List of Papers

Unless otherwise specified, the correspondence is from or to officials in the Department of State.

GENERAL

Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, Signed at Paris, August 27, 1928

negotiation of the treaty

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Jan. 6 From the French Ambassador
Communication from Foreign Minister Briand, January 5 (text printed), stating that France is disposed to join the United States in proposing, for agreement by all nations, a treaty to be signed at the present time by France and the United States providing for renunciation of all war of aggression and employment of pacific means for settlement of any differences that might arise between them, the high contracting parties to engage to bring the treaty to the attention of all States and invite them to adhere.
1
Jan. 6 To the Ambassador in Great Britain (cir. tel.)
Instructions to deliver to the Foreign Office a memorandum containing texts of the Briand proposal of June 1927 for a pact of perpetual friendship and the Secretary of State’s reply of December 28, 1927.
(Sent also to Embassies in Germany, Italy, and Japan.)
3
Jan. 11 To the French Ambassador
Objections to Briand’s proposal that treaty be signed by France and United States and then submitted to other Powers, and that its scope be limited to wars of aggression. Suggestion that further discussions be based upon the original proposal and that copy of Briand’s original proposal and subsequent correspondence be submitted to the British, German, Italian, and Japanese Governments.
3
Jan. 21 From the French Ambassador
Explanation of proposal of January 5; desire to receive suggestions which would make it possible to reconcile an absolute condemnation of war with international obligations already entered into with the several States.
6
Feb. 14 (2632) To the Ambassador in France
Information that on February 2 the French Ambassador stated that Briand’s reply to the Secretary of State’s proposition must not be construed as a definite refusal to make the treaty but as a suggestion that other French obligations be taken into consideration.
8
[Page XXVIII]Feb. 27 To the French Ambassador
Inability to understand how unequivocal and unqualified renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy could violate obligations imposed by the Covenant of the League of Nations or conflict with idea and purpose of the League; renewal of suggestion that Briand’s original proposal and correspondence between the two Governments be laid before British, German, Italian, and Japanese Governments.
(Footnote: Communication of text of this note through American Embassies to the French, British, German, Italian, and Japanese Foreign Offices.)
9
Feb. 27 Memorandum by Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to the Under Secretary of State
Conversation in which the Secretary of State stated, in response to a question by the French Ambassador, that he could see no objection to including in a general multilateral treaty renouncing war a provision that the breach of such treaty by one party would release the other parties from their obligations thereunder.
11
Mar. 1 To the Ambassador in France (cir. tel.)
Texts of two anti-war resolutions adopted at recent Habana Conference: (1) general resolution condemning all war, and (2) resolution against aggression.
(Instructions to repeat to Embassies in Germany, Great Britain, and Italy. Sent also to Embassy in Japan.)
12
Mar. 3 (42) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Request for interpretation of term “aggression” in second Habana resolution.
14
Mar. 3 (53) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Explanation that first Habana resolution would include not only war but also acts of aggression which might result in war.
14
Mar. 16 (52) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Information from Foreign Minister that Briand had inquired of colleagues at Geneva whether the U. S. Government had communicated with them regarding treaty and that the British, German, and Japanese representatives replied in affirmative.
15
Mar. 30 From the French Ambassador
Further observations of Briand concerning proposed treaty; readiness of French Government to join in submitting to German, British, Italian, and Japanese Governments, the correspondence between the two Governments and in proposing a draft agreement essentially corresponding to the original Briand proposal, in the multipartite form desired by the United States and with changes of wording made necessary by the new concept of the pact.
15
Apr. 3 (8494) From the Ambassador in France
Favorable reaction in France to last Briand peace pact note.
19
[Page XXIX]Apr. 5 (79) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (cir. tel.)
Information that because it is believed important to submit the treaty correspondence to British, German, Italian, and Japanese Governments without delay, the Secretary has inquired of the French Ambassador whether his Government is now agreeable.
(Footnotes: Sent also to Embassies in France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Information that on April 7 the French Ambassador made affirmative answer to Secretary’s inquiry.)
21
Apr. 9 (101) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Note for transmission to British, German, Italian, and Japanese Governments and accompanying draft treaty for renunciation of war (texts printed).
(Instructions to repeat to Embassies in Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. Sent also to Embassy in Japan.)
(Footnote: Delivery of notes and draft treaty to the respective Foreign Offices on April 13.)
21
Apr. 10 (102) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to explain to Briand personally the Secretary’s views and intention with regard to submission to the other four powers of the draft treaty correspondence.
24
Apr. 11 (90) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Briand’s understanding of Secretary’s views and intention, and his reservation of right to submit to the other four powers a draft form of treaty embodying French point of view.
26
Apr. 12 (91) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Request by Briand that Department also communicate to the other four powers the substance of its telegram No. 102 of April 10, and inform him of date it proposes to send the communications.
26
Apr. 12 (105) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information as to arrangements for submission of note, draft treaty, and correspondence to the other four Governments; instructions for advance notice and delivery to French Government.
27
Apr. 16 (830) From the Ambassador in Japan
Favorable attitude of Foreign Minister toward the idea embodied in note and draft treaty, and his promise to give matter careful consideration.
28
Apr. 17 (3411) From the Ambassador in Germany
Note from Foreign Minister, April 13, acknowledging receipt of U. S. note and enclosing a statement of views expressed at time of delivery (texts printed).
29
Apr. 20 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Delivery by Count de Sartiges of French draft anti-war treaty.
31
Undated [Rec’d Apr. 20] French Draft of Treaty
For the condemnation and renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.
32
[Page XXX]Apr. 21 (117) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the French draft seems entirely unacceptable; instructions to avoid discussion of matter until advised of Department’s position.
(Sent also to Embassies in Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan.)
34
Apr. 23 (118) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Unacceptability of French draft; exposition of Secretary’s views on points emphasized in French correspondence and draft treaty; authorization to use this material, at own discretion, in discussions at Foreign Office. Willingness, if necessary to prevent complete failure of negotiations, to include provision that in event any party to treaty becomes involved in war, the other parties shall be released from obligations under the treaty so far as regards belligerent party; instructions to feel out general situation.
(Instructions to repeat to Embassies in Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. Similar telegram to Embassy in Japan.)
34
Apr. 27 (88) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Expression by Foreign Secretary of readiness to approach anti-war treaty sympathetically, of probability that meeting of Foreign Secretaries might be necessary later, and of pleasure at intimation via British Ambassador that U. S. Secretary might be willing to go to Europe to meet them. Ambassador’s suggestion that Secretary give to press a statement of position along lines of exposition set forth in telegram of April 23.
39
Apr. 30 (104) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that in address before American Society of International Law, April 28, Secretary gave statement of position as set forth in telegram of April 23. Hope that French proposal to Italian Government that question of compatibility of anti-war treaty with League Covenant, Locarno treaties, etc., be referred to a commission of jurists representing principal Locarno powers and Japan, will not meet with general acceptance.
41
May 1 (3473) From the Ambassador in Germany
Foreign Minister’s note of April 27 (text printed) stating Germany’s readiness to conclude anti-war pact and to enter into the necessary negotiations.
42
May 2 (93) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Inclination of British Government to accept anti-war proposal without serious discussion and to approach the subject of reservations, interpretations, etc., after treaty signature; probability that France will be urged to follow same procedure.
44
May 2 (42) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Italian favorable attitude toward treaty, their belief that preliminary meeting of jurists, including a U. S. representative, should be held, and their opinion that conference of Foreign Secretaries could be held later.
(Repeated to London.)
45
[Page XXXI]May 2 (43) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Information that the British suggested to the Italians that an American juristic expert be invited to meet with juristic experts of other powers.
45
May 2 (108) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Opinion that the question does not require submission to conference of jurists; instructions to use efforts to discourage idea of conference. Information that any intimation that the Secretary would go to Europe to negotiate anti-war treaty is erroneous, and that there is no need for preliminary conference of Foreign Secretaries.
46
May 2 (56) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Statement of position regarding conference of jurists, and preliminary conference of Foreign Secretaries.
47
May 2 (122) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Statement of position regarding conference of jurists and preliminary conference of Foreign Secretaries.
(Instructions to repeat to Berlin. Sent also to Japan.)
47
May 2 (47) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Opinion of Secretary General of League that there is no inconsistency between American proposal for anti-war pact and League Covenant.
48
May 3 (112) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Advice that Ambassador has heard nothing about either commission of technical experts or conference of Foreign Secretaries.
49
May 3 (95) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Discussion with Chamberlain regarding misunderstanding concerning Secretary’s attitude toward conference of Foreign Secretaries, and Chamberlain’s willingness to discourage proposed meeting of jurists. Desire of French Ambassador at London to talk with American Ambassador.
49
May 4 (111) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
No objection to a talk with French Ambassador.
51
May 4 (55) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Unwillingness of Japan to participate in any conference of jurists or Foreign Secretaries not attended by United States.
52
May 4 (112) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the Secretary’s attitude toward conference of jurists and Foreign Secretaries has been conveyed to French, British, and German Ambassadors. Information as to Japanese attitude.
53
May 7 (99) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
French Ambassador’s opinion that some sort of meeting will be necessary before treaty can be put in final form; his statement that French acceptance of treaty would be made easier if Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia were favorable toward signing; his suggestion that American Ambassador talk over situation with Beneš, Czechoslovak Foreign Minister; his favorable attitude toward treaty, provided Secretary’s interpretation, as given in Washington speech, can be put into more precise and authoritative form.
54
[Page XXXII]May 7 (114) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Authorization of general and informal talk with Beneš.
55
May 8 (1682) From the Ambassador in Italy
Foreign Minister’s note of May 4 (text printed) expressing willingness to reach agreement proposed by U. S. Government, but stating desire that United States participate in a preliminary meeting of jurists.
55
May 8 (127) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Transmittal of Italian note of May 4; likelihood that Italy will not prove insistent in conference matter.
(Instructions to repeat to Berlin.)
56
May 8 (87) From the Minister in Canada (tel.)
Canadian uncertainty as to what arrangements will be made for Dominion participation in anti-war pact.
56
May 9 (101) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that Chamberlain is preparing a reply based substantially on German formula, and that he expressed gratification that Secretary does not wholly exclude conference of jurists; Ambassador’s assumption that Secretary felt to the contrary.
57
May 9 (116) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Advice that Secretary has been careful to refrain from stating flatly that U. S. Government would decline to be represented at a conference of jurists.
57
May 9 (52) To the Minister in Canada (tel.)
Belief that question of Canadian participation in treaty is primarily one of Empire policy.
58
May 9 (102) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Report of discussions with Beneš concerning anti-war pact; opinion that Beneš is in favor of treaty and will exert his influence with the French Foreign Office.
59
May 10 (89) From the Minister in Canada (tel.)
Canadian desire for initial inclusion in treaty, provided Government at London agrees.
60
May 11 (103) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Arguments against Secretary’s participation in any sort of conference; opinion that consultations on phraseology can be carried on under Secretary’s guidance with Ambassadors at Washington.
61
May 12 (119) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Aide-mémoire from British Embassy, May 11 (text printed), stating that because Secretary of State was not favorably disposed toward conference of jurists or Foreign Ministers, British Foreign Secretary withdrew his suggestion.
62
May 14 (29) From the Minister in Poland (tel.)
Polish Government’s regret that it was not equally associated with the five powers in anti-war pact plan, and its belief that both Czechoslovakia and Poland, as signatories of Locarno pact, should be included in invitation.
63
[Page XXXIII]May 15 (32) To the Minister in Poland (tel.)
Instructions to explain that invitations were limited to the five great powers because real difficulties might emerge if field of formal negotiations were enlarged, and to inform Foreign Minister that Secretary will cooperate in any way to the end that Poland may become one of the original signatories.
(Instructions to repeat telegram No. 29 of May 14 and this telegram to Embassy in London.)
64
May 17 (31) From the Minister in Poland (tel.)
Favorable attitude of Foreign Minister, and his promise to give a definite reply within a week.
65
May 19 (114) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
British reply (text printed) to U. S. proposal of April 13, stating readiness to enter into negotiations looking to conclusion of treaty and agreement of the Dominions and India in the general principle of proposed treaty.
66
May 21 (130) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Arrangements for extending through U. S. Legations invitations to Canadian and Irish Free State Governments to participate in treaty; note for Foreign Secretary (text printed) extending through him invitation to Governments of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India.
69
May 21 (127) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Gratification of French public at British note of May 19 which is taken as recognizing validity of France’s position and as taking her reservations into consideration.
71
May 25 (2774) To the Ambassador in France
Explanation of the reason for the existence of confusion with respect to the two Habana resolutions.
71
May 25 (122) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Report of informal conversation in which Chamberlain explained his policy toward France and British desires with regard to the treaty in general.
72
May 26 (66) From the Ambassador in Japan (tel.)
Japanese reply (text printed) stating desire to render cooperation toward conclusion of a treaty.
75
May 30 (11) From the Minister in the Irish Free State (tel.)
Irish Free State reply (text printed) accepting U. S. invitation unreservedly.
76
May 30 (437) From the Minister in Canada
Canadian note (text printed) accepting U. S. invitation.
77
June 3 From the British Ambassador
Objections to incorporation in treaty of a provision by which contracting parties would be liberated from their obligations toward one of their number who might become involved in war.
79
June 6 (147) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Briand’s remarks that negotiations have reached point where they can hardly fail, and his belief that reservations of views of various powers can be put in concrete form by protocol, expanded preamble, or other means.
79
[Page XXXIV]June 9 (1452) To the Chargé in Great Britain
Conversation with the British Ambassador in which the Secretary expressed his inability to agree to suggested inclusion by each country of reservations, provisos, or understandings.
80
June 11 (1776) From the Minister in Poland
Polish note (text printed) accepting U. S. invitation.
83
June 12 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Conversation in which the Japanese Chargé offered certain technical suggestions as to phraseology of treaty, and reserved right to make further suggestions.
84
June 18 From the British Embassy
Understanding that French reservations and the views expressed by the different powers are to be included in redraft of preamble.
86
June 19 (2853) From the Chargé in Great Britain
Foreign Office notes of May 30, June 2, June 11, and June 15 (texts printed), stating acceptance of U. S. invitation by the Governments of New Zealand, Australia, India, and South Africa, respectively.
87
June 20 (179) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Note for Foreign Office containing statement of U. S. position and transmitting a revised draft treaty containing redrafted preamble (texts printed).
(Footnotes: Instructions to repeat to missions in Great Britain, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Irish Free State, Italy, and Poland. Sent also to Japan.
Information that, in accordance with telegraphic instructions of June 22, the note was dated June 23 and together with draft treaty was delivered to the respective Foreign Offices on that day.)
90
June 20 (157) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions for preparing the notes to the British Government and the Dominion Governments and India.
95
June 23 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs
Conversation in which the Secretary handed to the Japanese Chargé a copy of identic note and revised treaty draft and explained certain changes in phraseology.
96
June 23 Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State
Conversation in which the Secretary explained to the French Ambassador certain clauses in the preamble, and stated that he believed he had met all of France’s views.
97
June 28 (27) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Press query as to reason why Brazil has not been included in invitation to participate as original signatory; Ambassador’s desire for statement thereon, for use with Foreign Minister if deemed desirable.
98
[Page XXXV]June 29 (24) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Explanation that original restriction to a few powers was to narrow the field of negotiations and to expedite conclusion of a treaty; reasons for inclusion of British Dominions and India and the Locarno powers.
98
June 29 (49) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Transmittal of text of telegram No. 24 of June 29 sent to Brazil, with explanation that same considerations apply to country to which Ambassador is accredited.
(Instructions to repeat to Embassies in Chile and Argentina.)
100
June 29 (193) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that Secretary explained to French Ambassador that he could not put the interpretations as expressed in his note either into a preamble or exchange of notes as part of the treaty; similar statement to British Chargé. Instructions to telegraph if Ambassador knows what action French Cabinet has taken.
100
July 3 (155) From the Chargé in Great Britian (tel.)
Understanding that British are preparing reply to latest American proposal, that British and French juridical experts are studying legal aspect at Geneva, and that British Foreign Secretary regrets that American proposal has been presented in final form, for either acceptance or refusal.
101
July 5 (183) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information from Briand that on his suggestion Cabinet gave its approval in principle to draft treaty, and that he stated he would continue study of situation with France’s cosignatories to Locarno treaties, after which he would bring up question before Cabinet again.
101
July 6 (200) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Expression of opinion, in response to question raised by British Chargé, that there can be no inconsistency between the proposed treaty and the League Covenant.
102
July 6 (82) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Office instructions to Japanese Chargé in Washington to take up question of alteration of phraseology to avoid possible objections of Privy Council when it studies matter of ratification.
103
July 6 (73) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Memorandum handed to Japanese Chargé (text printed), explaining that text would justify translation into phraseology acceptable to Japanese, and stating that the phraseology in question has no such significance as was attributed to it.
104
July 6 (423) To the Ambassador in Spain
Information that Spanish Ambassador has expressed desire that Spain come into treaty as an original signatory.
105
July 11 (3706) From the Ambassador in Germany
Foreign Office note (text printed), stating agreement to interpretation in Secretary of State’s note of June 23 and declaring readiness to sign revised draft treaty.
106
[Page XXXVI]July 14 (193) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed), giving résumé of understandings as expressed in new preamble and Secretary’s note, and stating disposition to sign revised draft treaty.
107
July 15 (72) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed), stating agreement with interpretation set forth in U. S. note of June 23 and disposition to proceed to signature of treaty.
108
July 16 (14) From the Minister in the Irish Free State
Foreign Office note, July 14 (text printed), stating acceptability of revised treaty and readiness to sign.
109
July 16 (218) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that press reports that U. S. Government has invited Spain to become original signatory are incorrect.
(Instructions to repeat to Ambassador in Spain.)
109
July 17 (221) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Discussion with French Ambassador as to arrangements for signature of treaty, possibly at Paris about August 25.
110
July 17 (529) From the Chargé in Canada
Canadian note of July 16 (text printed), stating acceptance of revised treaty and readiness to participate in signature.
110
July 18 (168) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Receipt of British reply, together with replies of Governments of Australia, India, New Zealand, and Union of South Africa.
111
July 18 (2900) From the Chargé in Great Britain
Foreign Office notes of July 18 (texts printed), stating, with understandings, acceptance of revised treaty and readiness to proceed to signature, of Governments in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, and India.
112
July 18 (86) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information that question of wording is still causing some difficulty, and is the only reason for Parliament’s delay in answering.
117
July 18 (288) From the Ambassador in Belgium
Foreign Office note of July 17 (text printed), stating acceptance of explanations in Secretary of State’s letter of June 23 and indicating readiness to proceed to signature.
117
July 18 (1843) From the Minister in Poland
Foreign Office note of July 8 [17?] (text printed), accepting, on basis of Secretary of State’s explanations in note of June 23, proposed treaty and stating readiness to proceed to signature.
118
July 19 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs
Conversation in which the Secretary of State advised the Spanish Ambassador that as soon as all the invited Governments had replied, he would raise the question of inclusion of Spain as an original signatory.
120
[Page XXXVII]July 20 (62) From the Minister in Czechoslovakia (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note (text printed) stating acceptance of explanations in Secretary of State’s note of June 23 and declaring readiness to sign treaty.
121
July 20 (88) From the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s note (text printed) accepting proposed treaty and stating readiness to proceed to signature.
123
July 23 (226) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain privately the Foreign Minister’s opinion on inclusion of Spain or any other powers as original signatories.
(Sent also to Great Britain, Germany, and Italy.)
124
July 25 (158) From the Ambassador in Germany (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s opinion concerning inclusion of any other powers as original signatories.
125
July 26 From the French Chargé
Invitation extended to the Secretary of State to go to Paris on August 27 to sign the treaty.
126
July 26 (205) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Briand’s disposition to include Spain as original signatory but his realization that Secretary of State, having issued the invitations, should be the one to decide.
127
July 26 (172) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Chamberlain’s disposition to include Spain, but feeling that question is for decision between Briand and the Secretary of State.
128
July 27 (78) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Information that Italian Government would favor inclusion of Spain as original signatory, but doubts expediency of opening treaty to inclusion of a number of other nations.
128
July 30 (233) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Note sent to the French Chargé (text printed), stating that Secretary of State will be pleased to meet the Foreign Ministers in Paris to sign the treaty on August 27.
129
July 31 (237) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to inform Foreign Office orally that Secretary of State is advising Spanish Ambassador that it is not feasible to arrange to have Spain included among the original signatories.
(Instructions to repeat to Great Britain, Italy, and Germany.)
130
Aug. 1 (51) To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.)
Transmittal, for information and discreet use if necessary, of telegrams No. 226 of July 23 and No. 237 of July 31, to the Ambassador in France; memorandum of conversation, July 31 (text printed), in which the Spanish Ambassador was advised of the reasons why it was not feasible to arrange for Spain to be included as an original signatory, and in which he was insistent that Spain had been invited to sign.
131
[Page XXXVIII]Aug. 3 (241) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Withdrawal by French of their suggestion that protocol of adhesion be ready for signature by other nations at the time of signature of the treaty by the 15 nations.
134
Aug. 3 (31) From the Minister in Portugal (tel.)
Desire of Portugal to be invited to sign the peace pact as an original signatory, particularly in view of understanding that Primo de Rivera will go to Paris to sign for Spain; U. S. Minister’s recommendation to that effect, and request for instructions.
134
Aug. 4 (179) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Inquiry from Foreign Office official whether door is definitely closed to inclusion of Spain as original signatory.
136
Aug. 8 (247) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Intention to send to all missions except those in countries signing as original signatories, telegraphic instructions (text printed) to deliver to respective Foreign Offices notes contained therein inviting adherence to the treaty; instructions to consult French Government confidentially on this procedure, at same time inquiring if it will invite Russia to adhere.
136
Aug. 9 (21) To the Minister in Portugal (tel.)
Reasons why Secretary is unable to accede to suggestion for Portugal’s inclusion as original signatory; instructions to explain the circumstances to Foreign Minister.
139
Aug. 10 (225) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Briand’s disposition in principle to invite Russia’s adherence, but necessity for careful examination of problem to eliminate possibility of a refusal or objectionable answer. Expectation of an early answer to rest of program; consideration of whether countries could adhere before deposit of ratifications by original signatories.
140
Aug. 13 (76) From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.)
Information that on August 9 Ambassador explained discreetly to Primo de Rivera point of view outlined in telegram No. 51 of August 1, and that at conclusion of interview Primo was resigned but not convinced; memorandum by Primo dated August 10 (text printed), placing on record Spain’s position in the matter of her noninclusion as an original signatory.
141
Aug. 13 (230) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that France is disposed to extend adherence invitation to Russia but that U. S. Ambassador has asked for exact terms of formula proposed to be adopted in approaching Soviet Government; expectation that answer upon whole question of adherence procedure will be given following day.
142
Aug. 14 (258) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Foreign Office that the Secretary entrusts matter of the form and substance of the Russian invitation to France; desire for explicit assurance by France as to agreeability of proposed procedure for inviting adherence of other countries.
143
[Page XXXIX]Aug. 14 (261) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Revision of paragraph (text printed) of draft note to clear up any question regarding procedure for governments to adhere to treaty before it comes into force through ratification by signatories.
(Footnote: Advice from the U. S. Ambassador, August 16, that the alteration in draft note was acceptable to the French Government.)
143
Aug. 14 (233) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information from Foreign Office as to exact procedure for inviting Russia’s adherence. Likelihood that France would be willing to perform similar service with regard to inviting adherence of Afghanistan, where the United States is without diplomatic representation. Communication of textual addition in proposed instructions to missions, desired by France.
144
Aug. 15 (236) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that France’s agreeability to procedure for adherence was assured in telegram No. 233 of August 14, except for the French addition mentioned; observation, however, that Foreign Office has now raised question as to whether adherence by other countries can be other than conditional until ratifications have been deposited by original signatories.
146
Aug. 15 (266) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Belief that any country may adhere at any time and that adherence would come into effect with the treaty; opinion that present procedure would expedite adherences by other powers.
147
Aug. 16 (82) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Information that as Under Secretary Grandi finds it impossible to go to Paris August 27, the Italian Ambassador at Paris will sign.
147
Aug. 16 (94) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Opinion that Italian attitude will make unfortunate impression; instructions to make this point clear to Foreign Office. Hope that Grandi’s presence may still be possible.
147
Aug. 16 (53) To the Ambassador in Spain (tel.)
Instructions to communicate to Prime Minister the Secretary of State’s sincere regret that any misunderstanding has occurred with regard to limitation of treaty signatories to the original powers; to explain U. S. Government’s regard for Spain’s world position and her people; and to express hope that Spain will be one of the first countries to adhere.
148
Aug. 16 To American Diplomatic Representatives (cir. tel.)
Transmittal of note for Foreign Office (excerpt printed) inviting adherence to multilateral treaty, with instructions to missions to make arrangements for its presentation upon receipt of telegram from Paris stating that treaty has been signed.
149
[Page XL]Aug. 16 (272) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to arrange with Minister of Afghanistan at Paris to deliver to him for transmission to his government the note of invitation to adhere, and to intimate to the French that while this procedure is being followed in view of U. S. recognition of Afghanistan, that French Minister at Kabul might be instructed to inform the Government of Afghanistan of the action being taken at Paris in this matter.
150
Aug. 17 (277) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Instructions to advise French Foreign Office informally, prior to transmitting note and instructions to diplomatic agent at Tangier with respect to Morocco and as a matter of courtesy, of U. S. Government’s intention to invite Morocco to adhere.
150
Aug. 17 (77) From the Ambassador in Spain (tel.)
Information that Primo de Rivera’s communication to the press (text printed) indicates his acceptance of situation in regard to nonparticipation of Spain as an original signatory; intention to await Primo’s arrival in San Sebastian before urging Spain’s prompt adherence.
151
Aug. 18 (248) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Report that Foreign Office is gravely concerned over U. S. intention with regard to Morocco expressed in telegram No. 277 of August 17; probability that Briand could never give his consent to this step.
152
Aug. 18 (283) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that Department thought that France would not have any objection to Morocco’s adherence; instructions, however, that as objection does exist, to inform Foreign Office that Department does not desire to press the matter further at this time.
152
Aug. 20 (85) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Personal communication from Prime Minister Mussolini (excerpt printed), stating that because of numerous engagements it will be impossible for Grandi to absent himself from the Ministry, and that the Italian Ambassador at Paris has been given full royal powers to sign for Italy.
152
Aug. 26 From President Coolidge to President Doumergue (tel.)
Congratulations on successful outcome of negotiations inaugurated by France and the United States for treaty renouncing war as an instrument of national policy.
153
Aug. 27 Treaty Between the United States and Other Powers
For the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.
(Bracketed note: List of adhering and non-adhering States, with the respective dates.)
153
Aug. 27 From President Doumergue to President Coolidge (tel.)
Appreciation for congratulatory telegram; conveyance of thanks of the civilized world.
157
[Page XLI]Aug. 27 (265) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Telegraphic instructions from Secretary of State (text printed) for transmittal to missions which received circular telegram of August 16, advising that anti-war treaty has been signed, and directing delivery of note.
(Footnote: Repeated by the Department to the missions concerned, August 27, 1 p.m.)
158

