “It should be borne in mind that the function of these Pan American Conferences is to deal so far as possible with non-controversial subjects of general interest, upon which free and full discussion may be had with the purpose and probability of arriving at agreement and cooperation. International questions which cause prolonged, and even bitter and controversial debate, are not infrequently, in their important aspects, of actual interest only to a small group of nations. It is believed that in this Conference the most fruitful results will be obtained if discussion is confined to those aspects of the various topics which are of interest to all the Republics. In this connection, you will bear in mind that the present Conference has not been called to sit in judgment on the conduct of any nation, or to attempt to redress alleged wrongs.”

It nevertheless is possible that attempts may be made to introduce for discussion subjects not incorporated in the program. For your guidance in such a contingency, there have been prepared a brief analysis of the political affairs of the several American Republics and an analysis of economic affairs, which are attached hereto as appendices Nos. 1 and 2.

As to results accomplished by the past Conferences, I am happy to state that projects have been endorsed and recommendations made on matters political, commercial and sanitary which have had a profound and far reaching influence on the course of events in this Hemisphere. Since the first International Conference of American States it is noteworthy that there has not been a declaration of war between any of the American States, although armed disturbances have occurred. The coming together of men typical of the best feeling and thought of all the republics brings about a gradual growth of mutual understanding upon which it is possible to build solid international friendships founded in justice, respect, good-will, and tolerance. It is for this that I desire you to give your studious attention not only to the particular subjects before the conference but also to the task of becoming imbued with the spirit which animates the American policy of the United States, so that the tone of your whole attitude and action shall be in harmony with that policy.

The Fifth International Conference of American States, held at Santiago, Chile, adopted a resolution naming the City of Habana as the seat of the Sixth International Conference, and provided that the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, together with the Government of the Republic of Cuba, would fix the date thereof. In conformity with this resolution the date of January 16, 1928, was fixed for the convening of the Sixth Conference, and the Governing [Page 536]Board of the Pan American Union prepared the program which was approved on April 12, 1927, and submitted to the governments of the states members of the Pan American Union which reads as follows:

Program of the Sixth International Conference of American States To Assemble at Habana, Cuba, January 16, 1928

Article I

pan american union

Topic 1. Organization of the Pan American Union on the basis of a convention prepared by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union in accordance with the resolution adopted by the Fifth International Conference of American States on May 1, 1923.

Article II

matters of an inter-american juridical natures

  • Topic 1. Consideration of the results of the Commission of Jurists which assembled at Rio de Janeiro.9
  • Topic 2. In view of the fact that the codification of international law has been entrusted to the Commission of Jurists which assembled at Rio de Janeiro, the commission has been recommended to give preferential attention to the study of “Methods for the pacific settlement of international disputes”; but if the commission should not have time to dispatch this part of its work, this topic will be considered included in the program and submitted to the consideration of the Sixth Conference.
  • Topic 3. The Commission of Jurists which assembled at Rio de Janeiro was entrusted, by resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States, with making comparative studies tending toward uniformity in civil law, commercial law, procedure law and other branches of private law; and the Governing Board has recommended that they give preferential attention to the preparation of projects of uniform legislation on:
    (a)
    Commercial law and other branches of legislation in which uniformity is possible and desirable;
    (b)
    Maritime law, for the preservation of life and property on board ship;
    (c)
    Principles to which the juridical status of companies organized in a foreign State should be adjusted, with a view to securing uniform standards;
    (d)
    Legislative measures for extending to women the same civil rights as those enjoyed by adult males;
    (e)
    Bases for determining the nationality of individuals with a view to eliminating the conflict of laws on nationality;
    (f)
    Legislation designed to prevent the loss of nationality by a woman because of marriage;
    (g)
    Recognition of the validity, by the authorities of the States represented at the Conference or which adhere to its conventions, of the acts and documents relating to the civil status of persons, estates, and contracts made by foreigners before the respective diplomatic and consular agents, and the preparation of a standard form for each of the aforesaid instruments;
    (h)
    Commercial arbitration;
    (i)
    Elimination of the differences in the juridical system relative to bills of exchange and checks, by means of an international agreement or uniform legislation;
    (j)
    Organization and regulation of the international service of checks and postal money orders; and
    (k)
    Regulation of the use of water power and other uses or applications of the waters of international rivers for industrial and agricultural purposes.
  • If the commission should not have time to prepare these projects, this topic will be considered included in the program and submitted to the consideration of the Sixth Conference.
  • Topic 4. Frontier Police.

Article III

problems of communications

  • Topic 1. Consideration of the results of the work of the Inter-American Commission on Commercial Aviation, provided for by resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.
  • Topic 2. Regulation of international automotive traffic.
  • Topic 3. Means for facilitating the development of fluvial inter-communication between the nations of America.
  • Topic 4. (a) International regulation of railway traffic;
  • (b) Consideration of the report of the Pan American Railway Committee.
  • Topic 5. Organization of a technical commission to study and recommend the most effective means for the establishment of steamship lines to connect the countries of America and to recommend measures for the elimination of all unnecessary port formalities.
  • Topic 6. Consideration of the results of the Pan American Highway Conference, which met at Buenos Aires in October 1925, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.
  • Topic 7. Consideration of the results of the Inter-American Electrical Communications Conference, which met at Mexico City in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

Article IV

intellectual cooperation

  • Topic 1. Establishment of a Pan American geographical institute which shall serve as a center of coordination, distribution, and dissemination of geographical studies in the American States and as an organ of cooperation between the geographical institutes of America for facilitating the study of boundary questions between the American nations.
  • Topic 2. Recommendation to the countries of America that in their legislation they levy a minimum duty on the importation of books and minimum postal rates on books and periodicals.
  • Topic 3. Recommendation to the countries, members of the Union, that have not yet done so, to publish geodetic, geological, agricultural maps, etc., which will give an idea of their natural resources, possibilities of development, and also of their means of communication.
  • Topic 4. Revision of the Convention on Intellectual Property signed at Buenos Aires (1910).10
  • Topic 5. Establishment of scholarships and fellowships.
  • Topic 6. Exchange of professors and students.
  • Topic 7. To recommend the establishment of special chairs, supported or subsidized by the Government, for the study of the Spanish, English and Portuguese languages and of their respective literatures.
  • Topic 8. To recommend the establishment in the Universities of the countries, members of the Pan American Union, of special chairs for the study of the Commercial Legislation of the American Republics.
  • Topic 9. Consideration of the results of the Pan American Congress of Journalists, which met at Washington in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

Article V

economic problems

  • Topic 1. Uniformity of legislation on consular fees.
  • Topic 2. Conference of chambers of commerce and, as a part of its program, organization of an inter-American chamber of commerce.
  • Topic 3. International aspects of immigration problems.
  • Topic 4. Revision of the conventions signed at Buenos Aires in 191011 and at Santiago, Chile, in 1923,12 with a view to formulating changes which shall assure uniform and effective protection for trade-marks in the States members of the Pan American Union.
  • Topic 5. Consideration of the results of the Conference on Uniformity of Communication Statistics, which met at Lima in December, 1924, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.
  • Topic 6. Consideration of the results of the standardization Conference which met at Lima on December 23, 1924, in accordance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States and the conference which met at Washington in 1927.

Article VI

social problems

  • Topic 1. Consideration of the action taken by the American States in complying with the recommendations of the Fifth International Conference of American States on the Pan American Maritime Sanitary Code.
  • Topic 2. Consideration of the action taken by the American States in complying with the resolution on principles and procedure in public-health administration, approved by the Fifth International Conference of American States at its session of April 16, 1923.
  • Topic 3. Consideration of the results of the Conference on Eugenics and Homoculture which will meet at Habana in 1927, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.
  • Topic 4. Consideration of the results of the Conference of Directing Heads of Public Health Services which was held at Washington in September, 1926, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.
  • Topic 5. Consideration of the action taken by the countries of America for the organization and development of national Red Cross societies, and the results of the Pan American Red Cross Conference referred to in the resolution adopted by the Fifth International Conference of American States on April 12, 1923.
[Page 539]

Article VII

reports on treaties, conventions and resolutions

Article VIII

future conferences

You will note that the program is divided into eight Articles, which in turn are subdivided into thirty-two Topics. For your convenience the Department of State has prepared instructions applying to this program, which are attached hereto. As the conference progresses developments on certain of the topics of the program may necessitate a modification of the instructions. In this case the Department will supply such further advice and instruction as may be necessary for your guidance.

The Governing Board of the Pan American Union has also prepared the Regulations for the Sixth International Conference of American States which were unanimously approved by the Governing Board at the meeting on November 3, 1926, and which are attached hereto as Appendix No. 3.13

It will be noted in Article 24 of the Regulations governing the Conference, just cited, that the deliberations of the Conference shall be confined to such subjects as are contained in the Program, except when by a vote of two-thirds of the delegations the Conference decides to take under consideration a new matter submitted by one delegation and seconded by another. A motion to take under consideration a new subject shall be decided without debate. You will note, furthermore, that new subjects can be incorporated in the Program only at plenary sessions of the Conference.

Article 22 of these regulations prescribes the rules governing the attendance at the deliberations of the conference. Your attention is directed to the attached political memorandum and the advisability of excluding all applicants for official attendance at these sessions by non-American representatives.

Articles 6 to 8 of these regulations set forth the committee method of handling the business of the conference. The business of the last conference was greatly facilitated by a steering committee made up of the President of the Conference and the Chairman of each delegation with special powers over the calling of plenary sessions, program and general supervisory control. It is hoped a similar procedure may be followed in this conference.

[Page 540]

Article I

pan american union

Topic 1. Organization of the Pan American Union on the basis of a Convention prepared by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, in accordance with the Resolution adopted by the Fifth International Conference of American States on May 1, 1923.

The Fifth Conference resolved to recommend to the Governments of the Republics of America the study of a project for the organization of the Pan American Union, in order that the Governing Board of the Pan American Union might present a draft of a Resolution or Convention to the Sixth Conference. In accordance with this resolution the Governing Board of the Pan American Union has prepared (consult pages 27 to 31 of the Special Handbook) a Project of Convention organizing the Pan American Union, which will be submitted to the Sixth Conference.

In general it may be said that the United States Government approves of this Convention. However, certain of its provisions show a tendency to accord very broad powers to the Pan American Union and to invest it with a political character which might be considered beyond the scope of such an organization, or are otherwise undesirable. In this connection, your attention is directed to Articles III, VI, XIV, XV, and XVI.

It is desired that you shall suggest the modification of the second clause of Article III of the project of the Convention for the organization of the Pan American Union to read as follows:

“A Director General, who shall have charge of the administration of the Pan American Union, with power to promote its most ample development, in accordance with the terms of this convention, with the regulations, and with the resolutions of the Board, to which body he shall be responsible. The Director General shall attend, in an advisory capacity, the meetings of the Governing Board, and of the Committees appointed by the Board for the purpose of giving such information as may be required. The Director General also shall attend in his official capacity the future International Conferences of American States. The expenses of the Director General and his assistants incurred through attendance at these Conferences shall be met out of the funds of the Pan American Union.”

Article VI, Paragraph 1, provides that the originals of diplomatic instruments signed at the International Conferences of American States, the minutes of their meetings, and all documents connected with the holding of the Conference, shall be placed under the custody of the Pan American Union. At present all original documents signed at International Conferences of American States are placed in the custody of the government in whose capital the Conference is held. Some advantages might be expected from having all conference [Page 541]minutes and documents collected in one place instead of scattered among various capitals, as is the case today. At the present time it is very difficult to ascertain what countries have ratified the various Conventions, and you may therefore support this Article.

Article XIV provides that the states members of the Union “in so far as their internal legislation permits, shall take measures for sending to the Library of the Pan American Union one copy of each work published in the country”. While it is not thought possible that the United States without legislative action can carry out the procedure contemplated in this Article it is thought that the clause reading “in so far as their internal legislation permits” is a sufficient safeguard that the United States is not assuming any obligation which it is unable to perform.

Article XV provides that each of the Government[s] members of the Union shall establish a committee composed of persons of experience in Pan American affairs, or an office attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to be entrusted with Pan American matters.

