Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1933, The American Republics, Volume IV

710.G/371

Instructions to the Delegates³⁹ to the Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, Uruguay

Washington, November 10, 1933.

Sirs: The International Conference of American States, to which you have been designated as representatives of our country, is the seventh conference of this type to be held on the Western Hemisphere since 1889,⁴⁰ when this Government invited the American Republics to meet in Washington. Allow me to express your Government’s appreciation of the importance of the occasion and its sense of the responsibility which you have undertaken in accepting appointment to represent it at such an important gathering.

a. introduction

I. Importance of Conference

The importance of this Conference has been considerably augmented by the events and experiences associated with the Economic and Monetary Conference which met in London during the summer of this year.⁴¹

Never before have the need and benefit of neighborly cooperation in every form of human activity been so evident as they are today. Friendship among nations calls for constructive efforts to muster the forces of humanity in order that an atmosphere of close understanding and cooperation may be cultivated. You will endeavor to be guided by the policy enunciated by President Roosevelt in his inaugural address: “The policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.”⁴² You will keep in mind the conviction that the well-being of one nation depends in large measure upon the well-being of its neighbors.

II. General Policy

1. Importance of Pan American policy.

It is an established principle of our international policy that: “Among the foreign relations of the United States as they fall into categories, the Pan American policy takes first place in our diplomacy”. The policy of the Government of the United States towards the Republics of Latin America is one of mutual beneficial cooperation and it is of paramount importance that the spirit of this policy be manifested in your attitude and action at the Conference.

The coming together of men typical of the best feeling and thought of all the Republics of the Western Hemisphere can be an important factor in the promotion of friendly international relations. Pan-Americanism has been founded upon the common ideals and a community of interests among the American Republics and it is with this in view that I desire you to give your studious attention not only to the particular subjects before the Conference, but also to the task of becoming imbued with the spirit which animates the inter-American policy of the United States.

2. Unique position of United States.

Our country has occupied a unique position with regard to the nations of Latin America. Our national individuality and independence were acquired before theirs, and when they achieved independence they turned to us for moral guidance and support. But today, and for many years past, they have stood alone, free, independent and self-reliant. The United States does not desire, and in no sense can it be contemplated, that any of the American peoples should be in a state of tutelage. The independence of each Republic must recognize the independence of every other. We wish the fullest possible development in the national life of the Republics of America in complete accord with their own national characteristics and aptitudes. Each nation must grow by an advancement of civilization and social well-being, and not by the acquisition of territory at the expense of any neighbor or by forcing the will of one nation upon that of another. If it is possible for us to assist them in any way through our development and our achievements in science and industry, we shall be glad to extend such assistance in the most friendly manner, but we shall not proffer it unless it is desired.

You should endeavor, therefore, to impress upon the representatives of the other American Republics that we desire, above all, their material prosperity and their political security and that we entertain only friendly sentiments for them. You will endeavor to foster a spirit of generous cooperation and manifest a sincere interest in their respective efforts and aspirations. It would not seem opportune for the delegates of the United States to assume a role of leadership in the Conference, either in its official organization or in its discussions. Your attitude should be to favor a friendly expression of views by the delegates of the various countries and, with due regard to the specific instructions which appear hereinafter, to support only those proposals which would appear to be of common interest and which merit the unanimous approval of the American Republics.

3. Role of Conference.

The instructions given the delegates to the Fifth Conference and repeated in the instructions for the Sixth⁴³ stated as follows:

“It should be borne in mind that the function of these [Pan American] conferences is to deal, so far as possible, with non-controversial subjects of general interest, upon which free and full discussion may be had with the purpose and probability of arriving at agreement and cooperation. International questions which cause prolonged and even bitter and controversial debate are not infrequently, in their important aspects, of actual interest only to a small group of nations. It is believed that in this Conference the most fruitful results will be obtained if discussion is confined to those aspects of the various topics which are of interest to all the Republics.”

It is felt that action of a more effective nature might be taken by this Conference if it would concentrate its efforts upon a very few subjects and limit its work to the adoption of a few conventions and resolutions. This would also prevent a dissipation of the attention and interest of the respective governments following the Conference, thus encouraging favorable consideration of the conventions and resolutions. The Sixth Conference, for example, signed eleven conventions and approved sixty-two resolutions, seven motions, and four agreements. It is believed that such an array of resolutions and conventions does not make it possible for the delegates to give each subject the considered attention which it warrants, thereby detracting materially from the effectiveness of the Conference.

With respect to political differences between the American Republics, it is important that you exercise great caution. You will bear in mind that the present Conference has not been called to sit in judgment on the conduct of any nation or to attempt to redress alleged wrongs. In this connection, it will be recalled that academic discussion has been carried on at certain previous conferences which led to no practical results, but which tended to create an atmosphere not entirely harmonious.

The United States has always maintained the view that the competency of these conferences does not extend to the assumption of the responsibilities of an arbitral board. It has been the policy of the United States to lend its good offices to the settlement of conflicts between sister-Republics, but to refrain from any effort to have these conferences take cognizance of any existing controversy with a view to its settlement, unless the good offices of that body are invoked by both the opposing parties. Detailed instructions for your guidance on this matter are included hereafter.

b. convocation of conference

I. Invitation

The Sixth International Conference of American States, held at Habana, Cuba, January 16 to February 20, 1928, adopted a resolution⁴⁴ designating the City of Montevideo as the seat of the Seventh International Conference. The Governing Board of the Pan American Union, in agreement with the Government of the Republic of Uruguay, designated December, 1932, as the date for the Conference. The Governing Board, on May 6, 1932, however, adopted a resolution, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1,⁴⁵ requesting the Government of Uruguay to postpone the date for the convocation of the Conference until December, 1933.

It was felt that the time was not propitious on account of the political disorder existing in a number of the countries, the difficult economic and financial conditions, as well as the acute state of the two boundary disputes in South America.

The Government of Uruguay, in conformity with this resolution, extended an invitation⁴⁶ to the Governments of American Republics to meet at Montevideo on December 3, 1933.

II. Regulations

The Regulations for the Conference were adopted by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union on May 4, 1932, and are printed on pages 29 to 30 of the Handbook prepared by the Pan American Union. These Regulations are substantially the same as those which governed the Sixth Conference, with some improvements in arrangement and phraseology.

c. agenda⁴⁷

I. Formulation of Agenda

The Governing Board of the Pan American Union, in accordance with the accepted practice, prepared the Agenda for the Conference. It was made up of (1) subjects which were recommended by the Sixth International Conference of American States; (2) subjects pending from the previous Conference; (3) subjects relating to special technical conferences held since 1928, and (4) topics which have been suggested by various member nations. It covers a wide range of subjects and is considered by this Government as too comprehensive and, consequently, too long and unwieldy. It was adopted by the Governing Board on May 31, 1933.

II. Limitation of Agenda Discussions

The attitude of this Government from the beginning was in favor of restricting the Agenda to a few subjects grouped around a central topic with the belief that greater progress in a constructive way might thus be made. These views were set forth in a letter dated October 16, 1931, addressed by the Secretary of State to the Director General of the Pan American Union, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix 2,⁴⁸ replying to the request of the Pan American Union for comments on the list of topics submitted by the Sub-committee on Program.

Reference was made in the above referred to letter to Resolution No. XXVI of the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference,⁴⁹ wherein the following provision was made regarding future commercial conferences:

“Its programs will comprise only a short number of subjects, of a preponderantly commercial nature, grouped around a central topic which will constitute the basis of its work, with the object of gradually solving the principal problems of Inter-American Commerce.”