notifications of adherence

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Aug. 27 From the Peruvian Ambassador
Notification that Peru adheres to anti-war pact, and that upon receipt of certified copy of treaty, it will be submitted to Congress for ratification.
158
Aug. 27 (114 Dip.) From the Minister in Liberia
Foreign Office note (text printed) giving formal notification of adherence.
159
Aug. 28 From the Norwegian Legation
Intention of Norwegian Government to submit to the Storting a royal proposal in regard to adherence.
161
Aug. 29 (3052) From the Ambassador in Brazil
Foreign Office note of August 28 (text printed) acknowledging invitation to adhere to anti-war pact and stating agreement with the principles on which treaty is based.
161
Aug. 30 (100) From the Minister in Panama (tel.)
Information that Panaman Government accepts in principle and will recommend formal adherence to Congress on receipt of certified copy of treaty text.
163
Aug. 30 (83) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Note from Political Department (text printed) stating agreement in principle and probability that Federal Council will recommend to Federal Chambers that it be authorized to accede to the new treaty.
163
Aug. 30 From the Costa Rican Chargé
Declaration of adherence to Kellogg Pact, which will be referred to Congress for ratification.
164
Aug. 30 (414) From the Ambassador in Cuba
Foreign Office note of August 29 and statement by President Machado (texts printed) concerning Cabinet resolution to adhere to treaty as soon as possible.
164
Aug. 31 (2844) From the Netherlands Chargé
Information that necessary constitutional measures have been taken to adhere to treaty.
166
Aug. 31 From the Minister in Ethiopia (tel.)
Telegram from Prince Regent of Ethiopia (text printed), notifying adherence and stating that information is awaited as to steps necessary to complete the act of adherence.
167
[Page XLII]Aug. 31 (1000) From the Minister in Finland
Foreign Office note of August 30 (text printed), stating favorable attitude of Finland toward adherence and intention to submit matter to the Diet for approval.
167
Aug. 31 (1942) From the Chargé in Austria
Foreign Office note, August 30 (text printed), setting forth resolution of adherence which will be submitted as soon as possible to National Council and Bundesrat for approval.
168
Aug. 31 From the Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the French Ambassador in Russia
Request that Ambassador communicate to his Government, for transmittal to U. S. Government, Soviet Government’s views concerning its foreign policy, matter of disarmament, noninclusion of Soviet Government in negotiations preceding the treaty, comments on certain provisions of the pact, and expression of consent to adherence, instrument of adherence to be forwarded as soon as necessary formalities have been accomplished.
170
Sept. 1 (17) From the Minister in Sweden (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed), advising that Riksdag will be asked as soon as possible to give consent to Sweden’s adherence.
175
Sept. 1 (122) From the Danish Minister
Declaration of formal adherence of Danish Government, which will be submitted to Parliament for ratification.
176
Sept. 4 From the Rumanian Chargé
Note of adherence of Rumanian Government (text printed).
176
Sept. 4 (109) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed), stating Honduran Government’s decision to adhere as soon as respective ratifications of the original signatory powers have been received.
178
Sept. 4 (72) From the Minister in Latvia (tel.)
Information that Estonian Minister at Riga stated on September 3 that Estonia would adhere to pact.
(Footnote: Passage of law of adherence by Parliament on February 8, 1929, to become effective February 25, 1929.)
178
Sept. 4 (11) From the Ambassador in Belgium
Note from Luxemburg Minister of State, August 29 (text printed), declaring that Luxemburg adheres and that instrument of adhesion will be transmitted to Washington after approval by legislative power.
179
Sept. 4 (1018) From the Ambassador in Spain
Foreign Office note, August 30 (text printed), expressing sympathy with aims of anti-war pact, but containing no commitment as to when Spain will adhere.
180
Sept. 4 (789) From the Minister in Nicaragua
Foreign Office note, August 30 (text printed), stating adherence subject to constitutional approval of Congress. Minister’s understanding, however, that formal Presidential decree providing for adherence will be issued in near future.
(Footnote: Issuance of decree, September 5, 1928.)
181
[Page XLIII]Sept. 4 (30) From the Chargé in Egypt
Foreign Office note of September 3 (text printed), stating adherence to treaty as signed in Paris without admission of any reservation whatever.
183
Sept. 4 (378) From the Ambassador in Argentina
Foreign Office note of August 31 (text printed), acknowledging invitation to adhere to anti-war pact, stating favorable attitude toward principles consecrated therein, and advising that Ambassador will be informed of any resolution which may be adopted regarding the treaty.
184
Sept. 5 (2377) From the Chargé in Portugal
Foreign Office note of August 31 (text printed), giving definite adherence.
186
Sept. 5 (1320) From the Minister in Bulgaria
Foreign Office note (text printed) stating that Council of Ministers has unanimously approved Bulgaria’s adherence, and that all necessary formalities will be carried out with least possible delay.
187
Sept. 6 (88) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Presentation by Lithuanian Minister of note of September 5 from Lithuanian Premier, then at Geneva, to the Secretary of State (text printed), stating adherence to pact.
(Footnote: Information that subsequently Lithuanian Minister in United States stated that note was merely notification of intention to adhere and that a formal declaration of adherence would be transmitted as soon as treaty had come into force through ratification by signatory powers.)
188
Sept. 6 (398) From the Venezuelan Minister
Notification of Venezuela’s adherence.
189
Sept. 6 (663) From the Chargé in Greece
Foreign Office note, August 31 (text printed), advising that when Chamber of Deputies convenes, Greek President will ask for necessary authorization to adhere.
189
Sept. 6 (1149) From the Minister in Ecuador
Transmittal of Ecuadoran reply to invitation to adhere, which merely acknowledges U. S. note without commitment as to attitude Government will assume. Ambassador’s assumption that Ecuador will eventually adhere and is awaiting the action which other Latin American countries may take.
191
Sept. 7 (109) From the Chargé in Guatemala (tel.)
Receipt of note from Foreign Office stating acceptance in principle of anti-war treaty, to which Guatemala will adhere in conformity with the conditions of the pact itself.
192
Sept. 7 (485) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Foreign Office note of August 30 (text printed), stating that adherence will be given as soon as the necessary formalities can be completed.
193
Sept. 7 (474) From the Ambassador in Turkey
Foreign Office note of September 6 (text printed), announcing Turkey’s adherence.
195
[Page XLIV]Sept. 8 (14) From the Ambassador in Chile
Foreign Office note of September 5 (text printed), stating agreement with policy of peace contained in treaty. Ambassador’s opinion that Chile will adhere after treaty has been ratified by the original signatories.
196
Sept. 10 (1004) From the Chargé in the Dominican Republic
Foreign Office note of September 7 (text printed), stating that Dominican Government’s decision to adhere will be submitted for legislative approval.
198
Sept. 10 (382) From the Ambassador in Argentina
Report that a resolution favoring Argentine adherence introduced into Senate on September 6, was vigorously opposed by Senator Molinari, and after considerable debate was referred to committee before which Foreign Minister will be invited to appear to express opinion of the Executive.
199
Sept. 13 (520) From the Minister in Albania
Foreign Office note of September 8 (text printed), declaring that Albania is ready to adhere and is instructing its Minister in Washington to that effect.
201
Sept. 14 (970) From the Ambassador in Mexico
Foreign Office note (text printed) accepting invitation to adhere and stating that as soon as treaty has come into effect by ratification by signatories, the necessary steps to accomplish formal adherence will be taken.
202
Sept. 14 To the Danish Minister
Information that note No. 122 of September 1 has been deposited with the treaty and that notification of Danish Parliament’s ratification of adherence will be annexed thereto when received; intention to transmit two certified copies of treaty for purpose of formal adherence.
206
Sept. 17 To the Diplomatic Representatives in All Countries Except Those Which Were Original Signatories of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War
Instructions to present to government to which accredited the two certified copies of treaty transmitted with this instruction, one for purpose of formal adherence and the other for archives; further instructions to point out that instrument of adherence may be executed immediately in accordance with the constitutional or legal procedure of the government adhering.
207
Sept. 18 (5564) From the Chargé in Latvia
Foreign Office note of August 30 (text printed), announcing Latvian decision to adhere and intention to submit this decision to the Saeima for ratification.
208
Sept. 18 (688) From the Minister in Uruguay
Foreign Office note of September 7 (text printed), advising that Uruguayan Government is disposed to favor adhesion and will initiate the appropriate constitutional steps to that end.
208
[Page XLV]Sept. 19 (100) From the Chargé in Siam
Foreign Office note of September 18 (text printed), communicating decision to adhere and intention to transmit formal instrument of adherence through Siamese Minister at Washington.
210
Sept. 22 (2908) To the Chargé in France
Instructions to send to Minister of Afghanistan at Paris a note (text printed) transmitting two certified copies of antiwar treaty for archives and purpose of formal adherence and, for information, a copy of the circular instruction of September 17 to certain diplomatic representatives of the United States.
211
Sept. 22 From the Haitian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Chargé
Adherence to anti-war treaty.
211
Sept. 25 (1676) From the Minister in China
Note from Nationalist Foreign Minister of September 13 (text printed), stating decision to adhere without delay and expressing hope that signatory powers will carry out spirit of treaty by removing China’s unequal treaties and encroachments upon her sovereignty.
212
Sept. 26 (263) To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.)
Note for Foreign Ministry (text printed), stating that there is no need to await ratification of treaty by signatory powers before completing adherence and expressing hope that Mexican Government will be among the first to complete process of adherence.
214
Oct. 4 (81) From the Chargé in Persia (tel.)
Foreign Office note of October 3 (text printed), communicating adhesion to anti-war pact.
214
Oct. 8 (977) From the Chargé in Japan
Press reports of objections of Privy Councillors to treaty on basis of interpretation of phraseology and present state of Sino-Japanese relations; concern of opposition as to whether Japan should ratify a treaty to which China has adhered or whether it would be possible to ratify treaty with reservations that obligations created by treaty shall not exist in respect of China so long as Japan withholds recognition from Nationalist Government.
215
Oct. 9 (276) From the Minister in Hungary
Foreign Office note of October 6 (text printed), notifying of Hungarian Government’s adherence and intention to take constitutional measures to give it full validity.
217
Oct. 12 (58) From the Chargé in Bolivia
Declaration of adherence by Cabinet Council of Bolivia, October 11 (text printed). Information that Department will be advised as soon as Bolivian Congress has taken action upon ratification thereof.
(Footnote: Nonratification by the Bolivian Congress of adherence.)
220
[Page XLVI]Oct. 23 (286) From the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.)
Belief of Acting Foreign Minister that inconsistency exists between treaty provision and U. S. notes of September 24 and 26 concerning procedure for adherence; submission of matter to Department for instructions.
221
Oct. 25 (46) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Observations on Senator Molinari’s remarks concerning negotiations and effect of the anti-war treaty; permission to convey these views to Molinari if the Ambassador deems it wise.
222
Oct. 29 (86) From the Minister in Ethiopia
Information that on October 28 the King of Ethiopia sealed, signed, and ratified the treaty, this act constituting complete and final ratification under Ethiopian law.
225
Oct. 30 (14) To the Minister in Egypt
Instructions to present note to Egyptian Government (text printed) expressing pleasure at Egyptian decision to adhere and appreciation for friendly sentiments expressed in its note; information, for use if occasion requires, that complete adherence may be evidenced by deposit with U. S. Government of Egyptian adherence, and that there is no need to await ratification by the signatory powers.
226
Oct. 30 (647) From the Minister in Denmark
Foreign Office note of October 29 (text printed), stating that formal declaration of adhesion of Iceland, while reserving its ratification, has been endorsed on one of the certified copies which was forwarded to Danish Minister in Washington with instructions to transmit it to the Department for deposit.
(Footnote: Transmitted by the Danish Minister on November 13.)
227
Nov. 2 (1450) From the Chargé in Colombia
Foreign Office note of October 25 (text printed), stating that a bill has been presented to Congress to authorize Government to adhere to anti-war pact.
228
Nov. 3 (288) To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.)
Explanation of Department’s instructions with regard to adherence procedure; information that Department regarded Mexican Government’s note of September 14 as notice of adherence, but that if Mexican Government wishes to deposit its perfected instrument of adherence at Washington, the U. S. Government will be pleased to receive it.
229
Nov. 9 (79) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Argentine President’s decision that anti-war treaty does not offer possibilities for realizing universal peace which has always been ideal and policy of Argentina; information that Ambassador talked unsuccessfully with Senator Molinari on the basis of points contained in Department’s telegram No. 46 of October 25; doubt that any further representations in immediate future would cause Argentine President to change his mind.
230
[Page XLVII]Nov. 17 (666) From the Minister in Paraguay
Foreign Office note of November 17 (text printed), declaring adherence and stating that matter will be submitted to National Congress for approval.
231
Nov. 19 (123) To the Chargé in Japan (tel.)
Information that U. S. Government does not consider adherence by an unrecognized government to a multilateral treaty to which it is a party, entails recognition by U. S. Government; opinion that it is for Japanese Government to decide what the action would be on its part which would constitute recognition of the Chinese Nationalist Government; instructions to telegraph promptly if there is any likelihood that suggested reservation with regard to China will be seriously considered.
232
Nov. 19 (1402) From the Chargé in Salvador
Receipt of note from Salvadoran Government stating that it will at an opportune time issue resolution regarding its adherence.
233
Nov. 27 From the French Ambassador
Note from Afghan Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French Minister in Afghanistan of October 3 (text printed), asking that decision of Afghan Government to adhere to antiwar treaty be communicated to U. S. Government.
234

Participation of the United States in the Work of the Fifth Session of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference

Date and number Subject Page
1927 Dec. 16 (209) (L. N. 1023) From the Minister in Switzerland
Suggestions as to course to be followed by American delegation at fifth session of Preparatory Commission, to convene on March 15, 1928.
235
1928 Feb. 16 (12) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Announcement by Secretariat that provisional agenda will cover (1) progress of work of Security Committee, (2) Russian resolution regarding convention for total disarmament, and (3) progress of work of Preparatory Commission, including a full discussion of whether or not a second reading of draft convention is to take place in the session.
(Footnote: Instructions by Acting Secretary of State, February 6, 1928, that Mr. Hugh Gibson, Ambassador in Belgium, proceed to Geneva to head American representation.)
240
Feb. 25 From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Summary of Russian draft convention for immediate and complete disarmament.
240
Feb. 27 (14) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Desire of Gibson and Minister for instructions regarding forthcoming meeting, particularly as regards second reading of draft and U. S. attitude on Russian resolution.
242
[Page XLVIII]Feb. 28 (23) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions not to assume offensive at opening of meeting; opinion that Russian idea is so impractical that no detailed discussion is required; willingness to agree to second reading of draft if other powers so desire; information as to developments in naval limitation discussions; advice that there have been no new developments which would necessitate departure from stand previously taken on land and air armaments.
242
Mar. 9 From the British Embassy
Information that British Government attaches great importance to its proposals at Geneva Naval Conference regarding capital ships and plans to allude thereto in broad terms at session of Preparatory Commission.
245
Mar. 10 (32) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
For Gibson and Wilson: Information concerning conversation with British Ambassador on March 9, during which the Secretary advised the Ambassador that U. S. attitude remained the same and that he saw no reason to take up capital ship question at Preparatory Commission meeting.
245
Mar. 12 (2) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Probability that point (1) of agenda will result in formal adoption of Security Committee report. Information that feeling in regard to Russian proposals is divided; also that there is nearly unanimous feeling that more harm than good would result from a second reading of convention before a larger measure of agreement is reached by direct relations between various governments.
246
Mar. 12 (5) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Request for instructions as to questions regarding renunciation of war and obligations under multilateral treaty which may be evoked by remarks Chairman proposes to make in opening session.
247
Mar. 13 (1) To the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Instructions not to make proposed speech, or any speech, on subject of pending negotiations regarding arbitration, conciliation, and Briand proposal for renunciation of war.
248
Mar. 13 (3) To the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Instructions to state, if asked any questions regarding proposed anti-war treaty, that party in question should take up negotiations on matter at Washington.
248
Mar. 19 (10) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Information that Commission reached discussion of Russian proposals, and that while all delegations appear to be anxious to dispose of the proposals promptly, none apparently has courage to stand up against attacks of Russians; intention to keep free of debates as far as possible.
249
[Page XLIX]Mar. 19 (11) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Failure of interested delegations to decide how to deal with Soviet proposals; feeling that one course under consideration—discussion of Russian proposals clause by clause with first reading of draft convention—would be futile and intolerable; suggestion that, if this course appears about to be adopted, the Chairman be authorized to point out that limitation of armament and complete disarmament are irreconcilable, and that the U. S. Government would have to consider whether it could continue with any profit to participate in work of Preparatory Commission.
250
Mar. 20 (4) To the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Endorsement of decision to abstain as far as possible from debate on Russian proposals.
251
Mar. 20 (5) To the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Doubt that suggestion in telegram No. 11 of March 19 would be advisable if it means a complete withdrawal from Preparatory Commission, which would give the other powers a chance to shift blame for failure of Conference onto U. S. Government; suggestion that a League member of Commission might ask League Council for instructions as to competence of Commission to consider plan for total disarmament when it was called to consider reduction and limitation of armament.
251
Mar. 21 (12) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Information that because American representative’s continued silence on Soviet proposals was becoming conspicuous, in view of speeches by the other powers, he had deemed it wise to speak briefly on U. S. belief in multilateral pact as method of approach, disbelief in Russian proposals as impracticable, and other points in sense of Secretary’s telegram No. 23 of February 28 to the Minister in Switzerland.
252
Mar. 23 (16) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Speech of March 21 (text printed).
253
Mar. 23 (18) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Advice that when question of fixing date for next meeting arose, American representative made clear U. S. attitude toward second reading of draft and suggested that Commission Chairman be asked to follow progress of direct negotiations for purpose of harmonizing divergent views and to convoke Commission as soon as he believed second reading might have reasonable prospect of success.
255
[Page L]Mar. 23 (19) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Introduction and discussion of various resolutions regarding Russian proposals and second reading, without any definite action; decision of Russians, in view of rejection of proposals, to cooperate in partial disarmament, and their introduction of new draft, on which ruling as to discussion was reserved. Observation that there has not yet been such an entirely futile session.
255
Mar. 24 (20) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Letter from British representative (text printed) setting forth proposals regarding limitation of size and armament and extension of life of capital ships.
256
Mar. 24 (24) From the Chief of the American Representation on the Preparatory Commission (tel.)
Advice that British letter came as complete surprise, and that because British representatives left immediately for London, there has been no opportunity to discuss proposals or to learn reason for their presentation.
257
Sept. 18 (60) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Inquiry from Chairman of Preparatory Commission as to opinion concerning date to be fixed for next meeting; request for Department’s instructions.
257
Sept. 19 (64) To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Instructions to advise Chairman that his inquiry has been referred to Secretary of State. Information that the Secretary must confer with the President.
258
Oct. 30 (104) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Report that League Secretariat considers that it is time to break the deadlock on question of naval disarmament and intends to suggest that experts of the naval powers be called together for informal discussions in hope that a solution may be found.
258
Nov. 6 From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Information that Chairman of Preparatory Commission does not intend to approach the naval powers in regard to preliminary conversation, but prefers to wait until British Government replies to American note concerning Franco-British naval agreement.
259
Dec. 1 (79) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Opinion of Commission Chairman that to hold another meeting before some kind of agreement is reached between Great Britain and United States would be disastrous.
260
Dec. 6 (118) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Opinion of Secretary General of League that it would be wise from a strategic point of view to call a short session in February with a limited agenda from which an attempt should be made to exclude naval questions.
260
[Page LI]Dec. 10 (81) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Opinion that a meeting at the present time would be harmful; feeling that suggestion of a limited agenda from which naval matters are to be excluded is of questionable value; belief that a meeting should be avoided as it will probably only embitter relations between United States and Great Britain; opinion that decision practically rests with Germany, the only League member now urging a meeting, and Italy.
261
Dec. 15 (107) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Preference for postponement of meeting, but belief that attitude expressed by President Coolidge to the press—that disarmament question is under League and would have to be carried on irrespective of U. S. views, that United States has never indicated desire for postponement, and is always ready to cooperate with Commission—should prevail.
(Instructions to repeat to Ambassador Gibson.)
262
Dec. 17 (123) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Information from Secretary General of League that Great Britain, France, and Germany agreed to advise Commission Chairman to call meeting between the 8th and 15th of April; his desire for unofficial expression by Secretary of opinion as to convenience of these dates.
263
Dec. 17 (109) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to advise Secretary General that U. S. Government is prepared to send delegates at any time.
264
Dec. 28 (693) (L. N. 1253) From the Minister in Switzerland
Receipt of notification from League that next session of Preparatory Commission has been convened for April 15.
264