These committees or offices shall have the following duties:

(a)
To cooperate with their respective Governments to obtain ratification of treaties and conventions, and to give effect to the resolutions adopted by the International Conferences of American States.
(b)
To furnish the, Pan American Union promptly with the information it may need in the preparation of its work.
(c)
To present to the Union through the proper channels such projects as they may consider adapted to the purposes of the Union.

The establishment of a committee, such as that described above, would seem unnecessarily to expand the organization of the Pan American Union and its affiliated organizations. In a large measure such a committee would appear to duplicate the work of the national committees of the Inter-American High Commission. It is thought that the committees of the Inter-American High Commission, already organized, could well undertake the functions which it is intended the committee described in this Article shall undertake, and it is believed that if practicable the Inter-American High Commission might even be merged into the Pan American Union. If other nations members of the Pan American Union desire to establish such a new committee, there would of course be no objection on the part of the United States, but you should be careful not to commit the United States to follow their example. Neither does this Government feel the necessity for creating a new office attached to the Department of State and entrusted with affairs connected with the Pan American Union. This function is already fulfilled by the Division of Latin American Affairs, which acts as a liaison office between the Department of State and the Pan American Union. It is thought that the Division of Latin American Affairs of [Page 542]the Department of State can fulfill all the functions set forth in clauses a, b and c of Article XV quoted above.

Article XVI provides for the formation of a pension and retirement fund. The United States is disposed to encourage this plan, although, of course, any contributions to be made to it outside of the regular revenues of the Pan American Union would be subject to Congressional action.

Article II

  • Topic 1. Consideration of the results of the Commission of Jurists which assembled at Rio de Janeiro.
  • Topic 2. In view of the fact that the codification of international law has been entrusted to the Commission of Jurists which assembled at Rio de Janeiro, the commission has been recommended to give preferential attention to the study of “Methods for the pacific settlement of international disputes”; but if the commission should not have time to dispatch this part of its work, this topic will be considered included in the program and submitted to the consideration of the Sixth Conference.

(Note: In connection with the following instruction, your attention is directed to Supplement (b), pages 1 and 2, attached)14

codification of public international law

[Here follows information on previous efforts taken by American States toward the codification of international law.]

On January 2, 1924, the Chairman of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union laid before the Board the following resolution:

“Whereas, The Fifth International Conference of American States adopted a vote of thanks for the results achieved by the American Institute of International Law; and,

“Whereas, One of the purposes for which the American Institute of International Law has been established is to secure a more definite formulation of the rules of international law; and,

“Whereas, The codification of the rules of international law is the most important task entrusted to the International Commission of Jurists, and,

“Whereas, The labors of the American Institute of International Law will be of great service to the International Commission of Jurists in the fulfillment of the task assigned to it.

“Be it Resolved:

“By the Governing Board of the Pan American Union to submit to the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law the desirability of holding a session of the Institute in 1924 in order that the results of the deliberations of the Institute may be submitted to the International Commission of Jurists at its meeting at Rio de Janeiro in 1925.” (Am. Journal Int. Law, 1924, Vol. 18, p. 269).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Page 543]

In instructions given to the American delegates to the Conference at Rio de Janeiro,15 the Department stated that “Codification is a clear, systematic and authoritative statement of existing law; it does not involve the framing of new legislation. The Delegates of the United States to the Congress of Jurists should not, therefore, participate in the drafting of new international legislation embodying changes in the existing systems of law of the Nations of the Western Hemisphere.” (File No. 710 C 2/211 b).

It would appear from the foregoing that the Commission of Jurists, and especially the American delegates, were to limit their activities to the codifying of International Law. Of the twelve projects on Public International Law which the Commission has recommended for consideration,16 three are hardly to be regarded as proper subjects for incorporation in a code of International Law. The Department has in mind project No. V, concerning the Exchange of Publications, Project No. VI, regarding Exchange of Professors and Students, and Project No. X having to do with Asylum.

There is attached a memorandum in which these twelve projects have been briefly analyzed and discussed (Appendix No. 6),17 Generally speaking, those Articles which have not been mentioned are to be regarded as unobjectionable. None of the projects is free in its entirety from objection. In many cases the Commission of Jurists has set forth existing International Law; in others, however, it has set forth what it apparently has considered International Law should be. It is not believed that any one of the projects could be accepted in the form in which it has been presented. Most of them contain subjects which are either outside the realm of International Law or on which the practice of Nations has not been sufficiently uniform as to warrant the conclusion that it has crystallized into International Law. These have been specifically covered in the comments on the various Articles. While most of the projects afford a good working basis and, with certain changes, might be developed into an acceptable statement of existing International Law, it will be seen that considerable work will be required in order to render the drafts acceptable. It may well be that many of the objections pointed out in the attached memorandum can be cured in the deliberations of the Committee which may have the subject under consideration. It is doubted, however, whether a general conference, such as the Sixth Pan American Conference, will find it possible, with the large number of questions to be considered, to revise these drafts, without greatly prolonging its sessions, in such a way as to make them entirely acceptable.

[Page 544]

It is not desired that the American delegates should show any disinclination to go forward with the codification of International Law, which has heretofore been supported by this Government, but rather that they should take the position that the magnitude and importance of the task would seem to require that the respective Governments be given the benefit of the views and criticisms, if any, of the Conference and that their revision and incorporation into treaty form be left to a Commission or Conference to be called at a later date.

Topics 1 and 2, Supplement (a)

During the course of its sessions there were presented to the International Commission of Jurists by certain Delegates a series of socalled “Propositions”, which the Commission decided to submit to the Sixth International Conference of American States. The “Propositions” are printed on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the pamphlet in your possession entitled “International Commission of Jurists—Public International Law”.

For your guidance in any discussion of these “Propositions” that may take place, there has been prepared a Memorandum (Appendix No. 8)18 which presents the views of this Government with respect to the several matters to which they relate.

Topics 1 and 2, Supplement (b)

Topic 2 of Article II, which includes consideration of “Methods for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes”, and Article IV, topic 9, page 1, the resolution of the Pan American Congress of Journalists, bring before the Conference the question of arbitration of international disputes. You will notice by analysis of the treaties made between various Central and South American countries that as a whole these countries have gone a long distance upon the question of arbitration. The question was brought up at Santiago during the Fifth Pan American Conference. Those countries generally were not willing to enter into a general arbitration treaty which was less broad than the ones they now have. In other words, they said this would be a step backward. The Department believes, however, that a proposition to arbitrate any claim of right susceptible of judicial decision by application of the principles of law or equity, that is, a legal right under well established principles of international law or a legal right under a treaty, might be acceptable to the principal Central and South American countries.

Manifestly, the United States cannot agree to arbitrate purely political questions involving its domestic policy or any question which is purely within the jurisdiction of the United States and which does not infringe the legal right of foreign countries or the citizens [Page 545]thereof. I think it would be comparatively easy to draft a treaty which the United States could agree to and quite likely the Latin American countries would also agree to. It would be a step forward and, in my opinion, have great influence in Latin America. The main question is one of the construction of the Arbitral Tribunal. This has been discussed generally with Mr. Hughes. It would be better to have a panel chosen from the United States and the other members of the Latin American countries with some means of selecting a non-American arbitrator other than drawing by lot. Mr. Hughes made a very valuable suggestion—that if each country selected one or two arbitrators and they could not decide on a chairman or arbitrator, that he be a non-American and chosen by a special panel composed of members of The Hague Tribunal or some of them. I doubt very much if the Senate would ratify a treaty for arbitration unless the agreement for submission be submitted to the Senate. That has been the universal practice and I am convinced that it would have to be followed in this case.

matters of an inter-american juridical nature

(Private International Law)

Topic 3.

One of the subjects on the agenda of the Sixth Pan American Conference is the codification of Private International Law. The Commission of Jurists which met in Rio de Janeiro in April, 1927, recommended for consideration by the forthcoming conference at Habana a projected code prepared by Dr. Bustamante, the Cuban delegate on the Commission of Jurists.

The Department attaches hereto a memorandum in which the provisions of the project are briefly analyzed and discussed (Appendix No. 7).19 It will be seen that there are fundamental reasons why the United States could not agree to a code in the form of this project.

The first and most important obstacle to the preparation of a satisfactory code of Private International Law results from the difference between the system of jurisprudence obtaining in the United States, which had its origin in the English Common Law, and that obtaining in other American countries, which had its origin in the Roman Civil Law. It will be seen that the project here in question is based primarily on the theory of the law of nationality, whereas the system in the United States is based on the theory of territorial law, the principle of which is that the law in force in the territory shall apply to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction regardless of their nationality. Many of the provisions of the project are entirely foreign to our legal system. Others are so at variance with the [Page 546]principles of law established in this country as to render impossible their acceptance.

An additional reason why this Government could not subscribe to a code of this character is that a vast majority of the subjects covered are matters within the exclusive competency of the several States with which it would be contrary to the policy of the Federal Government to interfere. I have in mind such matters as birth, matrimony and divorce, paternity and filiation, adoption, guardianship, emancipation and majority, property and its various classifications, leases, annuities, partnerships, loans, bailments, contracts, questions of evidence and rules of procedure.

You can readily appreciate that any effort by the Federal Government to regulate such matters, except as an incident to the exercise of its powers under the Constitution, would give rise to the charge of encroachment upon the rights reserved to the several States. Some of the subjects such, for example, as nationality and naturalization, matters pertaining to public securities and commercial paper, transportation, insurance, bills of exchange, when they concern interstate or foreign commerce, also matters pertaining to ships and aircraft, offenses committed against the Government, extradition, bankruptcy, etc., are, of course, well within the purview of the powers of the Federal Government. Provisions of the project with respect to these subjects, however, are for the most part unacceptable to this Government because of the fact, as indicated above, that they are based primarily on the civil law which differs widely from the system of law to which we are accustomed.

The convention as a whole would be unacceptable to this Government. It will probably be found to be unacceptable to other countries represented at the conference. That there was by no means complete accord among the delegates on the Commission of Jurists is shown by the report (Appendix No. 5) of the American delegates,20 from which it is understood that the project was approved provisionally in order that attempts at the codification of Private International Law should not prove abortive and the Sixth Pan American Conference fail to have before it for consideration any constructive project dealing with the subject.

You should take the position that while general principles governing some of the subjects covered by Dr. Bustamante’s project might conceivably be evolved in subsequent conferences, in view of the magnitude and importance of the subjects and the great divergence between the laws of the different American States much careful thought will be required for the formulation of rules which would be generally satisfactory.

[Page 547]

Topic 3(h). Commercial Arbitration.

The American Arbitration Association has recommended the proposal by the American Delegation of a resolution in the following terms:

“That the Member States of the Pan American Union recommend to their respective legislatures the enactment of a law which will make valid, enforceable and irrevocable, a provision in any written contract relating to commerce, to settle by arbitration any controversy arising thereafter out of such contract; and which will permit the award, upon its confirmation by the court, to be treated as a judgment in an action.”

Although definite progress is being made in some of the Latin-American Republics in the application of the principle of commercial arbitration—notably in Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Argentina—and the practice has had a steady but slow development in the United States, it is not believed that a resolution making obligatory the settlement by arbitration of any controversy arising out of any contract relating to commerce would find the delegates from many of the Latin-American States in a receptive mood.

Even in the United States it has required many years of educational activities to convince American business men of the value of enforceable commercial arbitration of the type mentioned, and there is still considerable disapproval on the part of many business men and attorneys as to the advisability of inserting such clauses making arbitration on disputed points enforceable and irrevocable. The proceedings and reports of the American Bar Association evidence two distinct schools of thought in that authoritative body with respect to this matter.

It is not believed that business psychology, trade customs and legal systems in Latin-America can be readily and suddenly adapted to the theory of commercial arbitration contained in the United States Arbitration Act (Appendix No. 9)21 which, together with the statutes in New York and New Jersey, as well as some other States marks the most advanced status of commercial arbitration in this country, and it is felt that any movement to bring about a more general use of arbitration in the Latin-American States should be effected through educational and voluntary methods.

Any endeavor by the American Delegation to have such a resolution adopted might be considered by certain Latin-American States as an attempt to force legislation upon them, and although such a resolution would be in keeping with recent practice in the United States, you are directed, should its presentation to the Conference be deemed advisable, to bring about its introduction by a delegation of some other State.