This Government in its letter to the Pan American Union recommended that the same principle should be adopted for the Agenda of the Seventh International Conference of American States, but the recommendation was not followed.

This Government also sounded out a number of Latin American representatives in Washington prior to the adoption of the definitive Agenda by the Governing Board on May 31, 1933, with a view to ascertaining the possibility of reducing the Agenda. A majority of the members of the Governing Board expressed themselves in favor of reducing the Agenda, but no action was taken by the Governing Board in this regard.

The Governing Board, however, on May 31, 1933, did adopt the following resolution which was proposed by Mexico:

“The Sub-committee recognizes that the topics contained in Chapters I and IV of the Program of the Seventh Pan American Conference embrace the questions that require immediate attention, in view of the conditions prevailing at this historic moment; without implying, however, that the Sub-committee denies importance to the other topics of the Program.”

It is understood that the Government of Mexico considers that the adoption of this Resolution, giving preferential consideration to economic and financial problems and questions relating to the organization of peace, “practically eliminate(s) the non-preferential themes from consideration at Montevideo.”

A confidential Aide-Mémoire from the Chilean Government, presented informally by the Chilean Chargé d’Affaires, expressed the following regret that the Agenda had not been reduced:

“2. It is regrettable that the Governing Board of the Pan American Union did not deem it advisable to cut down the Agenda of the Conference, as suggested by Secretary Hull.”

It is the opinion of this Government that much more substantial progress of an enduring nature will be made if the discussion can in fact be restricted to subjects of vital and immediate importance and of general interest. You will lend your full support and concur in any suggestion proposed by other Governments favoring the desirability of confining discussions to subjects such as the Organization of Peace and Economic and Financial Problems.

III. Agenda for Future Conferences

It is believed that greater progress could be made at future International Conferences of American States if the principle were adopted of having the Governing Board select one or two central topics for the discussions at each succeeding conference, about which would be grouped a small number of specific subjects. It is felt that a conference which endeavors at the same time to codify international law and consider other juridical questions, deal with economic problems, transportation, intellectual cooperation, social problems, and to review the general and special inter-American conferences, is far too ambitious and, consequently, too often results in mediocre accomplishments. Should the occasion arise, you will endeavor to have the Conference adopt the principle that the Governing Board in the future will select, after consultation with the member Governments, a central topic for each conference about which shall be grouped a small number of subjects.

IV. Attitude Toward Discussion of New Topics

It is possible that attempts may be made to introduce for discussion before the Conference, subjects not included on the Program. Provision has been made under Chapter V, Article 25, of the Regulations, for the introduction of new topics, provided two-thirds of the delegations present at the conference favor such action. Instructions have been prepared for your guidance in such a contingency concerning certain subjects which might be introduced and are included under Section E of these Instructions beginning on p.—.⁵⁰ Instructions on other subjects which might be of interest in connection with conversations which you will have with other delegates are included under Section F beginning on p.—.⁵¹

V. Agenda Items

The Program of the Conference is as follows:

Chapter I—Organization of Peace

1. Methods for the prevention and pacific settlement of inter-American conflicts.

2. (a) Inter-American Commissions of Conciliation.

(b) Report of the Permanent Commission of Conciliation of Washington on its activities.

3. Declaration of August 3, 1932.

4. Anti-War Pacts—Argentine Plan.

5. Consideration of a plan to secure the prompt ratification of the General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration and of the General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation of January 5, 1929, and in general to secure the prompt ratification of treaties and conventions and the early application of the resolutions adopted at the International Conferences of American States.

Chapter II—Problems of International Law

6. Method for the progressive codification of international law, and consideration of topics susceptible of codification, such as:

(a) The rights and duties of States.

(b) Treaties and their interpretation.

(c) International responsibility of States, with special reference to the denial of justice.

(d) Definition, duration, and reciprocity of political asylum.

(e) Extradition.

(f) Nationality.

(g) Territorial sea.

7. Report of the Permanent Committee on Public International Law of Rio de Janeiro on the general principles which may facilitate regional agreements between adjacent states on the industrial and agricultural use of the waters of international rivers, and reports of the said committee and of the Permanent Committee on Private International Law of Montevideo on the matters provided for in the resolution of the Sixth International Conference of American States of February 18, 1928.

Chapter III—Political and Civil Rights of Women

8. Report of the Inter-American Commission of Women on the political and civil equality of women.

Chapter IV—Economic and Financial Problems

9. Consideration of the recommendations of the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference relative to:

(a) Customs duties.

(b) Currency stabilization and the possibility of adopting a uniform monetary system.

(c) Commercial arbitration.

(d) Promotion of tourist travel.

10. Import quotas.

11. Import prohibitions.

12. Collective commercial treaties.

13. Report on the resolutions of the Inter-American Conference on Agriculture.

14. Report on the establishment of an inter-American economic and financial organization under the auspices of the Pan American Union.

15. The inter-American protection of patents of invention.

16. Consideration of the draft convention on customs procedure and port formalities formulated by the Pan American Commission on Customs Procedure and Port Formalities which met at Washington from November 18 to 26, 1929.

17. Consideration of projects of uniform legislation relative to such topics as:

(a) Bills of exchange, checks, and other commercial paper.

(b) Bills of lading.

(c) Insurance.

(d) Simplification and standardization of the requirements for powers of attorney.

(e) Juridical personality of foreign companies.

(f) The losses caused by theft and pilferage of cargo in maritime commerce.

(g) Any other draft conventions on uniform legislation relative to commercial and maritime law that may be formulated by the Permanent Committee on Comparative Legislation and Uniformity of Legislation established at Habana by virtue of the resolution of February 18, 1928, of the Sixth Conference.

Chapter V—Social Problems

18. Consideration of the establishment of an Inter-American Bureau of Labor, which will include in its program the following:

(a) Improvement of the condition of living of workmen:

(1) Promotion of safety in industry.

(2) Improved housing conditions.

(b) Social insurance: Unemployment and practical forms of unemployment insurance.

(c) Uniformity of demographic statistics.

19. Results of national and international conferences on child welfare, with a view to broadening the work of the Inter-American Institute at Montevideo.

20. Application to foodstuffs and pharmaceutical products exported to other American countries, of the same sanitary, pure food, and drug regulations which are in effect in the country of production on all those commodities consumed /herein.

Chapter VI—Intellectual Cooperation

21. Inter-American copyright protection, and the possibility of reconciling the Habana and Rome Conventions.

22. American bibliography:

(a) Exchange of information.

(b) Encouraging national and continental bibliographic effort.

23. Report on the results of the Congress of Rectors, Deans, and Educators, which met at Habana in February 1930.

24. International cooperation to make effective respect for and conservation of the national domain over historical monuments and archeological remains.

Chapter VII—Transportation

25. Inter-American fluvial navigation: Reports of the Governments on technical studies relative to the navigation of rivers and the elimination of obstacles to navigation, and the possibility of connecting or bettering the connections which exist between them.

26. Report of the Pan American Railway Committee.

27. Study of the penal provisions and of the regulations of the Convention on Commercial Aviation signed at the Sixth International Conference of American States.

Chapter VIII—International Conferences of American States

28. Results of the International Conferences of American States.

(a) Reports submitted by the delegations on the action taken by the States on the conventions and resolutions adopted at the Pan American Conferences, with special reference to the Sixth Conference.

(b) Results, not specifically included in other sections of this program, of the special conferences held in the interval between the Sixth and Seventh International Conferences of American States and of the permanent institutions established by the International Conferences.

29. Convocation, participation, and meeting of future conferences, and adhesion of nonsignatory states.

(a) Consideration of the extraordinary convocation of the International Conferences of American States.