Rejection by the United States of the Franco-British Compromise Plan for Naval Limitation

Date and number Subject page
1928 July 31 (358) From the British Chargé
Terms of Franco-British compromise plan for naval limitation (text printed), which it is hoped will promote general agreement and thus render fruitful the resumption of discussions in the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference.
264
Aug. 2 To the British Chargé
Request for explanation of certain provisions in the note of July 31.
266
Aug. 2 From President Coolidge (tel.)
Instructions to make no commitments concerning limitation of armaments.
267
Aug. 2 (180) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Transmittal of text of note sent to the British Chargé on August 2, with instructions to discuss with Foreign Secretary the various points covered therein.
267
[Page LII]Aug. 3 To President Coolidge (tel.)
Assurance that Secretary will make no commitments concerning limitation of armaments; explanation that he is simply asking British Government to explain certain provisions in order that proposal may be discussed intelligently with the Navy.
267
Aug. 3 To President Coolidge
Report on extent of action which has been taken thus far in matter; intention to make no reply to the British note until British answer is received and the whole subject has been studied and submitted to the President.
268
Aug. 3 To President Coolidge (tel.)
Information that no commitments have been made, that Department has simply asked for meaning of certain clauses, and that full report has been sent by mail. Intention to make no reply until subject is studied and submitted to the President.
270
Aug. 3 From President Coolidge
Desire that nothing at all be done in relation to British proposals at present, not even inquiry for any explanation of proposals; information that matter can stand in abeyance until the President’s return to Washington.
270
Aug. 3 From the French Chargé
Terms of the Franco-British compromise plan for naval limitation (text printed); hope that U. S. Government may be able to give its approval.
271
Aug. 4 (178) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Conversation with the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs concerning Franco-British compromise plan, in which oral answers were given to the points mentioned in Secretary’s telegram No. 180 of August 2.
272
Aug. 10 (184) From the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that Acting Foreign Secretary gave assurance that press had misinterpreted Franco-British compromise plan as a definite, fixed agreement upon which the two Governments would stand even in opposition to the other members of the Preparatory Commission; his explanation that British Government has only been interested in making progress toward the solution of Preparatory Commission problems.
273
Aug. 10 From the British Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the British Chargé in Washington (tel).
Explanation of the aims of the British and French Governments in reaching their naval limitation proposal; instructions to read this telegram to the Secretary of State at earliest opportunity.
275
Aug. 11 (380) From the British Chargé
Presumption that, as the American Chargé made the same inquiries in London as contained in the Secretary’s note of August 2, the Secretary is already in possession of the requested information.
278
[Page LIII]Aug. 11 (255) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
For Marriner, Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs: Information that President Coolidge desires that neither Secretary of State nor Embassies discuss further the Franco-British naval plan, and that nothing will be done in Washington until the President’s return.
Instructions to send copy to Embassies in Great Britain and Belgium.
(Footnote: Sent also to Embassies in Germany, Italy, and Japan on August 22.)
278
Sept. 12 (201) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Report that atmosphere is clearing in regard to Franco-British naval proposal; summary of present situation, including understanding that Italy has notified the Foreign Office of inacceptability of agreement as it stands; suggestions as to U. S. answer.
278
Sept. 14 (104) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Opinion that the United States would never agree to provision for limiting only cruisers carrying 8-inch guns and leaving unlimited all cruisers carrying less than 8-inch guns; instructions to discuss matter informally with Foreign Office and ascertain Italy’s attitude if possible.
280
Sept. 18 (92) From the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Information from Under Secretary that Italy has not replied to either France or Great Britain regarding naval proposal; his desire to facilitate an exchange of views between the Italian and U. S. Governments.
280
Sept. 22 (105) To the Ambassador in Italy (tel.)
Telegram from Premier Mussolini to the Italian Ambassador (text printed), stating intention to wait before answering Franco-British proposition, and instructing that the matter be discussed with the Secretary of State. Informal statement to the Italian Ambassador of the Secretary’s objections, which will be submitted to the President.
281
Sept. 25 (329) To the Chargé in France (tel.)
Note for Foreign Office (text printed) submitting suggestions concerning provisions of Franco-British naval limitation agreement as summarized in Embassy’s communication of August 3, and advising that unfortunately the agreement appears to fulfill none of the conditions which, to the U. S. Government, seem vital.
(Footnote: Instructions to repeat to London for delivery, mutatis mutandis, to British Foreign Office. Information that the two notes were delivered on September 28.)
282
Sept. 26 (439) From the British Chargé
Notes exchanged between British and French Governments (texts printed) which led up to the Franco-British compromise.
286
Sept. 26 (330) To the Chargé in France (tel.)
Textual changes in U. S. note for French Government, occasioned by receipt from both Governments of texts of the notes exchanged.
(Footnote: Sent also, mutatis mutandis, to the Ambassador in Great Britain.)
291
[Page LIV]

Approval by the Secretary of State of House Joint Resolution Favoring the Abolition of Submarines by All Nations

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Jan. 28 To the Honorable Stephen G. Porter
Suggestion that House resolution concerning submarines (text printed), be amended to express opinion of Congress that submarines be abolished and their construction prohibited by all the nations of the world.
291

Special Commission for the Preparation of a Draft Convention on the Private Manufacture of Arms and Ammunition and of Implements of War, Second and Third Sessions

Date and number Subject Page
1928 July 17 (72) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
League circular of July 15 (text printed) announcing that second session of Special Commission will open at Geneva on August 27 with provisional agenda covering drafting of a single text for draft convention.
292
Aug. 9 (276) To the Minister in Switzerland
Instructions for participation as American representative; draft convention (text printed) intended to serve as a possible basis for agreement acceptable to U. S. Government.
292
Aug. 27 (1) From the American Representative on the Special Commission (tel.)
Inquiry whether the Department draft limits “civil aircraft” to those “manufactured under military specifications suggestion that if full publicity concerning aircraft is made by U. S. Government Departments, United States might safely promise full publicity on “civil aviation” without limitation.
301
Aug. 28 (1) To the American Representative on the Special Commission (tel.)
Instructions to maintain position that only aircraft and engines manufactured under military specifications should be listed in convention—or if necessary to meet views of other Governments, that only aircraft and engines manufactured for the armed forces of the respective countries should be included.
301
Aug. 29 Statement by the American Representative in the Fourth Meeting of the Second Session of the Special Commission
Reservation that U. S. Government has not changed its attitude against incorporation of all aircraft and engines as implements of war, as described under article 1 of the preliminary draft convention.
303
[Undated] Preliminary Draft Convention
With regard to the supervision of the private manufacture and publicity of the manufacture of arms and ammunition and of implements of war, submitted to the League Council by the Special Commission.
303
Sept. 10 (584) (L. N. 1201) From the Minister in Switzerland
Report on second session of Special Commission held August 27 to 30.
311
[Page LV]Oct. 2 (92) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Information that next session of Special Commission will be held on December 5; desire for detailed comment from the Department on stand taken by delegation during last session as reported in despatch No. 584 of September 10.
314
Oct. 4 (90) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to report any developments which may have taken place in direction of ending deadlock and whether there is greater prospect of an agreement at forthcoming session.
314
Oct. 12 (97) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Lack of evidence that situation has altered. Suggestion that, as it is unlikely any tangible results will come from forthcoming meeting, the Department may wish to consider advisability of informing Secretary General that the U. S. Government feels its presence might impede achievement of some form of agreement among other delegations; observation that this course would entail some risk that attempt will be made to blame a failure on part of Commission to U. S. nonparticipation.
315
Oct. 16 (71) To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Request for views concerning next session of Special Commission.
316
Oct. 18 (68) From the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
Opinion that if United States nonparticipation in meeting might be taken as a refusal to cooperate in arms limitation, then the United States should be represented, but that representation should be reduced to a minimum.
317
Nov. 21 (260) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
For Wilson, Minister in Switzerland: Information that two instructions have been sent to Berne, one approving his position at last session, and the other designating the Minister as U. S. delegate to attend third session.
317
Nov. 22 (354) To the Minister in Switzerland
Approval of position at last session; observations and instructions concerning third session.
318
Dec. 7 Declaration by the American Representative in the Second Meeting of the Third Session of the Special Commission
Appeal that in interval until Commission meets again the delegates examine the question of achieving full publicity for both public and private manufacture, on which the Commission has not been able to agree.
321
Dec. 13 (673) From the Minister in Switzerland
Report on third session of Commission held December 5 to 7; revised preliminary draft convention (text printed).
323
Dec. 28 (692) (L. N. 1249) From the Minister in Switzerland
Transmittal of League communication of December 22, requesting the appointment of an expert to discuss the proposal submitted by Belgian delegate with regard to drafting of article 1 of the preliminary draft convention; information that the meeting of experts will be held on March 11, 1929, at Geneva.
333
[Page LVI]

Policy of the Department of State Regarding the Exportation of Military Equipment to Certain Countries

Date and number Subject Page
1927 Oct. 15 From the Acting Secretary of War
Request that a list be furnished of those countries to which there is objection to the export of Liberty aviation engines.
334
1928 Jan. 11 To the Secretary of War
Observations relative to certain countries in Latin America, Europe, and the Far East; desire to be advised of any requests for sale of aviation material or war supplies to any foreign government, because the situation changes from time to time.
334

Convention and Protocol for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, With Supplementary Agreement and Protocol, Signed at Geneva

Date and number Subject Page
1928 July 11 International Convention and Protocol, Together with a Supplementary Agreement and Protocol
For the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions.
(Footnote: Convention and protocol signed at Geneva, November 8, 1927; signed on part of the United States, January 30, 1928. Supplementary agreement and protocol signed July 11, 1928; signed on the part of the United States, July 31, 1928.)
336

Second International Conference for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, Geneva, July 3–19, 1928

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 16 (294) From the Minister in Switzerland
Transmittal of League document containing exceptions claimed by various governments under article 6 of the convention for abolition of import prohibitions and restrictions, including letter of French Government of January 27, 1928 (text printed), stating intention to adopt certain restrictive measures regarding French and foreign films. Minister’s opinion that the number of exceptions should be limited as far as possible.
366
Feb. 29 (317) (L. N. 1079) From the Minister in Switzerland
Opinion that French law of February 18 appears to set up a censorship under which foreign films might be refused visas arbitrarily, for sake of protecting French film industry; suggestion that at July meeting of conference, American representative might state that while this and similar laws do not technically violate the convention, they might open the door to a violation of the spirit of the convention, should the administering authorities so desire.
368
Apr. 13 (393) (L. N. 1117) From the Chargé in Switzerland
League communication of April 11 (text printed), announcing that the Conference will reconvene on July 3 for the purpose of deciding with regard to (1) requests for exceptions under article 6 of the convention, and (2) necessary conditions for putting convention into force.
369
[Page LVII]Apr. 27 (47) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Letter for Secretary General of League (text printed), stating U. S. disappointment at the extensive exceptions requested, and reserving right to offer objections. Instructions to report concerning observations submitted by the various countries.
371
May 25 (57) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Letter for Secretary General of League (text printed) stating that Mr. Hugh Wilson, Minister in Switzerland, will represent the United States at forthcoming Conference.
372
June 5 (57) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Tendency of other states to await results of July conference as applied to French letter of January 27 concerning films; desire for instructions as to a statement of U. S. attitude at July conference.
372
June 15 (237) To the Minister in Switzerland
Instructions with regard to action to be taken at Conference.
373
June 21 (63) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Insistent requests from film interests urging a strong stand.
381
June 27 (64) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Request for explanation of portion of instruction No. 237 of June 15. Information that attitude on film question will provoke liveliest public interest; and communication of certain observations thereon.
381
June 28 (65) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Information that Department favors Minister’s suggestion that he present a speech which would amount to a brief on legality of French action with respect to films under terms of treaty, but will leave question of procedure to his discretion.
382
June 29 (67) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Opinion that if particular exceptions are recognized by Conference in order to bridge over present difficulties, it is important that clause be inserted in procès-verbal to prevent extension of such interpretation of the convention to cases which may arise in the future.
382
July 2 (2) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Summary of speech which American representative suggests he make regarding restrictive measures on films.
383
July 3 (1) To the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Approval of suggested speech; desire that if American representative should make this speech, he follow it up with utmost vigor and consider the proposing of a protocol or declaration for signature by parties to the convention to the effect that the restrictions such as those of France on subject of exhibiting foreign films are considered to be contrary to the intent of the convention, and in fact, in contravention of it.
387
July 3 (3) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Decision of Conference that claims for exception which seem to be covered by other sections of the convention must be thrown out as not admissible to discussion under article 6.
388
[Page LVIII]July 3 (4) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report on action of Conference in rejecting or admitting for discussion various exceptions brought forth; information that the U. S. exception on helium gas was admitted for discussion.
388
July 4 (5) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Advice that Conference has taken definite position that its only task is to discuss matters for which convoked; impossibility, therefore, of bringing film matter to decision; intention, however, to insist upon right to make statement of U. S. viewpoint.
390
July 4 (6) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
List of exceptions now admitted for discussion under article 6; inclusion of U. S. exception regarding helium gas.
390
July 4 (7) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Report of disposition of various exceptions; admission of U. S. reservation on helium under paragraph 2 of article 6.
391
July 5 (8) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that matter of ratification will soon be brought up for discussion; inquiry as to authorization to state that convention and protocol with new annex, if American representative is authorized to sign, will be submitted to Senate at next session.
392
July 5 (9) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Further action on various reservations.
392
July 5 (10) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Further action on various reservations; report that a preliminary discussion of conditions required for entry into force of convention brought up a greater divergence of opinion than hitherto manifested in Conference.
392
July 5 (2) To the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Inability to authorize statement which would bind President to submit a treaty to Senate or in advance to recommend a treaty to him. Instructions, however, to state there is every reason to suppose that convention and protocol signed by American representative and such instruments of present Conference as he may be authorized to sign will be submitted to next session of Senate.
393
July 6 (11) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Drafting committee proposal that ratification must be made by at least 20 states, and that each state notifying ratification before September 30, 1929, may name states from list of 14, including United States, on whose ratification it makes its own ratification dependent; insistence of certain states, notably Germany, that U. S. ratification might be essential prerequisite to their ratification.
393
[Page LIX]July 6 (12) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Information that Conference agreed in principle that convention must be ratified by at least 18 states, including the list of 14 contained in telegram No. 11 of July 6, and that if ratifications have been notified before September 30, 1929, convention will enter into force on January 1, 1930; special clause (text printed) to cover contingency that because of short session of Congress 1928–1929, U. S. ratification may not be obtained before September 30, 1929. Disposition of various reservations. Promise of opportunity to make statement on films.
394
July 7 (3) To the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Instructions to use full influence against proposal outlined for bringing convention into effect. Gratification that a number of exceptions reserved by other countries have been withdrawn.
395
July 7 (13) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Agreement upon special provision permitting United States and Bulgaria to maintain their reservations by signing annex and protocol to general convention on or before September 1. Information that text for first reading will be circulated the following day for probable signature July 11.
396
July 7 (14) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Delivery of film speech and general reservation of rights; agreement of several delegations with French justification of film restrictions on basis of maintaining national culture and traditions.
396
July 8 (15) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Unsuccessful efforts to persuade colleagues that the United States should not be included in the list; doubt that any useful purpose would be served by further insistence.
397
July 8 (4) To the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Advice that the Department is satisfied that the American representative has done all that could be expected and leaves his future course entirely to his judgment.
398
July 11 (19) From the Chief of the American Delegation (tel.)
Signature of the supplementary agreement by all states represented at Conference except United States and Bulgaria.
(Footnote: Signature on behalf of the United States by the American representative, July 31.)
398
[Page LX]

International Convention of the Copyright Union, As Revised and Signed at Rome, June 2, 1928

Date and number Subject Page
1927 Aug. 2 From the Italian Ambassador
Invitation to participate in International Conference on Copyright at Rome in October 1927.
398
1928 Apr. 28 To the Italian Ambassador
Acceptance of invitation to attend the Copyright Conference on May 8, 1928; designation of Mr. Henry P. Fletcher, Ambassador in Italy, Mr. Thorvald Solberg, Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress, and the Honorable Sol Bloom, Member of Congress, as U. S. delegates.
(Footnote: Postponement of the Conference from October 1927.)
399
July 25 (1797) From the Ambassador in Italy
Report of the U. S. delegation to the Copyright Conference, and convention for the protection of literary and artistic works signed at Berne, September 9, 1886, as revised and signed at Berlin, November 13, 1908, and at Rome, June 2, 1928 (texts printed).
(Footnote: Submission of convention to the Senate, February 19, 1934.)
400

Adherence of the United States to the Slavery Convention, Signed at Geneva, September 25, 1926

Date and number Subject Page
1927 May 19 (C. L. 48 (6) 1927, VI) From the Secretary General of the League of Nations
Invitation to adhere to the slavery convention signed at Geneva, September 25, 1926.
417
May 22 To President Coolidge
Recommendation that slavery convention be submitted to Senate for advice and consent to U. S. adherence.
(Footnote: Information that on May 22, 1928, the President submitted to the Senate the slavery convention and Secretary of State’s recommendation.)
417
Slavery Convention Signed at Geneva, September 25, 1926
(Bracketed note: Adherence advised by the Senate, February 25, 1929, with reservation.)
419
[Page LXI]

Ratification by the United States of the Convention Relating to the Liquor Traffic in Africa, Signed at Saint Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919

Date and number Subject Page
1928 May 22 To President Coolidge
Recommendation that convention relating to the liquor traffic in Africa, signed at Saint Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919, be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to U. S. ratification, subject to a reservation in regard to arbitral procedure; draft of a letter from President Coolidge to the Senate for that purpose (text printed).
(Footnote: Sent to the Senate, May 22, 1928.)
426
Convention Signed at Saint Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919
For the restriction of the liquor traffic in the African territories under the administration of the contracting parties.
(Bracketed note: Adherence advised by the Senate on February 28 (legislative day of February 25), 1929, with reservation.)
429

Convention Signed at Saint Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919, Re-vising the General Act of Berlin of 1885 and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels of 1890

Date and number Subject Page
1928 May 22 To President Coolidge
Recommendation that convention signed at Saint Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919, revising the General Act of Berlin of 1885 and the General Act and Declaration of Brussels of 1890, which convention provides for equality of commercial treatment, assures religious freedom, and protection of religious, charitable, and scientific institutions in Africa, be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to U. S. ratification, subject to a reservation in regard to arbitral procedure; draft of a letter from President Coolidge to the Senate for that purpose (text printed).
433
Convention Signed at Saint Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919
Revising the general act of Berlin of 1885 and the general act and declaration of Brussels of 1890.
(Bracketed note: Adherence advised by the Senate on April 3 (legislative day of April 2), 1930, with reservation.)
437
[Page LXII]

Interest of the United States in Efforts of the League of Nations To Control the Traffic in Narcotic Drugs

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Mar. 23 To Senator Reed Smoot
Exposition of policy of the U. S. Government with regard to the control of the traffic in narcotic drugs.
444
Mar. 27 To Four American Insurance Companies
Hope that companies will join the other 72 members of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters in voluntarily including in their policies the so-called “dangerous drug clause” which provides that no losses will be paid on narcotic shipments not covered by import permits from countries to which consigned or by export permits from countries from which exported.
(Footnote: Information that the four replies received indicated no agreement as to a new clause in policies.)
446
Sept. 7 (89) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
League communication of September 5 (text printed) inviting the United States to nominate a person to participate in appointment of the Permanent Central Board provided under the Geneva opium convention and also to take full part in settlement of the procedure for appointment of that board.
448
Sept. 29 (89) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Note for League (text printed) advising of the U. S. Government’s regret that it does not find it possible to participate in the selection of the Permanent Central Board, and setting forth certain criticisms of the Geneva convention.
448
Oct. 18 (627) (L. N. 1223) From the Minister in Switzerland
League communication of October 16 (text printed), inquiring whether the U. S. Government would permit a commission of inquiry into use of opium prepared for smoking to visit Philippine Islands to study system of prohibition in operation there, and stating understanding that commission members will be chosen from nations not directly concerned in problem to be investigated.
449
Dec. 8 (106) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to inform League that commission will be made welcome in the Philippines. Information that the U. S. Government, in view of inability to take part in electing the Permanent Central Board, could not recommend or endorse any American for a board position; instructions to inform League that matter is one in regard to which Department would prefer to express no opinion.
452
Dec. 15 From the Consul at Geneva (tel.)
Appointment by League Council of Mr. Herbert L. May of Pittsburgh as a member of the Central Board.
452
[Page LXIII]Dec. 15 (121) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Memorandum adopted by League Council, December 14 (text printed), stating regret that U. S. Government does not find it possible to accept its invitation to participate in selection of the board, setting forth observations on U. S. criticisms of Geneva opium convention, and expressing hope that U. S. Government will continue to extend the practical collaboration which now exists.
(Footnote: Announcement by Secretary in telegram No. 111 of December 29, to the Minister in Switzerland, that Mr. John K. Caldwell, Consul General assigned to the Department, would “attend unofficially” the 12th session of the Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs at Geneva, beginning January 17, 1929.)
452

Participation of the United States in the International Telegraph Conference at Brussels, September 10–22, 1928

Date and number Subject Page
1928 July 31 (74) To the Minister in Sweden
Instructions to proceed to Brussels to act as chairman of the American delegation at the International Telegraph Conference to open September 10, 1928, for the purpose of considering question of code language and rates charged in connection therewith.
455
Aug. 23 To American Diplomatic Officers in Mexico and Central and South America (cir. tel.)
Information that the American delegation is being instructed to endeavor to maintain status quo as regards method of counting words and rates; instructions to ascertain if government to which accredited will have representatives at Conference and if so, to endeavor to have similar instructions issued to them.
457
Sept. 10 (61) To the Ambassador in Belgium (tel.)
For Harrison: Summary of information as to intentions of Latin American countries with regard to the Brussels Conference.
458
Undated [Rec’d Sept. 24] (7) From the American Delegation (tel.)
Signature of protocol containing amendments to international telegraph convention regulations, effective October 1929; information that amended regulations will not increase cost of telegraphic communication.
458
[Page LXIV]

