Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, The American Republics, Volume V

817.011/89a

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

No. 333

Washington, March 23, 1932.

Sir: There is enclosed herewith a copy of the memorandum of the Secretary of State in reply to the memoranda of Doctors Morales and Arguello dated March 2 and March 10, 1932,¹⁶ which was handed to the latter today. You may give such publicity as you think desirable to this document.

There is also transmitted for your information copies of the memoranda of Messrs. Morales and Arguello of March 2 and March 10, 1932.

Very truly yours,

For the Secretary of State:

Francis White

[Enclosure]

The Secretary of State to Doctors Morales and Arguello

Memorandum

The Secretary of State has given careful and sympathetic consideration to the two memoranda dated March 2 and March 10, 1932, presented by Doctor Carlos A. Morales and Doctor Horacio Arguello Bolaños, regarding the desire of the political entities which they represent to revise the Constitution of Nicaragua.

The Secretary of State has been very gratified to receive the statements of Messrs. Morales and Arguello that their parties deem that peace is the highest consideration in the welfare of Nicaragua, and that the Tipitapa Agreement closed the chapter of Nicaragua’s civil discord and opened a new era for the Republic by means of the free election of supreme authorities, and the establishment of a National Guard as a foundation of peace and a guarantee of public liberties.

Mr. Stimson desires in the first place to state that the question of amending the Nicaraguan Constitution is, of course, one for decision by Nicaragua itself. It is understood that the Department of State is being consulted because of the fact that the United States has consented, at the request of Nicaragua, to supervise the elections for supreme authorities in November, 1932, and that it is now desired to ascertain the views of the Department of State as to the extension of this electoral supervision to comprise elections for representatives to a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of effecting a total revision of the Constitution. This plan, it may be noted, would eliminate the scheduled elections for the regular Congress.

The memoranda of Messrs. Morales and Arguello set out four reasons for desiring a total amendment of the Constitution:

(1) The situation created by the ratification of the Canal Treaty of August 5, 1914;¹⁷

(2) The establishment of the National Guard on a firm basis;

(3) The establishment of proportional representation in certain branches of the Government; and

(4) The extension of the term of office of certain Government officials.

With regard to the Canal Treaty Mr. Stimson is gratified to note the following statement from the memorandum of March 10, 1932, presented by Messrs. Morales and Arguello:

“We believe it proper to declare, that we hold the considerations which we offered incidentally in our Memorandum of the 2nd of the current month of March on the approval of the Canal Treaty of 1914 to be eliminated from the discussion on the problem now before us, since we frankly acknowledge that Mr. White’s reply on that point is technically and legally correct and the Treaty has all its constitutional effectiveness.”

Mr. White, in the conference of March 7, 1932, in which he set forth the views alluded to by Messrs. Morales and Arguello, referred to the letter of the Secretary of State to President Moncada dated December 9, 1931,¹⁸ in which it was pointed out that it was self-evident that the provisions of the Canal Treaty were not regarded by the Nicaraguan Government which negotiated it as being in conflict with the Constitution. Mr. White then went on to say that since this matter was brought up again now, it would be well to dispose of it by pointing out that Article 162 of the Nicaraguan Constitution provides that the treaties or compacts referred to in the last part of Article 2 of the Constitution (with the exception of those treaties looking toward union with one or more Republics of Central America) shall be ratified by a two-thirds vote of each House, and by this act the Constitution shall be considered as amended, notwithstanding the other provision of Title XXIII of the Constitution. In other words, the Canal Treaty having been ratified by the Senate of Nicaragua unanimously and by the Chamber of Deputies by 28 votes in favor and 7 against, it was therefore ratified in accordance with Article 162 of the Constitution and by that act the Constitution was amended. Mr. White pointed out that there was, therefore, no occasion to make any further amendments to the Constitution on this score. The Secretary of State is gratified to take note that Messrs. Morales and Arguello agree with this point of view.

With regard to the question of the National Guard the Secretary of State desires to refer to the letter which he wrote on December 9, 1931, to President Moncada, in which he stated:

“I have asked my legal advisers to examine the various points raised in your letter and in your memorandum of September 10 respecting the constitutionality of the Guardia and the regulations issued for its governance. Without entering upon a lengthy discussion of the matter, I may say that their advice confirms what has always been my understanding since the question of the formation of a single, non-partisan military force was discussed at Tipitapa, where it became one of the bases of the settlement reached, namely, that under the Constitution of Nicaragua the President enjoys sufficient authority to establish the Guardia as the sole military force of the Republic for the assurance of the rights of the nation, the enforcement of law and the maintenance of public order, and to issue the necessary regulations to govern the Guardia.”

Should the Congress of Nicaragua feel that there are amendments to the Constitution which would be desirable in order to give the National Guard greater prestige through provisions therefor in the Constitution, Article 160 of Constitution would seem to provide means by which this may be done. It should not appear to be necessary to reform completely the Constitution for this object.

As respects the questions of minority representation and the extension of the term of office of Government officials, it would also seem that the method of partial amendment in Article 160 of the Constitution provides a means for accomplishing desired reforms without resorting to the extraordinary procedure of completely revising the Constitution.