(b) Participation in the Pan American Conferences, and the adhesion of nonsignatory states to the conventions signed at such conferences.

(c) Future International Conferences of American States.

For your convenience the following instructions have been arranged to correspond with the set up of the Program. As the conference progresses developments on certain of the topics may necessitate a modification of the instructions.

Chapter I—Organization of Peace⁵²

1. Methods for the prevention and pacific settlement of Inter-American Conflicts.

This Government has always manifested a keen and active interest in the promotion of the pacific settlement of international disputes. The international organization of the Western Hemisphere has developed, as the result of many years of effort, a comprehensive peace machinery (see memorandum attached as Appendix 3⁵³). You will endeavor, in your work at the Conference, to encourage the improvement of existing machinery for settling American disputes rather than the creation of new machinery; the creation of a multiplicity of devices is likely to impede rather than promote settlements by giving the parties an opportunity to vacillate between several different methods.

The Pan American Peace organization offers no antagonism to nor is it in conflict with any world organization. Encouragement should be given to efforts to improve the existing Inter-American peace machinery and to promote more extensive use of such machinery. After all, it is not lack of adequate peace machinery, but a failure of the will to make use of such machinery, that lies at the root of the problem of the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

2(a) Inter-American Commissions of Conciliation.

It is the belief of this Government that the Treaty to Avoid and Prevent Conflicts between American States,⁵⁴ as supplemented by the Convention on Inter-American Conciliation of 1929,⁵⁵ furnish adequate machinery for the investigation and conciliation of inter-American disputes. The texts of these treaties are contained on pages 26 to 46 in the handbook for the use of the delegates.

The American Institute of International Law has submitted to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union a draft project on the creation of an international American Commission of Conciliation. The text of this project is printed on pages 3 to 7 of pamphlet No. 4 of the documents published by the Pan American Union for the use of delegates. It is the view of this Government that the project of the American Institute does not offer an improvement over the system established by the so-called Gondra Treaty of 1923, and the 1929 Convention on Inter-American Conciliation. Your attention is called to the memorandum on the project, which is attached hereto as Appendix 4.⁵⁶

It is believed that in order that these treaties may be effective it is necessary that they be ratified by all of the American Republics. You may point out the fact that this Government has ratified both of these Conventions and you will make an earnest effort to promote in any proper manner the acceptance by other Governments of these two Conventions.

2(b) Report of the Permanent Commission of Conciliation of Washington on its Activities.⁵⁷

The report of the Permanent Commission of Conciliation, located at Washington, set up by virtue of the treaties of 1923 and 1929, will submit its report directly to the Conference; presumably the report will not be available in advance of the Conference.

3. Declaration of August 1932.⁵⁸

This Government is deeply interested in maintaining the principle enunciated in the Declaration of August 3, 1932, and will be glad to cooperate with the other American Republics to that end. A copy of this Declaration appears on page 47 of the Handbook for the Use of Delegates.

It would seem that the Declaration of August 3, as a development from the Pact of Paris,⁵⁹ could possibly be drafted in a convention which would be satisfactory to the various governments. It is doubtful, however, whether any additional strength would arise from such form. In fact, quite the opposite might easily be the result through making the doctrine inflexible and preventing its proper development to meet particular emergencies as they arise.

In this connection, however, it will be noted that Topic 4 relates to the Argentine Anti-War Pact, Article II of which contains the essential features of the Declaration of August 3, 1932, in the following terms:

“They declare that territorial questions must not be settled by resort to violence and that they shall recognize no territorial arrangement not obtained through pacific means, nor the validity of an occupation or acquisition of territory brought about by armed force.” The instructions given you in relation to Topic 4 authorize you to state, under certain conditions, that the United States will sign the Argentine Anti-War Pact.

4. Anti-War Pacts—Argentine Pact.

The Governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Mexico, and Uruguay signed at Rio de Janeiro on October 10, 1933, the antiwar pact proposed by Argentina.⁶⁰ See Appendix 5.⁶¹ Chile signed with reservations excepting paragraphs a, b, c, and d of Article 5. This Government recognizes and appreciates the high aims of those Governments in their praiseworthy efforts to work for peace on this continent.

This Government has heretofore declined to sign the Argentine Anti-War Treaty, feeling that the Treaty was to some extent a step backward as regards the existing conciliation machinery on this continent, and also that it did not add anything useful to the Briand-Kellogg Pact. However, largely as a matter of expediency it may appear advisable for the United States to consider signing this Treaty. For one thing, it is noted that Argentina has not adhered to the Pact of Paris, nor has it become a party to any of the Conventions establishing peace machinery on the Western Hemisphere, such as the 1923 Treaty to Avoid and Prevent Conflicts between American States,⁶² the 1929 Convention on Inter-American Conciliation⁶³ or the General Treaty on Inter-American Arbitration.⁶⁴ Obviously, if Argentina should adhere to these instruments, such action would strengthen materially the American peace machinery. It is possible that if the United States should be willing to sign the Argentine Anti-War Pact, Argentina would consider favorably adherence to the Briand Kellogg Pact and the other peace conventions mentioned above.

Furthermore, an expressed willingness on our part to sign Señor Saavedra Lamas’ Anti-War Treaty might conceivably be of considerable assistance to our delegation in working for cooperation and harmony at the Conference and avoiding the creation of embarrassing incidents arising through an attempt on the part of other delegations to raise controversial questions involving the United States.

You are, therefore, authorized in your discretion to discuss this question confidentially and discreetly with Señor Saavedra Lamas⁶⁵ early in the Conference. If you believe it advisable, you are authorized to inform him that you will be prepared, at the end of the Conference, to sign the Anti-War Treaty⁶⁶ on behalf of the United States.

In this connection, however, it is evident that Article II of the Treaty reading as follows:

“They declare that territorial questions must not be settled by resort to violence and that they shall recognize no territorial arrangement not obtained through pacific means, nor the validity of an occupation or acquisition of territory brought about by armed forces”

will require a reservation on the part of the United States. The reference in Article II to a non-recognition of “occupation” of territory by armed forces is much broader than the provision in the Pact of Paris with respect to the settlement of disputes or conflicts by pacific means or the somewhat similar provision of the so-called Hoover-Stimson doctrine.⁶⁷ Unless an appropriate safe-guarding reservation were made it might conceivably raise questions as to our rights under certain existing treaties (e. g., those with Cuba, Panama, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic) as well as the recognized right under international law to protect our nationals when they are in danger owing to a breakdown of local government. In the event that you proceed to sign this Treaty you will do so with the following reservation:

“In signing this Treaty the United States does not thereby waive any rights which it may have under other treaties or conventions or under international law.”

5. Consideration of a plan to secure the prompt ratification of the General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration and of the General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation of January 5, 1929, and in general to secure the prompt ratification of treaties and conventions and the early application of the resolutions adopted at the International Conferences of American States.

This Government ratified the General Treaty of Inter-American Conciliation on February 26, 1929. You are referred to the instructions under Topic 2(a) regarding the attitude which is to be taken on this subject.

The Senate of the United States gave its advice and consent on January 19, 1932, to the ratification of the General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration with reservations of such a nature that ratification has not been completed. The President, however, will exert every effort to bring about the early ratification of this treaty⁶⁸ in the most liberal form which is feasible. You may use your efforts in whatever way might be feasible to encourage the ratification of this convention by those governments which have not yet done so. Your attention is called to Appendix 6⁶⁹ for further information concerning this matter.