Proposed Disposition of Property Held by the Alien Property Custodian

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Jan. 4 (4/70) From the Austrian Minister
Request that bill dealing with return of sequestrated Austrian property include a clause reserving to Austrian owners of patents, copyrights, etc., the same rights which Congress is willing to grant to German citizens; opinion that question of determining claims of Austrian citizens should not interfere with passage of a bill for return of property; desire that Austrian views be brought to attention of Congress.
(Footnote: Transmitted, January 9, 1928, to the House Committee on Ways and Means.)
459
Jan. 17 From the Swiss Minister
Information that pending bill provides in effect that neutral corporations, in order to recover property still held by Alien Property Custodian, shall be obliged to file a consent that 20 percent of their property may be retained by the United States; request that appropriate steps be taken to assure complete release of Swiss properties.
461
Jan. 23 To the Swiss Minister
Information of the transmittal to Senate Finance Committee of Minister’s note of January 17 concerning H. R. 7201.
(Footnote: Enactment of H. R. 7201 on March 10, 1928.)
463
Jan. 23 (5) From the Danish Minister
Request that full and unqualified compensation be provided for seized German merchant vessels belonging to residents of North Slesvig, now Danish citizens; desire that request be communicated to Senate Committee.
463
Jan. 24 To Senator Reed Smoot
Transmittal, for information of Senate Finance Committee, of Secretary’s statement of December 10, 1927, to the House Committee on Ways and Means with relation to return of Austrian and Hungarian property.
464
Jan. 28 To the French Ambassador
Information from Alien Property Custodian that claims of Alsace-Lorrainese for release of sequestrated property will not be affected by pending legislation, except that proof of pre-war ownership will not be required; observation that unless reciprocity is accorded by France to American citizens, the property cannot be returned under proposed act. Suggestion that data regarding Alsace-Lorrainese claims be supplied.
465
Feb. 13 (14) From the Danish Minister
Opinion that amendment recently adopted by Senate Committee granting limited and conditional compensation to owners of two specified vessels does not seem to accord the full and unqualified compensation to which the Danish owners seem entitled; suggestion that Committee be so advised in order that amendment may be worded to cover all Danish claims of this order and to provide full and unconditional compensation.
466
[Page LXV]Apr. 19 (719/70) From the Austrian Minister
Observation that section 10 (d) of War Claims Settlement Act of 1928, providing that all property will be held to be owned by German Government if no claim has been filed with Alien Property Custodian within a year, is likely to deprive rightful Austrian owners of their property; desire for interpretation of other doubtful points; request that Alien Property Custodian be asked to furnish list of all unclaimed property recorded as Austrian-owned.
467
Apr. 24 (340/R) From the Hungarian Minister
Belief that section 10 (d) discriminates in favor of German Government as against Hungary; observation that procedure relating to deposit of unclaimed property in German account would appear to be injurious to Hungary; request for correct interpretation of section 10 (d).
469
May 9 To the Austrian Minister
Opinion of Alien Property Custodian that section 25 of the Trading With the Enemy Act as amended by section 10 (d) refers to German-owned property and does not relate to Austrian property, and that Austrian-owned property may be credited when the citizenship of the person is not stated or known; answers to other questions; inability of Alien Property Custodian to furnish list of Austrian owners at present but his willingness to cooperate in due course.
471
May 11 (881/70) From the Austrian Minister
Understanding that statement regarding crediting of Austrian-owned property means that unclaimed Austrian-owned property may be credited to the Austrian special deposit account; desire to be advised as to the correctness of this interpretation.
472
May 12 (104/R) From the Austrian Minister
Request for a statement by the competent authorities as to what conditions they would consider appropriate to issue the certificate provided for by War Claims Settlement Act in matter of release of Austrian property; opinion that sequestrated Austrian Government funds are sufficient to cover maximum possible awards against Austria.
473
May 23 From the Alien Property Custodian
Advice that there is no law authorizing transfer of unclaimed property of Austrian citizens to Austrian Government account, and that only Austrian property or that of a corporation wholly owned by Austrian Government may be transferred to that account.
(Footnote: Transmittal to the Austrian Minister on June 15.)
474
June 1 To the Hungarian Chargé
Information that where Alien Property Custodian holds property to the credit of a citizen of Hungary, and the records of that office so disclose his citizenship, such property would not be credited to the German Government.
474
[Page LXVI]June 16 To the British Embassy
Suggestion that the British Government may desire to instruct the Public Trustee to discontinue actions in Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to recover certain ex-enemy securities turned over by him pursuant to an agreement reached in October 1921 after conferences between representative of the Public Trustee and the Alien Property Custodian. Observation that the action of Public Trustee is in repudiation of an arrangement entered into in good faith and scrupulously observed by Alien Property Custodian.
475
June 22 To the Austrian Minister
Statement by Commissioner of the Tripartite Claims Commission of June 5 (text printed) explaining impossibility of granting certification without accurate knowledge of maximum of judgments which can be rendered against Austria, advising that plans have been made to facilitate matters by affording opportunity for agents of the respective governments to explain to Commission progress in each case; information that Hungarian cases will be dealt with separately.
483
June 26 (492/R) From the Hungarian Chargé
Inquiry as to time limit for filing claims for return of property of Hungarian nationals, disposition of unclaimed property of Hungarian nationals, and amounts of Hungarian property held by Alien Property Custodian.
484
Aug. 3 To the Hungarian Chargé
Information from Alien Property Custodian that property held to credit of Hungarian citizens will not be credited to German Government, that there is no time limit for filing a claim, and that he will be glad to furnish list of persons for whom his office holds assets when release of Hungarian property is begun, but that at present he does not have a sufficient force to do so.
485
Aug. 21 To the First Secretary of Embassy in France
Transmittal to First Secretary, as acting American observer on the Reparation Commission, of queries from War Claims Arbiter for information to assist in determining the value of seized German shipping.
485
Sept. 7 From the Chargé in France
Replies to queries of War Claims Arbiter as secured from Reparation Commission’s records and after consultation with the competent officials.
486
Oct. 6 (1900/70) From the Austrian Minister
Request that all sequestrated property of the Austrian Government, including trust held by the Austrian Tobacco Monopoly, be transferred to the Austrian special deposit account.
487
Oct. 6 (643) From the Chargé in Rumania
Desire of Ministry of Finance that steps be taken to hasten release of assets of the Austro-Hungarian Bank seized by Alien Property Custodian, in order that the portion of these assets assigned to Rumania might be available to it as soon as possible.
488
[Page LXVII]Oct. 15 From the Alien Property Custodian
Information that the necessary procedure has been ordered to comply with Austrian Minister’s request for transfer of funds belonging to the Austrian Government.
489
Oct. 30 From the British Embassy
Inability to concur in U. S. construction that the 1921 negotiations resulted in an agreement between the two Governments or in U. S. suggestion that the Public Trustee is endeavoring to repudiate an arrangement entered into in good faith and scrupulously observed by the Alien Property Custodian. Assurance that the suit is merely an attempt to obtain a definite interpretation of the legal position in regard to court decisions subsequent to the negotiations mentioned. Regret that the British Government do not see their way clear to instruct Public Trustee to discontinue the court actions.
489

Proposals to European Countries for Agreements and Treaties Regarding Naturalization, Dual Nationality, and Military Service

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Mar. 1 To the Honorable Stephen G. Porter
Comments, as requested by the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, regarding H. J. Res. 195, introduced February 7 (text printed), which requests the negotiation of agreements and treaties with other nations to protect persons born in the United States of foreign parentage and naturalized citizens from liability for military service and other acts of allegiance upon temporary sojourn in such nations.
494
Dec. 1 (167) To the Ambassador in Belgium
Joint resolution as approved by the President on May 28, 1928 (text printed); instructions to propose the conclusion of a convention regarding military service to protect persons having dual nationality, the case of naturalized citizens already having been covered in the existing naturalization treaty; instructions to ascertain willingness to consider adoption of agreement for termination of dual nationality arising at birth, upon attainment by the persons concerned of a prescribed age.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date, to missions in Bulgaria, Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden.)
497
Dec. 1 (2993) To the Ambassador in France
Desirability of including in draft treaty of naturalization, now under consideration between the two Governments, a provision concerning military service with regard to persons having dual nationality; instructions to inquire whether whole question of termination of dual nationality by adoption of an agreement might not be considered.
(Similar instructions on the same day to missions in Greece, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Yugoslavia.)
499
[Page LXVIII]Dec. 1 (583) To the Chargé in Estonia
Instructions to submit to government to which accredited draft treaty concerning naturalization and military service (text printed); instructions to inquire whether whole question of termination of dual nationality by adoption of an agreement might not be considered.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, to missions in Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Rumania.)
500

Second International Conference on Emigration and Immigration, Held at Habana, March 31–April 17, 1928

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Mar. 23 To the American Delegation
Instructions to make clear the U. S. Government’s position that control of immigration is a matter of purely domestic concern, and to take no action inconsistent with this attitude or in any way committing the U. S. Government.
505
Aug. 24 From the Cuban Chargé
Transmittal of certified copy of Final Act of the Conference with request that the U. S. Government adhere to resolution to hold next conference at Madrid.
507
Aug. 25 From the American Delegation
Report of the Habana Conference.
508
Sept. 14 To the Cuban Chargé
Opinion that no useful purpose is served by such conferences other than exchange of technical information which can be achieved by direct correspondence; U. S. inability to adhere to resolution or to participate in a third conference.
526

Sixth International Conference of American States, Held at Habana, January 16 to February 20, 1928

preliminaries

Date and number Subject Page
1926 Dec. 17 From the Cuban Chargé
Invitation to be represented at the Sixth International Conference of American States, to open at Habana on January 16, 1928.
527
1927 Jan. 6 To the Cuban Chargé
Acceptance of invitation.
528
Nov. 8 (85) To the Chargé in Cuba (tel.)
Instructions to inquire of Foreign Minister as to correctness of press report (text printed) that League of Nations has been invited to send a member of Secretariat to follow proceedings of the Conference, and if answer is in the affirmative, to state the U. S. view that no non-American nation or entity should attend Pan American conferences and the U. S. hope that Cuban Government will concur.
529
[Page LXIX]Nov. 9 (108) From the Chargé in Cuba (tel.)
Information that Foreign Minister sent for Chargé and, referring to telegram from Cuban Ambassador in Washington, advised that the Cuban Government not only did not invite a League of Nations representative, but refused Secretary General’s request for invitation, as well as a request from Spanish Government.
530
Nov. 9 (2352) From the Chargé in Cuba
Report of the conversation with the Foreign Minister; information that in view of the voluntary information on Foreign Minister’s part, the Chargé made no mention of Department’s telegram No. 85 of November 8.
531
Nov. 10 (87) To the Chargé in Cuba (tel.)
Geneva press report (text printed) stating that the League Secretariat probably will participate in work of preliminary organization for the Conference, that Señor Cristobal Rodriguez, member of the Secretariat, is being sent to Habana, and that probably one or more League interpreters may go. Instructions to inquire immediately and report definitely regarding measures taken by Cuba with the League.
532
Nov. 11 (109) From the Chargé in Cuba (tel.)
Information from Foreign Minister that the League was consulted concerning strictly mechanical preparations for the Conference; that Rodriguez was anxious to come to Cuba to assist, Cuba has refused to allow him to come in any but a purely personal capacity; that owing to lack of competent interpreters in Cuba the League was asked whether some of its interpreters could be obtained as individuals to serve; and that no League official had been invited to come to Cuba in any capacity whatsoever.
533
1928 Jan. 5 To the American Delegation
Instructions as to conduct at Habana Conference.
534

Conventions

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 20 Convention Regarding Commercial Aviation 585
Feb. 20 Convention Regarding the Status of Aliens 596
Feb. 20 Convention Regarding Consular Agents 598
Feb. 20 Convention Regarding Maritime Neutrality 604
Feb. 20 Convention Regarding the Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife 612
Feb. 20 Convention Regarding the Pan American Union 615
[Page LXX]

International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration, Held at Washington, December 10, 1928, to January 5, 1929; Preliminary Arrangements

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Apr. 14 (1364) To the Ambassador in Brazil
Instructions to inform Brazilian Government that, in accordance with resolution of February 18, 1928, by the Pan American Conference at Habana, the U. S. Government suggests that a conference be held in Washington, December 10, 1928, for the purpose of drawing up a convention of arbitration and conciliation, and that each country send two delegates; also to inquire if these suggestions are acceptable. Desire for information with regard to attitude of Brazilian Government on question of arbitration and conciliation; information that as Brazil has ratified the Gondra Treaty regarding conciliation it would appear that that subject has been properly taken care of.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date, to missions in Chile, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela.)
621
Apr. 14 (71) To the Ambassador in Argentina
Instructions similar to those to Ambassador in Brazil, except for instructions to state informally the U. S. hope that the Argentine Government will ratify the Gondra Treaty and deposit ratifications at Santiago, Chile, before the Conference.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to missions in Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Salvador. A similar instruction was sent to the mission in Ecuador on May 9, 1928.)
623
Apr. 30 (219) From the Chargé in Cuba
Acceptability to Cuba of the Department’s suggestions. Information that Secretary of State is favorable in principle to arbitration provided local laws are adequately safeguarded.
623
May 5 (594) From the Minister in Honduras
Acceptability to Honduras of Department’s suggestions. Information that Honduras will be unable to ratify Gondra Treaty before Conference because National Congress will not convene again before January 1, 1929.
625
May 8 (1700) From the Minister in Panama
Information that Panaman ratification of Gondra Treaty has already been sent to Santiago. Opinion that there is no doubt of Panama’s readiness to adhere to proposed convention.
625
May 10 (620) From the Chargé in Uruguay
Favorable attitude of Uruguay toward principle of arbitration; expectation of an early answer to note presented in accordance with Department’s instruction of April 14.
626
May 11 (885) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Informal opinion of Foreign Minister that suggestions for Conference will be acceptable; his endorsement of arbitration and conciliation; his observation that ratification of Gondra Treaty might opportunely precede the conference. Expectation of early advice as to Government’s attitude.
626
[Page LXXI]May 14 (955) From the Chargé in Peru
Information that Department’s suggestions are now being considered and that Gondra Treaty will probably be submitted to Congress when it assembles in July. Inability to obtain more than an impression of Peruvian attitude on question of arbitration and conciliation.
627
May 16 (1013) From the Chargé in Haiti
Haitian President’s acceptance of suggestions for Conference and his favorable attitude toward arbitration of juridical questions and questions involving national honor.
630
May 17 (550) From the Minister in Paraguay
Agreement of Paraguayan Government with suggestions for Conference; its belief that all potential causes of war should be obligatory of arbitration.
630
May 24 (679) From the Minister in Nicaragua
Acceptability to Nicaraguan Government of suggestions for Conference; probability that no action can be taken in matter of ratification of Gondra Treaty until Congress convenes December 15. Inability to learn Nicaraguan Government’s attitude on question of arbitration and conciliation.
631
May 24 (616) From the Minister in Honduras
Information from Foreign Minister that Honduran Government is in favor of arbitration of international differences.
632
May 24 (1946) From the Minister in Guatemala
Acceptance by Guatemala of suggestions for Conference. Probability that ratification of Gondra Treaty will be sent to Chilean Government by the end of the month. Advice that Foreign Minister expressed no specific ideas regarding proposed convention of arbitration.
632
May 29 (1399) From the Ambassador in Chile
Information that in discussion with Foreign Minister regarding probable action of Chilean delegates at December conference, the Minister said that in determining reservations that it would have to make as to arbitration, Chilean Government was influenced by the Tacna-Arica question.
633
June 4 (915) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Intention of Foreign Minister to press for ratification of Gondra Treaty as soon as the boundary negotiations with Haiti reach a successful conclusion; his verbal assurance that Department’s suggestions for Conference are acceptable and that formal notification will be sent.
634
June 8 (1190) From the Minister in Salvador
Informal information from Salvadoran President that he will submit Gondra Treaty to National Assembly for ratification, that he approves Habana resolution in favor of obligatory arbitration for juridical differences, and that he sympathizes with Department’s efforts toward international conciliation.
635
[Page LXXII]June 8 (153) From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.)
Nonobjection of Mexican Government to December conference; acceptability of suggestion as to two delegates; information that matter of obligatory arbitration of juridical questions is being studied, but that Acting Foreign Minister indicated little confidence in its efficacy in disputes between Mexico and a more powerful country.
635
June 14 (26) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Information that Gondra Treaty will be ratified by the Congress convening August 6; acceptability to Bolivia of suggestions for Conference, and reiteration of its adherence to principles of arbitration and conciliation.
636
June 14 (920) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Receipt of formal notification that Dominican Government agrees completely with suggestions for Conference.
637
June 19 To the Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions in Latin America (cir. tel.)
Instructions to deliver formal invitation to attend Conference at Washington on December 10, 1928 (text printed).
637
June 27 (325) From the Ambassador in Argentina
Advice that while Foreign Minister stated he would renew attempts to obtain ratification of Gondra Treaty, and that Argentine Government has always approved arbitration, he is not sanguine of obtaining ratification; receipt of information as to acceptability of date of Conference and names of Argentine delegates.
638
July 3 From the Minister in Costa Rica, Temporarily in Washington
Readiness of Costa Rican Government to cooperate in Conference; and probability that it will give favorable consideration to conciliation and arbitration proposals, provided that questions previously submitted to arbitration cannot be made subject of arbitration under any general treaty of arbitration. Observation that reservation was made because boundary controversy with Panama, decided in favor of Costa Rica, has not been accepted as settled by Panama.
639
July 7 (3029) From the Ambassador in Brazil
Acceptance by Brazil of invitation to attend December conference; personal note from Foreign Minister, July 2 (excerpt printed), stating that Brazil is bound by its constitution to resort to arbitration and is therefore able to adopt the most complete proposals for arbitration which may be brought up.
640
July 9 (1640) From the Chargé in Venezuela
Transmittal of official acceptance by Venezuela of invitation to attend December conference; information that Foreign Minister stated his firm belief in arbitration and conciliation.
641
July 12 (593) To the Minister in Ecuador
Instructions that, in view of Department’s circular telegram of June 19 directing the extension of invitation to Ecuadoran Government, all invitations received by Legation under circular instructions subsequent to that date may be delivered.
(Footnote: Extension of de jure recognition to the regime of Dr. Ayora on August 14, 1928.)
642
[Page LXXIII]Sept. 29 (1415) From the Chargé in Colombia
Impression that, although Colombian Government will be officially represented at Conference and Foreign Minister feels chances of obtaining ratification of Gondra Treaty are good, there is at present little interest in forthcoming Conference and little faith in conventions of arbitration and conciliation.
642
Oct. 13 (114) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Note from Chilean Government (excerpt printed), accepting invitation to Conference, notifying names of delegates, and declaring that Chile has always vigorously supported progress of arbitration in America.
643
Oct. 19 (32) From the Minister in Uruguay (tel.)
Information from Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that attitude of Uruguayan Government relative to arbitration of juridical questions will be the same as at the Rio de Janeiro Conference.
643

Establishment of Permanent Commissions Under Treaty To Avoid or Prevent Conflicts Between the American States, Signed May 3, 1923 (Gondra Treaty)

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Mar. 2 To the Colombian Minister
Invitation to meet with the two other senior American diplomatic agents in Washington to organize the Permanent Commission having its seat at Washington as provided for in the Gondra Treaty; understanding that Uruguayan Foreign Minister is similarly inviting the three senior American diplomatic agents in Montevideo to organize the other Commission.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the Panaman and Uruguayan Ministers.)
644
Mar. 26 To the Colombian Minister
Invitation, in view of affirmative replies to invitations of March 2, to meet in the Acting Secretary of State’s office on March 29, for the purpose of organizing the Permanent Commission at Washington; information that like notes are being addressed to the Uruguayan Minister and the Panaman Chargé.
645
Undated Report of a Meeting Between the Minister of Uruguay, the Minister of Colombia, and the Chargé d’Affaires ad Interim of Panama on March 29, 1928
Appointment by Commission of the Uruguayan Minister as Chairman; decision that Chairman shall notify State Department of any changes in personnel caused by termination of the mission of one of the members.
645
Dec. 7 (824) From the Uruguayan Minister
Establishment at Montevideo of the Permanent Commission, composed of the Mexican, Peruvian, and Chilean Ministers, and headed by the Mexican Minister as Chairman.
646
Dec. 22 To the Uruguayan Minister
Acknowledgment of note of December 7.
646
[Page LXXIV]

Good Offices of the United States in the Reestablishment of Diplomatic Relations Between Chile and Peru

Date and number Subject Page
1928 July 9 To President Coolidge
Receipt of assurances from Chilean and Peruvian Governments, in response to inquiry, that they will renew diplomatic relations and exchange Ministers; information that if the U. S. Government can induce them to exchange Ministers, the Secretary will take up again the question of settlement of Tacna-Arica dispute.
647
July 9 (44) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Note for Foreign Minister (text printed) suggesting that Chile signify its readiness to reestablish diplomatic relations with Peru and stating that a similar inquiry is being made of Peruvian Foreign Minister. Instructions to stress importance of an unconditional and friendly acceptance which will avoid any references to Tacna-Arica question or other controversial matters.
648
July 9 (52) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Transmittal of note for Foreign Minister and instructions similar in context to those in telegram to the Ambassador in Chile.
649
July 11 From the Chilean Minister for Foreign Affairs
Full acceptance of U. S. suggestion.
650
July 12 (73) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Note from Foreign Minister, July 11 (text printed), stating Peru’s disposition to reestablish diplomatic relations with Chile.
651
July 13 (47) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to present the Secretary’s compliments to the President and Foreign Minister and to express his gratification.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date, to the Ambassador in Peru.)
652
July 13 (58) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that the Secretary advised the Chilean and Peruvian Ambassadors that while he would be glad to assist in making arrangements regarding requests for agreements, he believed they would probably be able to arrange this matter themselves; intention of Ambassadors to suggest that representatives be given rank of Ambassador.
(Repeated to Chile.)
652
July 16 (59) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Desire of Chilean Government to learn whether Peruvian Government will agree to appointment of Ambassadors or only Ministers; instructions to use informal good offices to expedite reply.
653
July 17 (77) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Nonobjection of Peruvian President to appointment of Ambassadors.
653
July 21 (62) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Readiness of Chilean Government to send message to Congress on July 28 regarding reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Peru and to sign a decree the same day naming its Ambassador; instructions to bring this matter to attention of the proper authorities.
653
[Page LXXV]July 23 (82) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that President Leguia said he saw no reason why Chile should not go ahead with procedure mentioned in Department’s telegram No. 62 of July 21.
654
July 24 (64) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to confirm as soon as possible whether President Leguia agrees to take the same action as Chilean Government on July 28, so that Chilean Government can take the proposed action the same day.
654
July 24 (83) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information from President Leguia that under the Constitution his message to Congress at inaugural session is limited to report on past activities and cannot initiate legislation, that Congress is also unable to enact legislation at that session, that he cannot name an Ambassador without approval of Senate, and that he will communicate to Congress immediately after close of the national holidays on July 31.
655
July 25 (65) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Receipt by Peruvian Ambassador of telegram stating that President Leguia will send message to Congress on July 28 for establishment of an Embassy in Santiago; agreement of Peruvian and Chilean Ambassadors that simultaneous action will be taken by their Congresses on July 28.
655
July 26 (84) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that project for establishing an Embassy in Santiago will be submitted to Congress on July 28, that Congress will act upon it after July 31, and that the President cannot name an Ambassador until the position has been legally created.
656
Aug. 1 (84) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Appointment of Emiliano Figueroa Larrain as Ambassador to Peru.
656
Aug. 7 From the Peruvian Ambassador
Approval by Peruvian Congress of bill to create an Embassy in Chile.
656
Aug. 23 (97) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Foreign Minister’s request for U. S. good offices for the formal agrément from Chilean Government for Cesar A. Elguera as Ambassador to Chile.
657
Aug. 25 (69) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information from Chilean Ambassador that his Government is happy to accord agrément for Señor Elguera.
657
Oct. 8 (108) From the Chargé in Peru
Remarks of Chilean Ambassador on occasion of the presentation of his letters of credence on October 3, and reply of President Leguia (texts printed).
657
Oct. 8 (26) From the Ambassador in Chile
Remarks of Peruvian Ambassador on occasion of the presentation of his letters of credence on October 5, and reply of President Ibanez (texts printed).
659
[Page LXXVI]