[Page 548]

Topic 3 (j). Subject: Organization and Regulation of the International Service of Checks and Postal Money Orders.

[Instructions on this subject are omitted.]

Topic 4. Frontier Police.

It is understood that this subject has been included in the agenda of the Conference at the instance of the Argentine Government, and that the discussion may follow the lines of the generalization of inter-American frontier agreements, such as the Argentine-Chilean and Argentine-Bolivian treaties of 1919.

It is the view of this Government that this question is primarily regional in that conditions along the various frontiers are not alike and hence must be met in accordance with the peculiar needs of each situation. This Government, therefore, feels that the end sought could best be obtained through separate conventions between the various bordering States rather than by a general agreement of all the American nations.

The United States would be affected only in so far as the policing of the frontier between this country and Mexico, and the boundary between the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama are concerned. It is not considered desirable to enter into any arrangements with Mexico, or into any discussion with the Mexican delegates looking to the conclusion of an agreement on the subject of frontier police at this time. The so-called Smuggling Treaty with Mexico was recently allowed to lapse at the instance of the United States Government.22

The boundary between the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama is adequately policed, and satisfactory arrangements and understanding providing for cooperation between the police of the Zone and of the Republic already exist.

Article III

problems of communications

Topic 1. Consideration of the results of the work of the inter-American Commission on Commercial Aviation, provided for by resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

In compliance with the resolution of the Fifth Conference, the Inter-American Commission on Commercial Aviation met at Washington in May, 1927, and approved certain conclusions and resolutions which were included in the Final Act of the Commission. The Governing Board of the Pan American Union then formulated a Project of Convention on Commercial Aviation, based on the results of the aforesaid Final Act, which is to be submitted for the consideration of [Page 549]the Sixth International Conference of American States. Copies of the Final Act of the Inter-American Commercial Aviation Commission, and the Project of Convention on Commercial Aviation are attached to the files of the Delegation. (Appendices Nos. 12 and 13).23 It is highly important that this convention shall safeguard certain special arrangements which the Government of the United States already has concluded, or may in the future conclude, with other States and you are therefore directed to endeavor to have Article 31 of the Project of Convention on Commercial Aviation amended to read as follows:

Article 31

The right of any of the contracting States to enter into any convention or special agreement with any other State or States concerning international aerial navigation is recognized, so long as such convention or special agreement shall not impair the rights or obligations of any of the States party to this Convention, acquired or imposed herein; provided however that prohibited areas within their respective territories, and regulations pertaining thereto, may be agreed upon by two or more States for military reasons or in the interest of public safety. Such agreements, and all regulations pursuant thereto, shall be subject to the same conditions as those set forth in Article 5 of this Convention with respect to prohibited areas within the territory of a particular State.

While the remainder of the Convention on Commercial Aviation in its present form meets with the approval of the United States Government, nevertheless it is desired that you advance the following suggestions as being calculated to clarify and improve the text and prevent misunderstandings:

1. It is suggested that Article 3 be changed to read as follows:

“Private aircraft shall be deemed to be all classes of aircraft with the following exceptions:

  • a. Military aircraft, which embraces every aircraft owned, controlled, or operated by a contracting state in connection with its military or naval service thereof, or detailed for that purpose by competent military or naval authority.
  • b. Aircraft owned, controlled or operated by a contracting state in connection with the administration of postal, customs, police, forestry, or other governmental services.”

It is not intended that you shall press for this change in Article 3 should you find that it encounters any serious opposition.

2. It is suggested that the words “signal of distress” be substituted for the words “danger signal” in Article 6 and that the nations signatory to this Convention signify their intention of following the system of signals of distress agreed upon in the International [Page 550]Convention relating to the regulation of aerial navigation signed at Paris on October 13, 1919 (Appendix No. 14),24

3. It is suggested that the words “and into” be inserted between the words “above” and “their” in Article 7.

4. You will suggest the addition to Article 12 of the following sentence:

“After a State has filed a copy of such registrations it shall thereafter file monthly with every other State party to this Convention and with the Pan American Union, a copy of all new registrations containing all the information referred to in Articles 8 and 12 of this Convention and any cancellations of registrations made during the period covered.”

5. It is suggested that the last three lines of Article 15 of the Convention beginning with the words “Subject, however” be deleted.

6. It is suggested that the words “State authorities” in Article 19, paragraph 4, (line 5) be changed to read “customs and immigration authorities.”

7. It is suggested that the word “wholly” be inserted between the words “operations” and “within” in Article 23.

8. It is suggested that the following reading be substituted for Article 27:

“The aircraft of all States shall have the right in cases of danger to all possible aid.”

9. It is suggested that the following paragraphs be added to Article 32:

“Each contracting State shall exchange with every other contracting State within three months after the date of ratification of this Convention copies of its air traffic rules and requirements as to competency for aircraft commanders, pilots, engineers, and other members of the operating crew, and the requirements for airworthiness of aircraft intended to engage in international commerce.

“Each contracting State shall deposit with every other State party to this Convention and with the Pan American Union three months prior to the date proposed for their enforcement any additions to or amendments of the regulations referred to in the last preceding paragraph.”

10. It is suggested that it would be beneficial if a provision could be included in the Convention giving the states, dominions and colonies of this hemisphere, not members of the Pan American Union, the privilege of adhering to this Convention if they should so desire.

11. It will be found that Articles 32, 33, 35 and 36, providing that the Pan American Union shall cooperate with the Governments of the [Page 551]contracting States, shall receive the ratifications and retain them in its archives, and shall give notice of the adherence or denunciation by one State to the other signatory States, grant to the Pan American Union a political character which it is not thought that such an organization should enjoy. This is especially true of Article XXXII. In this connection you are referred to your instructions in connection with the Project of Convention on the Pan American Union. The question of the participation of the Pan American Union provided for in this Convention will be determined by the manner in which the Convention organizing the Pan American Union is finally approved by the Sixth International Conference. Should no changes be made in the Convention organizing the Pan American Union none will be needed with respect to this feature of the Convention on Commercial Aviation, but should the sections of the former Convention authorizing the Pan American Union to act as custodian of the originals of diplomatic instruments not be approved, changes in Articles 33, 35, and 36 of the Convention on Commercial Aviation will be necessary.

Inasmuch as the resolutions and conclusions of the Inter-American Commercial Aviation Commission were not reached without some controversy between the delegates of the different nations represented, it is highly probable that the Convention will not be adopted at Habana without reopening some of the questions which were debated by the Commission in Washington last May.

With the exception of Article 31, which it is desired shall be amended in the manner suggested, you are authorized to approve of the convention on commercial aviation either in its present form or with any or all of the suggested changes specified above, but in the event that any further alterations are proposed you should request time to communicate with your Government for instructions before the question is put to a vote.

It is needless to remind you of the importance to this country of operating under a satisfactory international convention regarding Commercial Aviation; and of the necessity for taking especial care that this country is not compelled under any international convention to sanction procedure and practices which might jeopardize the safety of the Panama Canal.

Topic 2. Regulation of international automotive traffic.

Automotive traffic in the United States is subject to regulation by the States and not by the Federal Government. The American delegation should give full consideration to this fact before taking or participating in any action on this subject. Any efforts to secure uniformity of regulation of international automotive traffic or the elimination of undesirable difficulties or formalities in connection there-with [Page 552]should nevertheless be considered as a laudable endeavor and receive the cordial support of the American delegation. However, such support must necessarily be limited to that consistent with the restrictions imposed upon participation in any final action taken by the Conference.

The United States Government would view with pleasure, as representing the views of the Conference with regard to this subject, the adoption of the pertinent portions of the report of the Highway Transport Committee of the American Section of the International Chamber of Commerce, as revised for use at the meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm in June 1927 and enclosed as Appendix No. 15 to these instructions.25 Attention is directed to pages 14, 15 and 16 of the report which contain a discussion of the principles of highway finance, and to pages 43, 44 and 45 containing various recommendations with respect to traffic rules and regulations.

Topic 3. Means for facilitating the development of fluvial intercommunication between the nations of America.

[Instructions on this subject are omitted.]

Topic 4 (a). International regulation of railway traffic.

[Instructions on this subject are omitted.]

Topic 4 (b). Consideration of the report of the Pan American Railway Committee.

As the result of a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States the Pan American Railway Committee was constituted by the governing board of the Pan American Union. This Committee at its several meetings considered various projects and after an exchange of views adopted the following resolution:

“That the project of Mr. Briano and the suggestion of Mr. Verne L. Havens already presented, as well as those which may be presented hereafter, be submitted to the consideration of the American Governments.

“That the countries of America be asked to indicate the modifications which they consider desirable to make in the proposed route through their respective territories.

“That the interested countries indicate the interior ports or cities through which they desire the Pan American Railway to pass, so that the exploitation of this line may be carried out in relation to the navigable rivers.

“That each country be asked to indicate the approximate route of the branch lines to connect with the proposed trunk lines.

“That each country indicate whether it is willing to carry out with its means and resources the work of exploration and the direct surveys, [Page 553]or surveys by means of aero-photography which may be necessary, and that they specify the time at which they can send this to the Central Committee.

“That each country be asked to indicate the form of financing which appears most desirable with respect to that portion of the line included within its borders, in order that the road may be constructed in the shortest possible time.”

As the subjects of this resolution are limited in that the countries of America are called upon merely to give consideration to said subjects it is desired that you approve said resolution and recommend that the participating States use their best efforts to further the work of the Pan American Railway Committee.

Topic 5. Organization of a Technical Commission to Study and Recommend the Most Effective Means for the Establishment of Steamship Lines to Connect the Countries of America and to Recommend Measures for the Elimination of all Unnecessary Port Formalities.

In the past ten years there has been a very gratifying improvement in ocean transportation facilities between the countries of the western hemisphere, due in large measure to the necessities arising out of the increased volume of trade carried on between those countries. Statistical data on this subject appears in the foreign section of volume 2 of the 1927 Commerce Yearbook. This is now in the press but will be made available to the Delegation.

The question of improved ocean transportation and that of simplification of port formalities are matters that have been discussed at previous conferences. However, a technical commission, properly organized, might submit a more concise and practical presentation of the problems that are involved than has been the case heretofore. As further improvement is desired in this field you will manifest the interest felt by the United States in this subject and endorse any deserving project put before the conference with the view to increasing and improving steamship traffic.

Topic 6. Consideration of the results of the Pan American Highway Conference, which met at Buenos Aires in October, 1925, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

The instructions relative to Topic 2 of Article III apply also to this Topic.

Topic 7. Consideration of the Results of the Inter-American Electrical Communications Conference, which met at Mexico City in Compliance with a Resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

[Here follows a résumé of the proceedings of the Electrical Communications Conference: a similar résumé is printed in Bulletin of [Page 554]the Pan American Union (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1925), vol. lviii, p. 861.]

It is desired that you shall indicate that you deem it appropriate to treat the work accomplished at the Conference at Mexico City as preparation for the International Radiotelegraph Conference held at Washington in 1927, and also that you shall endeavor to bring about the adoption of a resolution by the Sixth International Conference of American States urging the several governments to ratify at the earliest possible date the International Radiotelegraph Convention and Regulations signed at Washington on November 25, 1927.26

Article IV

intellectual cooperation

Topic 1. Establishment of a Pan American geographical institute which shall serve as a center of coordination, distribution and dissemination of geographical studies in the American States and as an organ of cooperation between the geographical institutes of America for facilitating the study of boundary questions between the American nations.

In connection with the establishment of such an institute careful consideration should be given to the complications which would be encountered in the many existing boundary disputes between the Latin American nations, which would doubtless render it difficult for the scientists of Latin America to enter into and carry out any cooperative plan because of political considerations which would have to be taken into account. At the present time there are no geographical institutions in America making a special study of boundary questions between the American nations except the American Geographical Society, which has long specialized in the subject and continues to do so in connection with its program of Hispanic-American research, now in its seventh year, and having to do with the creation of a great map of Hispanic-America on a scale of 1:1,000,000, to be published in 100 sheets. Since this society is in active communication with all other geographic societies throughout the world there is nothing lacking in the way of cooperation under existing arrangements.