With regard to a plan to secure prompt ratification of treaties and conventions, it is the feeling of this Government that the desired result can, in large measure, be accomplished by the conclusion of a smaller number of generally acceptable and more important treaties and conventions. It is believed that the conclusion of a large number of treaties and conventions at a single international conference is a retarding influence, in so far as ratification is concerned. This is true not only because of the difficulty in getting legislative approval of a large number of treaties, but also because it has not always been possible for the general conference to give the required care in drafting a large number of treaties which are satisfactory to all of the governments.

It is possible that efforts may be made at the Conference to grant to the Pan American Union certain functions with a view to facilitating the ratification of Inter-American treaties or conventions. With reference to the project of the American Institute of International Law printed on pages 9 and 10 of Pamphlet No. 4 of the Pan American Union, it would appear that the proposed functions of the Pan American Union as outlined in the draft project are unobjectionable.

This Government is of the opinion that the administrative details incident to the deposit and exchange of the instruments of ratification of conventions adopted at the Pan American Conferences should be centralized and coordinated at one place. It is believed that the Pan American Union is the logical place for such work. The Sixth Conference adopted this plan by inserting in all but two of the conventions a provision for the deposit of the instruments of ratification with the Pan American Union. It would seem that this practice has worked satisfactorily, and it is believed that the precedent established by the Sixth Conference should be continued. You will therefore support a proposal to include in any conventions or treaties which might be drafted at the Conference a provision designating the Pan American Union as the depository for instruments of ratification.

The Governing Board on May 4, 1932, adopted a tentative procedure which is to be followed with respect to the deposit of instruments of ratification of the conventions for which the Union is the depository. The procedure as formulated is as follows:

• “1. To assume the custody of the original instrument.
• “2. To furnish copies thereof to all the signatory Governments.
• “3. To receive the instruments of ratification of the Signatory States, including the reservations.
• “4. To communicate the deposit of ratification to the other Signatory States and, in the case of reservations, to inform them thereof.
• “5. To receive the replies of the other Signatory States as to whether or not they accept the reservations.
• “6. To inform all the States, signatory to the treaty, if the reservations have or have not been accepted.”

The Governing Board also agreed to the following understanding with respect to the juridical status of treaties ratified with reservations:

• “1. The treaty shall be in force, in the form in which it was signed, as between those countries which ratify it without reservations, in the terms in which it was originally drafted and signed.
• “2. It shall be in force as between the Governments which ratify it with reservations and the Signatory States which accept the reservations in the form in which the treaty may be modified by said reservations.
• “3. It shall not be in force between a Government which may have ratified with reservations and another which may have already ratified, and which does not accept such reservations.”

It is believed that the above procedure and understanding, which are of a provisional character, are satisfactory and should be made definitive by the Conference.

6. Codification of Public International Law. (Chapter II of the Program of the Seventh International Conference).⁷⁰

The question of the codification of International Law has occupied the attention of American Conferences since the Second Pan American Conference held at Mexico City October 22, 1901, to January 31, 1902.⁷¹ At that time a Convention for the Codification of Public and Private International Law by a Commission of seven persons, of whom five should be publicists of the American States and two of Europe, was agreed upon and signed.⁷² The history of the steps taken between that time and the present time may be summarized as follows:^*

The Convention signed at the Second Pan American Conference in 1902, referred to above, did not become operative.

At the Third Pan American Conference held at Rio de Janeiro in 1906, a Convention establishing an International Commission of Jurists was signed.⁷³ This Commission of Jurists was to consist of one representative from each of the signatory States, and was to meet for the purpose of preparing a draft code on Private International Law and one on Public International Law, regulating the relations between American States. This Convention was ratified by the United States on February 8, 1908, but, because of the delay of other signatories in ratifying, it was not proclaimed until May 1, 1912, which was subsequent to the Fourth Pan American Conference.

Nevertheless, the question of codifying International Law came before the Fourth Pan American Conference held at Buenos Aires July 12 to August 30, 1910, at which time a proposal stating the view of the Conference as to the manner in which the work should be performed was adopted.^†

The subject was next considered by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union at a meeting held January 15, 1912, at which time an agreement was concluded stipulating that the Commission of Jurists should meet at Rio de Janeiro June 26, 1912, and that each Government might be represented by two delegates instead of one, as provided for in the Convention of 1906 creating the Commission of Jurists. The Commission met at Rio de Janeiro on June 26, 1912, the United States being represented by Honorable John Bassett Moore and Frederick Van Dyne, Assistant Solicitor of the Department of State. Committees were appointed to prepare drafts of codes on certain specified subjects to be reported at later dates and at specified places.^‡ The Commission adjourned to meet again at Rio de Janeiro in 1914. This meeting, however, did not take place on account of the intervening European War.

At the Fifth Pan American Conference held at Santiago, Chile, in 1923,⁷⁴ the question of the codification of International Law was on the Agenda, and the Committee having the subject in charge suggested resolutions to be adopted by the Conference to the effect that each American Government should appoint two delegates to constitute “the Congress of Jurists of Rio de Janeiro”; that the Committees appointed by the earlier Congress of Jurists be reestablished; that they should undertake to reconsider the work in the light of the experience of recent years; that a Committee be designated to take up the study of comparative Civil Law of all the American States looking to the formulation of a Code on Private International Law; that the Congress of Jurists convene at Rio de Janeiro in 1925; and that the resolutions of this Congress of Jurists be submitted to the Sixth International Conference of American States for consideration and possible incorporation in the Conventions.

The history of the Agenda of the Seventh Pan American Conference dates from a Resolution adopted by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union on January 2, 1924, reading as follows:

“Whereas, The Fifth International Conference of American States adopted a vote of thanks for the results achieved by the American Institute of International Law; and,

“Whereas, One of the purposes for which the American Institute of International Law has been established is to secure a more definite formulation of the rules of international law; and,

“Whereas, The codification of the rules of international law is the most important task entrusted to the International Commission of Jurists, and,

“Whereas, The labors of the American Institute of International Law will be of great service to the International Commission of Jurists in the fulfillment of the task assigned to it.

“Be it Resolved:

“By the Governing Board of the Pan American Union to submit to the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law the desirability of holding a session of the Institute in 1924 in order that the results of the deliberations of the Institute may be submitted to the International Commission of Jurists at its meeting at Rio de Janeiro in 1925.” (Am. Journal Int. Law, 1924, Vol. 18, p. 269).

The Resolution was transmitted to the President of the American Institute of International Law. On March 2, 1925, the latter body transmitted some thirty projects on Public International Law to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, with the suggestion that they be communicated by the members of that Board to their respective Governments, and by them laid before the Commission of Jurists to serve as a basis of discussion.

The Commission of Jurists at its meeting at Rio de Janeiro, April 18–May 20, 1927,⁷⁵ considered these projects, and as a result evolved twelve projects which it recommended for submission to the Sixth Pan American Conference that convened at Habana in January, 1928. The twelve projects laid before the Habana Conference were as follows:⁷⁶

1. Fundamental bases of international law.

2. States, their existence, equality and recognition.

3. Status of foreigners.

4. Treaties.

5. Exchange of publications.

6. Exchange of professors and students.

7. Diplomatic officials.

8. Consuls.

9. Maritime neutrality.

10. Asylum.

11. Duties of the States in case of civil war.

12. Pacific settlement of international disputes.

Of these projects, Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were approved, with changes, by that Conference,^§ and the remaining five were postponed for a more detailed study.