Tacna-Arica Dispute: Beginning of Direct Negotiations Between Chile and Peru at the Suggestion of the United States

Date and number Subject Page
1928 June 18 (60) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Opinion that time is now propitious for negotiations looking to settlement of Tacna-Arica boundary dispute between Chile and Peru.
660
Sept. 26 (75) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Belief that time is now propitious to inaugurate conversations looking to settlement of the Tacna-Arica question; instructions to try to ascertain from President Leguia how far he would be willing to go in the settlement of the matter.
661
Oct. 2 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State
Conversation, October 1, between the Secretary and the Chilean Ambassador, in which the latter agreed with suggestion that work of Tacna-Arica Boundary Commission be suspended while the Peruvian and Chilean Governments attempt by direct negotiations to reach a settlement.
662
Oct. 2 (77) To the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to suggest to President Leguia that Boundary Commission suspend operations for a period of 4 months.
663
Oct. 3 (115) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Acceptance by President Leguia of suggestion for suspension of Commission; his comment that the suspension will be regarded as a diplomatic victory by Chile.
664
Oct. 5 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State
Conversation, October 4, in which the Chilean Ambassador advised of his Government’s agreement to suspension of Commission, and agreed to procedure suggested for such suspension.
664
Oct. 5 (79) To the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to express to President Leguia the Secretary’s appreciation for his action regarding suspension, and to inform him of the Secretary’s inability to see why the postponement can be considered a diplomatic victory for either side, when it is merely a common-sense arrangement for promoting a settlement.
665
Oct. 8 (117) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
President Leguia’s surprise that Chilean Ambassador has not yet requested an audience to discuss Tacna-Arica question, and his intention, if Ambassador does not do so soon, to take the initiative.
665
Oct. 8 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State
Conversation in which the Bolivian Minister expressed to the Secretary the concern of his Government that Chile and Peru might reach a settlement without participation of the United States and might at the same time conclude economic arrangements which would be very unfavorable,
666
[Page LXXVII]Oct. 27 (121) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Information from President Leguia concerning progress of his negotiations with Chilean Ambassador, in which the former stated that justice demanded return of the entire disputed territory to Peru, the Chilean Ambassador proposed a division, and President Leguia offered the further suggestion that the entire territory be placed under U. S. administration, but stated he would not accept Bolivian administration. Pessimistic attitude of Chilean Ambassador.
668
Oct. 29 (80) To the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Instructions to advise President Leguia that the United States cannot assume any obligation to govern the territory either alone or jointly with another neutral country. Confidential opinion that division of the territory, with city of Arica being made a free port, would be a reasonable adjustment.
(Instructions to repeat telegram No. 121 of October 27 and this telegram to the American Embassy in Chile.)
669
Nov. 1 (123) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Information that on October 28 the Chilean Ambassador advised President Leguia of inacceptability of proposal for U. S. administration of the territory; the Chilean Ambassador’s proposal for division of territory, with port of Arica to be administered by Chile; inability of President Leguia to accept this proposal.
670
Nov. 12 (126) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Declaration by Foreign Minister that nobody in Chile would accept agreement to give up city of Arica; willingness to give full commercial privileges to Peru in city of Arica; comment of Foreign Minister that he fears war if the Tacna-Arica question is not settled.
671

Boundary Disputes

bolivia and paraguay

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 4 (333) To the Chargé in Bolivia
Information that U. S. Government does not wish at the present time, while the Tacna-Arica controversy is still pending, to be placed in the position of undertaking to settle boundary dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay, either by arbitration or other procedure; instructions to keep this attitude in mind and be guided accordingly, since it is possible that the President or Foreign Minister may mention the matter.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the Minister in Paraguay.)
672
Feb. 6 (412) To the Ambassador in Peru
Instructions in the sense of despatch No. 333 of February 4 to the Chargé in Bolivia, in view of President Leguia’s suggestion to Bolivia and Paraguay that they seek U. S. assistance.
672
[Page LXXVIII]May 28 (285) From the Ambassador in Argentina
Resumption by Paraguayan and Bolivian Boundary Commissions of negotiations in Buenos Aires which were suspended in December 1927; information that divergences of opinion have arisen but that active negotiations are still in progress.
673
July 19 (339) From the Ambassador in Argentina
Suspension of Bolivian-Paraguayan negotiations in Buenos Aires on July 12, in view of inability to reach any definite agreement; statement issued on July 12 by the Bolivian and Paraguayan plenipotentiaries (text printed); Argentine proposals of December 1927 for settlement of the boundary question (text printed).
674
Sept. 10 (41) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Bolivian request that Department endeavor to obtain adhesion of Paraguay to the multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war, as such action would facilitate settlement of boundary question.
678
Oct. 12[11?] (46) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Signature by Bolivia of the multilateral treaty. Information from the President and Acting Foreign Minister that Paraguay has violated the mutual understanding by constructing three forts in the disputed territory; and their request that the Department be notified in order that it may use its good influence with Paraguayan Minister in the hope of stopping construction; Minister’s reply that he would convey message to the Department.
678
Oct. 12 (24) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Approval of reply to Bolivian officials; instructions to take no further action without definite authorization.
679
Oct. 12 (9) To the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Information from Bolivian Legation that Paraguayan troops are building fortresses near Bolivian fortresses; instructions to report any information without discussing matter with officials.
679
Oct. 16 (15) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Advice that information in Department’s telegram No. 9 of October 12 is exaggerated, that so-called fortresses are only small observation outposts, and that all Paraguayan fortifications are in indisputable territory of Paraguay.
679
Dec. 6 (25) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Commencement of hostilities between Bolivian and Paraguayan soldiers near Paraguayan Fort Galpón, near which Bolivia has been constructing a fort. Desire of Paraguay that Washington invoke convocation of the Commission of Inquiry provided for in Gondra Treaty, and that Commission at Montevideo assume charge.
680
Dec. 7 (13) To the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Inability to invoke convocation of Commission of Inquiry because United States is not a party in the dispute; necessity for Paraguay, if it cares to do so, to take such action.
680
[Page LXXIX]Dec. 7 (26) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Information that Paraguayan official is en route to Montevideo to request officially that Uruguayan Government convoke Commission of Inquiry under Gondra Treaty; official Paraguayan note to Bolivia notifying of such action (excerpt printed); report of casualties resulting from conflict.
681
Dec. 8 (27) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Advice that Bolivia answered Paraguayan request for convocation of Gondra Commission by giving Paraguayan Minister at La Paz his passport, and that Paraguay will give Bolivian Minister his passport the next day.
681
Dec. 9 From President Guggiari to President Coolidge (tel.)
Notification that in reply to his Government’s request for convocation of Gondra Commission, the Bolivian Government delivered passport to the Paraguayan Chargé at La Paz.
682
Dec. 9 (31) To the Chargé in Bolivia (tel.)
Concern over Bolivian-Paraguayan situation; Department’s hesitation to make suggestion, since Argentine Government has been mediating question for many months. Instructions to advise of Bolivia’s attitude in regard to Paraguayan request for convocation of Gondra Commission.
682
Dec. 9 (62) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Transmittal of copy of telegram No. 31 of December 9 to Bolivia; instructions to telegraph views as to whether any suggestion from U. S. Government to Bolivian Government that it accept constitution of Gondra Commission would be misunderstood in Argentina, and to advise what action, if any, Argentine Government contemplates.
682
Dec. 9 (28) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Belief that U. S. Government should counsel Bolivia to accept provisions of the Gondra Treaty.
683
Dec. 10 (56) From the Chargé in Bolivia (tel.)
Bolivian attitude that investigation by Gondra Commission would be incompatible with the dignity of Bolivia in view of the unprovoked aggression by Paraguay; that question is under the Gutierrez-Diaz Leon protocol; and that conciliation will be refused which does not include prior and full reparation to Bolivian sovereignty and dignity.
683
Dec. 10 (93) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Impression that the Argentine President would not desire the U. S. Government to advise either party to accept his offer to act as friendly adviser in solution of problem; suggestion that any U. S. action be along lines of urging both Governments to find a way of settling their differences amicably.
684
Dec. 10 (64) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Passage by Conference of Conciliation and Arbitration at inaugural session in Washington of a resolution regarding Bolivian-Paraguayan difficulty; importance of being advised what action, if any, is being taken by Argentina.
684
[Page LXXX]Dec. 10 From the Chairman of the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration to the Bolivian Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (tel.)
Resolution expressing hope that Bolivia and Paraguay will settle their present differences pacifically, and providing for committee to report to Conference with respect to conciliatory action to cooperate with the instrumentalities now employed in the friendly solution of the problem (text printed).
(Sent also, on the same date, to the Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs.)
685
Dec. 11 (65) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Nonintention of U. S. Government to take any independent action; advice that the only action taken has been the forwarding by Conference of the resolution of December 10, which the Secretary of State signed as Chairman of the Conference.
685
Dec. 11 (119) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Adoption by League of Nations Council of resolution directing dispatch to Paraguayan and Bolivian Governments of identical notes recalling their obligations under the Covenant to settle their differences by pacific means; observation that the Council endeavored to frame the message to avoid any contravention of the Monroe Doctrine or conflict with possible action on the part of the United States.
686
Dec. 11 From the Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration (tel.)
Acknowledgment of message of December 10, stating that Paraguay is and has always been disposed to submit the settlement of her difficulties to legal means.
686
Dec. 11 From the Bolivian President and the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration (tel.)
Acknowledgment of message of December 10, stating that Bolivia requires satisfaction for Paraguayan aggression, and that there exist commitments between Bolivia and Paraguay to accept an arbitration at law from which Bolivia will not deviate.
687
Dec. 11 (29) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Opinion of the diplomatic corps that only the U. S. Government could cause Bolivia to recognize its treaty obligations.
688
Dec. 12 (30) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Feeling of Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs that war is imminent unless the United States acts to prevent it.
688
Dec. 12 To President Guggiari (tel.)
Expression of hope that difficulty between Paraguay and Bolivia will soon be settled to the satisfaction of both parties.
689
Dec. 12 (33) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Instructions to advise immediately what measures are being taken to bring about a settlement, and whether the Argentine Government has taken any action to compose the present difficulty.
689
[Page LXXXI]Dec. 12 (66) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Inquiry whether Argentina is exerting her good offices or is mediating in this question.
689
Dec. 12 (14) To the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Information that because Gondra Treaty has not been ratified by Bolivia and hence is not in effect between that country and Paraguay, nor is the Kellogg Pact in force, neither treaty can be invoked. Instructions to advise immediately what measures are being taken to bring about a settlement, and whether the Argentine Government has taken any action to compose the present difficulty.
690
Dec. 12 (95) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Declaration by the Foreign Minister that Argentina is doing nothing in the way of mediation and has no objection to any action which Conference may take.
690
Dec. 13 (34) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Understanding that the special committee will recommend to the Conference on December 14 that the Conference tender its good offices to the Bolivian and Paraguayan Governments for the purpose of aiding them in providing conciliatory measures looking to the avoidance of conflict and maintenance of peace; instructions to so inform the President, expressing the Secretary’s hope that nothing will be done to make abortive the tender of good offices.
(Dispatch of similar message to the Minister in Paraguay.)
690
Dec. 14 (61) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
President’s intention upon receipt of tender of good offices, to call Cabinet meeting and use all influence for peaceful solution; Bolivian Government’s request for Department’s attitude toward League offer of mediation.
691
Dec. 14 (32) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Foreign Office note (text printed) stating accord with Secretary’s hope that anticipated tender of good offices by Conference will be accepted; information that European intervention is not desired.
691
Dec. 14 (36) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Information that, since the Conference has voted to offer its good offices and Secretary of State is the Chairman, he does not desire to suggest anything which might interfere with action of the Conference or acceptance of its good offices by Bolivia.
692
Dec. 14 From the Chairman of the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration to the Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs (tel.)
Report of the special commission and resolution regarding tender of good offices to Bolivia and Paraguay (text printed).
693
Dec. 16 (34) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Report of attacks by Bolivian troops and airplane; information that Paraguayan troops withdrew in obligation not to provoke hostilities, and that, in view of attacks, Paraguayan President has ordered all citizens 18 to 28 years of age to report for duty.
694
[Page LXXXII]Dec. 16 (35) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Information that Cabinet is now considering good offices of the Conference. Opinion that certain strong measures must be taken immediately toward Bolivia, because Paraguay cannot stand idle in face of an invasion; observation that present situation is very grave.
694
Dec. 16 (36) From the Minister in Paraguay (tel.)
Acceptance by Paraguay of offer of good offices of Conference. U. S. Minister’s belief that forceful measures must be employed against aggression or Paraguay will be invaded; report of another Bolivian attack in locality near American properties.
695
Dec. 17 (62) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Report that Bolivia will accept good offices of the Conference within 48 hours; plan on which Bolivia would be willing to submit present differences (summary printed).
695
Dec. 17 From the Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration (tel.)
Acceptance of tender of good offices.
696
Dec. 18 From the Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration (tel.)
Acceptance of tender of good offices.
697
Dec. 18 (419) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Receipt from Foreign Minister Briand, in his capacity as President of the League Council, of information concerning efforts of the League to settle Bolivian-Paraguayan differences and copy of League memorandum (text printed), which expresses the hope that the Chairman of Conference on Conciliation and Arbitration will advise views as to the best measures to be taken by all those who are endeavoring to insure a pacific settlement.
698
Dec. 20 (427) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Receipt from M. Briand of congratulations on successful outcome of the Bolivian-Paraguayan situation; Chargé’s interpretation that his message indicates that with the cessation of hostilities and acceptances of good offices of Conference, League’s part in matter has come to an end; indication by Briand that no reply to his message would appear necessary, but Chargé’s presumption that some acknowledgment is desired.
700
Dec. 21 (430) To the Chargé in France (tel.)
Advice that since good offices of Conference have been accepted, no further observations would appear to be required.
700
[Page LXXXIII]

colombia and nicaragua

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 4 (67) From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Telegram to Assistant Secretary of State at Habana (text printed), stating that, at the request of Colombian Minister, the U. S. Minister repeated to Nicaraguan President his previous statement that the Department viewed with favor a settlement of Colombian-Nicaraguan boundary matter along the lines proposed by Colombia, and that the President acceded to settlement as proposed.
701
Mar. 23 (333) To the Minister in Nicaragua
Transmittal of draft treaty which will be proposed by Colombian Minister in Nicaragua; authorization to state, if consulted by Nicaraguan Government, that the U. S. Government favors proposed treaty and hopes that it will receive approval of the Nicaraguan Government.
701
Mar. 27 (634) From the Minister in Nicaragua
Treaty between Colombia and Nicaragua, signed March 24 (text printed), recognizing Nicaraguan sovereignty over the Mosquito Coast and Great and Little Corn Islands and Colombian sovereignty over San Andrés Archipelago; desire of Nicaraguan Government that signature of treaty be kept secret because Liberals would probably use treaty as political weapon if its contents were known before Presidential elections.
(Footnote: Exchange of ratifications at Managua, May 5, 1930.)
702
Sept. 14 (342) From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Information that Liberals have learned of signature of treaty and are attacking administration; desire of the President that the Department inform press that boundary dispute was settled through U. S. good offices and as a result of suggestions made by the Department to the Nicaraguan Government; probability that treaty will never be ratified by Nicaragua if permitted to become party issue now.
704
Sept. 15 (180) To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Inquiry whether treaty text has been published in Managua.
704
Sept. 15 (55) To the Minister in Colombia (tel.)
Inquiry whether treaty text has been made public in Colombia.
704
Sept. 16 (94) From the Minister in Colombia (tel.)
Report that text has not been made public but that President publicly stated the general provisions of treaty in recent annual message to Congress.
705
Sept. 19 (347) From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Intention of President to publish treaty on September 22; his desire for announcement by Department at the same time regarding negotiations which led up to signature.
705
Sept. 20 (349) From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Desire for authorization not only to furnish press with copy of Department’s statement concerning the negotiations but also to state orally that the United States has no intention of acquiring the San Andrés Islands for itself.
705
[Page LXXXIV]Sept. 21 (187) To the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Statement to press conference regarding the Nicaraguan-Colombian treaty negotiations (text printed); authorization to give out same statement as well as to say orally that United States has no intention of acquiring the islands for itself.
705

dominican republic and haiti

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Jan. 14 (8) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Likelihood that informal conversations now in progress will result in exchange of notes agreeing to settle Dominican-Haitian boundary question on the basis of the status quo line, with minor adjustments involving mutual territorial cessions to be made after the exchange of notes.
706
Feb. 20 (790) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Notes of January 20 and 21 exchanged on February 13 between the Dominican Foreign Minister and Haitian Minister expressing desire to undertake settlement of the boundary question (texts printed).
706
Mar. 9 (811) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Report that informal agreement has been reached as to the boundary line.
709
May 26 (908) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Report that with the settlement of one remaining point of difficulty, informal agreement will again have been reached with regard to the entire boundary.
710
July 30 (45) From the Chargé in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Signature of informal agreement on boundary question.
711
July 31 (16) To the Chargé in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Instructions to express to President and Foreign Minister, when boundary agreement is made public, congratulations of the Secretary of State on the peaceful settlement of the longstanding dispute.
(Identical instructions to the Legation in Haiti on the same date.)
711
Nov. 13 (1091) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Transmittal of copy of the projected Dominican-Haitian boundary treaty.
(Footnote: Signature of treaty at Santo Domingo, January 21, 1929.)
711