It is desired that the American delegates should adopt a neutral though friendly position towards the plan provided for in this item of the agenda, making no commitments or offers in connection with it, and being especially careful to say nothing in connection with the boundary disputes or political considerations which might give offence to other nations. If a workable plan for the establishment [Page 555]of such an institute results from the labors of the Conference, it will then be time for the United States Government to consider to what extent it may desire to participate in the work of that institute.

Topic 2. Recommendation to the countries of America that in their legislation they levy a minimum duty on the importation of books and minimum postal rates on books and periodicals.

This item contemplates changes in the tariff which can only be accomplished by legislative action. You should not oppose, however, the adoption of any reasonable resolutions which can properly be submitted to the United States Congress for such action as that body may desire to take.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Topic 3. Recommendation to the countries, Members of the Union, that have not yet done so, to publish geodetic, geological, agricultural maps, etc., which will give an idea of their natural resources, possibilities of development, and also of their means of communication.

This proposal differs from that in Article IV, Topic 1, in that it depends upon the initiative of each country and not upon cooperation between different countries. In view of the fact that the material referred to in this item is either non-existent or very limited for most of the countries concerned it would seem advisable that such a recommendation should be supported by the American delegates and favorably acted upon by the Conference. Better maps of Latin American nations along the lines indicated should tend to promote a more intelligent understanding of those countries among themselves and in the United States.

The Department of Agriculture of the United States is especially interested in the matter of soil mapping and a proposed soil map of the world which the Fifth Commission of the International Society of Soil Science has it in mind to undertake.

Topic 4. Revision of the Convention on Intellectual Property signed at Buenos Aires (1910).

According to the Department’s information, this Convention has been ratified by the United States, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and Uruguay. It was signed but not ratified by Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Salvador and Venezuela. According to the Department’s information Peru ratified the Convention but did not communicate the act of ratification to the Argentine Government as contemplated by Article XVI of the Convention.

Article II should be amended so as to include in the protected works such forms of property as motion picture films, musical records, and player piano rolls. Numerous instances have come to the Department’s [Page 556]attention of the pirating of property of this character of American producers. The unauthorized use of motion picture films is particularly prevalent. While it has been possible in some instances to procure protection of the American owners through the application of local police regulations, these measures have not in all instances proved successful. It is highly desirable that the protection procured by this Convention be extended to cover this class of property.

It is desirable that Article III of the Convention be revised so as to require that there be included in the statement indicating the reservation of the property right the name of the copyright proprietor, the country of origin or the country or countries of first or simultaneous publication and the year of first publication.

Article IV should be amended so as to include among the means of reproduction the right to dramatize, to make or cause to have made motion picture films, the right to public performance by means of the radio or any other means and the right to reproduce by any method.

Inasmuch as there are now thirteen countries which have accepted this Convention, it would be inadvisable to substitute a new Convention which might require several years for ratification. It would be preferable to conclude a separate convention in which any amendments agreed upon are made, which when ratified would be made a part of the Convention of 1910, the present Convention remaining in force as the fundamental agreement. This comment is applicable also to the Trade-Mark Convention.27

Topic 5. Establishment of Scholarships and Fellowships.

In the United States Federal control of education does not exist, whereas in the Latin American States such Federal control exists and has made possible the conclusion among them of various international conventions concerning educational matters.

You will bear in mind the constitutional limits imposed upon this Government in regard to this subject, but you will not oppose any agreement which may be of benefit to the other American Republics, even though its provisions should make ultimate action upon it by this Government impossible.

The growth in recent years in the movement for the establishment of scholarships and fellowships in American institutions of learning for the benefit of Latin American students has been very gratifying, and you may support any practical plan looking to the further development of this means of promoting mutual, intellectual and social understanding. (See Appendix 23)28

[Page 557]

Topic 6. Exchange of Professors and Students.

The same considerations apply with regard to this subject as to the preceding one regarding the establishment of scholarships and fellowships.

In addition, the matter of recognition of professional degrees is a matter controlled by the State governments and not one in which the Federal Government may interfere.

Topic 7. To recommend the establishment of special chairs, supported or subsidized by the government, for the study of the Spanish, English and Portuguese languages and of their respective literatures.

In the United States the establishment of special chairs for instruction in specific subjects is left to the private initiative of the various universities and colleges, which are not subsidized or supported by the federal government, although many of them receive pecuniary aid from state governments. In general it may be said that the Spanish language and literature is widely taught in the United States, and in most of the larger colleges courses in Portuguese are also available. In general it may be asserted that the United States has gone far along this line.

Naturally an increase in the study of the English language and its literature in the Latin American countries will be a distinct advantage in bringing about a more intimate knowledge of this country in Latin America and you should accordingly look with favor upon the adoption of such a resolution as is forecast in this item. As this contemplates a procedure requiring in the United States legislative action and an appropriation by Congress you will of course say nothing which might encourage the hope that it will be adopted in this country. In many of the Latin American countries which maintain a government department of public instruction it is possible that special chairs might be established and supported by the Government through an executive decree. This would not, of course be the case in this country.

Topic 8. To recommend the establishment in the Universities of the countries, members of the Pan American Union, of special chairs for the study of the commercial legislation of the American Republics.

In general it may be said that this is not a subject which lies within the scope of the United States Government, but you may lend such assistance as you may find possible during the discussion of this question.

Topic 9. Consideration of the results of the Pan American Congress of Journalists, which met at Washington in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

[Page 558]

A copy of the resolution of the First Pan American Congress of Journalists appears as Appendix No. 24.29

In general these resolutions appear to be unobjectionable. However, Resolution 4, which reads as follows:

“Recommends the adoption of arbitration as a means of settling all disputes between the American Republics and with other nations, not only in case of political disagreements but in all those which in any way affect the interests of or harmony between the nations of the Western Hemisphere. It recommends that all the members of the Pan American Press not represented in this Congress adhere to this recommendation.”

appears to be broader in its scope than is appropriate for a Congress of this nature, and brings up a number of political questions which require very careful consideration. This subject should more properly be considered under Article II, Topics 2 and 3, and not in connection with a resolution of the First Pan American Congress of Journalists.

Resolution 15, which “Recommends that the Pan American Union extend the scope of its activities,” appears to be altogether too vague in its terms and subject to uncertain interpretations. This subject should more properly be considered in connection with Article I, Topic 1, on the organization of the Pan American Union.

If a motion is made formally to approve the resolutions of the First Pan American Congress of Journalists you should make an exception in the case of Resolution 15.

You may in your discretion propose to the Conference the desirability of holding further such congresses.

Article V

Topic 1. Uniformity of legislation on consular fees.

This subject has on several occasions been considered by Pan American as well as other conferences. There is attached to the files for your information a full memorandum and classified statements of consular fees collected by the United States in Latin America and by Latin American countries in the United States.29

Uniformity of legislation on consular fees came up for discussion also at the Third Pan American Commercial Conference, held in Washington in 1927. That Conference recommended to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union that a Pan American Committee be created for the purpose of studying the simplification and standardization of consular procedure as to inter-American trade as far as that might be possible without interfering with the national interests of the respective governments. By a resolution adopted at a [Page 559]meeting of the Governing Board on June 6, 1927, the members of the Board were requested to recommend to their respective Governments the designation of representatives to serve upon a Pan American Committee and Monday, October 10, 1927, was designated as the date on which the Committee should convene in Washington. Among the subjects discussed by the Committee were that the consular fee be regarded as a service charge rather than as additional duty and that, pursuant to the recognized principle that the fee paid for certifying a shipping document constitutes a fee for a service rendered and should not represent a customs duty, consideration be given to the question of moderating and obtaining uniformity in the charges for the consular certification of such documents.…

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

… After further discussion the Commission adopted a resolution as follows:

“It is recommended that those countries represented in this conference decide that consular fees are to be considered as compensation for services rendered but not as an additional tax.

“The reduction of consular fees to the lowest possible point compatible with the necessities of each country is recommended until such time as a uniform scale of charges is reached.”

In view of the history of the resolution finally adopted by the Commission and of the agreement of the Delegation of the United States to that resolution it appears that you should not attempt at the forthcoming Conference to advocate the adoption of principles which go beyond those agreed to by the Pan American Commission, unless after very careful preliminary consultations with the other Delegations it is convincingly shown that steps in advance of that position may successfully be advocated.

Topic 1, Supplement A. Pan American Commission on the Simplification and Standardization of Consular Procedure.

While the program of the Sixth International Conference of American States under the heading Article V, Topic 1, calls for consideration of the specific topic “Uniformity of Legislation on Consular Fees”, it is contemplated that the results of the Pan American Commission on the Simplification and Standardization of Consular Procedure—as a general subject—likewise may be submitted to the Conference. In this event the following instruction is furnished for your guidance:

“The United States approves, with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, of the Resolutions adopted by the Pan American Commission on the Simplification and Standardization of Consular Procedure, and it is desired that you discreetly lend your influence to secure approval by the Conference of the work of the Commission. However, [Page 560]it is not believed advisable that the United States Government should appear as the party most interested in the adoption of the Resolutions.

Resolution X as passed by the Commission declares that consular fees are to be considered as compensation for services rendered and not as an additional tax, and includes a recommendation for the reduction of consular fees to the lowest point compatible with the necessities of each country. While the United States would like to see this resolution strengthened into a specific declaration against the practice of the collection of consular invoice fees on the basis of a percentage of the value of the shipments, in view of the fact that two-thirds of the American Republics actually collect consular invoice fees on a percentage basis, the probability is apparent that the Conference would not in any case approve without considerable discussion any resolution looking to the abolishment of this practice. The United States is disposed to accept the resolution as presented by the Commission provided no satisfactory opportunity arises for its amendment without endangering the success of the Commission’s work as an entirety. If an opportune occasion should arise, however, you may place the United States Government on record as being opposed to the system.

A reservation should be entered against that part of Resolution VI (c) which calls for the use of the metric system of weights and measures in consular invoices and makes all other systems subordinate thereto.”

Topic 2. Conference of chambers of commerce, and as a part of its program, organization of an inter-American chamber of commerce.

The Department feels that any movement which will tend to draw commercial organizations together for the consideration and solution of international trade problems, and which will afford another opportunity of contact between the United States and the Latin American countries, should be encouraged. The United States is already a member of the International Chamber of Commerce whose permanent headquarters are in Paris, and maintains a national committee with an office in the Chamber of Commerce of the United States at Washington. Important commercial organizations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala hold membership in this international chamber, so the Sixth Pan American Conference might give thought to the existing International Chamber of Commerce in considering this matter.

Should a proposition be advanced for a Pan American Chamber of Commerce there would be no objection to adhering to such a resolution so long as provision was made for close cooperation between the International Chamber of Commerce and this proposed organization [Page 561]through one of the existing Chambers of Commerce already a member of the International Chamber at Paris.

The attitude of the American Chamber of Commerce with respect to this question appears as Appendix 25.31

Topic 3. International Aspects of Immigration Problems.

The status of immigration as a question of purely domestic concern is one which appears to be generally admitted and is one which has been formally enunciated by the Government of the United States on numerous occasions. Moore’s Digest refers to this question in the following terms (Vol. 4, page 151):

“The power to regulate immigration is an incident of the sovereign right to expel or exclude objectionable aliens. The exercise of the power in a particular country is governed by the constitution and laws. In the United States it belongs to the national government as part of its power to regulate commerce.”

Hyde defines it as follows (Volume 1, page 94.):

“A State is acknowledged to enjoy the broadest right to regulate the admission of aliens to its territory. Declared Mr. Justice Gray in the course of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Nishimura Ekiu v. United States:32

“‘It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.’

“The law of nations has not as yet forbidden a State to exercise largest discretion in establishing tests of the undesirability of aliens, and to that end, to enforce discriminations of its own devising. There is thus apparent a sharp distinction between the legal propriety and ultimate expediency of exclusion laws. A State may unwisely, although not unlawfully, exercise the full measure of its privilege.”

These definitions are supported by numerous judicial decisions and official utterances on the part of this Government which may be found in Moore, Volume 4, pages 151–161 et seq., and in Hyde, Volume 1, pages 94–101.