The Sixth International Conference of American States, in a Resolution adopted on February 18, 1928, on the subject of the “Future Codification of International Law”, agreed:

“3. That three permanent committees shall be organized, in Rio de Janeiro, for the work relating to public international law; another at Montevideo, for the work dealing with private international law; and another in Habana, for the study of comparative legislation and uniformity of legislations. Said bodies shall have the following functions:

“a) To present to the governments a report or statement of the matters which are ready for codification and legislative uniformity comprising those definitely subject to regulation and formulation, as well as those regarding which international experience and the new principles and aspirations of justice may indicate require prudent juridical development.

“This report would be presented for the purpose of having the governments indicate which matters they deem susceptible to study to the end that they may be used as a basis in the formulation of conventional rules or fundamental declarations.

“b) To classify, in view of the aforementioned statement and of the answers given by the governments, the matters submitted to discussion, in the following form: (1) Subjects which are in proper condition for codification, because they have been unanimously consented to by the governments; (2) Matters susceptible of being proposed as subject to codification because, although not unanimously endorsed by, they represent a predominant opinion on the part of most governments; (3) Matters respecting which there is no predominant opinion, in favor of immediate regulation.

“c) To present to the governments the foregoing classifications, in order to learn their general views as to the manner in which the juridical problems of codifiable matters could be enunciated and resolved, together with all juridical, legal, political, and diplomatic data and antecedents which may lead to a full clarification of the subject.

“d) To solicit and obtain from the national societies of international law scientific opinions and general views on the regulation and formulation of the juridical questions entrusted to the committees.

“e) To compile all the aforementioned material for its transmission, together with draft-projects thereon, to the Pan American Union, which shall submit them to the executive council of the American Institute of International Law to the end that through a scientific consideration thereof the latter may make a technical study of such draft-projects and present its findings and formulas, in a report on the matter.”^|| [Final Act, pp. 176–177.]

The Ambassador of Brazil, in Washington, transmitted on August 12, 1932, a memorandum, or Report, dated June 30, 1932, prepared by the Permanent Committee on Public International Law,⁷⁷ reporting,

“the matters which are ready for codification and legislative uniformity, comprising those definitely subject to regulation and formulation, as well as those regarding which international experience and the new principles and aspirations of justice may indicate require prudent juridical development.”^¶

In accordance with the Resolution of February 18, 1928, the Report was presented,

“for the purpose of having the Governments indicate which matters they deem susceptible to study to the end that they may be used as a basis in the formulation of conventional rules or fundamental declarations.”^**

Among the matters covered by the Report were the five topics postponed by the Sixth Pan American Conference to permit a more detailed study of them to be made, namely,—

1. Fundamental basis of international law.

2. States, their existence, equality and recognition.

3. Exchange of publications.

4. Exchange of professors and students.

5. Pacific settlement of international disputes.

In addition to these topics the Committee presented sixteen other subjects, prepared by the American Institute of International Law in connection with the preparation for the Habana Conference, but not examined at that time. They were:

1. Declaration of Inter-American Union and cooperation.

2. Recognition of new States and new Governments.

3. Declaration of the rights and duties of nations.

4. Fundamental rights of the American Republics.

5. National dominion.

6. Rights and duties of States in territories in dispute because of a boundary controversy.

7. Jurisdiction.

8. International rights and duties of natural and juridical persons.

9. Immigration.

10. Diplomatic protection.

11. Extradition.

12. Freedom of transit.

13. Navigation of international rivers.

14. International court of justice.

15. Suppressive measures.

16. Communists.

The reply of the United States, contained in a Memorandum dated December 15, 1932,⁷⁸ was sent to the Brazilian Ambassador in response to his communication of August 12, 1932, together with a request for its transmission to the Permanent Committee on the Codification of Public International Law of Rio de Janeiro. The reply was in part as follows:

“Since the work of the Committee established at Rio de Janeiro is to relate, according to the Resolution of the Sixth International Conference of American States, to public international law, the Government of the United States doubts the advisability of including in the list of subjects to be transmitted to the Pan American Union, with a view to their submission to a Conference of American States, those subjects that are not within the scope of public international law. Also, the Government of the United States doubts the advisability of including subjects within that list the codification of which would be of slight practical value. The Government of the United States also is of the opinion that it is undesirable to attempt to prepare sound codes on more than two or three subjects at any one international conference.

“Accordingly, it is believed that the following subjects should preferentially occupy the attention of the Committee on Codification:

• “(1) ‘Extradition’
• “(2) ‘National domain’
• “(3) ‘Freedom of transit’.

“If it should be decided that the Conference could undertake with any promise of success the discussion of additional subjects, it is suggested that the ‘Rights and duties of States in territories in dispute because of a boundary controversy’ might lend itself to a conventional agreement.”^††

The impracticability of undertaking to codify at a single conference more than one or two subjects on International Law was amply demonstrated at the Conference held at The Hague from March 13 to April 12, 1930.⁷⁹ That Conference, held under the auspices of the League of Nations, had before it only three subjects, namely, Nationality, Territorial Waters, and Responsibility of States for Damage caused in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. Despite the fact that preparation for the Conference had been under way for a period of six years, under the auspices of a special committee of the League of Nations devoting its time to development of bases to be discussed at the Conference, and the fact that individual States had, during this same time, been preparing for the Conference, it was not found possible to evolve a code on any one of these subjects. A Convention on Nationality⁸⁰ was signed by most of the States represented at the Conference, but it was so unsatisfactory that this Government was unable to sign it.

The present Agenda for the Seventh Pan American Conference, as approved by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union at its session of May 31, 1933, has on it ten subjects on International Law for codification. It will be obvious, therefore, that the program for the Seventh Pan American Conference is entirely too ambitious for the accomplishment of any worthwhile work in the field of codification of International Law. Unless, therefore, it shall be agreed at the outset to confine the deliberations of the delegates to two or three subjects of not too controversial character, little or nothing will be accomplished in this field. The subjects for which the United States indicated a preference (from the list submitted) in its memorandum of December 15, 1932, to the Committee at Rio de Janeiro, referred to above, namely, (1) “Extradition”, (2) “National domain”, (3) “Freedom of transit”, with possibly (4) “Rights and duties of States in territories in dispute because of a boundary controversy”, would appear more readily to lend themselves to codification. The United States does not insist, however, that these subjects shall be discussed.

Other difficulties to be encountered. It should be borne in mind that there is a vast difference between the conception of this Government and that of other first-class Powers, including Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, and that of Latin American countries and certain small European Powers, as regards many fundamental principles of International Law. This is revealed by the diplomatic correspondence over a long period of years, and was most clearly demonstrated at the Conference at The Hague in 1930.

At this last-mentioned Conference, a code, consisting of ten Articles on “Responsibility of States for Damage Caused in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners”, had been agreed upon by a majority vote of the committee having the subject under consideration after a first reading, and at the last moment it was defeated by a coalition of the Latin American countries with certain small European Powers, and China, whose evident purpose was to limit the liability of States toward aliens in their territories to a degree short of that sanctioned by well-established International Law. The reason for this difference of view will be obvious when it is considered that in these small countries the degree of enforcement of law and order and the protection afforded foreigners is frequently far below that observed by first-class Powers, and, consequently these smaller States are more often called upon to answer for their failure to afford that degree of protection required by International Law.

In the Seventh Pan American Conference, and in fact any Conference of American States, the United States will, from the necessity of the situation, stand alone against the consolidated view of all Latin American countries, in so far as concerns some of the questions now on the Agenda for that Conference.

It will therefore be seen that this Government will be playing a lone hand in any endeavor to set forth in code form International Law as commonly accepted by World Powers on these subjects. We will be under the necessity either of opposing most of the proposals advanced by the Latin American countries and declining to sign any conventions agreed upon, or of adopting what we know to be unsound pronouncements on these subjects.

