714.1515/1084: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in Honduras ( Lay )

29. Your 46, June 17, 5 p.m. The suggestion was not made by the Department that the Arbitral Commission be composed of one delegate proposed by Honduras, one by Guatemala, and presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States. The Department’s representative at the meeting of the Commission first asked the Honduran delegates who would be acceptable as Arbitrator and they listed the President of the United States, the Chief Justice, or one of the American Judges on The Hague Tribunal. Guatemala insisted upon the Central American Tribunal as the Treaty of 192380 is binding on both Guatemala and Honduras. Honduras was not favorable to the Central American Tribunal. Inquiry was then made whether that Tribunal would be acceptable if agreement was had in advance as to who would preside over it. The Guatemalan delegate said that the Chief Justice of the United States would be eminently satisfactory to Guatemala as the third and presiding member. The Honduran delegation immediately accepted this proposal but stated it desired to have a Tribunal of three, one appointed by Guatemala, one by Honduras, to be presided over by the Chief Justice. The Guatemalan delegation insists that as the Treaty of 1923 is in effect and binding between the two countries that Tribunal should be accepted with the agreement made in advance, if necessary, as to the members who will compose the Tribunal. Honduras, while admitting that the Convention is in effect, maintains that it does not apply to this one particular case because Article I excepts cases in which the parties have “accepted some other form of arbitration”. The Honduran position is that the Treaty of 191481 was in effect when this Treaty was signed in 1923 and constituted acceptance of some other form of arbitration. The Honduran delegation maintains that the Treaty of 1914 was in effect at the time of the Central American Conference [Page 350] in 1923 and that as the Convention signed at that time might not be ratified for some months, Mr. Hughes’ suggestion that the boundary matter be settled in accordance with the 1914 Convention was perfectly proper and acceptable to Guatemala. As you know, the Governments did not agree, however, on the formula for arbitration and no action was taken under the 1914 Treaty before it expired by limitation in 1925. That Treaty being now of no effect, Guatemala maintains that it can not be alleged that they have accepted some other form of arbitration and hence can not submit their boundary dispute to the Central American Tribunal. The Department considers that this view is correct and if you can persuade the Honduran Government to accept the Central American Tribunal, with an agreement that the Chief Justice of the United States be asked to preside at its deliberations, it will make an agreement very much easier.

The difference between the two delegations is one of form; both are agreed upon the composition of the Tribunal and it is merely this technicality as to whether they have accepted some other form of arbitration or not which is delaying an agreement. This technicality could in any event be waived by the Honduran Government, even should its position be correct, and the Department very much hopes it will do so in the interest of a prompt agreement.

Stimson
  1. Convention for the establishment of an international Central American Tribunal, signed at Washington, February 7, 1923, Conference on Central American Affairs, Washington, December 4, 1922–February 7, 1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923), p. 296.
  2. See Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 786.