710.1012 Washington/36
The Chargé in Peru ( Hanna ) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 31.]
Sir: With reference to the Department’s instruction No. 432 of April 14, 1928,80 regarding preliminary arrangements for the proposed meeting of American States at Washington in a conference of conciliation [Page 628] and arbitration, I have the honor to report that the Department’s suggestions are now being considered by the Peruvian Government.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs called me to the Foreign Office a few days ago and told me that President Leguia is pleased with the Department’s suggestions for the date when the conference is to assemble and the maximum number of delegates to be named by each country. He also told me that President Leguia is disposed to adhere to the Gondra Treaty and present it for ratification shortly after the Peruvian Congress assembles in the latter part of July. Dr. Rada y Gamio intimated that the Peruvian Government might request the Department’s assistance in connection with depositing the ratifications with the Government of Chile, with which it has no official relations, and he also mentioned the fact that his government does not possess a properly authenticated copy of the treaty for submission to the Peruvian Congress. I understand he will discuss these points with President Leguia and inform the Embassy of the latter’s wishes in regard thereto when making formal reply to the Embassy’s note. I will add that Dr. Maurtua told me recently that Dr. Rada y Gamio had conferred with him concerning the ratification of the Gondra Treaty and that I could be assured that it would be ratified, probably in August.
I have not yet been able to obtain more than an impression concerning the attitude of the Peruvian Government on the question of arbitration and conciliation. Something may be deduced from the speech of Dr. Rada y Gamio forwarded with my despatch No. 945,81 in which he contrasted Peru’s past attitude on this question with that of Chile. I will quote the following extracts in translation:
“Peru has always been a supporter of international arbitration without limitations of any form. In the history of arbitration, we have without doubt a very distinguished place.
“In the First Conference in Washington arbitration was considered. The Committee on general welfare proposed the conclusion of a uniform arbitration treaty. In the general plan it was agreed that the Republics of North, Central, and South America should adopt arbitration as a principle of international law for the solution of controversies which might arise between two or more of said Republics, and that arbitration was obligatory in all differences referring to diplomatic and consular privileges, frontiers, territories, indemnities, rights of navigation, and the validity, interpretation, and execution of treaties. Questions which could imperil the independence of States were excluded and optional (facultativo) arbitration was prescribed for them. The arbitration agreed upon was retroactive (retrospective). Peru raised the banner of arbitration on high and without [Page 629] limitations. Chile opposed arbitration of this nature so far as it was possible for her to do so.
“In the Second International American Conference in Mexico, the noble and progressive Argentine nation, through her delegation, proposed obligatory arbitration for certain rules which comprised all the possible origins of a casus belli. She said she could repeat what she said to Chile in 1872 and to Colombia in 1880: With treaties or without them, the Argentine Government is determined to end all international questions by arbitration.’
“The Chilean delegation at that conference was opposed to obligatory arbitration. On the other hand, the Peruvian delegation stated that ‘the stability of institutions and peace between the Republics of America were the two cardinal necessities, and that nothing could be done to promote the material progress of these countries if measures were not adopted beforehand to assure internal order in the young American nations, clarifying with frankness and energy the causes of misunderstanding, imaginary affronts, restlessness, and latent or active struggles which exist or may occur among them’; and the delegation concluded by defending with vigor the principle of obligatory arbitration in its most ample form.
“In the Habana Conference … the debate on obligatory arbitration gave rise to a clash between the Chilean and Peruvian theses, the first being presented by Alejandro Lira, President of the Chilean delegation, and the second by Dr. Victor M. Maurtua, a member of the Peruvian delegation. Lira supported a general thesis, pleading for restricted compulsory (coactivo restrictivo) arbitration. Maurtua, in conformity with the policy of Peru, supported the principle of compulsory and extensive (coactivo y amplio) arbitration.
“Obligatory arbitration, as it triumphed in the International American Conference in Habana, may be cited as a means for settling international differences of a juridical nature. The resolution approved is as follows: (The resolution is then quoted).”
When I saw Dr. Rada y Gamio and presented the Department’s suggestions concerning the proposed conference, he took occasion to express in the warmest terms his great admiration for Secretary Kellogg’s efforts to negotiate a multilateral treaty restricting war,82 and said that this initiative in the cause of world peace filled him with joy. He asserted that Mr. Kellogg is interpreting the most profound aspiration of the world at the present time and, whatever the immediate outcome, is giving force and expression to a current of public opinion which eventually will be irresistible. And then he added, in reply to an inquiry from me, that this would exert a beneficial effect in creating a favorable atmosphere for the proposed conference.
I have [etc.]