As long as immigration to this country was practically unlimited, this doctrine excited little comment, and the Immigration Act of 191733 providing qualitative tests for immigrants was regarded as a natural and normal expression of this attribute of sovereignty. However, with the passage of the Immigration Act of 192034 and more particularly with that of 192435 which provided a quantitative control of immigration, [Page 562]it assumed a very vital importance, especially when it appeared that other nations in this hemisphere were considering following the example of the United States. It immediately became to the interest of emigration countries to endeavor to have immigration questions regarded as a matter of international concern and as a subject for international discussion.

The first serious effort to draw the United States into such discussions came in 1923 when Italy which was particularly affected by the United States policy of restricted immigration issued invitations for a general international conference on emigration and immigration to be held at Rome in 1924.36 In accepting that invitation this Government stated in a memorandum sent to the Italian Embassy on May 10, 1923:37

“In connection with any discussion of matters relating to immigration, in which representatives of this Government might participate, it has already been indicated that there would be necessarily certain limitations of such participation. The reception of immigrants within the United States is regarded wholly as a domestic matter, and the exclusive authority of Congress must be recognized. Consequently, when participating in a conference of the proposed nature, certain restrictions, obviously, would be incumbent upon any American delegates.”

and this was repeated in a later note to the Italian Embassy, dated October 4, 1923,38 following an exchange of letters between Mr. Hughes and President Coolidge, in which the latter stated, under date of August 24, 1923:

“Replying to your communication of August 22nd, relative to the invitation of the Italian Government to participate in a conference relative to immigration problems, I see no reason to vary the original intention of participating, on the understanding, of course, that such conference could not infringe on the province of the Congress.”

and these views also found expression in a note addressed to the French Embassy, dated October 2, 1923,38 discussing certain questions in connection with the Rome Conference:

“I beg to advise you that since the International Conference which is to take place in Rome—in which certain restrictions will be incumbent upon the American representatives due to the fact that the reception of immigrants within the United States is regarded wholly as a domestic matter in which the exclusive authority of Congress must be recognized—is to be a strictly technical one to exchange and clarify views on pertinent questions, this Government is unable to perceive the need for a preliminary conference.”

Recognition of the sole authority of Congress in immigration matters was further evinced in the Department’s instruction of December 26, [Page 563]1923, to the American delegates to the Rome Conference39 who were warned that their designation in nowise authorized them to take any action committing the Government of the United States.

On May 31, 1924, at the final session of the Rome Conference, the American Chief Delegate, the Honorable E. J. Henning of the Department of Labor, took occasion to enter upon the record of the proceedings of the Conference a formal statement of the position of the United States which indicated very plainly that this Government regarded immigration as a purely domestic question.40

Following the adjournment of the Rome Conference, a Committee of Control was formed to undertake the task of “preparing” the next conference on emigration and immigration which is to be held in Habana in March, 1928. The Italian Government invited this Government to name a representative to this Committee but the Department decided against such a course and authorized the American Ambassador in Rome, Mr. Fletcher, under date of May 19, 1925, to address the following note to the Italian Government:

“Matters relating to immigration have been so definitely regulated by the Congress of the United States, in particular by the Immigration Act of 1924, that it is impossible for this Government to signify its participation in an international conference on emigration and immigration until it has had opportunity to examine the program which is to be discussed.

“While this Government has noted with satisfaction the assurances of the Italian Government that the Committee of Control will confine itself to the same matters which were included in the program of the first conference, and that the conference will have the same technical character as the first, nevertheless it is the feeling of this Government that until a concrete program for discussion has been submitted for its scrutiny it will hardly be possible for it to determine whether or not any useful purpose could be served by its participation.

“Therefore until such a program has been submitted and until a definite decision has been reached with regard to the participation of this Government in the proposed 1927 conference, the Government of the United States feels that to name a representative to the, Committee of Control, a privilege which is limited to the governments accepting the invitation to take part in the 1927 conference, would be a step open to misconstruction and inconsistent with the practice of this Government in such matters.”

However, this note was not formally presented, although the Italian Government was apprised of its contents.

In the meantime Congress had actively asserted its authority over immigration matters and had passed the Immigration Act of 1924. This Act, as it will be recalled, involved the issue of Japanese exclusion which was made the subject of a brisk correspondence between the [Page 564]Japanese Ambassador and Mr. Hughes.41 However, throughout this correspondence the United States consistently maintained, and Japan explicitly recognized, immigration control to be a purely domestic question, Japan basing her protests upon the ground of race discrimination. In signing the Act of 1924, President Coolidge issued a statement on May 26, 1924, reading as follows:

“In signing this bill, which in its main features I heartily approve, I regret the impossibility of severing from it the exclusion provision, which in the light of existing laws, affects especially the Japanese.

“I gladly recognize that the enactment of this provision does not imply any change in our sentiment of admiration and cordial friendship for the Japanese people, a sentiment which has had and will continue to have abundant manifestation.

“The bill rather expresses the determination of the Congress to exercise its prerogative in defining by legislation the control of immigration, instead of leaving it to international arrangements. It should be noted that the bill exempts from the exclusion provision Government officials, those coming to this country as tourists, or temporarily for business or pleasure, those in transit, seamen, those already resident here, and returning from temporary absences, professors, ministers of religion, students, and those who enter solely to carry on trade in pursuance of existing treaty provisions.

“But we have had for many years an understanding with Japan, by which the Japanese government has voluntarily undertaken to prevent the emigration of laborers to the United States, and in view of this historic relation and of the feeling which inspired it, it would have been much better in my judgment, and more effective in the actual control of immigration, if we had continued to invite that co-operation which Japan was ready to give and had thus avoided creating any ground for misapprehension by an unnecessary statutory enactment.

“That course would not have derogated from the authority of the Congress to deal with the question in any exigency requiring its action. There is scarcely any ground for disagreement as to the result we want, but this method of securing it is unnecessary and deplorable at this time.

“If the exclusion provision stood alone, I should disapprove it without hesitation, if sought in this way at this time. But this bill is a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole subject of immigration and setting up the necessary administrative machinery. The present quota act of 1921 will terminate on June 30 next. It is of great importance that a comprehensive measure should take its place and that the arrangements for its administration should be provided at once in order to avoid hardship and confusion.

“I must therefore consider the bill as a whole and the imperative need of the country for legislation of this general character. For this reason the bill is approved.”

Recently occasion arose at the Assembly of the Interparliamentary Commercial Conference at Rio de Janeiro for the United States to reassert its position regarding immigration. Certain proposals advanced [Page 565]by the Italian delegates regarding control of Italian emigrants on foreign soil impressed the South American delegates as threatening to infringe upon the sovereignty of their States and upon their exclusive control of immigration. For obvious reasons they looked to the United States to be the spokesman for the thesis of immigration as a matter of purely domestic concern. On September 9, 1927, Senator Robinson, who was attending the Conference at the request of Mr. Kellogg, addressed the Assembly as follows:

“It has seemed to us, in view of the difficulties of this question and of the well-known differences of opinion that exist among the nations represented here, that it is but just and appropriate to present a fair and short outline of the position of our country as we understand it.

“When the first Federal Census was taken in 1790, it disclosed in the then territory of the United States of North America a population of only 4,000,000. Our country opened wide its gates to immigrants from every land on earth. They came from the remotest parts of the world and entered into our citizenship and became supporters of our institutions; so that after the lapse of one hundred and twenty years, when the Census of 1920 was taken, the total population of the United States was disclosed to be more than 106,000,000—twentyseven times the population disclosed by the preceding Census which I have already referred to. We found it necessary and desirable to partly close our gates against immigrants from other lands. This has been accomplished through legislation enacted by the Congress of the United States. We sympathize profoundly with the problems and difficulties of the great countries of the old world which are distressed and disturbed by conditions respecting over-population. We realize that in a measure they are in the situation of the father or the mother who witnesses a son or daughter depart from his home to take residence among strangers, and just as any fond parent follows his child with his prayers and his benedictions, his hopes and his aspirations, so the people of the countries in which immigrants have their origin quite naturally have a feeling and desire to follow them with their assurances of assistance and protection. But it seems to me, Mr. President, that it is not inappropriate here to make clear to this Conference what many of the Delegates already know has been the result of the experience of the United States of North America respecting this question. We understand that under the principles of international law as commonly and generally accepted, every nation has the right if it chooses to exercise its power to exclude immigrants or admitting them to define the conditions under which they shall or may be admitted, and we understand that this principle of law is in conflict with the right of the country of origin to control the destiny of the immigrant after he has taken his place in a foreign land among strangers.

“We therefore accept in the United States the doctrine that when one born under a flag finds it desirable to leave the home of his birth, the land of his nativity, to seek residence and citizenship under a new flag and in a strange land, that in doing so he necessarily submits himself to the authority of that flag and to the jurisdiction of the land [Page 566]of his adoption. We cannot settle here the fundamental differences which I have referred to respecting the subject of immigration. They are deep-seated, but permit me to add before taking my seat, that as a necessary result from the doctrine of international law which I have tried to make clear and which is well recognized by most of you, it follows that the country in which the immigrant takes his abode has the right and owes the duty to protect him and to promote his advancement and best interests in common with the citizens of the country as distinguished from immigrants, and that the country of origin cannot claim, under international law as accepted generally by mankind, the right to control him after he has taken up his residence in a foreign land.

“This statement has been made not out of a desire to provoke controversy or to prolong the session of this conference. It has been made solely for the purpose of making clear to the Delegates the view point occupied by those who came here from the United States of North America. We are entirely content to have the convention take its action after hearing this statement.”

A perusal of the foregoing leaves no doubt of the position of this Government that control of immigration must be regarded as a matter of purely domestic concern, representing as it does the exercise of a sovereign right and that the authority of Congress in immigration matters is exclusive.

Accordingly, you should in any discussion on international aspects of immigration problems, be careful to note any tendency to call this doctrine into question and should, if necessary, be prepared to combat such a tendency by clear and unequivocal statements based on the historic position of the United States. For use in this respect, there are enclosed (Appendices 26, 27, 28)42 memoranda relating to the immigration policy and history of the United States, the Italian invitation to participate in the Conference on Immigration and Emigration in 1927, and a list of certain correspondence regarding immigration.

It is possible that during the course of the Conference it may seem to you to be desirable to avoid all discussion of this Topic. This might be effected by pointing out that immigration and emigration matters are to constitute the sole subject matter of the March Conference in Habana. In this connection, and for your confidential information it may be stated that while the United States has not yet accepted the invitation to attend that Conference it will in all likelihood participate, in which case the Department’s instructions to the American Delegates will be based in essence upon the policy set forth above.

Topic 4. Revision of the conventions signed at Buenos Aires in 1910 and at Santiago, Chile, in 1923, with a view to formulating changes which shall assure uniform and effective protection for trade-marks in the States members of the Pan American Union.

[Page 567]

[Detailed instructions on the proposed amendments to convention of 1923 are omitted.]

Topic 5. Consideration of the results of the Conference on Uniformity of Communication Statistics, which met at Lima in December, 1924, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

Topic 6. Consideration of the results of the Standardization Conference which met at Lima on December 23, 1924, in accordance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States and the conference which met at Washington in 1927.

The resolutions of the First and Second Standardization Conferences are primarily of interest to the Department of Commerce, which will be charged with making them effective if they are accepted and acted upon by this Government. The Department of Commerce has expressed its approval of these resolutions and has recommended that the American Delegation support them. (There is attached hereto as Appendix No. 30 a copy of a letter from the Department of Commerce, dated July 26, 1927 with reference to this point).43

It is felt that the American Government can agree to the creation of the various committees contemplated in some of these resolutions since, while they are of an international character, they will, if they function at all, aim at encouraging and simplifying commerce between the United States and Latin America. In connection with the formal draft of the convention for the establishment of uniform specifications, however, it is provided that the High Contracting Parties bind themselves to support the national sections of the Inter-American High Commission with adequate personnel for carrying out the work with which it has been charged. Inasmuch as the Inter-American High Commission has never been established by a formal convention, and as the general subject of the usefulness of this organization has recently been under discussion, it does not seem desirable to assure its permanence by the adoption of a formal convention whereunder the High Contracting Parties bind themselves to support it.

