The gist of the enclosed note is that the Panaman Government wishes the
Treaty of 1926 to be reconsidered integrally.
No mention of this note has thus far appeared in the press.
[Enclosure—Translation]
The Panaman Acting Minister for Foreign
Affairs (Morales) to the American
Minister (South)
Panama, September 17, 1929.
D. D. No. 1481
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to refer to
the courteous note of the Honorable Benjamin Muse, Chargé d’Affaires
a. i., under date of July 25th last, relative to the case of the
English ship Tritonia.
Permit me, Excellency, to state that my Government reiterates once
more by this means that it does not concur in the thesis sustained
by Your Excellency’s Government in alleging that the commissaries
may sell without any restriction. This unlimited and unrestricted
right to sell which the said commercial institutions are said to
have arises from an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty of 1903
which my Government has never accepted and can never accept, since
it is unjust and prejudicial to the rights of sovereignty of the
Republic of Panama.
My Government has considered with care the observations and comments
made in the note in reference with regard to the treaty signed July
28, 1926. Your Excellency’s Government considers that many of the
apprehensions expressed with regard to the provisions of the Treaty
are caused by a misunderstanding of the intentions of those
provisions and suggests that some of the apprehensions of Panama
might be eliminated by means of an exchange of notes, if that should
[Page 727] be the desire of my
Government. It is true that there are in the said Treaty vague,
obscure terms, phrases which may be interpreted various ways,
inexact provisions, all of which have caused apprehensions which may
be made to disappear by means of clarifying notes. But even with
these clarifications, the Treaty of 1926, in its integrity, does not
satisfy the national desires (and) aspirations. It is true that a
Treaty, as the Chargé d’Affaires a. i. states in the note in
reference, is the result of a mutual accommodation of interests. But
my Government considers that what the Republic offers, gives and
cedes in that pact surpasses that which is given to her in
compensation.
To cite a concrete case, does Your Excellency think that the United
States has given Panama adequate and just compensation for the
cession of a part of Colón with which Article II deals? On that
account and because of the deep hurt the partitioning of the
national territory caused to our national patriotism, this article
constituted an invincible obstacle to the ratification of the
Treaty.
My Government desires, therefore, that the Treaty of 1926 be
reconsidered integrally.
The note which I have the high honor of answering reveals clearly to
us that Your Excellency’s Government is animated with the best will
to arrive at a permanent and satisfactory solution of the conflicts
which have arisen in the relations of our two countries.
My Government, for its part, earnestly desires to seal the friendship
which unites us to Your Excellency’s great country with a just,
equitable and noble pact which will mark a fixed course toward the
indestructible harmony of the lofty interests of both countries.
I avail myself [etc.]
