Office of the Historian

721.23/1447: Telegram

The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, March 18, 1933—3 p.m.
[Received March 18—11:55 a.m.]

82. Consulate’s 81, March 18, 1 a.m. [p.m.?] The chief points in the procedure were as follows:48

1.
The Colombian representative stated that Colombia accepted the report without reservations and expressed appreciation of the impartiality of the League action.
2.
Peruvian representative declared the Salomon-Lozano treaty was at the root of the present dispute and reviewing the historical antecedents of the treaty asserted it to be unjust. He advanced thesis of the disturbing results of inequitable treaties and appealed to the “unwritten law” in international affairs which places justice above “mere conventions”. While not disputing the legality of the treaty he characterized the report as overlooking the psychological and moral aspects of the question. He urged a delay in Council action in order to permit of further inquiry.
3.
In response to inquiry by the President the chairman of the Committee of Three stated that nothing had been adduced by the Peruvian representative which would suggest a modification of the report, that the Committee of Three felt that no further inquiry was necessary and that the responsibility for the present situation must rest on the Government which has occupied the territory of a friendly state.
4.
A vote on the report was taken by roll call under the provisions of article 15, paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7. On casting their affirmative votes all of the members of the Council made statements approving the report except members of Committee and representatives Germany and Mexico, the French representative stressing the upholding of treaties and the great importance of the present action, and the British representative warning Peru of her grave responsibility in not acting in accord with the provisions of the Covenant and the Pact of Paris, and admonishing Colombia to continue in her present wise course of self-restraint.
5.
The representative of Peru left the Council table following outwardly the precedent of the withdrawal of the Japanese delegation from the Assembly but of course Peru not being a member of the Council this action does not imply all of the technical concommitments [concomitants?] of Japan’s withdrawal.
6.
In a private meeting of the Advisory Committee which immediately followed it was voted to extend invitations to the United States Government and Brazil in accordance with the terms of the Council resolution.

Gilbert
  1. See League of Nations, Official Journal, April 1933, p. 516.↩