314.115C43/161
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Guatemala (Geissler)
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence concerning the Shufeldt claim, particularly your telegrams Nos. 98 and 102 of July 29 and August 8, 1929, you are informed that the Department is taking steps to ascertain, through the British Embassy in this city, whether Sir Herbert Sisnett, Chief Justice of British Honduras, can serve as sole arbitrator, and you will be duly informed of the result. Meantime, with a view to reaching, through an exchange of notes, a definitive agreement concerning the arbitration, you are instructed to present to the Guatemalan Foreign Office a note reading as follows:
“Referring to previous correspondence between the Legation and the Guatemalan Foreign Office concerning the claim of P. W. Shufeldt against the Government of Guatemala, which claim has been espoused by the Government of the United States, I hereby confirm my previous statements to the effect that the Government of the United States is desirous of having this question submitted to a single arbitrator, to be agreed upon by the two Governments. The question to be submitted to the arbitrator is as follows:
“‘What sum, if any, is justly due from the Guatemalan Government to the Government of the United States on account of the action of the Guatemalan Government in canceling by a legislative decree (No. 1544) of May 22, 1928, approved by the President on July 4, 1928, a contract celebrated on February 4, 1922, between the Government and Srs. Francisco Najera A. and Victor M. Morales I., for the extraction within a defined area of the Department of Petén, and exportation, of a minimum of 75,000 quintals of chicle over a period of ten years, the rights of the said Najera and Morales having been ceded, by a contract of February 11, 1922, to P. W. Shufeldt, a citizen of the United States, which was recognized and accepted by the Guatemalan Government.’
“It is proposed that the following procedure shall govern the presentation and adjudication of the case by the tribunal, and the payment of the award, if any:
I
“The arbitrator shall sit at a place to be agreed upon by the two Governments.
[Page 147]II
“Each Government shall designate an Agent or Counsel, or both, to present its case to the tribunal and to make arguments and submit evidence in support thereof.
III
“The cases of the two Governments, which shall contain a statement of the law and facts relied upon together with the supporting evidence, shall be presented in writing, in either the English or the Spanish language, to the arbitrator within a period of sixty days after the exchange of notes between the two Governments by which the arbitration is agreed upon. A copy of the case of each Government shall at the same time be submitted by its Agent to the Agent of the other Government. If either Agent submits with the case of his Government original documents as evidence, copies thereof shall accompany the copy of the case furnished to the other Agent.
“The arbitrator shall begin his consideration of the cases of the two Governments upon their receipt by him.
IV
“Within a period of sixty days following the termination of the sixty days period mentioned in the preceding article, the Agent of each Government may submit to the arbitrator a counter case, which shall be restricted to matters in answer to the case of the opposite party. A copy of the counter case of each Government shall at the same time be submitted by its Agent to the Agent of the other Government.
V
“Within a period of thirty days following the termination of the sixty days period mentioned in the preceding article, both Governments may, in the discretion of the arbitrator, be allowed to submit oral or written arguments concerning matters brought up in the cases and counter cases.
VI
“Each Government shall have the right to the discovery of any documents that are relevant to the matters at issue, and original documents or certified copies of originals shall be furnished upon reasonable notice, provided that their production is compatible with the public interest.
VII
“The tribunal shall have authority to establish such other rules for its proceedings, not in conflict with any of the provisions herein contained, as may be deemed expedient and necessary.
VIII
“The tribunal shall keep a record of its proceedings.
“The two Governments shall assign to the tribunal such clerical or other assistants as may be necessary.
[Page 148]“The tribunal is authorized to administer oaths to witnesses and to take evidence on oath.
IX
“The decision of the tribunal shall be given within a period of sixty days following the termination of the thirty days period mentioned in Article V.
“The decision, when made, shall be forthwith communicated to the Governments at Washington and Guatemala. It shall be accepted as final and binding upon the two Governments.
X
“Each Government shall pay its own expenses and one-half of the common expenses of the arbitration.
XI
“The amount granted by the award, if any, shall be payable in gold coin of the United States, at the Department of State, Washington, within one year after the rendition of the decision by the tribunal, with interest at 6 per centum per annum, beginning to run one month after the rendition of the decision.
“The reply of the Foreign Office will be duly communicated to the Department of State at Washington.”
You are requested to report briefly by telegraph and fully in writing the response of the Guatemalan Foreign Office to the above quoted note. If the response is an acceptance, the sixty days period within which the cases of the two Governments must be placed in the hands of the arbitrator will begin to run from the date of its receipt by the Legation.
You will observe that the note contains no statement concerning the honorarium to be paid to the arbitrator. You may take this matter up separately with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and suggest that an honorarium of $1200 per month would seem to be reasonable. In your telegram of July 29 you reported the suggestion of the Minister that there should be three arbitrators, each of whom should receive an honorarium not to exceed $1000 per month. As the task of a sole arbitrator would necessarily be more onerous than that of one member of a tribunal composed of three, a sum in excess of that proposed by the Minister seems reasonable.
. . . . . . .
I am [etc.]