It is desired that you shall point out that references to the Inter-American High Commission do not properly fall within the scope of this convention and that while there is no objection to charging the Commission with certain tasks by resolutions of the Conference, the High Contracting Parties cannot bind themselves by a convention to support an organization which has not yet been established by a convention. Consequently Article V of this convention should be stricken out and, if approved in substance by the Conference, be embodied in a separate resolution, and Article VI should be eliminated entirely and not acted upon in any way by the Conference.

[Page 568]

If the question of the organization of the Inter-American High Commission by a definite convention should be raised, it is desired that you shall state that this will require careful consideration and recommend that it be referred to the next International Conference of American States. This will provide an additional opportunity to study the value of the services rendered by the Inter-American High Commission and the manner in which it carries out the tasks assigned to it by the resolutions of the First and Second Standardization Conferences.

Article VI

social problems

Topic 1. Consideration of the action taken by the American States in complying with the recommendations of the Fifth International Conference of American States on the Pan American Maritime Sanitary Code.

This Code was presented to, and its ratification consented to and advised by the United States Senate and subsequently approved by the President of the United States under date of February 7 [March 28], 1925.44 Up to the present time other countries have ratified this Code as follows: Cuba, June 16, 1925; Costa Rica, June 20, 1925; Peru, July 16, 1925; Chile, October 13, 1925; Nicaragua, December 18, 1925; Honduras, March 27, 1926.

The First Pan American Congress of American Directors of Health which convened in Washington, September 28, 29 and 30, 1926, gave further consideration to this Code and proposed several amendments of minor importance. These amendments were taken up and discussed at the meeting of the Eighth Pan American Sanitary Conference at Lima, Peru, in October of this year, a report concerning which is in the Delegation’s files.

It is hoped that the Sixth Pan American Conference will urge those countries which have not as yet accepted this Code to do so. To this end the following resolution may be proposed by you:

“The Sixth International Conference of American States resolves:

“That provision having been agreed upon, ad referendum, for the withdrawal by any country, on one year’s notice, from the obligations of the Pan American Sanitary Code, and believing that the Code offers the best solution for the further cooperation of the Health Departments of the Signatory Powers in the matter of the promotion of hygiene and sanitation and the prevention of the spread of contagious disease in international commerce, it is urged that those countries which have not yet approved this Code, should do so at their earliest convenience.”

[Page 569]

Topic 1, Supplement A.

If the other Delegations show an active and friendly interest in the discussion of the Pan American Sanitary Code, you are authorized to introduce the following resolution to the Conference. Its aim as appears in the preamble of the said resolution is the elimination of unnecessary delays to shipping in the ports of the Panama Canal.

Whereas, the Fifth International Conference of American States, held at Santiago, Chile, entrusted to the Pan American Sanitary Bureau the preparation of a Pan American Sanitary Code, and recommended its study, approval and adoption by the Seventh Pan American Sanitary Conference; and,

Whereas, the Seventh Pan American Sanitary Conference, composed of the duly accredited representatives of 18 of the American Governments, after careful study and consideration, adopted and signed the Pan American Sanitary Code, in the form of an ad referendum treaty, on November 14, 1924; and,

Whereas, the treaty has been ratified to date by the following governments:—United States, Cuba, Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica and Salvador, and,

Whereas, the treaty provides an International Standard Form of Bill of Health, which was adopted as the standard form of Bill of Health that should be used by the signatory countries, and,

Whereas, the vessels that transit the Panama Canal are, at times, delayed through the necessity for obtaining either a Bill of Health, or a sanitary visa from the Consul of each country that is included in their itineraries, thereby causing delay, expense, and a tendency toward stagnation of traffic in the Canal and its terminal ports:

Now, therefore:

Be it resolved, by the Sixth International Conference of American States, to recommend to the Governments of the American States the adoption of such measures as may be necessary and appropriate for the several Governments to authorize the quarantine officers at their respective ports to accept from the Panama Canal Zone without Consular Visas the International Standard Form of Bill of Health prepared by The Panama Canal authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Pan American Sanitary Code, in lieu of Consular Bills of Health and Consular Sanitary Visas as now required, whenever after due investigation any of said Governments shall find that it does not have consular representation in the ports of the Panama Canal, as hereinafter defined; that is, it is found impracticable to maintain consular offices so easily accessible and with consular officers on duty during such hours that vessels can at all times without delay in transit, procure the immediate issuance of the aforesaid Bills of Health and Consular Sanitary Visas; and, that such immediate issuance is recognized as a requirement of the extraordinary needs of international commerce through the Panama Canal in conformity with the interests of all the Governments of the American States. The foregoing recommendation is adopted in view of the satisfactory information supplied to the Conference concerning the excellent sanitary conditions now existing and constantly maintained on the Panama Canal Zone and in the cities of Panama and Colon, and because [Page 570]of the international obligation immediately to report the occurrence of disease, no sanitary menace can result.

Topic 2. Consideration of the action taken by the American States in complying with the Resolution on principles and procedure in public health administration, approved by the Fifth International Conference of American States at its session of April 16, 1923.

The Treasury Department of this Government has written to the Department of State stating that there have been no essential changes in the general plan of health administration in the United States since the date of the Fifth International Conference of American States when the above Resolution was passed. The following information contained in the same letter from the Treasury Department may be submitted by you to the Sixth Conference if the situation warrants it:

[The letter has been omitted.]

As a means of advancing the development of public hygiene as a profession, you are requested to submit the following resolution to the Conference:

“That it reiterate the recommendation of the Fifth Pan American Conference of American States with regard to the interchange of health officers, a program for the training of personnel, permanent tenure of office of persons employed in the more important position[s] of departments of health, and so forth, the recommendation having been expressed in the following terms:

“That each country be urged to consider a program which will include the following features:

  • “1. The full recognition by appropriate training, adequate salaries, security of positions and social esteem of the profession of public hygiene as a special career essential to the welfare of the nation.
  • “2. The establishment of courses of training for public health personnel, or the educating of selected individuals at the expense of the Government in institutions in other countries.
  • “3. The encouragement of visits of its health officers to other countries and the welcoming in return, of the representatives of the health organizations of other nations.”

Topic 3. Consideration of the results of the Conference on Eugenics and Homoculture which will meet at Habana in 1927, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

As this Conference is not scheduled to meet until December, 1927, no instruction can be prepared.

Topic 4. Consideration of the results of the Conference of Directing Heads of Public Health Services, which was held at Washington in September, 1926, in compliance with a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States.

[Page 571]

The First Conference of National Directors of Public Health of the American Republics met in the city of Washington in September, 1926. As a result of resolutions passed by this Conference, the Government of Peru has created a Permanent Commission for the Study and Eradication of Malaria; the Government of Ecuador’ is carrying out a rat flea survey in a number of Ecuadoran cities, and the reporting of communicable diseases received a new impetus. The Pan American Sanitary Bureau has expressed the hope that these reports will continue to improve.

The Conference of National Directors of Public Health likewise approved, for the consideration of the Eighth Pan American Sanitary Conference, the series of propositions, resolutions, and recommendations which are printed in the document issued by the Pan American Union entitled “Conclusions of the First Pan American Conference of National Directors of Public Health”, enclosed herewith as Appendix No. 31.45

The Eighth Pan American Sanitary Conference was held at Lima, Peru, in October 1927 and was participated in by delegates from the United States of America, whose report (Appendix No. 32) is enclosed herewith45 together with the Final Act of the Eighth Pan American Sanitary Conference (Appendix No. 33).45 The results of the Conference will be discussed at the Sixth International Conference of American States at Habana, and it is desired that with respect to this subject you shall be guided primarily by the counsel of your Technical Adviser, Dr. John D. Long.

Your especial attention is, however, invited to the resolution relative to the creation of Ministries of Health, and to the resolutions permitting the calling together of the Board of Directors and the creation of the position of Traveling Representative. With respect to the former, it is believed that the creation of a Ministry of Health is a matter of national rather than of international concern; and with respect to the latter, the approval of which presumably would entail larger appropriations toward the upkeep of the Pan American Sanitary Bureau, you should bear in mind the necessity for action by the Congress of the United States on all matters involving the expenditure of public funds.

Topic 5. Consideration of the action taken by the countries of America for the organization and development of national Red Cross Societies, and the results of the Pan American Red Cross Conference referred to in the resolution adopted by the Fifth International Conference of American States on April 12, 1923.

[Page 572]

In conformity with a resolution proposed by the American Delegates at the Fifth International Conference of American States, successful Pan American Red Cross Conferences were held at Buenos Aires in 1923 and at Washington in 1926. To the results of those conferences, contained in their Final Acts (Appendix No. 34),46 you may lend your approval.

It is probable that one of the other nations represented at the Conference will present the following resolution approving of the Red Cross work:

“The Sixth International Conference of American States,

Notes with satisfaction that, in pursuance to a resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States at Santiago, successful Pan-American Red Cross conferences have been held in Buenos Aires in 1923 and in Washington in 1926, under the auspices of the League of Red Cross Societies.

Expresses its satisfaction that the American Governments have uniformly taken action to accord the necessary recognition and support to their respective national Red Cross organizations,

And resolves:

1.
to request the Pan American Union to continue its assistance in the development of the Red Cross movement in the Americas.
2.
to invite the attention of the governments represented at the Conference to the importance of the program of the Red Cross in time of peace in the promotion of health, the prevention of disease and the mitigation of suffering from disaster or other cause, and to the advisability of according due recognition and support to their respective national Red Cross organizations in carrying out this program.
3.
to approve the continuation of the series of Pan-American Red Cross conferences, and particularly the Third Conference, which has been invited to meet at Rio de Janeiro in 1930 or 1931.”

To this resolution you may also lend your support and approval.

Article VII

reports on treaties, conventions, and resolutions

There is enclosed (as Appendix No. 35)46 for your information a memorandum of the action that has been taken by this Government with respect to the one Treaty, the three Conventions, and the sixty-nine Resolutions effected at the Fifth International Conference of American States.

In conclusion:

The continuation and development of friendship, mutual understanding, and sympathy, among the nations of the Western Hemisphere [Page 573]are the ends which the United States believes the Sixth International Conference of American States can further and it is hoped that you will use your best efforts toward the accomplishment of this purpose.

I am [etc.]

[File copy not signed]
[Appendix 1]

Special Political Memorandum

The past year has seen the development of a vigorous anti-American propaganda throughout Latin America based on charges of “imperialism” and characterized by violent criticism of the relations existing between the United States and Mexico and the American policy in Nicaragua. For the most part the Latin American Governments have refrained from participating in this propaganda, which has been carried on by private individuals and private organizations created expressly for that purpose, and in the press. Nevertheless, it is possible that an effort may be made by some delegates to the Sixth Pan American Conference to bring up controversial matters which the United States would not consider appropriate for a gathering of this nature, and it is not improbable that in the course of their remarks certain delegates may attack the policy of the United States Government towards Latin America with special reference to its relations with Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Haiti. Every effort should be made to have the topics discussed at the Conference confined to those on the pre-arranged agenda, or such additional topics as do not involve any discussion or criticisms of the foreign policy of this or any other country.

At the Santiago Conference in 1923 certain delegates brought up subjects of a controversial nature on their own responsibility, without instructions from their governments. Upon being informed of the actions of their delegates those governments promptly repudiated them. It is hoped that nothing of this sort will occur at Habana, but the possibility and the way it was met in 1923 should be borne in mind.

It is possible that an effort may be made to suggest the formation of an American League of Nations or a League of Latin American Nations, or the creation of an American Permanent International Court, projects upon which the United States would not look with sympathy. Detailed instructions for your guidance in the event that all or any of these topics are brought up for discussion are included hereafter.

The United States can not enter into any discussion at Habana of matters of purely domestic concern, such as its immigration and tariff acts, or of its foreign policy or relations with individual countries, since these are considered to be subjects which can properly be discussed only between the nations concerned and not in an open forum of nations not directly affected.

[Page 574]

The United States desires to assist the Latin American countries in every possible way acceptable to and desired by them, but it does not desire to urge its assistance upon them [nor is it contemplated that the independence of any of them shall be in the slightest degree infringed].48 The policy of the United States is one of mutually beneficial cooperation and it is of paramount importance that the spirit of this policy be manifested in your attitude and action at the Conference. [To this end the United States will place at the disposal of the Conference all the information in its possession drawn from the wide experience and great achievement of this country, to assist the Latin American nations in solving their various problems.]48 In general, your attitude should be to favor the free expression of views by the delegates of the various countries and to support only those proposals which are of common interest and which merit the unanimous approval of the American republics.