It is worthy of mention, moreover, that International Law is supposed to have universal application. It is by the universal or near-universal acceptance of precepts of International Law that the tenets of International Law have force, or in fact become established. There can be no such thing as International Law for small States or American States, as some American publicists have advocated, and a different law for other States.

In 1925 the American Institute of International Law prepared a number of projects,⁸¹ the second of which, entitled “General Declarations”, included the following statement:

“3. By American International Law is understood all of the institutions, principles, rules, doctrines, conventions, customs, and practices which, in the domain of international relations, are proper to the republics of the New World.

“The existence of this law is due to the geographical, economic, and political conditions of the American Continent, to the manner in which the new republics were formed and have entered the international community, and to the solidarity existing between them.

“American International Law thus understood in no way tends to create an international system resulting in the separation of the republics of this hemisphere from the world concert.”⁸²

This is the doctrine particularly advocated by Alvarez,⁸³ of Chile.

Accordingly, it will be appreciated by the delegates that, any effort toward codification by an American Conference is, at the outset, beset with grave difficulties. However, we are faced with a practical situation which it should be the purpose of the American delegates to meet in the best possible way.

With this preliminary statement of the history of the efforts toward codification and of the difficulties encountered and to be encountered, the draft codes, and the subjects on which no drafts have been submitted, will be taken up in the order in which they appear on the Program of the Conference.

6a. The Rights and Duties of States (Chapter II—Problems of International Law—6a)

The first subject under Chapter II, Problems of International Law, 6(a), is that of “The Rights and Duties of States”. A draft project on this subject has been submitted through the Pan American Union by the American Institute of International Law.⁸⁴

The code as a whole is loosely and vaguely drawn. It readily reveals the sensibilities of the Latin American countries on the subjects of Equality of States, Intervention, Recognition, the Monroe Doctrine and special conventional arrangements, including the Piatt Amendment,⁸⁵ between the United States and certain Latin American countries.

In many instances the code does not follow International Law, but is apparently designed to bring about a new order of things. It frequently condemns unilateral judgments of States, and invokes, in their stead, the judgment of “international organs”, the meaning of which is nowhere revealed. The United States could not, of course, agree to submit its action taken in conformity with International Law to the judgment of a tribunal composed for the most part of Latin American nationals.

Article IV declares that the territory of States shall be inviolable, and that States are required to abstain from any exercise of power in the territory of another State. This, without some qualification, would strike directly at the Piatt Amendment and our Conventions with Haiti and Santo Domingo. It would also prevent the landing of troops in any country for the protection of American nationals during the frequent revolutions in Latin American countries. In this Article, as in several other Articles of the draft on other subjects, the time and extent of emergency measures to be taken would be subject to the judgment of “international organs”.

It will be obvious that such provisions would be unacceptable to this Government. There are a number of situations that justify a State in intervening in the affairs of another State. For example, States have a right under International Law to land forces for protection purposes, when the local authorities are unable or unwilling to afford protection. The right of the United States to land forces, for certain purposes, in Cuba and Haiti is provided for by the Treaty of 1903⁸⁶ and the Convention of 1915,⁸⁷ respectively.

It should be said that this Article is typical of a number of Articles contained in the draft. With all due respect to the drafters, it is apparent that proper consideration has not been given to existing International Law and to the practical, as distinguished from the theoretical, relationships between States.

Article VI of the draft sets forth the proposition that a State may not have a policy with reference to other States without the consent of such other States. The mere statement of the proposition indicates its unsoundness. It is undoubtedly directed at the Monroe Doctrine.⁸⁸ States commonly have policies with reference to other States, such, for example, as policies on recognition, tariff, commercial intercourse, etc. It requires no argument to demonstrate that a State may adopt such policies without the consent of the States that are the objects of such policies. The subject is not one that is controlled by International Law, and has no place in a code.

Article VIII contains the statement of a proposition that figured largely in the failure of The Hague Codification Conference of 1930. The statement is that “Foreigners may not demand rights different from or more extensive than the rights of nationals”. This, of course, depends upon whether or not the treatment accorded foreigners conforms to the standard required by International Law. The comment in the attached memorandum deals adequately with the subject. (See Legal—Annex 1; also memorandum prepared by Miss O’Neill). (Appendices 7 and 8).⁸⁹ This Article, in identical form, is also included in the draft project on Responsibility of States, Article I. It more properly belongs in the latter project.

Article IX covers a subject on which Latin American States are extremely sensitive, namely, equality of States. There is no objection to a declaration on equality of States, provided no effort is made to specify in too great detail the situations in which such equality is to be given effect. The Article as drafted requires modification.

Article X has to do with the responsibility of States for “The abuse of international law, or the infraction of international obligations”. The first part of the Article, defining responsibility, is unobjectionable. Other parts, however, dealing with the question of reparation and the method of assessing damages, are open to objection in that the subject, the measure of damages, in a given case can scarcely be covered by a broad generality, such as is contained in the Article. The Article is also objectionable in that it undertakes to circumscribe the rights of individual States in the settlement of matters of reparation by methods other than through international tribunals. For concrete suggestions, see attached memorandum on this project.

Article XI would require States to provide by law for equality of treatment of all persons within their borders without distinction as to nationality, sex, race, language, or religion, in matters pertaining to rights to life, family, education, freedom of conscience, communication, work, and free participation in social and governmental functions.

It will readily be seen that the Article is highly visionary, and largely outside the field of International Law. It would be fraught with great difficulties in the matter of its enforcement and, for these and other reasons, could not be accepted by the United States.

Article XII is also broad in scope and lays down unsound doctrines of International Law, as, for example, that the “community” is under an obligation to intervene in all cases involving grave danger to pacific relations, thus sweeping aside the right of a State to remain neutral to a conflict in case it is not prepared for or does not desire to enter such conflict. The Article is highly theoretical, since it is apparently premised on the supposition that all cases involving danger to pacific relations will be settled by “international organs”, not defined.

Article XIII has to do with the use of force in the settlement of disputes. It declares the use of force by individual States on their own authority to be illicit, whether accompanied by a declaration of war or not. The right of self-defense is not excepted. It would seem that the Kellogg-Briand Pact⁹⁰ goes sufficiently far toward limiting the use of force in international affairs.

6b. Treaties and Their Interpretation (Chapter II—Problems of International Law—6b)

The program and regulations of the Seventh International Conference contains in Chapter II, 6(b), the subject “Treaties and their Interpretation.”

It is not clear from the program and regulations what approach was intended should be made to the subject. It is thought probable, however, that the presence of the item in the program and regulations indicates that an attempt will be made to formulate a general convention on the subject such as the convention on treaties, signed at the Sixth International Conference of American States at Habana, in 1928.⁹¹

A general convention such as that signed at the Habana conference is of little value in construing bilateral or multilateral treaties concluded by Governments. Treaties are negotiated because there is need of them, and are concluded for well-defined purposes and they are to be so interpreted as to carry out those purposes. The language of a treaty, the conversations or correspondence exchanged between the parties in the course of negotiating it, and the purpose or purposes of the treaty afford a more ready guide to the proper interpretation of it than can be found in any general convention relating to treaties which necessarily would be formulated without regard to the particular language, negotiations and purposes of a particular treaty.

The general convention on treaties signed at Habana in 1928 was not submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, doubtless for the reason that it was not considered that any useful purpose would be accomplished by putting the convention into effect on the part of the United States. It appears that the treaty was drafted by Ambassador Ferrara,⁹² and that Article 15 was designed with a view to its future application to the Piatt Amendment.

