738.3915/435
The Minister in the Dominican Republic ( Schoenfeld ) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 9.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the Department’s instruction No. 177 of October 28, 1931, embodying a memorandum setting forth the Department’s views with reference to the undated memorandum of the Dominican Government transmitted to the Department with this Legation’s despatch No. 436 of July 13, 1931, on the subject of the possible mediation of the Government of the United States in the controversy between the Haitian and Dominican Governments over the frontier between the two countries.
I respectfully suggest for the Department’s consideration that, in the light of my despatch No. 33 of October 28, 1931, it may be unnecessary at this time to speak to the Dominican Minister for Foreign Affairs in the sense of the memorandum quoted in the Department’s instruction under acknowledgment. I should welcome the Department’s [Page 790] further instructions as to this point after it has received my despatch No. 33 which goes forward in the same pouch with the present despatch.
I may shortly have an opportunity, however, and in that event will take it, to discuss with the Minister of Foreign Affairs the supposed proffer of mediation on the part of the Department. The Dominican memorandum above-mentioned, in paragraph 32 thereof, refers to “mediation initiated by the American Government”, but I am inclined to think that expression was used carelessly by the then Dominican Minister for Foreign Affairs who, so far as I can judge without having his personal acquaintance, was less well equipped to understand and deal with the boundary controversy with Haiti than is his successor who is now in office.
I desire respectfully to call the Department’s attention to the fact that, in the opinion of this Legation, Articles 4 and 7 of the Haitian-Dominican Boundary Treaty of January 21, 1929, do not appear to be relevant to the present state of the controversy because, so far from there being at present a controversy in the body of the Delimitation Commission as to the actual delineation of the frontier, the Haitian Section of the Commission has evidently ceased operations completely, as reported in my despatch No. 33 above-mentioned. Articles 4 and 7 of the Convention expressly refer to differences arising in the body of the Delimitation Commission, whereas Article 18 of the same Convention has reference to “difficulties of any nature whatever between the two Governments in relation to the present treaty”. It appears to me that in the negotiation of this Treaty the Dominican Government was out-maneuvered by the Haitian Government in that, by the simple expedient, on the part of the latter, of preventing the Haitian Section of the Delimitation Commission from operating, the only recourse left to the Dominican Government is to invoke the general arbitration provisions of Article 18. Since this Article is drawn in most general terms it is consequently easy for the Haitian Government indefinitely to defer any concrete action looking to arbitration, no provision being made for the formulation of the compromis or as to the manner in which the tribunal of arbitration shall be set up and operate. The provisions of Article 4 and those of Article 7 et seq., pertaining to the functions of the International Mixed Commission, seem therefore wholly illusory so long as the differences to be adjudicated do not refer specifically to disagreements between the Haitian and the Dominican Sections of the Delimitation Commission.
A copy of this despatch is being forwarded to the Legation at Port-au-Prince for its strictly confidential information.
Respectfully yours,