During the time that has elapsed since the close of the Fifth Pan American Conference there have been many developments of vital importance for Pan Americanism, and while the relations between the Latin American Republics and the United States and among these republics themselves have not undergone any extreme changes, nevertheless this period has been marked by the development of certain tendencies which are worthy of notice.

[Detailed information concerning Mexico, Central American Treaties, Honduras, Nicaragua, Tacna-Arica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Colombia-Peru, Ecuador, and Argentina has been omitted.]

[Appendix 1a]

Supplementary Matters Not on the Agenda But Which May Be Proposed for Consideration at the Conference Under Article 24 of the Regulations

Pan American League of Nations

At the Fifth Conference at Santiago in 1923 the agenda contained an item: “Consideration of measures tending toward closer association of the Republics of the American Continent with a view to promoting common interests.”

This topic was proposed by Uruguay and was intended to provide the basis for discussion of a project to create an association of American States in this hemisphere similar to the existing League of Nations. The Uruguayan delegation at Santiago during the early sessions of the Conference let it be known that it was not their intention to press the [Page 575]consideration of this topic. A resolution was subsequently passed by the Conference which read as follows:

Resolved:

  • “1. To entrust to the governing board of the Pan American Union the special task of studying the bases which may be proposed by one or more of the Governments of the Republics of this continent to make closer the association between said Republics with the object of promoting the common interests of all.
  • “2. To entrust to the same governing board the special task of studying the bases which may be proposed by one or more of the Governments of the Republics of America relative to the manner of making effective the solidarity of the collective interests of the American Continent.”

The Pan American Union inquired of the States, members of the Union, whether there were any proposals relative to these subjects which they desired to submit to the governing board of the Pan American Union for study as provided by the resolution. No proposals were received by the Union, and therefore no action was taken in accordance with this resolution.

It is improbable that the Uruguayan plan for the creation of an association of American nations will be brought up at the Sixth Pan American Conference in the form in which it was to have been proposed at Santiago. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that an effort will be made to promote discussion of this subject and some more or less detailed project may be submitted to the Conference. The United States would not view with favor the inclusion of this subject in the agenda and should such a proposal be made, you are instructed to vote against it. However, if it should be included by a two-thirds vote you will be guided in any discussion which results by the following views of the Department, included in the instructions to the American delegates to the Fifth Conference:

“A proposal to establish an American League of Nations with a formal organization and specific guaranties would probably encounter in this country difficulties similar to those that were met when the proposal to participate in the League of Nations was submitted. Even if it were possible to obtain an agreement which would embody such a plan, it is not probable that it would be ratified by this Government.

“On the other hand, the Government of the United States is most hospitable to the consideration of measures tending to the maintenance of peace and stability in Latin America and ensuring a basis for beneficent cooperation. This end can be attained most readily and without engendering a futile controversy over a proposal for an organization similar to that of the League of Nations, if attention be directed to the fundamental purposes of international institutions of the sort contemplated. These may be said to be:

  • “First. Judicial settlement of justiciable disputes;
  • “Second. Appropriate means of conciliation.
  • “Third. Conference.

[Page 576]

“With respect to the first, it is not believed to be desirable to establish an American Permanent International Court. There would seem to be no reason why a permanent organization of this sort should be established here to rival the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague, and the difficulties in establishing, in view of the relations of the Latin American States, a satisfactory method of selecting the judges of an American Permanent Court would be very great. What would seem to be needed, in order to promote judicial settlement of international controversies in this hemisphere is an improved plan for arbitral settlements. In this way controversies of which disposition could be more advantageously made by an American tribunal could be referred to a tribunal established for the purpose in accordance with the accepted principles of arbitral procedure. It should be remembered in this connection that five of the Latin American Republics, to wit, the Republics of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador, have at Washington concluded a Convention for the establishment of a Central American Tribunal.50 The plan of this Convention, a copy of which is attached to the files of the delegation, should be carefully studied and it may be that a similar plan would meet the requirements of judicial settlement of controversies between all the Latin American States. According to this plan a permanent list of jurists, with prescribed qualifications, is to be established from which the Tribunal may be constituted as provided in the, Convention when a controversy has not been settled through diplomatic agencies or some other method of arbitral or judicial determination has not been approved. If measures are taken to add to existing facilities an appropriate plan for the arbitration of justiciable controversies, the first object in view will be suitably met.

“The mechanism of conciliation can best be provided, it is believed, through a Commission of Inquiry. The historic relation of the Latin American Republics should be borne in mind and too rigid a scheme for conciliatory measures or mediation should not be attempted. Again reference may be made to the convention signed by the representatives of the Central American Republics at the Washington Conference for the establishment of Commissions of Inquiry. The United States is a signatory to this Convention.51 Provision is made for the appointment of the nationals of the Contracting Powers to form a permanent list of Commissioners of Inquiry. This Convention is in general a unification of the Conventions which the Government of the United States concluded with the Central American Governments in 1913 and 1914,52 and the purpose is to facilitate settlement of the dispute by an impartial inquiry into the facts. It is also provided that as soon as the Commission of Inquiry is organized it shall at the request of any of the parties to the dispute have the right to fix the status in which the parties must remain in order that the conditions may [Page 577]not be aggravated and matters may remain in the same state pending the rendering of the report by the Commission.

“With respect to the third object, that of Conference, it would seem that the continuance of the present plan of holding Pan American Conferences would adequately afford the desired opportunities for interchanges of views and the discussion of matters of common interest. There is no special advantage in creating machinery which is either unnecessary or too elaborate. It is a mistake to attempt to commit nations in advance with respect to their action in unknown contingencies, aside from disputes of a justiciable nature, as such attempts either are abortive or lead to disappointment, but it is highly important that every facility for conference should be provided.

“The more important need is the arrangement for cooperation in technical services, for the coordination of expert investigation, for facilities for negotiations leading to uniformity of action where that is desirable, and for the promotion of the vital interests of health and education. This Government strongly favors any arrangements which may be effective to these ends.”

Prohibition of the Sale or Export of Arms and Munitions of War and Prevention of the Transit of Arms and Munitions Which Are Not Destined for Governments

Such proposals would require legislation by the Congress to make them effective (and it is doubtful whether such legislation could be obtained). This Government would undoubtedly desire to discourage the exportation of arms for the purpose of fomenting revolution but it is doubtful if legislation could be enacted in this country going beyond the existing provisions of law which enable the Executive in an appropriate case to declare an embargo. Whatever may be said with respect to the merits of such proposals it is important that this Government should not be in a position of entering into agreements which it has reason to believe it would have difficulty in making effective through the necessary legislative action.

An Agreement to Respect the Territorial and Political Integrity of the Latin American Nations

Such an obligation would be quite acceptable to this Government, which has frequently given public and emphatic assurances that it does not covet the territory of any other nation. (Any obligation, however, not to intervene under any circumstances in the internal affairs of another country or not to go to war until after the pronouncement of an arbitral award, while commendable so far as the general purpose in view is concerned, would be likely to encounter opposition in this country as inconsistent with the constitutional authority of Congress and thus would give rise to unnecessary controversy. The object can be obtained, it is believed, by the adoption of [Page 578]suggestions already made for an Arbitral Tribunal and Commissions of Inquiry.)

This Government could not, of course, undertake to limit or bind its action in future unknown contingencies regarding the measure of protection which it might deem it incumbent upon it to exert on behalf of American citizens and property endangered by revolution or other civil turmoil in a foreign country.

You will of course understand that should this Government be obliged thus to afford protection to its nationals abroad its action would, as in the past, be limited to this object alone. When this object has been obtained and the danger is removed, the forces of the United States would of course be withdrawn. This has been the traditional policy of the United States.

Definition of the Monroe Doctrine

It is not the desire of this Government that the Monroe Doctrine should be discussed at the Conference. The views of the Department as set forth for the instruction of the delegates to the Fifth Conference and repeated here for your guidance, arenas follows:

In the view of this Government, that Doctrine has no place in the discussions of the Conference as it is essentially a national policy of the United States. It is not a part of international law nor is it a “regional understanding”,—to refer to the inept phrase used in the Covenant of the League of Nations. While conditions have changed, and the attitude of the non-American Powers does not at this time give rise to apprehension with respect to aggression on their part as against at least the stronger Latin American Republics, still the Monroe Doctrine, however infrequent or limited may be the necessity of its application, should be maintained in its integrity and no action should be countenanced by this Government which would in the slightest degree impair its efficacy.

Note may be taken of the content of this Doctrine. Properly understood, it is opposed (a) to any non-American action encroaching upon the political independence of American States under any guise, and (b) any acquisition by any non-American Power of any territorial control over any American soil by any process whatever. It may be observed that the United States is uninfluenced even by the willingness or desire of any American State to yield any transfer of its territory or to submit to any form of political control or influence of a non-American State. In maintaining its position, the United States has been governed primarily by its own interests, involving its conception of what was essential to its security and its distinctive position in this hemisphere. Its unselfish and friendly regard for its American neighbors has had a potent influence and should never fail of recognition in an estimate of our traditional [Page 579]policy, but the controlling consideration has been one of national interest.

In maintaining and applying the Monroe Doctrine the United States has commonly avoided concerted action with other States, especially European States. Nor has the Government of the United States been disposed to enter into an arrangement with States of this hemisphere for the purpose of safeguarding them against conduct which would be regarded by this Government as in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The essential character of the Doctrine itself has led to the taking of this attitude which it is believed should be maintained. The nature of the Doctrine should not be altered, its strength weakened or its effect diminished by any concert.

On the other hand, it should always be remembered that the Monroe Doctrine thus fully maintained as a national policy of the United States, carries with it no suggestion which threatens in any proper sense the just independence, or the political integrity of the American States; much less does it involve any thought of action inimical to their security or interest. On the contrary, it has received a constantly widening recognition on the part of the Latin American peoples, as a bulwark of their independence, safety and progress. So far as the Doctrine may be deemed to impinge upon their freedom in submitting to the control or influence of non-American States, it constitutes a safeguard of their liberty and security. The United States has not, and does not intend to use, this national policy for the purpose of conserving any other national interest than its own essential security. The United States seeks no territory; it does not seek to establish any state of tutelage with respect to any American Republic; it has no desire to aggrandize itself at the expense of its Latin American neighbors or to promote selfish interests in diminution of their own. It earnestly desires a common prosperity.

There is thus nothing in the Monroe Doctrine which is opposed to Pan American cooperation. It establishes the necessary and most hopeful bases of that cooperation. The United States seeks to promote its commerce with Latin American States and to aid in their development to the end that all may have their appropriate share in these mutually helpful efforts in the advancement of civilization. During the visit of Secretary of State Hughes to Brazil,53 and on the occasion of the dedication of the site for the American Centennial Monument at Rio de Janeiro, on September 8, 1922, the view[s] of this Government were thus expressed:

“We shall also be glad to have this monument associated in the thought of our friends with a true appraisement of our North American [Page 580]ideals and aspirations. You, my fellow countrymen of the United States, know full well how sincerely we desire the independence, the unimpaired sovereignty and political integrity, and the constantly increasing prosperity of the peoples of Latin America. We have our domestic problems incident to the expanding life of a free people, but there is no imperialistic sentiment among us to cast even a shadow across the pathway of our progress. We covet no territory; we seek no conquest; the liberty we cherish for ourselves we desire for others; and we assert no rights for ourselves that we do not accord to others. We sincerely desire to see throughout this hemisphere an abiding peace, the reign of justice and the diffusion of the blessings of a beneficent cooperation. It is this desire which forms the basis of the Pan American sentiment.”

