817.00/5274: Telegram

The Chargé in Nicaragua ( Munro ) to the Secretary of State

29. The committee report approved by the Chamber of Deputies on Friday stated the constitutional objections to the electoral law as follows:

1.
That it would be a derogation of sovereignty and consequently a violation of the spirit of the Constitution to give a foreigner control of the electoral machinery. Articles 2 and 19 of the Constitution are cited in this connection.
2.
That article 3 of the project involves a delegation of legislative power, when the Constitution does not permit the delegation of legislative power even to the Executive except in certain specified subjects which do not include the conduct of elections.
3.
That the law would in effect deprive Congress of its constitutional right to canvass the vote and determine the result of the election.

The committee therefore proposed a substitute for project under which a representative of the United States would take part in the work of each of the electoral boards, national, departmental and local, with power to make recommendations and if necessary to propose changes in the existing laws which would be submitted to Congress for approval. No action taken by any board in the absence or without the approval of the American member would be valid. The existing electoral law would be suspended and Congress would enact a new law to govern the election of 1928.

[Paraphrase.] Yesterday I discussed the situation with Chamorro at length. He held that this project would give the United States all necessary control over the election. I replied that it was utterly unacceptable, and that a failure to pass the project of General McCoy7 would be simply a repudiation of the Tipitapa agreement8 by the Conservative Party. Chamorro asserted that his attitude was largely the result of his belief that the Department of State had decided to have General Moncada elected President. Chamorro then recapitulated the alleged instances of favoritism to the Liberals about which the Conservatives have complained in the past. Chamorro stated that his party had made up its mind that it would be defeated; that probably it [Page 423] would not take part in the election; that it might turn the Presidency over to a Liberal selected by the Congress prior to the election. I think this is a bluff, and that Chamorro’s real purpose is to try to secure some concession for the Conservative Party as the price of its cooperation. Chamorro expressed the desire to continue our conversations on Monday, and I expect to talk again with him and the President at that time. I am still hopeful of a favorable outcome.

I think in any event that the opposition of the Chamber of Deputies can be worn down eventually if the situation is handled properly. A delay of 2 or 3 weeks, although most unfortunate, will not be an irreparable disaster. I believe that I can continue to depend on the cooperation of the Senate and that the bloc in the Chamber of Deputies can be broken if the President will try to do so in good faith. I have not endeavored to work with individual Deputies, since they are now completely under the control of Chamorro, and also I feared that any effort to undermine his influence before I have exhausted every possible means of convincing him would only serve to render him more unmanageable. It is very important that the majority in Congress be persuaded to cooperate with the President because not only the electoral law, but the completion of the reorganization of the courts,9 the guardia agreement,10 and any financial arrangements which it may be desirable to make,11 are at stake. [End paraphrase.]

Munro
  1. Sees. 1–7 of the “McCoy project” were transmitted in telegram No. 196, Nov. 17, 1927, 6 p.m., to the Chargé in Nicaragua, Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. iii, p. 379; sec. 8 was transmitted in telegram No. 209, Nov. 29, 1927, 8 p.m., to the Chargé, ibid., p. 382; see also telegram No. 16, Jan. 23, 1928, 1 p.m., to the Chairman of the American Delegation to the Sixth International Conference of American States, for White, post, p. 447.
  2. i. e., the agreement between Colonel Stimson and General Moncada, confirmed by Colonel Stimson’s note to General Moncada, dated at Tipitapa, May 11, 1927. Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. iii, p. 345.
  3. See Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. iii, pp. 389 ff.
  4. See ibid., pp. 433 ff.
  5. See pp. 523 ff.