In the first section of the March 10 memorandum, Messrs. Morales and Arguello set forth a résumé of their understanding of the views expressed by Mr. White in the conference of March 7. It might be pointed out that this résumé does not in all points represent exactly what was said by Mr. White. For instance, under a sub-paragraph (f) the résumé states that Mr. White said that:

“in order to ascertain whether the country desires absolute amendment of the Constitution, a referendum must first be taken, in the November elections, by providing a special square in the ballot for this purpose,…; that in case of securing favorable public opinion, the Constituent Assembly would be convoked the following year.”

Mr. White, of course, did not say that in his view this procedure “must” be followed. He merely suggested that if it were desired to consult popular opinion in Nicaragua as to the advisability of a complete reform of the Constitution, this could perhaps take the form of a popular expression of opinion at the time of the regular elections in November 1932 and if an affirmative opinion was expressed the regular Congress in 1933 could then take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution. This suggestion was made, moreover, in view of the fact that the State Department’s information seems to indicate that the desire for a complete reform of the Constitution is by no means general in Nicaragua.

In considering the supervision of Nicaraguan elections by the United States it would seem well to bear in mind the antecedents of the matter. One of the bases of the Tipitapa agreement of 1927¹⁹ was that the presidential elections of 1928 should be held under the supervision of the United States in order to assure free and fair elections. Prior to holding the 1928 elections, the candidates of the two parties, General Moncada and Señor Benard, agreed by an exchange of letters that the one who was successful would request the supervision of the next elections for supreme authorities in 1932 by the United States. President Moncada, shortly after his inauguration in 1929 and in pursuance of this agreement, formally requested the United States to supervise the 1932 elections. The United States Government has consented to this and is now making appropriate arrangements to that end. The elections which the United States Government has consented to supervise, however, are for “supreme authorities”, namely, for President, Vice President, one-half of the membership of the Chamber of Deputies and one-third of the Senate. What is now proposed by Messrs. Morales and Arguello is a very different election, namely, an election for President and for a Constituent Assembly, thus eliminating the elections for the regular Congress.

The Secretary of State has given most careful consideration to this proposal. He cannot escape the conviction that a situation might be created through the election of a Constituent Assembly which would jeopardize the induction into office on January 1, 1933, as well as the constitutional authority of the President elected at the same time. Messrs. Morales and Arguello have not indicated, either in their conversations with Mr. White or in their memorandum of the 10th instant, how this difficulty—which frankly appears insurmountable—might be overcome. Indeed, the views they expressed in conversation were to the effect that the Constituent Assembly would embody the sovereign authority of Nicaragua and would in itself constitute the executive, legislative and judicial organs of the Government. Moreover, it appears to be somewhat doubtful whether, in view of the pertinent provisions of the Nicaraguan Constitution, a Constituent Assembly could legally be chosen during the present year. The Secretary of State is, therefore, confirmed in his view of the unwisdom of considering such action at this time. Nicaragua has made admirable progress through the holding of free and fair elections in 1928 and 1930. The course of wisdom would seem to be to consolidate this progress and to add another step to it through holding the 1932 elections in the form and manner scheduled and thus continuing on the pathway of regular and orderly procedure under the Constitution. To do anything else would seem to prejudice the progress heretofore realized, and certainly no friend of Nicaragua would wish to lend support to that end.

In view of the foregoing, therefore, the Secretary of State desires to reply to Messrs. Morales and Arguello as follows:

(a) The United States is prepared, upon the issuance of the decrees deemed necessary to insure a fair election, to supervise the normal and regular elections for supreme authorities in November, 1932, namely, elections for President, Vice President, one-half of the membership of the Chamber of Deputies, and one-third of the Senate of the regular Congress;

(b) The United States cannot consent, for the reasons given, to lend its assistance in supervising elections of any other nature than those set forth above;

(c) The question of whether or not Nicaragua should amend its Constitution is one for Nicaragua alone to determine. Article 160 of the present Constitution provides a method for accomplishing a partial amendment. If Nicaragua desires a complete amendment of the Constitution through the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, this could be accomplished after 1932, through appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution. If, however, Nicaragua should decide to elect a Constituent Assembly in the present year the United States would be unable to continue with its plans to supervise the November elections.

In terminating, the Secretary of State desires again to express his pleasure at the assurances given in the two memoranda under acknowledgment of the desire for peace and the aspiration for constitutional life in Nicaragua. These are sentiments which the Secretary of State heartily reciprocates and in which he extends his best wishes to Nicaraguans of all Parties. Mr. Stimson’s associations in Nicaragua have been so intimate in the past, and his interest is so enduring, that he sincerely hopes that the regular elections in November, if held as scheduled, will advance the Republic one more step toward the goal which all Nicaraguans and all friends of Nicaragua desire, namely, towards peace, order and stability; the development of a tradition of holding free and fair elections; and the maintenance of order through the existence of a non-partisan constabulary. Nicaragua is well embarked on this program and carries the sincere and cordial good wishes of the Secretary of State for its complete realization.

March 23, 1932.

Henry L. Stimson

16. Neither printed.
17. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 849.
18. Not printed.
19. 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.