The view that all treaties can not be advantageously subjected to identical rules of interpretation was expressed in a “Project of a Declaration upon the Given Fundamentals and the Great Principles of the International Law of the Future”, submitted to the Thirty-seventh Conference of the International Law Association, Oxford, 1932, in the report of the Second Subcommittee of the Committee on Codification, Doctor Alejandro Alvarez, Juridical Adviser to the Chilean Legation in Paris, Rapporteur.

In Title VIII of the project will be found the following:

“Article 46. Treaties may not all be subject to the same rules. In certain cases it is necessary to make distinctions according to their nature and aims.” (Report of the Thirty-seventh Conference of the International Law Association, Oxford, 1932, page 45.)

For reasons indicated by the foregoing, it is not believed advisable for the delegation of the United States to encourage the signing of a general convention on the subject of treaties and their interpretation.

If it becomes necessary to negotiate a convention on the subject the revised draft of a convention on treaties prepared under the auspices of the Harvard Research on International Law, April 1933, Professor Garner, Reporter, would be useful as a guide. Article XVI of the draft consisting of six numbered sections pertains to the Interpretations of Treaties. (Pages 90–94 of the Report). This report contains valuable source material in the extensive comment.

This project has been commented upon in a memorandum, Legal— Annex 2. (Appendix 9).⁹³

6c. The Responsibility of States for Damage Caused on Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners (Chapter II—Problems of International Law—6c—entitled: “International responsibility of States, with special reference to the Denial of Justice”).

Codification of International Law, as stated above, has been agitated by the American States since the Second Pan American Conference held in 1901. No Agenda of past conferences, however, has contained the exact subject now to be discussed—namely:

“International responsibility of States, with special reference to the Denial of Justice.”

The Report of the delegates of the United States on the Commission of Jurists that met in Rio de Janeiro in 1927⁹⁴ and prepared twelve projects⁹⁵ for consideration at the Sixth Pan American Conference states that Project 16 of the projects previously prepared by the American Institute of International Law, and submitted to the Commission of Jurists, on “Diplomatic Protection”, was laid aside. (Instructions to Delegates—Sixth Conference—Appendix No. 5, p. 26).⁹⁶ However, a related project on the “Fundamental Bases of International Law” was taken up at the Sixth Conference at Habana, but the Committee to which it was assigned could not agree. The Committee and the Conference recommended that the subjects of Public International Law should be given further study.⁹⁷

There has taken place, meanwhile, the Hague Conference of 1930 for the Codification of International Law. The Third Committee, which had before it “Responsibility of States for Damage caused in their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners”, reported that it was unable “to finish the examination of the questions relating to the responsibility of States …” The true meaning of this report is revealed in the beginning of these instructions and in Articles by Mr. Borchard and Mr. Hackworth appearing in the July 1930 issue of the American Journal of International Law.

It seems that the time is hardly more ripe now, than in years past, for the codification of those principles of International Law relating to Responsibility. It cannot be denied, however, that there has been a certain clarification of the issues involved. The Hague Conference made possible the reasoned presentation of the views held by the many nations there represented. Those delegates of the United States to the forthcoming Conference who will have to do with the question of responsibility should make a careful study of the League documents relating to The Hague Conference. They should note particularly the views expressed by Latin American countries in reply to the League questionnaire; the implications of the report of the League subcommittee on Responsibility; the statements made by the delegates of Latin American countries in the proceedings of the Third Committee; the observations, made by such delegates, on the Bases of Discussion (Annex II to the Minutes of the Third Committee); the reply of the United States to the League questionnaire; and the statements and amendments made by the delegate of the United States.

A valuable contribution to the subject of Responsibility is the work of the Research Committee in International Law of the Harvard Law School.⁹⁸ The draft convention, resulting from such work, is not to be taken as a model or as a final basis for discussion. The organization and presentation of the material contained therein are deserving, however, of careful consideration.

A project relating to the Responsibility of States, prepared by the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law,⁹⁹ pursuant to a Resolution of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, will doubtless form the basis of discussion at Montevideo. This draft probably represents, in large measure, the opinion of Latin American countries.

It is highly improbable that an agreement on this subject acceptable to the United States will be reached. Care should be exercised, therefore, during the discussions to refrain from giving concurrence to draft provisions that are not declaratory of or consistent with existing International Law, even though they be advocated by all the Latin American countries, as may well be the case.

In negotiation, in conference, and in arbitration, certain fundamental differences on this subject frequently appear. This division manifested itself most strikingly at The Hague Conference of 1930, where the delegates fell into two groups—the so-called “majority” and “minority” groups. This division resulted, in large measure, from a basic disagreement as to one of the most fundamental of questions, namely, the standard of treatment to be accorded to foreigners. The “minority” group, consisting of Latin American countries, certain small European Powers, and China, identified the treatment of the alien with that of the national. The “majority” group, consisting of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, etc., could admit of no such limitation.

It is reasonable to suppose that one of two courses will be followed at the forthcoming Conference. The Conference will seek either to resolve the questions presented in the project by general statements of no specific import, or to evolve a code representing the views of the small Powers of the world,—views that, in many instances, could not be accepted by the United States. The first course would be objectionable because it would mark no advance step in the clarification of the law, and the books are replete with generalizations. The second course would mark a backward step in the development of International Law. It would be unfortunate to have an unsound code on International Law extant.

The draft project submitted by the American Institute does not adequately cover the subject. Comparison with the Harvard Research Draft, a more thoughtful and comprehensive study, will indicate certain of those respects in which the project is lacking. An illustration will suffice. The Harvard Draft defines responsibility for the acts of higher and subordinate officials, for non-performance of contracts, for injuries resulting from mob violence, insurgency, and revolution, for acts of private individuals, etc. The project of the American Institute confines itself to general and vague terms on these subjects. (See Articles 2, 8).

At The Hague the general basis for responsibility was stated in Article 1 of the draft Convention similarly to Article 2 of this project; international obligations were defined in Article 2; the duty to make reparation was defined in Article 3; the duty to exhaust local remedies was stated in Article 4; and the rule that a State can not avoid its international obligations by invoking its municipal law was set forth in Article 5. The bases of responsibility were then detailed. Article 6 covered legislative action; Article 7, executive action; Article 8, acts of officials; Article 9, judicial acts; and Article 10 contained the provision with reference to equality of treatment of aliens and nationals, on which the Conference divided. Although these Articles may not be entirely unobjectionable, they indicate a more logical and effective approach to the subject than is contained in the present draft.

The differences between The Hague draft and the present project relate to form as well as substance. A concise, well-ordered arrangement of rules stated is desirable in the interest of clarity and understanding. In this respect the present project is open to criticism. For example, the last paragraph of Article 8 covers the question of the incompatibility of municipal and international law. Both the Harvard Research Committee and the Third Committee at The Hague covered this question in a more logical place, that is, in conjunction with the general statement of the broad basis for responsibility. In the present project, the paragraph cited is a mere addendum to an Article containing vague statements as to “stability and order”, “institutions”, and “officials”, the repression and subjection to liability of those officials, and “organized administration of justice”.

As will be apparent to anyone reading the text, the project abounds in ambiguous statements. The phraseology of many Articles is so vague and general that it is difficult to understand what principles are sought to be expressed.

A discussion of the separate Articles is contained in the attached memorandum. (Legal—Annex 3). (Appendix 10).¹

6d. Definition, Duration and Reciprocity of Political Asylum (Chapter II—Problems of International Law—6d)

The American Institute of International Law has submitted, through the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, a draft project² consisting of four paragraphs on Asylum for consideration at the Conference.

