817.011/91
The Secretary of State to the President of Nicaragua ( Moncada )
My Dear Mr. President: I duly received your letter of January 22, 1932,20 setting forth your ideas concerning constitutional reform in Nicaragua. As I was advised about the time of receiving your letter that you were sending personal representatives to Washington to discuss this very question with me, I delayed my reply to your letter until after I had had an opportunity of hearing their views. I assumed that they would explain in amplified form the ideas which you had outlined, and this has proved to be the case.
Doctors Morales and Arguello have been, as you know, in contact with us since I first had the pleasure of receiving them on February 25. My assistants in the Department and I personally have examined with the greatest care the proposal which they explained to us. My interest in Nicaragua, as you know, is so intimate and enduring that whenever problems affecting your country arise I feel impelled to give them my most sympathetic and friendly consideration. I have always tried to approach these problems primarily from the point of view of what is in the best interests of Nicaragua. Therefore, and for the reasons set out at some length in the memorandum of March 23, 1932, which was handed to Doctors Morales and Arguello, I became confirmed of the unwisdom of considering the election of a Constituent Assembly at this time. As I pointed out in that memorandum, I 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 did not indicate, either in their conversations with Assistant Secretary of State White or in their memoranda, 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.
I therefore replied to Messrs. Morales and Arguello as follows:
In my memorandum I called attention to the admirable progress which Nicaragua has made through the holding of free and fair elections in 1928 and 1930.21 The course of wisdom, I should think, would 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 I, as a sincere and genuine friend of Nicaragua could not lend my support to that end.
Please let me take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation and thanks for your kindness in sending me an autographed copy of your brochure “La Reforma se Impone”. I have been much interested in your argument set forth therein relative to the validity of the Canal Treaty of 1914. I have been gratified to read your statement that: “Acting as sovereign, the National Congress of Nicaragua gave its consent and ratification to the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty and we Nicaraguans cannot allege that it was this or that political party which formed the Legislative Chambers. It was the National Congress of Nicaragua, legally constituted, and it is our duty, consequently, to consider the question as one of national honor,” and further; “In résumé, therefore, the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty cannot now be submitted to new decisions of Constituent Assemblies or National Congresses, or of Arbitration Congresses or the League of Nations. It is valid for Nicaragua and the United States.” However, and to speak frankly, I am not in agreement with you when you go on to state that the existence of this Treaty provides a reason [Page 783] for completely reforming the Nicaraguan Constitution. My views on this matter were set out by Mr. White in the conference he held on March 7 with Messrs. Morales and Arguello. Mr. White pointed 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 provisions 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. Messrs. Morales and Arguello in their memorandum of March 10, 1932, made the following statement:
“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.”
It was gratifying to me to take note that Messrs. Morales and Arguello agreed with the point of view expressed by Mr. White.
Mr. President, I feel that you are in a unique position to contribute permanently to the well-being of Nicaragua and to leave to posterity a record of your administration of which your fellow countrymen may always be justifiably proud. If the regular and normal elections of November next take place under conditions of complete freedom and fairness, as I am certain they will, this will add one more step towards the goal of peace, order and stability in Nicaragua. As of assistance to that end we are now engaged in studying, in the light of past experience, the measures required to strengthen the electoral law. But the progress achieved in this field of free and fair elections will undoubtedly be in large measure due to your own wise leadership and patriotic devotion. No one desires more than I that your name may go down in history indissolubly linked to such an admirable record of achievement.
Cordially yours,
- Ante, p. 767.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. iii, pp. 418 ff., and ibid., 1930, vol. iii, pp. 636 ff.↩