guatemala and honduras

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 10 From the Guatemalan Legation
Information that the Guatemalan Government is again protesting to the Honduran Government against violations of the status quo in disputed territory, and particularly against railway construction between Cacao and Chachagualillo.
712
Feb. 11 (13) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Instructions to investigate Guatemalan claims, especially as to alleged railway construction in disputed territory.
713
[Page LXXXV]Feb. 13 (26) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Report that Cuyamel Fruit Company has constructed beyond Cacao and without authority 400 meters of tram line, and that despite fact that Honduran Government considers this as Honduran territory and not in dispute, President Paz has ordered company to suspend all construction work in that region.
713
Feb. 13 (27) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Invasion by Guatemalan force of territory near Chachagualillo and capture of guard there; Honduran protest to Guatemala, with request for immediate restoration of Honduran force and withdrawal of Guatemalan force.
714
Feb. 14 From the Honduran Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (tel.)
Desire for influence and mediation of the Department toward restoration of the status quo ante between Honduras and Guatemala by withdrawal of the invasion forces; willingness to accept later a well-defined neutral line to be surveyed and fixed by U. S. Government pending settlement of the boundary dispute.
714
Feb. 14 (28) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Receipt by Foreign Minister of telegram dated February 13 from the Guatemalan Foreign Minister stating disposition to order evacuation of Chachahualia provided Honduran Government will agree not to reoccupy it and will respect status quo in disputed zone until agreement on boundary line shall have been reached; Minister’s understanding that proposal regarding non-reoccupation is not acceptable.
715
Feb. 15 (29) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Intention of President to send Acting Foreign Minister to investigate alleged railway construction work after withdrawal of Guatemalan forces from Chachahualia; his inquiry whether U. S. military attache might accompany Coello; his invitation to Guatemalan Minister to participate.
715
Feb. 16 To the Honduran Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (tel.)
Hope that difficulties are now in a way to be satisfactorily adjusted; belief that chief difficulty is lack of a definite understanding as to the exact nature of the status quo and the extent of the territory in dispute; assurance that the Department will be glad to lend its good offices in any way acceptable to both parties in an effort to bring about a satisfactory arrangement.
716
Feb. 21 (15) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Information that the Honduran Legation has requested opinion concerning arrangement it contemplates proposing to Guatemala: (1) inspection of disputed territory to determine for time being a better-defined line, (2) agreement to proceed without delay to a final settlement of boundary dispute, and (3) obligation to submit matter to United States for arbitration if no agreement is reached under (2).
(Repeated to the Minister in Guatemala.)
716
Undated [Rec’d Feb. 28] From the Honduran Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (tel.)
Allegation that Guatemala appears on new pretexts to defer indefinitely the question of settlement of the boundary dispute; request for U. S. good offices so that the dispute may finally be settled.
717
[Page LXXXVI]Feb. 29 (14) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain why no reply has been made to the Honduran proposal, and to mention that the Department desires sincerely that Guatemala accept proposal for inspection of disputed territory and agreement to proceed to a final settlement.
718
Mar. 9 (19) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Concern of Honduras that Guatemala has not yet replied to proposal. Secretary’s inability to reply to telegram from Acting Foreign Minister of Honduras until he has further information regarding Guatemalan attitude and willingness to settle boundary dispute through negotiation; instructions to report present situation.
719
Mar. 10 (19) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Telegram from Acting Foreign Minister to Guatemalan Minister in Washington (text printed) instructing him to inform Secretary of State that Guatemala desires mediation, is agreeable to sending commission to inspect territory and fix provisional line, and is disposed to discuss final settlement as soon as provisional line is established.
720
Mar. 15 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Latin American Affairs
Conversation with the Guatemalan Minister in which the Chief of the Latin American Division made personal suggestion that procedure for commission would be greatly simplified if Guatemala and Honduras would act in accordance with the Central American convention of 1923 establishing commissions of inquiry.
720
Mar. 15 (40) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Request by President Paz that U. S. Minister confirm Honduran willingness that commission of inspection be sent to the border, composed of Sub-secretaries of Foreign Affairs and an engineer from each of the countries, and a representative of the mediator government.
722
Mar. 17 (23) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Information that the U. S. Government will appoint a representative to accompany Honduran and Guatemalan commissioners; instructions to take up question of prompt appointment of commissioners and question as to where commission should meet to undertake the work.
(Similar telegram to Guatemala.)
722
Mar. 19 (41) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Communication of names of Honduran commissioners; Guatemalan suggestion that Commission meet first at Cuyamel.
723
Mar. 19 (23) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Information as to personnel of Guatemalan representation; lack of decision as to time and place for meeting.
723
Mar. 20 (1) To the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Notification of appointment as American member of Commission; instructions as to conduct.
(Footnote: The American representative was Mr. Roy T. Davis, U. S. Minister in Costa Rica.)
723
[Page LXXXVII]Mar. 20 (25) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Instructions to advise Honduran Government of the appointment of American representative.
725
Mar. 20 (25) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Guatemalan Foreign Office that Honduras has appointed representatives and to inquire whether place and date of proposed meeting are satisfactory; also to announce the appointment of the American representative.
725
Mar. 20 (7) To the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Advice that time and place of meeting will be communicated later; instructions to be prepared to leave on short notice.
726
Mar. 20 (24) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Communication of names of Guatemalan commissioners; Guatemalan suggestion that first meeting place be Puerto Barrios or Puerto Cortes.
726
Mar. 20 From the Honduran Minister for Foreign Affairs (tel.)
Appreciation for U. S. good offices; Honduran intention that Commission shall agree upon a provisional line, and if unable to agree, that the line shall be indicated by representative of mediator government while negotiations for final settlement proceed immediately.
726
Mar. 21 (25) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Acceptability to Guatemala of Cuyamel as meeting place.
727
Mar. 21 (26) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Instructions to inquire whether Guatemala agrees to Honduran suggestion for indication of provisional line by the American representative in case the Commission is unable to agree upon the line.
727
Mar. 22 (26) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Information that the matter will be considered by the Cabinet at a special meeting.
728
Mar. 22 (28) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Note from Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs (text printed), advising acceptance of suggestion for indication of provisional line, with certain reservations regarding Guatemalan rights.
728
Mar. 23 (27) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Transmittal of text of Guatemalan Foreign Office note contained in telegram No. 28 of March 22 from the Minister in Guatemala, with instructions to communicate to the Foreign Minister.
728
Mar. 23 (8) To the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Transmittal of Honduran suggestion regarding designation of provisional line by American representative and Guatemalan acceptance contained in telegram No. 28, of March 22, from the Minister in Guatemala; information that the Department is taking up matter of detailing a Canal Zone engineer to assist the American representative.
729
[Page LXXXVIII]Mar. 27 (45) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Note from Foreign Minister, March 26 (text printed), advising that qualified acceptance by Guatemala has been noted, that Honduran Government abstains from making any declarations at the present time, but that it rejects Guatemalan accusation of Honduran incursions into Guatemalan territory.
(Repeated to Guatemala.)
729
Mar. 28 (28) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Instructions to communicate the Honduran reply to the Guatemalan Government.
730
Mar. 29 (11) To the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission
Information that the Department is advising Guatemala and Honduras that the American representative plans to arrive at Puerto Cortes on April 4 and is suggesting that the first meeting of Commission take place at Cuyamel on April 6.
730
Apr. 5 (1) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Arrival at Puerto Cortes; plan of Commission to proceed to Cuyamel the following day. Inquiry whether Department considers essential permanent arbitration by a North American or whether arbitration by the Central American Tribunal established by treaties of 1923 would be acceptable.
730
Apr. 7 From the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Expression of gratitude for U. S. cooperation in the boundary matter.
731
Apr. 8 (2) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Report that the Commission met and organized April 7, electing American representative President; summary of informal conferences in which Honduran and Guatemalan representatives stated their territorial claims; advice that conciliatory spirit is lacking.
731
Apr. 9 (1) To the Consul at Puerto Cortes (tel.)
For Davis: Instructions to inform colleagues that their telegram is greatly appreciated.
732
Apr. 10 (2) To the Consul at Puerto Cortes (tel.)
For Davis: Department’s favorable attitude toward definitive arbitration by the Central American Tribunal.
732
Apr. 13 (3) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Improbability that Honduran and Guatemalan commissioners will establish provisional line by mutual accord; conviction that the only means of avoiding future conflicts is by permanent arbitration; plan of American representative to propose formally at session on April 18 that the two Governments through their Commissions agree to nominate special plenipotentiaries to meet in Washington or other neutral country to consider proposals for arbitration or mutual agreement; desire that Department instruct the two Legations concerned to make strong representations in favor of this proposal.
733
[Page LXXXIX]Apr. 16 (3) To the Consul at Puerto Cortes (tel.)
For Davis: Belief that if Guatemala will make some compromise to meet compromise already offered by Honduras, it should be possible to bring the two delegations into accord; opinion that if both countries are prepared to submit question to Central American Tribunal, the Commission now in session might well be empowered to draw up the necessary agreement; preference, however, for present Commission to work out and put into effect some constructive agreement.
734
Apr. 18 (5) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Information that Commissioners are unable to agree and have filed signed statements calling upon the mediator to fix a provisional line; desire that Department instruct Legations in Guatemala and Honduras to make representations urging that respective Commissions be empowered to draw up treaty submitting controversy to final arbitration; intention to make arbitration proposal at meeting on April 23.
735
Apr. 19 To the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Telegram to Legations in Guatemala and Honduras (text printed), advising contents of American representative’s telegram No. 5 of April 18, and instructing that representations be made upon notification that American representative has made his proposal.
736
Apr. 20 (6) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Suggestions by Guatemalan Commissioner for settling boundary controversy (summary printed); information that Honduran Commission refuses to consider settlement along those lines.
737
Apr. 23 (8) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Advice that Guatemalan representations (excerpt printed) against Honduran case indicate they will use their conditional acceptance of mediation as a basis for refusing to accept a provisional line which is not in accord with Guatemalan aspirations.
738
Apr. 23 (9) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Decision of Commission to recess subject to call of the American representative; information that American representative made his proposal for negotiation of an arbitration convention and both Commissions agreed to consult their Governments.
(Repeated to Guatemala and Honduras.)
739
Apr. 24 (52) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Honduran instructions to Commission to accept American representative’s proposal.
(Repeated to American representative and Legation in Guatemala.)
710
[Page XC]Apr. 24 (51) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Intention of Guatemalan Government to do nothing until its Commissioners have returned and reported; disposition of Foreign Minister to negotiate very extensively before entering into a final treaty of arbitration.
(Repeated to American representative and Legation in Honduras.)
740
Apr. 25 (6) To the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Instructions not to make formal commitment to draw a provisional line.
740
May 11 (31) From the Representative of the United States on the Guatemalan-Honduran Boundary Commission (tel.)
Communication from Honduran Foreign Minister protesting Guatemalan activities in boundary zone and asking the American representative to take steps to prevent constant aggressions (text printed); American representative’s instruction to Legation in Honduras to acknowledge receipt, advising that matter should be referred to Department (text printed).
741
May 14 (38) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Instructions to make representations to Government to which accredited that disturbing incidents in disputed territory be avoided while further steps toward settlement of boundary question are under consideration.
(Sent also to the Minister in Guatemala.)
742
May 16 (62) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Memorandum from Foreign Minister (text printed), advising complete confidence in American representative, hope that American representative will be able to lay down provisional line, and policy to give no cause for disturbances in disputed zone, despite continuance of Guatemalan activities.
(Repeated to Guatemala and Salvador.)
742
May 17 (43) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Instructions to inquire of Guatemalan Government what its answer is to American representative’s proposal.
743
May 17 (63) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Information from President Paz that there is no reason to apprehend any serious incident in disputed territory.
(Repeated to Tegucigalpa.)
743
May 19 (65) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Submission to Cabinet for formal action of Guatemalan reply to American representative’s proposal, which reply states that Assembly authorization is required before boundary treaty can be negotiated and sets forth lengthy argument of Guatemalan case; information that Minister does not concur in interpretation of the Constitution and has requested conference to discuss matter.
744
May 23 (69) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Receipt of Guatemalan memorandum omitting reference to Assembly authorization, setting forth Guatemalan case, and concluding with statement that Boundary Commission will be authorized to enter into conversations upon a treaty of arbitration which contemplates a frontier protecting the rights and economic, commercial, and political necessities of Guatemala.
744
[Page XCI]May 23 (70) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Suggestion by President that Washington or San José de Costa Rica would be acceptable places for next boundary conference.
745
May 25 (45) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Information that American representative has reported that he discussed various possible boundary lines with Commission but that he never formally proposed as mediator any of the lines that were discussed.
745
June 4 (51) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Note for Foreign Minister (text printed), proposing that the boundary question be submitted to Central American Tribunal, that Tribunal be empowered to fix definitive line, and that existing Commission, now in recess, be convened by Chairman to draw up and sign necessary protocol covering submission of question to Tribunal.
(Sent also to Legation in Honduras.)
746
June 6 (71) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
President’s instructions to Foreign Minister to accept Secretary of State’s proposal.
(Repeated to Guatemala.)
747
June 7 (78) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Note from Foreign Minister (excerpt printed), stating acceptance of Secretary of State’s proposal.
(Repeated to Legation in Honduras.)
747
June 11 (81) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Desire of Foreign Minister to be advised of names of 15 jurists submitted by the United States for permanent list from which members of Tribunal are to be chosen; also those communicated under the convention to the Honduran Foreign Office by other signatories including Honduras.
(Repeated to Honduras.)
748
June 12 (73) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Honduran note (excerpt printed) inquiring whether, since a definite obligation for arbitration under President of the United States exists as a result of negotiations in 1923, the proposed arbitration by the Central American Tribunal would be precluded.
(Repeated to Guatemala and Salvador.)
749
June 15 (50) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Opinion that because no protocol was executed to make 1923 agreement effective, arbitration by Central American Tribunal is not precluded; instructions to so advise Foreign Minister.
750
June 18 (88) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Submission of boundary question to Assembly.
751
June 25 (78) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Note from Foreign Minister (text printed) suggesting that the U. S. Government consider directing its efforts toward the formalization of the protocol required to make the 1923 agreement effective, and advising that reply to this suggestion will be awaited before sending definite reply to Secretary of State’s proposal regarding arbitration by Central American Tribunal.
751
[Page XCII]June 28 (264) From the Minister in Nicaragua (tel.)
Transmittal by Nicaraguan Government to Honduran Government of names of national and non-national judges on Central American Tribunal.
(Repeated by the Department on June 29 to the Ministers in Guatemala and Honduras.)
753
July 10 (58) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Information that existence of other agreements has not been in the past and should not now be considered an obstacle to another course of action which promises solution of the difficulty; instructions to convey this information to the Foreign Minister and express the hope that the Honduran Government will soon signify its agreement on proposal to submit dispute to arbitration of Central American Tribunal.
753
July 17 (95) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Passage by Assembly of bill authorizing submission of boundary question to Central American Tribunal.
(Repeated to Honduras.)
754
July 20 (65) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Conversation with the Honduran Minister, July 17, in which the Secretary corrected misinterpretation that boundary question would be decided purely on political, economic, and commercial considerations and also explained that the Honduran objection to Nicaraguan panel of judges on political grounds might possibly be met by selecting from the Costa Rican-Nicaraguan panels judges who would not be Nicaraguans or even Central Americans at all. Instructions to explain these matters to Honduran Government.
(Copy to Guatemala.)
755
July 25 (89) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Issuance of Executive decree, July 24, dissolving Boundary Commission on ground that in view of new U. S. proposals now being considered, there is no longer reason for existence of Commission.
(Repeated to Guatemala.)
756
July 26 (91) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Belief of President Paz that Guatemala is preparing to occupy Honduran territory east of the Motagua River; his insistence that U. S. Minister inquire if Department would use its good offices to prevent such action on part of Guatemala.
(Repeated to Guatemala.)
756
July 27 (98) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Possibility that dissolving of Honduran Boundary Commission may cause Guatemala to take position that this constitutes a premature termination of the agreement that mediating government may propose a provisional line.
(Repeated to Honduras.)
756
July 27 (67) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Desire for report as to motives which impelled Honduras to dissolve its Boundary Commission.
757
[Page XCIII]July 27 (68) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Instructions to inform Honduran Government that Nicaraguan panel was appointed in 1923 and that this fact should dispel Honduran objections on political grounds. Instructions to report status of proposal for arbitration by Central American Tribunal.
757
July 27 (62) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Instructions to inform Guatemalan Government of Honduran apprehensions as to aggressive action and to point out importance of avoiding the appearance of such action.
(Repeated to Honduras.)
757
July 30 (666) From the Minister in Honduras
Opinion that real reason for delay in accepting arbitration by the Central American Tribunal is reluctance to bind the country to a decision which it does not believe will be a just one.
758
July 30 (668) From the Minister in Honduras
Memorandum from the Foreign Minister, dated July 25 (text printed), advising that the Boundary Commission was dissolved because the Honduran Government considers its mission had terminated with the failure to reach ends for which appointed and with the consideration of a new proposal. Information that U. S. Minister stated that in his opinion the decree dissolving the Commission was unnecessary.
760
July 31 (94) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Note of July 27 from the Foreign Minister (excerpt printed), stating regret that Honduran Government is unable to accept arbitration in the form proposed by the Secretary of State, at the same time declaring intention to accept any other arbitration under President or Chief Justice of the United States or any other tribunal established in regular and permanent form.
(Repeated to Guatemala.)
760
Aug. 6 (102) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Receipt from Guatemalan Foreign Minister of note sent to Honduran Foreign Minister, August 4, stating that if Honduran Government by issuing decree has put an end to the functions of the Mixed Commission, the Guatemalan Government records its formal protest.
764
Aug. 6 (70) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Note for Foreign Minister (text printed), stating disappointment at Honduran decision not to accept the proposal made by the Secretary of State, commenting on certain of the grounds mentioned in Honduran note as basis for refusal, and expressing hope that careful reconsideration will be given to the matter.
765
Aug. 8 (72) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Hope that nothing in Honduran reply to Guatemalan note may tend to precipitate a break between the two countries; that Honduran decree was not issued for purpose of withdrawing permanently from existing Mixed Commission; and that Honduras is prepared to appoint a representative on the Commission should there be further business for the Commission to transact. Instructions to convey this information to the Foreign Minister.
768
[Page XCIV]Aug. 8 (63) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Belief that Guatemalan note of August 4 indicates desire to have American representative lay down a provisional line; information that while the Department has not yet reached a decision, it feels that the American representative should not undertake to lay down a provisional line unless unhampered by reservations by either side and unless both countries are committed unreservedly to accept such a line.
768
Aug. 17 (98) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Information that the Honduran reply to Guatemalan note was dispatched August 16 and is unprovocative and mild in tone.
769
Aug. 23 (103) From the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Note from Foreign Minister, dated August 22 (text printed), stating that he must again regretfully decline to reconsider the Secretary of State’s proposal.
(Repeated to Guatemala.)
769
Aug. 23 (105) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Memorandum signed by Foreign Minister and U. S. Minister on August 22 (text printed), stating that Guatemalan President and Foreign Minister declared confidentially to the U. S. Minister that in case Honduras should propose that the President of the United States or the Chief Justice preside over the Central American Tribunal in accordance with the proposal made by the Secretary of State in June 1928, Guatemala would accept.
773
Aug. 30 (81) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Decision that, in view of last Honduran note, no useful purpose will be served by pursuing the correspondence further at the present time; observations concerning the situation.
773

Good Offices of the Department of State in Behalf of American Interests Desiring To Establish Air Lines in Latin America

pan american airways, incorporated

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 16 From the Pan American Airways, Inc.
Plans for flight to survey feasible airway route from Key West to Colon in anticipation of award of air mail contract; request that Department secure permission for flight over certain Central American countries and exemption from clearance formalities, and also that Department instruct consular officers to render all possible assistance.
775
Feb. 25 To the Pan American Airways, Inc.
Dispatch of instructions to missions in Central America to obtain permission for flight and exemptions from clearance formalities; instructions to consular officers to render all possible assistance.
776
Mar. 7 To the Pan American Airways, Inc.
Reports from missions in Central America that the desired arrangements have been made.
777
[Page XCV]Mar. 7 To the American Diplomatic Representatives in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, and Salvador (cir. tel.)
Postponement of Pan American Airways flight for approximately 30 days.
778
Mar. 16 (21) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Information that Mr. John D. MacGregor, vice president of Pan American Airways, will arrive on March 20 for purpose of obtaining a transport concession; instructions to render all possible and proper assistance.
778
Mar. 17 (331) To the Minister in Nicaragua
Plan of Mr. MacGregor to visit country to which Minister is accredited, for the purpose of obtaining airplane transport concessions. Authorization to extend all possible and proper assistance.
(Sent also to the Ministers in Costa Rica, Honduras, and Salvador.)
778
Mar. 26 (1861) From the Minister in Guatemala
Report that Mr. MacGregor was received by President Chacón, that their preliminary discussion of project was pleasant, and that matter of details will be discussed with Minister of Interior.
778
Apr. 18 (36) To the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Understanding that Mr. MacGregor is having difficulties in his negotiations; instructions to report present situation and to render all possible assistance.
779
Apr. 24 (49) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Report that delay is due to consideration of matter by Council, that the Minister requested the President to receive Mr. MacGregor again, and that the latter has been assured that the President and Minister of Interior will sign contract when returned by the Council.
779
May 2 (59) From the Minister in Guatemala (tel.)
Departure of Mr. MacGregor for Honduras to open negotiations; disinclination of Guatemalan Government to take action on company’s application while Cabinet resignations are pending.
(Repeated to Honduras and Salvador.)
780
May 5 (1118) From the Minister in Salvador
Report that Mr. MacGregor advised that he did not then desire to take up negotiations with Salvadoran Government, that because of failure of Guatemalan Government to take any action, he had been instructed to endeavor to interest the Honduran Government, and that plans had been radically changed so that route would not pass through either Guatemala or Salvador.
780
May 11 (125) To the Ambassador in Mexico (tel.)
Instructions to request permission of Mexican Government for Pan American Airways planes to fly over Yucatan and Quintana Roo on their regular trips and to land at Merida when necessary.
781
[Page XCVI]June 23 (166) From the Chargé in Mexico (tel.)
Receipt of note dated June 21 from the Acting Foreign Minister stating that permission of a provisional character has been granted, with the reservation that definite permission may be given after ratification of the Pan American commercial aviation convention.
781
June 23 (712) From the Minister in Nicaragua
Signature of contract by Nicaraguan Government and Mr. MacGregor on June 18; information that the contract as signed contains article previously not brought to Legation’s attention which so completely protects company from interference that it might be impossible for a rival company to engage in commercial aviation in Nicaragua (excerpt printed).
782
June 26 (161) To the Chargé in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that the British Honduran Government will grant permission for landings and take-offs and airport facilities, but that Colonial Office has withheld its approval because of absence of a general U. S.-British aviation agreement; instructions to take up matter with appropriate authorities and endeavor to bring about favorable decision.
784
June 28 (12) To the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Desire of Pan American Airways to inaugurate passenger service between San Antonio, Cuba, and San Juan, Porto Rico, via Port au Prince and Santo Domingo; instructions to request permission for initial flight and to inquire whether Government would be disposed to give permission for the establishment of regular service.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the Chargé in Haiti.)
784
June 29 (39) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Dominican permission for initial flight; favorable attitude toward establishment of regular service.
785
June 29 (69) From the Chargé in Haiti (tel.)
Haitian permission for initial flight; consideration of permission for regular service.
785
June 29 (99) From the Ambassador in Cuba (tel.)
For White: Request that Postmaster General be advised, in connection with Pan American Airways’ bid for air mail contract, that Cuban aviation commission has acted favorably on company’s request for permission to pass through Cuba and to use landing fields, and that necessary decree will be signed by Cuban President.
785
July 5 (56) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Instructions, in view of newspaper opposition to granting of Pan American Airways contract, to make known the company’s assurance that it has no connection whatsoever with United Fruit Co.
786
July 11 (60) To the Minister in Honduras (tel.)
Desire of Pan American Airways that Minister discuss contract with President in its behalf; instructions to do so as soon as possible.
786
[Page XCVII]July 11 (23) To the Chargé in Venezuela (tel.)
Instructions to render all possible assistance to Pan American Airways representative who will arrive in Caracas soon in connection with bid for air mail service between Key West and Porto Rico.
787
July 12 To the Counselor of Embassy in Cuba
Instructions to advise Secretary of Communications that Pan American Airways is anxious to obtain concession to carry Cuban domestic mails and hopes that Cuban Government will not give German interests the contract until Pan American has had a chance to make a proposition. Information that Department is anxious to further American aviation in the Caribbean.
787
July 12 To the Minister in Guatemala
Suggestion that Guatemalan Government may now wish to be included in the air mail service; instructions to advise what the situation is and whether this is now a favorable moment for Pan American Airways to take up the matter again.
788
Undated [Rec’d July 26] From the Pan American Airways, Inc.
Proposed survey flight from Habana through Central America to Canal Zone about August 18; desire that Department instruct U. S. Ministers to secure permission to land, refuel, and make incidental survey nights in Honduras, Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama.
789
Aug. 14 To the Pan American Airways, Inc. Information that desired instructions were sent promptly. 789
Sept. 10 (24) To the Chargé in the Dominican Republic (tel.)
Instructions to accord assistance to Mr. P. E. D. Nagle, Pan American Airways representative, in connection with the taking over of the West Indies Aerial Express for establishment of commercial air service between Miami, Florida, and San Juan, Porto Rico.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the Chargé in Haiti.)
790
Sept. 14 (285) To the Minister in Honduras
Understanding that Mr. MacGregor has encountered difficulties; information that satisfactory contract with Honduran Government is necessary for fulfillment of Pan American contract for air mail service to Panama.
790
Sept. 26 To the Chargé in France
Instructions to render assistance to Pan American Airways president in connection with any negotiations with Latécoère Co.
791
Oct. 1 To the Vice Consul at Nassau (tel.)
Instructions to render all proper assistance to vice president of Pan American Airways in negotiations for proposed air mail service between Miami and Nassau.
792
[Page XCVIII]Oct. 15 (1058) From the Minister in the Dominican Republic
Readiness of Dominican Government to accord every possible facility to Pan American Airways representatives in connection with establishment of Miami-San Juan air service; understanding that formal agreement will be discussed in near future; report that Legation accorded every possible and proper assistance.
792
Nov. 26 (1324) From the High Commissioner in Haiti
Report of negotiations between Haitian Government and Pan American Airways over proposed contract, as well as opposition of Financial Adviser-General Receiver to certain preferential provisions thereof; request for Department’s views; draft articles of the contract (texts printed).
793
Nov. 28 (1327) From the High Commissioner in Haiti
Opinion that benefits accruing to Haiti from the contemplated services of Pan American Airways are such as to permit of most liberal action on part of Haitian Government; recommendation that Department, while not approving of certain monopolistic provisions, not object to their being incorporated if the Haitian Government so desires.
795
Dec. 1 (267) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Foreign Office note (excerpt printed), advising that necessary arrangements have been made; understanding that the position is now for direct negotiation between the British Honduran Government and the company.
796
Dec. 4 (91) From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Belief that temporary suspension of railway service between San José and Limon due to floods, offers the opportunity for Pan American Airways to establish itself by arranging for service by amphibian plane; recommendation for immediate action in order to forestall activies by non-American aviation interests.
796
Dec. 6 (94) From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Indications that non-American interests are active; recommendation that Pan American Airways act immediately if it desires to take advantage of the opportunity.
797
Dec. 8 (30) To the Minister in Ecuador (tel.)
Information from Pan American Airways that W. R. Grace & Co. is applying for operating concession in Ecuador similar to concession recently granted to German air interests; instructions to render all possible and proper assistance.
797
Dec. 8 (48) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Immediate shipment by Pan American Airways of plane to Canal Zone for assembly, which should reach Costa Rica by December 25; permission to use this information to further company’s interests.
798
Dec. 11 (89) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Understanding that Pan American Airways and W. R. Grace & Co. are negotiating with Chilean Government for air mail concession from Arica south.
798
[Page XCIX]Dec. 12 (50) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Advice that Lieut. Donald Duke has been granted leave in order to fly a plane from Colon to Port Limon for delivery to Pan American Airways; instructions to request permission for flight and landing facilities.
798
Dec. 12 (51) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Instructions to render all proper assistance to Mr. Frank Whiting of Pan American Airways in negotiations for establishment of San José-Limon air mail service.
798
Dec. 14 (757) From the Chargé in Honduras
Information that Mr. MacGregor has résuméd negotiations with Honduran Government and that prospects are favorable for the conclusion of an agreement.
799
Dec. 16 (99) From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.)
Receipt of permission requested in telegram No. 50 of December 12.
799
Dec. 17 (88) To the High Commissioner in Haiti (tel.)
Approval of suggestion in despatch No. 1327 of November 28.
799
Dec. 24 (147) From the Chargé in Honduras (tel.)
Signature of contract between Pan American Airways and Honduran Government.
800

