Office of the Historian

721.23/829: Telegram

The Ambassador in Peru (Dearing) to the Secretary of State

Lima, January 23, 1933—midnight.
[Received January 24—2:42 a.m.]

37. Referring to my telegram No. 36, paragraph 2,40 confidential. Following epitomizes five paragraphs of the Brazilian note:41

1.
Brazil states that contrary to Manzanilla’s statement subject of Rio conferences not all outstanding conventions but Salomon-Lozano Treaty—the cause of the present conflict. For that reason Ecuador [Page 417] not invited by Brazil, only Peru and Colombia can deal with that. Brazil requested detention of Colombia flotilla merely as a conciliatory gesture pending Peruvian reply which being delayed Colombia felt unable to detain vessels longer but stated that vessels would return as soon as object of the expedition was realized. Brazil inquires by what right it could possibly fail to observe its obligations under the fluvial convention with Colombia since no state of war exists and Colombia is merely sending vessels to restore order in her own territory.
2.
Brazil states her course has been consistently same; that its plan was concretely set forth in the formula presented in the note of 13th to Peru and represents all Brazil felt it would be possible to obtain from Colombia. The course of negotiations with the Peruvian and Colombian Ministers at Bio de Janeiro was reviewed, statement made that military preparations were going forward and the situation was becoming aggravated and accordingly Brazil offered friendly mediation on the basis stated.
3.
Having received Colombian acceptance of the Brazilian plan Peruvian Minister was informed accordingly and thereupon personally presented various modifications. Brazil attempted to bring the Colombian and Peruvian Ministers together to avoid misunderstandings that might arise from acting as intermediary and finally the Brazilian plan was definitely set out and communicated to Peru and Colombia on the 13th.
4.
Peruvian modifications were refused by Colombia. Brazil feels it is neither convenient or possible for official Brazilian delegates to undertake to treat with the captors of Leticia or to endeavor to persuade them to accept the Brazilian formula; that this responsibility rests squarely upon Peru. Brazil adds that if the appeal to the captors should fail in its object Peru does not indicate what would then happen and Colombia would always insist upon necessity of reestablishing order in its own territory.
5.
Brazil states Peru’s question regarding the object of the Rio de Janeiro conferences may be answered by stating Brazilian proposal is perfectly clear in itself and that with good will on both sides good results could be achieved. Brazil indicates that Colombia has made a material concession in agreeing to discuss the treaty and that the discussion holds therefore promise of a happy solution. Note ends by requesting a reply with all possible urgency.
6.
To a settlement Colombia contributes a commitment beforehand to discuss Salomon-Lozano Treaty once Colombian authority is reestablished at Leticia. Brazil contributes a willingness to receive and hold Leticia temporarily for delivery to Colombia despite the risk of attack by Loretanos. Peru seems to have contributed nothing but continues her desperate attempts to overreach.

Dearing
  1. Telegram No. 36, January 23, 11 p.m., not printed; paragraph 2 reported that Brazilian Minister in Peru had delivered note from Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs that afternoon (721.23/781).↩
  2. In reply to Peruvian note No. 1, January 16, part of which in translation was contained in telegram No. 31, January 18, 10 p.m., from the Ambassador in Peru, p. 408.↩