Recent efforts, which there is no occasion to criticize so long as they are kept within their proper sphere, to bring Latin American States into closer contact with non-American Powers make it important that there should be no sacrifice through such endeavors of essential American interests. There should be no yielding to the suggestion of the control or influence of non-American Powers in the settlement of political questions of a distinctively American nature, or of the establishment by non-American Powers of territorial or political rights over American territory. There is, as John Bassett Moore has declared, an “American System based upon the distinctive interests which American countries have in common.” He adds:

“To the extent to which Europe should become implicated in American politics, or to which American countries should become implicated in European politics, this distinction would necessarily be broken down, and the foundations of the American system would be impaired; and to the extent to which the foundations of the American system were impaired, Pan Americanism would lose its vitality and the Monroe Doctrine its accustomed and tangible meaning.” (J. B. Moore, Principles of American Diplomacy, 1918, xxi.)

This Government does not approve the creation with non-American States of relationships which are to be deemed hostile to the Monroe Doctrine and, it must also be recognized that there are the greatest difficulties in proposing a policy, which would be capable of safe expression in a Pan American agreement, touching matters which fall within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. No arrangement should be entered into, or resolution agreed to, which could possibly be interpreted as curtailing in any way the application by the United States of the Monroe Doctrine. There should be no opening for the limitation of its action in that application through acquiescence in any arrangement whereby an American State could accept non-American control of its territory or political action. No opportunity should be given to a non-American State through any Pan American agreement to seek to impair the position which the United States has won through its assertion of its national policy.

[Page 581]

This Government has no objection to the adoption of resolutions, if this course is desired by the Latin American Republics, asserting their opposition to all attempts at aggression or invasion of their rights by non-American Powers. It is not deemed to be probable that proposals for a definite alliance would meet with the favor of the Conference. Such proposals should not be encouraged by the delegates from the United States. If it were proposed that if the rights of an American nation were threatened by the unjust and aggressive action of a non-American Power, the American Republics should communicate with one another fully and frankly in order to reach an understanding concerning the measures to be taken, jointly or separately, to meet the exigencies of the particular situation, there would be no objection on the part of this Government provided always that freedom of action on the part of the United States under the Monroe Doctrine were completely reserved.

Representation of Spain (or Other European Countries) by Unofficial Observers at the Sixth Conference

You are instructed to oppose any suggestion which may be made for the representation of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy or any other country not a member of the Pan American Union, to be represented at the Conference by an Unofficial Observer.

The Pan American Conferences are strictly conferences of American States, held to discuss matters of especial and peculiar importance to the nations of the Western Hemisphere and it would obviously not be possible or proper to have other states represented at these conferences even by unofficial observers who would take no part in the discussions and would not even vote. Should there be no necessity for discussing matters affecting only the American nations there would be no reason for these conferences; and should there be a necessity for discussing matters of world wide concern or affecting non-American countries the need would be for some other form of conference of wider scope. For the discussion of questions affecting nations in both hemispheres there are many international conferences at which both European and American States are represented and at which world wide problems are discussed. But as there are also problems pertaining especially to this hemisphere, these Pan American conferences are held.

The United States entertains the friendliest feelings towards all the European countries and its action in opposing their representation at the Conference, even by unofficial observers, should not be considered as showing any lack of friendliness for them. It is clear that if they were represented the conferences would cease to be purely Pan American conferences. Furthermore, if one non-American power should be represented there would be no reason why others who have possessions in this hemisphere, or who bear the relation of [Page 582]a “mother country” to one or more of the American nations, should be excluded. It would be difficult to say that one non-American country should be represented and not any other, and in any case the presence of one non-American country would change the character of the conference, which would no longer be a conference of purely American States to discuss purely American problems.

Transfer of the Pan American Union From Washington to Some Other Capital

There have been frequent rumors that a proposal will be made at the Sixth Pan American Conference to transfer the seat of the Pan American Union from Washington to the capital of some Latin American nation. Panama, Santo Domingo and Uruguay have been mentioned specifically. It is said that this action would be based on the theory that in Washington the Pan American Union is too much influenced by the State Department and dominated by the United States. Also that the Pan American Union containing as it does a great majority of Spanish-speaking countries should have its seat in a Spanish-speaking capital.

The Department does not believe that any serious effort will be made to adopt such a plan at the Sixth Conference. If a suggestion is made to include this question among the agenda it would seem desirable that the United States delegates, while being careful not to express their approval, should not, unless absolutely necessary, take a leading part in opposing it. It is felt that some of the Latin American delegates will see the disadvantages of opening this question and the advantages of maintaining the Union in Washington; …

… A number of arguments against such a change will readily occur to you, among others:

1).
The eminent suitability of the present Pan American building in Washington, which was constructed on land donated by the United States, at a cost of about $850,000, the entire amount being contributed by the well known philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. This building could not be duplicated in another locality for anything like its original cost.
2).
The advantages which the United States offers as a center of information on all subjects connected with the advancement of human knowledge and welfare. This country contains the headquarters of many organizations working for world improvement in sanitary, engineering, economic and social matters.
3).
The fact that Washington is the only capital on the American continents at which all Latin-American nations constantly maintain a representative.

[Page 583]

Canada

The International Conferences of American States, commonly called the Pan American Conferences, are, as their name implies, conferences of American political entities to consider and discuss matters of special importance to the States of the western hemisphere. Should there be no need to discuss matters affecting the States of this hemisphere there would be no reason to hold such conferences, and, on the other hand, should there be a necessity of discussing topics and problems of world wide concern, or having a relation at least to other political entities not included in the western hemisphere, the necessity would be not for a conference of American States but for some other form of conference of different scope.

The Pan American Conferences are essentially conferences of governments and not of mere geographical groups or territorial units. Being conferences attended by the official representatives of Governments, they necessarily reflect the exigencies and policies of the Governments participating. If colonies, possessions or dominions, whose foreign relations are controlled by European States, were represented in these conferences, the influence and policies of European Powers would be injected into the discussion and disposition of questions affecting the political entities of this hemisphere. Whatever value such conferences would have it would not be that attaching to a conference distinctively American. Should Canada be proposed as a Member of the Pan American Union, you will be guided by the oral instructions given by the Secretary of State to the Delegation at its meeting at the Department of State on December 28, 1927.

League of Nations

Reference may here be made also to the participation, which has been informally suggested, of representatives of the League of Nations in the Pan American Conference. It should be understood that no disparagement or criticism of the League of Nations is intended, when it is observed that the Pan American Conference is organized upon a distinct and separate basis. The scope of the League of Nations is intended to be world-wide and a number of American States are members of the League and are thus able to express their point of view on matters of world-wide import which come before the attention of the Council and the Assembly of the League respectively. The Pan American Conference exists because of the distinct interests of American States which, without antagonism to any world relationship, makes it desirable for them to confer with respect to the problems which especially relate to States of this hemisphere.

There is, of course, not the slightest objection for cooperation with the technical services of the League of Nations through the exchange [Page 584]of reports and information, and reciprocal advantage may thus appropriately be taken of statistics and reports of investigation. Participation of representatives of the League of Nations in the Pan American Conference, however, would bring to the Conference the viewpoints and policies of the States who are members of the League of Nations and are not American States and thus fundamentally alter the nature of the Conference itself.

The scope of the Pan American Conference is defined by Pan American interests and aims and if its usefulness is to be preserved, the integrity of the Conference as an exclusively American Conference should be maintained.

[Appendix 2]

Special Economic Memorandum

Trade between the United States and Latin America has shown a steady increase during the period which has intervened since the Fifth Conference. Exports from the United States to the Latin American countries in 1923 amounted to $693,000,000, and in 1926 to $882,000,000, showing an increase of about 27 per cent. Imports into the United States from the Latin American countries in 1923 amounted to $1,050,000,000, and in 1926 to $1,104,000,000, showing an increase of about 5 per cent. Thus the total trade of the United States with the Latin American countries amounted in 1923 to $1,744,000,000, and in 1926 to $1,986,000,000, or an increase of about 14 per cent. In 1923 this trade with the Latin American countries constituted 21.9 per cent of the total world trade of the United States, and in 1926 21 per cent, the Latin American share of the United States total trade decreasing in spite of the great gain in Latin American trade because of the increase in trade between the United States and other parts of the world. During this entire period the visible balance of trade was in favor of the Latin American countries to a very large extent. Trade with the United States amounts to about 36 per cent of the total trade of the combined Latin American countries.

Cuba ranks first among the countries of Latin America, not only in imports from but in exports to the United States. Our imports of merchandise from Cuba in 1926 were valued at $250,600,000, and our exports at $160,488,000. The amount of United States capital invested in Cuba is between $1,250,000,000 and $1,500,000,000. Moreover, a large amount is spent in the island annually by tourists from the United States. From these figures it is apparent that Cuba presents a broad field for the extension of American manufactured exports.

The past five years have witnessed an unprecedented flow of American capital to Latin America, our total investment in that [Page 585]field being now estimated at $4,800,000,000, of which $1,250,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 are invested in Cuba. While the Latin American governments and people in general recognize the advantages derived from the use of this capital, which permits them to develop their natural resources; improve their means of communication; and create municipal improvements and sanitary works; nevertheless a growing uneasiness has lately been manifested throughout Latin America lest this dependence on the American financial market may lead to some form of economic domination, or even, eventually to armed intervention. It is possible that this feeling may be expressed at the Sixth Pan American Conference. Should this be the case you will, while refraining from committing this Government as to what action it might or might not have to take to protect American holders of foreign securities in unforeseen contingencies, make it plain that Americans investing their money abroad seek only that justice and fair treatment to which creditors are entitled by universally accepted principles of law and that the United States Government expects that such fair treatment will be accorded them and asks no more.

  1. The members of the delegation were: Charles Evans Hughes, chairman; Noble Brandon Judah; Henry P. Fletcher; Oscar W. Underwood; Dwight W. Morrow; Morgan J. O’Brien; James Brown Scott; Bay Lyman Wilbur; and Leo S. Rowe.
  2. Instructions not printed.
  3. See Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, pp. 364 ff.
  4. Malloy, Treaties, 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 2925; see also Foreign Relations, 1910, pp. 21 22, 57.
  5. Malloy, Treaties, 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 2935. See also Foreign Relations, 1910, pp. 21 22, 38 41, and 49.
  6. Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 297.
  7. For text of regulations, see Program and Regulations of the Sixth International Conference of American States, p. 5.
  8. Post, p. 544.
  9. Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, p. 364.
  10. The 12 projects are set forth in Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Sixth International Conference of American States, p. 9.
  11. Not printed.
  12. Not printed.
  13. Not printed.
  14. Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, p. 369.
  15. Not printed.
  16. See Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. iii, pp. 230 ff.
  17. Not printed.
  18. For text of treaty, see Malloy, Treaties, 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 3768.
  19. Not printed.
  20. Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, p. 288.
  21. Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. i, p. 297.
  22. Not printed.
  23. Not printed.
  24. Not printed.
  25. Not printed.
  26. 142 U. S. 651 (January 18, 1892).
  27. 39 Stat. 874.
  28. 41 Stat. 593, 981, 1008.
  29. 43 Stat. 153.
  30. See Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, pp. 115 ff.
  31. ibid., p. 117.
  32. Not printed.
  33. Not printed.
  34. Not printed.
  35. Conference Internationale de l’Emigration et de l’Immigration—Rome, 15–31 Mai 1924 (Rome, Imprimerie de la Chambre des Députés), vol. ii, p. 454.
  36. See Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. ii, pp. 333 ff.
  37. Not printed.
  38. Not printed.
  39. For text of convention, signed Nov. 14, 1924, see Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 266.
  40. Not printed.
  41. Not printed.
  42. Not printed.
  43. Not printed.
  44. Not printed.
  45. Brackets appear in original document.
  46. Brackets appear in original document.
  47. Conference on Central American Affairs, Washington, December 4, 1922–February 7, 1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923), p. 296.
  48. Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 321.
  49. Treaties for the advancement of the general peace were signed with Costa Rica, Feb. 13, 1914 ( Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 171); with Guatemala, Sept. 20, 1913 ( ibid., p. 331); with Honduras, Nov. 3, 1913 ( ibid., 1916, p. 389). Treaties were also signed with Nicaragua, Dec. 17, 1913, and with Salvador, Aug. 7, 1913, but never went into force.
  50. See Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, pp. 656 ff. The four speeches made by the Secretary of State were published in Addresses in Brazil Delivered by the Hon. Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State, September, 1922 (Washington, The Pan American Union, 1922).