huff—daland dusters and keystone airplane corporation

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Jan. 19 (4) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that American interests are planning, with the encouragement and approval of the U. S. Government, to establish air service along western coast of South America, and that it is important that the Peruvian Government grant no exclusive or other concessions to foreign interests which might prevent activities of American interests; instructions to discuss matter confidentially with Peruvian President, intimating that the U. S. Government would appreciate it if field were kept open pending maturing and presentation of American propositions.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the Minister in Ecuador.)
800
Jan. 21 (4) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Report that several days previously the Ambassador presented to President Leguia, Mr. Woolman, representative Of Huff-Daland Dusters and Keystone Aircraft Corporation, American companies, and that the Peruvian Government is entertaining proposal to award contract for Lima-Panama service to Woolman’s principals; inquiry whether cable No. 4 of January 19 is intended to oppose Woolman proposition.
801
Jan. 25 (6) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that the American interests referred to in Department’s telegram No. 4 of January 21 are Keystone, Huff-Daland Dusters, Pan American Airways, and possibly eventually others; instructions to give all possible and proper support to Mr. Woolman.
801
[Page C]Feb. 8 (1042) From the Minister in Ecuador
Assurance by Ecuadoran President of fullest cooperation with plans for American participation; his agreement to the request that any applications for concessions be discussed with U. S. Minister prior to taking any action.
802
Apr. 16 (932) From the Chargé in Peru
Report that Mr. Woolman has for some months been attempting to secure an air service concession; that efforts of German air interests have been receiving support of German military mission, but that American proposition appears to be receiving favorable consideration.
802
Apr. 19 (29) From the Chargé in Peru (tel.)
Assurance by President Leguia that reports of signature of contract with German air interests are incorrect; his advice that the present intention is to enter into contracts with both American and German interests and let them compete.
805

proposed air mail service between the united states and chile

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Apr. 13 (27) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Understanding that Compagnie Latécoère has applied for concession of monopoly for air service from east to west between Chile and Brazil. Information that plans of the U. S. Government to launch project for air mail service between United States and Chile would be seriously interfered with if Chile were to grant any exclusive concession. Instructions to discuss matter confidentially with President Ibanez, expressing hope that the field will be kept open pending maturing and presentation of project.
805
Apr. 19 (54) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Assurance by President Ibanez that no more exclusive concessions will be granted; his opinion that existing Latécoère contract is not exclusive. Ambassador’s opinion that Chile probably would not favor proposed American service unless Chilean pilots were to be used within Chilean territory.
806
June 7 (1410) From the Ambassador in Chile
Belief of Director General of Posts that principle of coastwise trade should be extended to air ships. Information that Ambassador offered arguments against these views in conversations with him and with Foreign Minister.
807
Oct. 8 (112) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Desire for any pertinent information regarding Chilean section of proposed air mail service which would facilitate securing more precise indication as to extent of Chilean Government’s cooperation and facilities.
808
Oct. 13 To the Pan American Airways
Inquiry for information requested by the Ambassador in Chile.
808
[Page CI]Oct. 16 From the Pan American Airways, Inc.
Reply that it will be several months before negotiations can be undertaken with the Chilean Government, unless the State Department feels it of vital importance to begin the negotiations sooner.
809
Oct. 19 To the Pan American Airways, Inc.
Warning that delay may seriously jeopardize possibility of reaching a satisfactory agreement; opinion that it is of great importance to undertake negotiations at an early date.
809
Oct. 24 From the Pan American Airways, Inc.
Information that company is considering plans to undertake negotiations with Chilean Government within the reasonably near future; observation that extension of operations is dependent upon a satisfactory arrangement with Chilean Government and an advantageous contract for the transport of U. S. mail.
810
Oct. 27 (72) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Information that the Department will advise immediately company’s definite plans when available.
810

department of commerce flight—demonstrations by curtiss company and consolidated aircraft corporation

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Jan. 7 (1) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Advice from Department of Commerce that arrangements have been made to send two Curtiss planes to South America on an experimental and pathfinding flight. Instructions to request permission for flight.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to missions in Bolivia, Chile, and Uruguay.)
811
Jan. 7 (2) To the Chargé in Brazil (tel.)
Advice similar to that sent in telegram No. 1 to Argentina. Instructions to request free entry for equipment; information that name of steamer and date of arrival will be cabled later.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the Ambassador in Peru.)
811
Jan. 17 (1) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Peruvian permission for flight and authorization for free entry of planes, equipment, and supplies.
812
Jan. 18 (3) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.)
Information that expedition will sail January 19 on the Santa Luisa.
812
Jan. 20 (2) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Desire of Department of Commerce that Legation and Consulate cooperate with local Curtiss representative in promoting interest in American aircraft products and aeronautics; instructions to comply and inform Consulate.
812
Jan. 25 (7) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Argentine permission for flight.
812
[Page CII]Feb. 2 (7) From the Minister in Uruguay (tel.)
Uruguayan permission for flight.
813
Feb. 8 (28) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Chilean permission for flight.
813
Apr. 11 (50) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Opinion of representatives of Curtiss Company, Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, and other American aircraft and arms manufacturing companies that their difficulties in obtaining orders are due to belief of Chilean Government that if Chile becomes involved in war the U. S. Government will prevent subsequent deliveries or will rule that airplanes are in same category as armed ships and may not be outfitted in territory of neutrals; inquiry whether Department has any suggestions to meet the situation.
(Footnote: Information that in February and March 1928 the missions in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil were instructed to accord assistance and to request free entry and clearance for the Consolidated airplane for demonstration purposes; also that on February 29, the mission in Peru was instructed to secure refund of customs charges paid when the airplane entered Peru.)
813
Apr. 16 (28) To the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Instructions to avoid discussion of the subject, but to render appropriate assistance to obtain for companies fair consideration of their propositions.
814
May 1 (1367) From the Ambassador in Chile
Information that the Ambassador has made most vigorous efforts with Chilean officials to influence them to give American firms a part of the airplane contracts about to be awarded.
814
June 8 (642) From the Chargé in Uruguay
Information that demonstrations of Curtiss and Consolidated planes by Lieutenants Doolittle and Wade, respectively, were highly successful.
815
June 26 (325) From the Ambassador in Cuba
Telegram of June 25 from the U. S. Ambassador in Argentina (text printed), conveying request by Lieutenant Doolittle that permission be secured for him to refuel at Cienfuegos en route from Buenos Aires to New York and to be granted customs courtesies; request for instructions.
816
July 12 (191) To the Chargé in Cuba
Authorization to request permission for Lieutenant Doolittle’s flight and free entry for equipment.
817
July 17 (3037) From the Ambassador in Brazil
Information concerning Embassy’s assistance to Lieutenant Doolittle and his demonstrations in Rio de Janeiro.
817
[Page CIII]

boeing airplane company and pratt and whitney motor corporation

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 4 From the Assistant Secretary of Commerce
Information that Ralph A. O’Neill, representing Boeing Airplane Company and Pratt and Whitney Motor Corporation, is leaving on February 11 to demonstrate Boeing planes to army and navy air services of the South American countries. Request that necessary permission be secured for flight and for free entry of equipment.
818
Feb. 6 (3) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Instructions to request free entry for equipment and permission for flight of Captain O’Neill.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the missions in Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Uruguay.)
820
Feb. 8 To the Secretary of Commerce
Issuance of appropriate instructions to missions in South America.
820
Feb. 9 (1036) To the Minister in Colombia
Instructions to request permission for O’Neill’s flight and free entry of equipment.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the missions in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.)
821
Feb. 9 (10) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Inquiry whether O’Neill intends to demonstrate before Argentine Army and Navy air service; request to be advised as to date of arrival and method of travel.
821
Feb. 10 (8) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Information that O’Neill will give demonstration if invited to do so, that date of arrival will be communicated by Embassy at Rio de Janeiro, and that he will fly from Rio to Buenos Aires and thence to Santiago.
821
Mar. 8 (38) From the Ambassador in Chile (tel.)
Report that, although application for free entry was denied, airplane and accessories will be admitted under bond canceled upon leaving Chile.
822
Mar. 12 (907) From the Ambassador in Peru
Foreign Office note of February 23 (text printed) advising that Peruvian Government is glad to receive O’Neill and will grant all necessary facilities and free entry for equipment.
822
Apr. 24 (1076) From the Minister in Ecuador
Receipt from Foreign Ministry of notification that request for flight in Ecuador and extension of facilities has been granted.
823
Apr. 27 (1312) From the Minister in Colombia
Receipt from Foreign Ministry of permission for O’Neill’s flight; advice that Minister is again addressing Foreign Office as to free entry for his equipment.
824
May 11 (15) From the Chargé in Uruguay (tel.)
Report that O’Neill and companion were slightly injured in airplane crash.
824
[Page CIV]May 11 (16) From the Chargé in Uruguay (tel.)
Information that O’Neill was unaccompanied on flight, and is expected to leave the hospital the next day.
824

tri-motors airways concession in argentina

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Sept. 26 (38) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Understanding that Capt. Ralph A. O’Neill negotiated a favorable air mail concession with Argentine postal authorities which the Remington-Rand Corporation has agreed to finance, but that the time limit has practically expired and there may therefore be some difficulty in actually securing the grant; hope of Department of Commerce that Ambassador might be in a position to assist in securing the concession.
825
Sept. 28 (64) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Information that O’Neill’s representative was advised by Director of Posts and Telegraphs that no contracts could be consummated in short time remaining of present administration.
825
1929 Jan. 8 (7) To the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Advice from O’Neill that the Director of Posts signed contract with Tri-Motors Airways on December 22, subject to approval by other officials. Instructions to report present status and possibilities of final ratification, and to lend all appropriate assistance to O’Neill’s representative.
826
Jan. 9 (7) From the Ambassador in Argentina (tel.)
Information that the new negotiations are not yet concluded and have been subject to delay by reason of recent change of administration.
(Footnote: Signature of decree. February 28, 1929, granting Tri-Motors Airways the right to establish an air service with the United States.)
826

possible extension of american air lines to venezuela

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 17 (5) From the Chargé in Venezuela (tel.)
Inquiry whether the Department desires the Legation to ascertain discreetly the Venezuelan Government’s attitude toward proposed air line mentioned in Department of Commerce communication to commercial attaché in Caracas, January 12.
826
Mar. 3 (5) To the Chargé in Venezuela (tel.)
Opinion that representatives of the U. S. Government should not initiate or conduct private business negotiations on behalf of private American interests with foreign governments; instructions not to approach Venezuelan Government, but to give all proper assistance to responsible American interests engaged in legitimate activities. Advice that Department is informing Department of Commerce.
827
[Page CV]Mar. 3 To the Secretary of Commerce
Expression of Department’s attitude in the matter; information as to Department’s instructions to Legation in Venezuela.
827
Mar. 10 (7) To the Chargé in Venezuela (tel.)
Instructions to endeavor to ascertain discreetly Venezuelan attitude toward establishment by American interests of air lines, but to make no statement that could possibly be interpreted as favoring any specific interest or project.
828
Mar. 13 (1502) From the Chargé in Venezuela
Doubt of Minister of Fomento that an application for an air line would receive favorable consideration. Chargé’s suggestion that inquiry in question referred to proposed line between Maracaibo and Curaçao and that Department might wish to learn Venezuelan attitude toward commercial aviation in general.
828
May 26 (1248) To the Chargé in Venezuela
Information that American interests are planning, with the encouragement and approval of the U. S. Government, to establish air service in the Caribbean area, and that it is important that the Venezuelan Government grant no exclusive or other concessions to foreign interests which might prevent activities of American interests; instructions to discuss matter confidentially with Venezuelan President, intimating that the U. S. Government would appreciate it if field were kept open pending maturing and presentation of American projects.
829
July 3 (70) From the Chargé in Venezuela (tel.)
Advice that the information has been conveyed to President by the Foreign Minister, that no concessions appear as yet to have been granted to any foreign interests, but that German Colombian Company has been trying to obtain one, and British interests have advanced a vague proposal.
830
July 3 (71) From the Chargé in Venezuela (tel.)
Receipt of intimation that the United States has been slow in entering the field and cannot hope to keep out foreign interests indefinitely.
830

Representations by Foreign Governments With Respect to Senate Bill Relating to Payment of Advance Wages to Seamen on Foreign Vessels

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Senate Bill No. 2945, 70th Congress, First Session
Relating to the payment of advance wages and allotments in respect of seamen on foreign vessels, and making further provision for carrying out the Seamen’s Act of March 4, 1915.
(Footnote: Introduced in the Senate by Mr. La Follette, January 27 (calendar day, January 31); read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.)
830
[Page CVI]Feb. 25 Memorandum by Mr. C. B. Hosmer, Division of Foreign Service Administration
Conversation with Mr. J. Balfour, First Secretary of the British Embassy, in which there was clear inference that Mr. Balfour felt that Senate Bill 2945 would constitute a very radical departure from long-established practices among nations. Doubt whether Congress will request the Department for a report unless it is called to the attention of the appropriate committees that this class of legislation might involve the United States in perplexing questions with other nations.
831
Apr. 26 From the British Embassy
Observation that the effect of the Senate bill appears to be contrary to generally accepted principles of international law; desire to draw attention to difficulties which may attend the bill’s enactment into law.
832
Apr. 28 To the Honorable Wallace H. White, Jr.
Transmittal of British memorandum of April 26; belief that the Senate bill contravenes accepted principles of law that contracts of all kinds are to be governed as to their nature, validity, and interpretation by the law of place where they were made; information that Italian Embassy has made reservations; opinion that proposed bill will give rise to numerous conflicts of laws and may render American merchant marine subject to retaliatory measures by foreign governments.
(Footnote: Mr. White was Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives.)
833
Apr. 30 From the Italian Embassy
Observation that, while Senate bill provides that U. S. courts shall be open to seamen for claims concerning wages earned upon American or foreign vessels, article 11 of the consular convention between Italy and United States reserves such questions to Italian consular officials.
834
Apr. 30 From the Swedish Legation
Representations against the Senate bill as being contrary to the fundamental principles of international law.
(Footnote: Copy transmitted to Mr. White on May 4, 1928.)
834
May 3 (1413) From the Netherlands Legation
Opinion that proposed bill is contrary to international law.
(Footnote: Copy transmitted to Mr. White on May 10, 1928.)
835
June 12 (82) From the Danish Minister
Opinion that extension of jurisdiction contemplated in the proposed bill would conflict not only with Danish law but also with generally accepted principles of international law; desire that this view be presented to the proper Committees, in anticipation that bill will come up at December session of Congress.
836
June 29 To the Italian Embassy
Observation that article 11 of the consular convention cited is no longer in force.
836
[Page CVII]Dec. 8 To the Honorable Wallace H. White, Jr.
Transmittal of Danish note of June 12; observation that article 11 of the consular convention with Italy is no longer in force; opinion that the passage of the proposed bill would be undesirable
837

Representations by Foreign Governments Regarding Senate Bills for the Deportation of Certain Alien Seamen

Date and number Subject Page
1927 Feb. 4 (74) From the British Ambassador
Opinion that Senate bill 3574, providing for the deportation of certain alien seamen and other purposes will meet with strenuous opposition of British shipping interests; request for authoritative interpretation of the meaning of certain sections.
(Footnotes: Information that an official of the Department of State advised the British Embassy regarding status of the bill, stating that it was unlikely that any House committee action would be taken without the Department having an opportunity to be heard.
Information that the British and other representations were brought to the attention of the Senate Committee on Immigration.)
838
Feb. 5 From the German Ambassador
Observation that proposed bill would prove an extraordinary burden to German shipping interests.
839
Feb. 7 From the French Chargé
Opinion that proposed bill would prove cumbersome to the French colonial merchant marine; request for official interpretation of certain sections.
(Footnote: Information that in a note of February 17, 1927, the Department stated that if it were decided to consider the bill further, hearings would be held which would undoubtedly bring out more clearly the purposes of the proposed measure.)
839
1928 Jan. 4 From the British Embassy
Representations against Senate bill 717, which is almost identical with Senate bill 3574 which was killed in the House of Representatives the preceding year.
(Footnote: Receipt from British Embassy of a memorandum dated May 3, 1929, with reference to Senate bill 202 introduced April 18, 1929, identical with Senate bill 717.)
840
Jan. 13 From the Swedish Legation
Representations against Senate bill 717.
842
Jan. 17 (170) From the Netherlands Legation
Representations against Senate bill 717.
842
Undated [Rec’d Jan. 21] From the German Embassy
Objections to Senate bill 717.
843
Jan. 28 From the Norwegian Legation
Representations against Senate bill 717.
844
[Page CVIII]

ALBANIA

Recognition of Zog I, King of the Albanians

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Aug. 4 (48) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Decision of Ahmet Zogu, President of Albania, to proclaim himself King within 30 days.
845
Aug. 28 (28) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Instructions to keep Department advised concerning the proposed change of regime and the action colleagues will take concerning recognition and attendance at coronation.
845
Aug. 30 (510) From the Minister in Albania
Apparent finality of decision to proclaim Ahmet Zogu the King on September 1.
845
Sept. 1 (56) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Proclamation of Ahmet Zogu as “Zog I, King of the Albanians;” probability that there will be no coronation or ceremonies; information that colleagues are proceeding cautiously with regard to question of recognition; opinion that change of government has been brought about in a regular manner and will be accepted by Albania.
846
Sept. 5 (30) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Note from Albanian Minister, dated September 3 (text printed), announcing that on September 1 the Constitutional Convention unanimously voted the restoration of the monarchy and elected President Zogu as King of the Albanians. Instructions to cable information as to action taken or contemplated by colleagues concerning recognition.
847
Sept. 6 (58) From the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Note from Foreign Minister (excerpt printed) requesting recognition and stating intention to observe treaties signed by the Republic and to promote peace in the Balkans. Information that because change of regime is by statute, no question of treaty observance is involved, and that recognition has been granted by Italy, Greece, and Hungary.
847
Sept. 12 (35) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Note for Foreign Minister extending U. S. recognition and telegram of felicitation from President Coolidge to King Zog (texts printed).
848
Sept. 14 From King Zog to President Coolidge (tel.)
Appreciation for telegram of felicitation.
848
Sept. 20 (493) From the Minister in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Opinion of Albanian Chargé that U. S. recognition has gone far to establish King Zog’s government in the eyes of the world and has no doubt stimulated recognition by Yugoslavia.
849
Sept. 27 (525) From the Minister in Albania
Information concerning the intense gratification with which U. S. recognition was received in Albania. Foreign Minister’s note (text printed) in reply to U. S. Minister’s note extending recognition.
850
[Page CIX]

Treaties of Arbitration and Conciliation Between the United States and Albania, Signed October 22, 1928

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Apr. 24 (10) To the Minister in Albania (tel.)
Delivery to Albanian Minister of draft treaties of arbitration and conciliation.
852
Oct. 9 From the Albanian Minister
Receipt of instructions to sign the treaties of arbitration and conciliation, and also the treaty for the renunciation of war.
853
Oct. 22 Treaty Between the United States of America and Albania
Of arbitration.
853
Oct. 22 Treaty Between the United States of America and Albania
Of conciliation.
855

AUSTRIA

Negotiations Respecting Subordination of the Austrian Relief Loan to a Proposed New Austrian Loan; Authorization of a Debt Agreement

Date and number Subject Page
1927 Dec. 29 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Summary of present status of negotiations concerning proposed new Austrian internal reconstruction loan.
858
1928 Jan. 14 (13) From the Chargé in France (tel.)
Decision by Reparation Commission to give favorable consideration to Austrian application for deferment of the lien on Austrian assets and revenues under Treaty of St. Germain, in order to insure service of the proposed new Austrian loan.
859
Jan. 16 (7) From the Austrian Minister
Deferment by Reparation Commission and all other creditor nations, except the United States, of their liens for a period of 30 years beginning from the issue of the proposed new Austrian loan; request that recommendation be made to Congress for a bill authorizing 30–year deferment of U. S. lien, in order that the loan negotiations may proceed without further obstruction; desire for separate treatment of deferment of lien and debt questions.
860
Jan. 19 (4) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Chancellor’s hope that U. S. Government is convinced of Austria’s earnest attempt to effect relief debt settlement and will therefore be satisfied with expediting action without awaiting a final settlement by agreement.
861
Jan. 21 (5) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Observation that the Executive cannot decide on Austrian request to approach Congress with a recommendation for deferment of lien without first making an independent investigation of the proposed loan’s bearing upon Austria’s economic and financial status; information that Austrian Minister has been thus informed and advised that additional data will be welcomed.
862
[Page CX]Jan. 23 (1692) From the Minister in Austria
Information that Chancellor will furnish Minister duplicates of material Austrian Government is supplying to J. P. Morgan & Co. representative now making a thorough investigation of Austria’s financial status; also that Morgan representative will furnish substance of the data he collects.
862
Jan. 28 (11/R) From the Austrian Minister
Correspondence between Austrian Government and the International Relief Bonds Committee in London, comprising original Austrian proposal for settlement of relief debt, counterproposal by Committee, and Austrian reply of January 14, 1928 (texts printed); Austrian proposal for funding of relief debt to the United States (text printed).
864
Feb. 2 To the Austrian Legation
Principal aspects of the proposed loan on which the Department lacks adequate data.
869
Feb. 3 (1704) From the Minister in Austria
Transmittal of documents furnished by Finance Ministry to the Morgan representative; latter’s opinion that general situation in Austria has substantially improved since two or three years previously.
870
Feb. 4 (15) To the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain whether League Financial Committee has studied proposed Austrian loan or whether it has any reason for not interesting itself in this loan as it did in the 1923 loan.
(Instructions to repeat to the Legation at Vienna, together with reply when ready, and to mail texts to the Embassies at London and Paris.)
872
Feb. 7 (18/R) From the Austrian Minister
Arguments in favor of the proposed loan; plea, however, that legislation for deferment of lien be recommended to Congress and that judgment as to merits of Austrian loan be postponed to a time when question of American participation comes up for decision.
873
Feb. 9 (10) From the Minister in Switzerland (tel.)
Information that League Financial Committee is not interesting itself in the present loan because it was not requested by Austria to set up the machinery for a loan nor is Austria taking any action that might jeopardize seriously the country’s entire financial structure.
(Repeated to the Legation in Austria.)
876
Feb. 15 (9) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Austrian statement (text printed) setting forth improvements in railways and posts which are contemplated under the proposed loan.
(Request that copy be given to Austrian Minister.)
877
[Page CXI]Feb. 16 (10) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that the Government is beginning to be sharply criticized by the opposition press, that it is known that the United States is the sole remaining obstruction to the negotiations and flotation of loan, and that the Chancellor hopes that early congressional action will be deemed justified by the information now furnished.
(Copies of this telegram and No. 9 of February 15 to missions at London, Paris, and Berne.)
879
Feb. 17 (12) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions to clarify certain points in telegram No. 9 of February 15; information that the Department is giving immediate consideration to the matter.
879
Feb. 18 (11) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information as requested in Department’s telegram No. 12 of February 17.
880
Feb. 21 (15) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Issuance by Secretary of the Treasury of press statement summarizing Austrian loan situation and announcing that recommendation will be made to Congress for legislation to permit subordination of the American lien; instructions to so advise appropriate officials informally.
(Instructions to repeat to London, Paris, and Berne.)
881
Mar. 5 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Disinclination of Morgan & Co. to go ahead with the proposed loan unless suitable arrangements are made regarding European relief creditors’ stipulation that their agreement to subordinate lien is dependent upon Austria’s agreement to a definite settlement of the relief credits and unless reparation debt is postponed as well as subordinated.
881
Mar. 5 (16) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions to ascertain correctness of report regarding conditional agreement of European relief creditors to subordination of their lien; to inquire status of relief debt negotiations; and to state that U. S. Government expects treatment on an equal footing with the other governments involved.
882
Mar. 5 (56) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Desire for information concerning report that European relief creditors are making subordination of lien conditional upon Austrian agreement to settle relief credits.
(Instructions to repeat reply to Legation in Austria.)
882
Mar. 7 (46/R) From the Austrian Minister
Proposal for funding of relief debt to all creditor nations, including the United States.
883
Mar. 7 From the Austrian Minister
Memorandum stating that the Austrian Government does not know of any change in status of case whereby European creditor nations make their agreement to subordination of lien dependent on funding of relief credits and advising that there must be some misapprehension (text printed).
884
[Page CXII]Mar. 7 (12) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Understanding in Vienna that subordination of relief bonds lien becomes automatic assuming U. S. Government acts; Foreign Office assurance that the French, Italian, Swiss, and Netherlands Governments have indicated willingness to accept Austrian proposal for settlement of relief debt provided British Government will do the same. Inquiry whether situation might not be fully met by passage of a joint resolution similar to that of April 6, 1922, so that Secretary of Treasury could exercise his discretion in light of action of other interested powers.
885
Mar. 7 From the Minister in Austria
Concurrence in Austrian contention that the other relief credit states cannot now in good faith make a prior relief credit settlement a condition precedent to lien subordination; reiteration of suggestion as to joint resolution.
886
Mar. 9 (46) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Information that report in Department’s telegram No. 56 of March 5 appears to be correct; understanding that representatives of the interested governments will meet soon.
(Repeated to Vienna.)
887
Mar. 9 (66) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Inquiry whether there have been any recent developments as to fixing Austrian reparations and liability for army costs.
(Instructions to forward telegram and reply to missions at Vienna and London.)
887
Mar. 10 (17) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions to mention informally to appropriate official the general nature of the report contained in London Embassy’s telegram No. 46 of March 9 and to telegraph further comment.
888
Mar. 10 (58) To the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Instructions to have frank talk with Foreign Office regarding meeting of the Control Committee to be held March 15, inquiring whether definite action in authorizing proposed loan is to be conditioned on settlement of relief indebtedness, or whether both propositions may be settled simultaneously.
(Instructions to repeat to missions at Paris and Vienna. Information that missions at London, Paris, and Vienna should keep each other mutually informed.)
889
Mar. 12 (13) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that the Control Committee advanced their meeting at Geneva to March 8 and approved investment plan set forth in telegram No. 9 of February 15. Plan of Relief Bonds Committee to meet at London on March 30; understanding that governments have given assurances that there is no disposition to force settlement of loan authorization and relief indebtedness simultaneously.
890
Mar. 13 (48) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Understanding that Relief Bonds Committee will meet on March 30 in effort to reach terms for settlement of European relief debts, the settlement to provide that priority of relief debts over reparations is maintained; observation that approval of Reparation Commission will be required.
890
[Page CXIII]Mar. 13 (49) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Report of expectation that meeting of March 30 will accept general terms of last Austrian offer for settlement of European relief debts.
891
Mar. 13 (64) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Absence of further developments in the fixing of Austrian reparation liabilities; status of the several claims for army costs; impression that European creditors are not likely to stultify their efforts toward rehabilitation of Austria by unduly burdensome reparation or other treaty payments.
891
Mar. 14 (65) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Possibility that if Austria should begin payment on relief bonds account in 1929 in accordance with funding proposal, Italy and perhaps France might raise question of obtaining some payment for army costs in view of priority of army costs over the relief bonds.
893
Mar. 14 (18) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that the situation is sufficiently clarified to warrant forwarding to President Coolidge recommendation that he ask Congress to grant to Secretary of the Treasury authority to subordinate lien; authorization to inform Chancellor.
894
Mar. 15 (19) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions to cable the dollar equivalent of the total amount of relief indebtedness of Austria to the creditor governments, including the United States.
894
Mar. 16 (52) From the Ambassador in Great Britain (tel.)
Report that the Control Committee met March 8 and raised no objection to proposed Austrian expenditure.
895
Mar. 16 (14) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that total principal amount of Austrian relief indebtedness is equivalent of $119,846,673.80.
895
Mar. 19 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Approval by the Secretaries of State and the Treasury of procedure for the drafting of a bill to authorize subordination of the lien and to authorize the latter to conclude a debt-funding agreement with Austria.
896
Mar. 19 (59/R) From the Austrian Minister
Assurance that the Austrian Government intends to make an early settlement of the relief debt and will make a settlement with the United States on a basis no less favorable than that made with any of the other relief creditor governments.
896
Mar. 20 President Coolidge to the Congress of the United States
Recommendation that Congress enact the legislation proposed in enclosed report of the Secretary of the Treasury, dated March 19 (text printed).
897
Mar. 20 (21) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions to inform the Chancellor of President Coolidge’s recommendation to Congress.
901
[Page CXIV]Mar. 22 (63/R) From the Austrian Minister
Appreciation for the President’s action.
901
Mar. 23 To the Minister in Austria
Observation that it is too early to predict the reaction in Congress, but that the State and Treasury Departments will do what is possible in helping the legislation through.
902
Apr. 3 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Information from the Austrian Minister that at the meeting of relief creditors, all governments except Italy agreed to accept the Austrian proposal for settlement of relief debts; his observation that as long as the United States has not yet adopted the pending legislation, Italy could defer action and not be isolated.
902
Apr. 7 To the Austrian Minister
Assurance that the Department of State will continue its collaboration with the Treasury Department in connection with consideration of the proposed legislation.
903
Apr. 11 To the Honorable Willis C. Hawley
Importance, from the standpoint of international relations, of early and favorable action on the proposed legislation.
904
Apr. 18 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Telephonic advice to the Austrian Minister that if the proposed legislation were adopted, the Secretary of the Treasury would not have authority to settle with Austria on the basis now under consideration unless Italy should accept similar terms.
905
May 21 (128) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Opinion that draft decision of Reparation Commission concerning Austrian application for exception of certain revenues from first charge under Treaty of St. Germain is satisfactory; inquiry, however, whether reference should be made in preamble to the legislation pending in Congress of the United States. Request for instructions.
906
May 22 (143) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Opinion that there would be no advantage in mentioning the United States in preamble or decision.
907
May 28[27?] (137) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that the Italian delegation on the Reparation Commission blocked any action on Austrian application, and that further consideration of question has been postponed to next meeting to be held June 23; opinion that the Italian reasons given are only a pretext and that there are other reasons back of their attitude.
907
May 29 (139) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Understanding that the Italian representative on Relief Bonds Committee now opposes Austrian loan on much the same grounds as those advanced in Reparation Commission meeting.
909
May 29 (27) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Adjournment of Congress without action on proposed legislation.
909
[Page CXV]May 31 (24) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Report of keen disappointment and some despondency in official quarters.
909
June 1 (28) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Authorization to point out that proposed legislation did not get as far as floor of either House owing to the pressure of pending legislation toward close of the session, but that it will be taken up at December session.
909
June 2 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State
Information that the Italian Ambassador called on June 1 to say officially that Italy feels the arrangement to make a further loan to Austria is not satisfactory.
910
June 4 (25) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Parliamentary declaration by the Chancellor with regard to status of the proposed loan, in which he attributed Italy’s attitude in Reparation Commission to the strained relations still existing between the two countries.
910
June 14 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Conversation in which the Austrian Minister advised that he now felt that it would probably be best to conclude a definite debt settlement with the United States, and was told that the matter would be reviewed.
(Footnote: Similar expression by the Austrian Minister to the Assistant Secretary of State on June 21.)
911
June 21 (691) To the Minister in Austria
Desire of U. S. Government to avoid, if possible, sharing with Italy the responsibility for blocking proposed loan; instructions to continue to report any developments of interest which may have a bearing on U. S. course of action.
(Similar instructions to missions at Rome, Paris, and London.)
911
July 27 (1798) From the Ambassador in Italy
Information that there has been no change in Italian Government’s attitude.
912
Aug. 16 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Conversation in which the Austrian Minister stated expectation of an early adjustment of the difficulties with Italy which led to blocking of the loan proposal and inquired whether it would not be better to drop the bill introduced at last session of Congress and submit the definitive terms of a debt settlement; Economic Adviser’s reply that Austrian Government should submit full data in support of any proposal it might make.
912
Aug. 28 Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State
Information from the Austrian Minister, in conversation on August 27, that Vienna has word that the Italians will not make any trouble, but that he feels that Congress will not pass on the legislation unless a debt-funding agreement has been made; his inquiry whether Austria should send a debt funding commission.
913
[Page CXVI]Sept. 28 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Conversation with the Austrian Minister who stated that he would soon submit an exhaustive economic and financial study in support of the proposed debt settlement and was advised that the Department did not believe that his previous suggestion for an Austrian debt funding commission was desirable; the Austrian Minister’s further statement that he had already recommended that Dr. Schüller be sent and that it would be difficult now to recommend against his trip.
(Footnote: The American Minister to Austria and Mr. Livesey of the Office of the Economic Adviser were also present.)
914
Oct. 22 (1992) From the Minister in Austria
Reasons why the Austrian Government desires that Dr. Schüller go to Washington.
915
Nov. 14 (158/R) From the Austrian Minister
Formal proposal for the final settlement of Austrian relief bond indebtedness to the United States.
917
Nov. 20 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Report of the interview at which Austrian Minister presented Dr. Schüller to the Secretary of State.
921
Nov. 20 Memorandum by the Economic Adviser
Conversation with the Austrian Minister and Dr. Schüller in which the latter conveyed the information that Austria considers the relief debt agreement negotiated June 15 with Denmark, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, to be now in force, and that it will begin payments on January 1, 1929, at the same time making corresponding payments to the United States and to Italy.
921
Dec. 7 (40) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Submission of the proposed debt agreement to the House Ways and Means Committee; Committee’s consideration of amended joint resolution authorizing subordination of the lien in favor of the proposed loan and the conclusion of a debt agreement set forth in general terms in the resolution.
923
Dec. 12 (42) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Adoption by the House, December 11, of the amended resolution.
(Footnote: Excerpt from telegram No. 79 of June 15, 1929, to the Embassy in France, stating that the joint resolution passed Congress and was approved by the President on February 4, 1929, that Austria made the payment due January 1, 1929, and that the agreement will not be signed until Reparation Commission has taken action indicated in paragraph 6 of the agreement and the Secretary of the Treasury is satisfied that such action is adequate to guarantee security and priority over the costs of reparation.)
923
[Page CXVII]

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights Between the United States and Austria, Signed June 19, 1928

Date and number Subject Page
1926 May 12 (459) To the Minister in Austria
Instructions to renew negotiations with regard to the proposed treaty of friendship, commerce and consular rights; U. S. views on changes to be made in draft and on Austrian counter proposals concerning articles 1 to 6.
924
July 20 (1106) From the Minister in Austria
Information that understanding has been reached with Dr. Schüller of the Foreign Office concerning practically all matters in controversy in the first six articles.
932
Dec. 1 (527) To the Minister in Austria
Instructions with regard to articles 7 to 14.
937
1927 Feb. 11 (552) To the Minister in Austria
Continuation of instructions; consideration of articles 15 to 25.
943
Feb. 24 (556) To the Minister in Austria
Comments on results of negotiations regarding the first six articles.
956
Apr. 2 (566) To the Minister in Austria
Supplementary instructions concerning articles 7 and 25.
960
Apr. 30 (1372) From the Minister in Austria
Acknowledgment of receipt of full powers to sign treaty as finally approved by Department; report of progress of negotiations.
965
June 23 (602) To the Minister in Austria
Supplementary instructions; hope that steady progress will be made so that treaty may be signed in time for submission to the Senate at the December session.
969
June 30 (605) To the Minister in Austria
Additional instructions regarding articles 11 and 12.
972
July 11 (1468) From the Minister in Austria
Report that negotiations are practically concluded; review of the chief articles which have been the subject of the most controversy; hope that Department can meet Austrian views on articles 7, 11, and 12.
974
Sept. 10 (53) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Desire for telegraphic instructions regarding articles 7, 11, and 12, which alone remain open for discussion.
984
Sept. 13 (15) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Approval of text as it now stands, with exception of articles 7, 11, and 12, on which instructions will be sent as soon as possible.
984
Sept. 23 (17) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions with regard to article 7, relating to most-favored-nation treatment of commerce.
985
[Page CXVIII]Sept. 26 (56) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Comments on discussions with Dr. Schüller regarding article 7.
986
Oct. 4 (1554) From the Minister in Austria
Foreign Office suggestion with regard to certificates of identity for commercial travelers provided under article 11; report that another conference has been held with Austrian officials regarding article 7; desire that Department review suggestions contained in telegram No. 56 of September 26 to see whether they do not to all intents and purposes secure what the United States desires.
987
1928 Mar. 17 (20) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions for certain revisions of article 7.
990
Apr. 12 (24) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Views on article 11, and suggested provision to meet Austrian views; understanding that no questions are now before the Department in respect of which instructions have been requested.
991
Apr. 20 (18) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that revised draft of article 7 as authorized by the Department has finally been accepted; desire for early instructions on minor points regarding identification certificates for commercial travelers and duration and termination of the treaty, so that negotiations can be completed and the treaty signed in May.
991
Apr. 24 (20) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Austrian preference for new phraseology in article 11; their willingness to accept term of 7 years for duration of treaty.
992
Apr. 27 (25) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Gratification at Austrian acceptance of article 7; information that Department’s suggestions as to identification certificates are regarded as essential; authorization to substitute term of 7 years for 8 or 6 if Austrian negotiator prefers.
993
May 9 (23) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Revision of article 11 pursuant to Department’s telegram No. 24 of April 12; assent to Austrian preference for 6-year term. Information that Cabinet Council is taking the necessary formalities and that treaty will probably be signed in the current month.
993
June 5 (29) To the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Instructions, if treaty is not yet signed and if agreeable to Austria, to revise portion of article 25 relating to termination of sixth paragraph of article 7; information that Department has altered policy toward Senate reservation to article 7 in treaty with Germany, and wishes to include provision for national treatment of snipping, obligatory for full term of treaty.
994
June 16 (28) From the Minister in Austria (tel.)
Information that the changes indicated in Department’s telegram No. 29 of June 5 have been made and that the treaty will be signed June 18.
(Footnote: Telegraphic advice from the Minister that the treaty was signed on June 19.)
994
[Page CXIX]June 19 Treaty Between the United States of America and Austria
Of friendship, commerce and consular rights.
(Bracketed note: Information that a Senate reservation on February 11, 1929, was accepted by both Governments in an exchange of notes dated January 20, 1931.)
995
1931 Jan. 20 From the American Minister in Austria to the Austrian Vice-Chancellor and Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs
Hope that Austrian Government will accept the reservation regarding duration of provision for national shipping contained in article 7 as specified in Senate resolution of February 11, 1929, giving advice and consent to ratification (text printed).
1006
Jan. 20 From the Austrian Vice-Chancellor and Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Minister in Austria
Declaration of agreement with Senate reservation, subject to ratification.
1007
Jan. 20 Supplementary Agreement Between the United States of America and Austria
Providing that the treaty may be terminated on February 11, 1935, or any date thereafter, upon one year’s notice by either party.
1007

Treaties of Arbitration and Conciliation Between the United States and Austria, Signed August 16, 1928

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Mar. 23 (23) To the Minister in Austria
Information that drafts of proposed treaties of arbitration and conciliation have been handed to the Austrian Minister.
1008
May 3 (96/R) From the Austrian Minister
Readiness of Austria to conclude the proposed treaties of arbitration and concilation.
1009
Aug. 16 Treaty Between the United States of America and Austria
Of arbitration.
1009
Aug. 16 Treaty Between the United States of America and Austria
Of conciliation.
1011

Disinclination of the United States To Enter Into a Treaty With Austria Granting to Immigrants Equal Rights With Citizens in Matters of Legal Protection

Date and number Subject Page
1927 July 21 From the Austrian Minister
Memorandum (text printed) stating desire of the Austrian Government to enter into a convention assuring legal protection in certain cases to the citizens of both countries.
1013
[Page CXX]1928 Feb. 10 To the Austrian Minister
Memorandum (text printed) stating that the U. S. Government is disinclined to enter into the convention suggested, in view of the fact that even in absence of treaty provisions aliens in the United States are placed upon an equality with American citizens in the matter of legal remedies and also because the questions of procedure in the courts of the different States are matters to be determined in accordance with the laws of the several States.
1014

BOLIVIA

Good Offices of the Department of State in Behalf of the Standard Oil Company in Establishing Radio Station at Yacuiba

Date and number Subject Page
1928 June 12 (12) To the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Desire of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey to establish a radio station at Yacuiba and their request to Bolivian Government for assignment of short wave channels; instructions to advise the Foreign Minister informally that the Department would be glad to see this additional channel of communication established between Bolivia and the United States.
1018
Aug. 24 (38) From the Minister in Bolivia (tel.)
Signature of Executive decree, August 23, authorizing the Standard Oil Co. to construct a radio station at Yacuiba.
1018

BRAZIL

Disapproval by the Department of State of Proposed Refunding in the American Market of State of São Paulo Loan of 1926

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 2 From Mr. Andrew Ten Eyck, for E. H. Rollins & Sons. New York
Desire for approval of proposed refunding in the American market of the loan of the State of São Paulo which was brought out in London in 1926 through the São Paulo Coffee Institute.
1019
Feb. 16 To Mr. Andrew Ten Eyck, for E. H. Rollins & Sons, New York
Inability to modify position taken by U. S. Government prior to flotation of the loan of 1926 that the issue in the American market of a loan in connection with coffee valorization would not be viewed with favor.
1020
[Page CXXI]

Refusal of the Department of State To Disapprove Loan to State of São Paulo Because of Claim of American Firm Against State

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Mar. 29 To the Consul at São Paulo (tel.)
Request by Baker, Kellogg & Co. and Ulen & Co. that the Department use its informal good offices to endeavor to induce State of São Paulo to deliver an issue of vicinal bonds to the Itararé-Fartura Railroad which were assigned by the railroad to the American interests as security for a loan; instructions to discuss matter informally with the appropriate authorities, expressing hope that a mutually satisfactory solution may be reached in the near future.
1020
Apr. 2 From the Consul at São Faulo (tel.)
Information from the State Secretary of Fazenda that the bonds have not been issued because the State has been judicially notified by another creditor that bonds should be delivered to him, and that the matter is now being studied by State’s legal adviser.
1021
May 3 (15) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Intention of the American interests, if State will not agree to make a satisfactory settlement, to bring influence to bear on bankers’ associations both in the United States and in Europe to prevent flotation of future loans by the State, on the ground that it does not live up to its financial obligations; instructions to express to Brazilian President the hope that for the best interests of all a satisfactory settlement may be reached, but to be careful not to appear to be making any threats on behalf of the bankers.
1022
June 19 From Speyer & Co.
Hope that the Department will have no objection to a proposed flotation in the United States of an international loan to the State of São Paulo.
1022
June 21 To Speyer & Co.
Nonobjection to proposed loan.
1023
June 23 (26) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Difficulty of securing information for American interests in regard to the Itararé-Fartura Railway matter because of the antagonism which their peremptory methods have developed among members of the São Paulo Government; information that illness of the President has prevented conferences with him.
1024
June 29 (23) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.)
Belief that as soon as the President’s health permits the Ambassador should take action suggested in Department’s telegram No. 15 of May 3.
1025
July 10 From Speyer & Co.
Information that American portion of the loan has been reduced from $25,000,000 to $15,000,000.
1025
July 17 From Field, Glore & Co., International Acceptance Bank, Baker, Kellogg & Co., and Ulen & Company
Inquiry whether the Department would give its approval to the reported new loan to State of São Paulo when the borrower is known to be in default.
1025
[Page CXXII]July 20 (3039) From the Ambassador in Brazil
Willingness of Brazilian President to endeavor to interest President of São Paulo in affording some assistance to the American groups concerned with the Itararé-Fartura Railway; Ambassador’s inability to prophesy how successful the representations may be, in view of the threat contained in bankers’ telegram of March 1 (excerpt printed).
1026
July 28 To Field, Glore & Co., International Acceptance Bank, Baker, Kellogg & Co., and Lien & Company
Inability to establish any connection between bankers’ grievance against the State of São Paulo and the flotation of a loan of that State.
1027

Assistance of the Department of State in Protecting Patent Rights of the Symington Company in Brazil From Infringement by Belgian Firm

Date and number Subject Page
1928 Feb. 29 (92) From the Chargé in Belgium
Information that the Symington Co. alleges that the Société Anonyme des Ateliers de Construction de Familleureux is infringing their patents on railway equipment in connection with order for Brazilian railroads. Opinion that the action of the Belgian firm contravenes the convention for the protection of industrial property of June 2, 1911, to which the United States and Belgium are parties. Instructions to inquire of Foreign Office whether it will not be possible for Belgian authorities to take action with a view to preventing violation of treaty rights of U. S. citizens.
1028
Mar. 9 (1342) To the Ambassador in Brazil
Information similar to that telegraphed on February 29 to the Chargé in Belgium. Instructions to bring the matter urgently to the attention of the Foreign Office, with the request that the shipment in question be prevented from entering Brazil until the Symington rights under the laws of Brazil and the patent convention of 1910 have been recognized and due compensation paid them by the infringers of the patents.
1029
Mar. 22 From the General Counsel of The Symington Company
Advice that the Belgian company has recognized the validity of the Brazilian patents owned by the Symington Company and has agreed to pay royalties; expression of appreciation for the Department’s assistance.
1031
Mar. 24 (2978) From the Ambassador in Brazil
Satisfactory settlement of the Symington difficulties; expression of appreciation by the company’s representatives in Rio de Janeiro for the assistance rendered by the commercial attaché.
1031
Apr. 5 (1355) To the Ambassador in Brazil
Receipt of letter from the General Counsel of the Symington Company dated March 22, stating that matter has been satisfactorily settled. Instructions to take no further action in the matter.
(Sent also, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the Ambassador in Belgium.)
1032
[Page CXXIII]Apr. 23 (234) From the Ambassador in Belgium
Foreign Office note of April 20 (text printed) replying to Embassy’s note sent in accordance with instruction No. 92 of February 29, in which Belgian Government advises that the matter is one of private law rather than violation of the international convention, and states that it could only interpose its good offices in order to obtain eventually a friendly settlement.
1032

BULGARIA

Disinclination of the United States To Participate in Agreement Regarding Apportionment of Bulgarian Reparation Payments

Date and number Subject Page
1928 May 21 (841) From the Greek Minister
Request that the powers signatory to the agreement of January 14, 1925, regarding distribution of the Dawes annuities, take steps to effect a new apportionment of Bulgarian payments; reservation of right to request that the Greek share be increased.
1035
June 12 To the Greek Minister
Information that the formal relationship of the U. S. Government to the proposed action is receiving consideration.
1036
June 28 From the Ambassador in France
Concurrence in Department’s opinion that U. S. Government would not wish to sign any new distribution agreement because the United States does not participate in Bulgarian payments.
1036
July 11 (187) From the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Information that protocol has been prepared by British, French, and Italian representatives granting to Greece a special advance from the Bulgarian blocked payments; request for authorization to advise General Secretary that the United States does not feel called upon to sign a protocol drawn up following the proposed discussions.
1038
July 12 (211) To the Ambassador in France (tel.)
Authorization as requested in telegram No. 187 of July 11.
1038
[Page [CXXIV]]