While many authorities have endeavored to define “asylum”, it is safe to say that no satisfactory definition has been evolved up to this time, although the general meaning of the term is, of course, well understood. As a matter of fact, the term does not lend itself to precise definition, as there are many uncertain elements involved. For example, it is not always clear what constitutes a political offense; how serious must be the threat of bodily harm or danger to life; to what extent persecution or intolerance must be carried; and how far the asylum granted may be extended. There is always danger in establishing a definition for a term of this kind. Asylum is granted only in exceptional cases, and it is better, therefore, that each should be decided as it arises.

As indicated in the first sentence of the first paragraph recommended by the American Institute of International Law, determination of the political character of the offense should be made by the State offering the asylum. That decision should never be made the subject of submission to an arbitral body, as is provided in this paragraph, more especially if the first sentence of the paragraph is adopted. The two are inconsistent.

The granting of asylum in embassies and legations to political refugees, although still recognized as a right in Latin American countries, and perhaps a few others, is generally discouraged elsewhere. Generally speaking, the United States and the European Governments are opposed to the practice. Where the right is exercised, it is by the consent of the local Government rather than by any recognized principle of International Law. The present tendency is to restrict the grant. The refusal of asylum relieves the Governments and their representatives of much embarrassment and at the same time discourages political conflicts, the leading cause for invoking the doctrine.

In countries in which asylum is allowed, the right must be accorded alike to all diplomatic representatives. It cannot be extended to certain representatives and denied to others. Any abuse of the privilege warrants the local Government in taking measures to require the surrender of the refugees.

Consulates not being entitled to the same inviolability as embassies and legations may not, as a general rule, be used in affording asylum to political offenders. But, in the countries of Latin America, consulates are by custom usually regarded as having the right to extend temporary protection to political refugees.

Merchant vessels being usually subject to the jurisdiction of the country in whose port they happen to be cannot, as a general rule, claim the right to grant asylum. While the Latin American countries seem to take a different view, they recognize that the right is not absolute. The extent to which the right may be exercised in those countries by merchant vessels is dependent upon the will of the diplomat or consular officer of the country whose flag the vessel flies.

Although it is generally recognized that the immunity of public armed vessels establishes them as a safe refuge for political offenders, the better view seems to be that they should not extend the right of asylum to political offenders except in cases of extreme necessity. If they grant asylum, the local Government may be warranted in considering that they have violated the hospitality of the port and require that they leave.

It is not possible to fix definitely the period for which asylum should be granted. Obviously, it should not be extended beyond the time necessary to assure the safety of the refugee. Moore points out in this connection that:

“… In May, 1865, General Canseco, then engaged in an attempt to overthrow the government of General Pezet, was sheltered in the house of Mr. Robinson, the American minister. The Peruvian Government having protested against this act, the diplomatic corps agreed on the following points: (1) That apart from inhibitions in their instructions or in conventional stipulations, there were limits to the privilege of asylum which the prudence of diplomatic agents ought to counsel; (2) that the diplomatic corps adopted the instructions given by Brazil to its minister, according to which asylum was to be conceded with the greatest reserve, and only for such time as was necessary in order that the fugitive should secure his safety in another manner—an end which it was the duty of the diplomatic agent to do all in his power to accomplish. It was also agreed that these rules, which, in the absence of authoritative instructions, were adopted provisionally, should apply only to offences properly called political. The Peruvian Government declined to accept these conclusions, objecting with great force that, as they left everything to the discretion of the diplomatic agent, they afforded no solution of the difficulty then existing.” (II, Moore, International Law Digest, 836).

While the rule thus adopted seems to be eminently fair, it hardly can be considered as an established practice.

When the question of political asylum was considered by the Sixth International Conference of American States in 1928, Mr. Hughes, speaking on behalf of the delegation of the United States, stated that the delegation would not participate in the discussion of the project inasmuch as asylum was contrary to the practice of the United States and in the opinion of this Government was not a part of general International Law. He added, however, that his remarks were not intended to interfere with the discussion of the subject which he hoped would end in a convention acceptable to those Governments which favored the doctrine.

Although the delegation of the United States signed the Final Act which included the convention eventually drawn up, in doing so it made an explicit reservation, placing on record the fact that the United States does not recognize or subscribe to, as part of International Law, the so-called doctrine of asylum. (Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Sixth International Conference of American States (1928) 225, 227, Appendix 14).

The position of this Government with respect to the matter has not changed since the Habana Conference. The American Delegation to the Seventh International Conference of American States should, therefore, refrain from signing a convention on this subject.

For the information of the delegates, however, a brief memorandum (Legal—Annex 4) (Appendix 11)³ on the draft project on Asylum submitted by the American Institute of International Law is attached.

6e. Extradition (Chapter II—Problems of International Law—6e)

The Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law has submitted, through the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, a draft project on Extradition to be considered at the Seventh International Conference.⁴ This project has been commented upon at length in a memorandum, Legal—Annex 5, Appendix 12.⁵

It should be remarked at the outset that, at the present time, the United States has Extradition Treaties with every Latin American country, except Brazil. While, therefore, there is no imperative need, so far as this country is concerned, for a multilateral agreement on the subject, there would appear to be no objection to the concluding of such an agreement of an acceptable type.

As to the project that has been submitted for consideration, it is to be observed that, in the Extradition Treaties of the United States, agreement is made for the surrender of persons who are charged with or have been convicted of certain specified crimes or offenses. Such a list of crimes or offenses is omitted from the project under consideration, and the criterion therein imposed for surrender is the punishment prescribed for the crime or offense. With respect to this feature of the project, the following discussion contained in Volume 1 of Moore on Extradition, pages 112 and 113, appears to be appropriate:

“In some of the treaties a limitation is imposed upon extradition for certain offences, based upon the length of the term of imprisonment to which such offences may be subject under the laws of both countries. It has also been proposed in some instances that the penalty by which the extraditability of the crime should be determined, should be that attached to the offence by the laws of the asylum state. The latter test has never been admitted; and it must be conceded that the attempt to limit extradition by requiring a penalty of a certain severity either in the country of refuge or in both countries is illogical and unsatisfactory. It is much to be preferred that the offences for which extradition may be granted should be clearly and absolutely stated. To make the penalty of the offence the test of extradition is to render the operation of the treaty wholly dependent upon the separate action of each of the contracting parties. As between contiguous states presenting the same social conditions, this might not be attended with great inconveniences. But the operation of the treaty would necessarily be subject to change and uncertainty. If the penalty attached to the offence by the laws of one of the contracting parties should be made the test of extradition, the penalty affixed by the laws of the demanding state would seem to be the proper one for that purpose. While it is an accepted principle that the acts for which extradition is demanded must constitute an offence according to the laws of both countries, yet the laws which have actually been violated are those of the demanding government. Those laws, it is to be assumed, are based upon the social conditions there existing, and the penalties must be supposed to have been adjusted in accordance with the relative importance of various crimes within the particular jurisdiction. The existence of the system of extradition is itself a recognition of this principle, the object being nothing else than the promotion of justice through the agency of local laws. In accordance with this principle it was held by Judge Blatchford, that, where a treaty provided for extradition for certain specified crimes, ‘when these crimes are subject to infamous punishment,⁵ it was meant that extradition should be granted when the offence was subject to infamous punishment in the place where it is committed.”

Accordingly, it is believed that the American delegates should endeavor to amend the project so as to include therein a list of crimes or offenses which are extraditable. For this purpose a copy of the latest Extradition Treaty entered into by the United States, namely, the one with Greece,⁶ is attached to the memorandum on this subject. This treaty contains a comprehensive list of crimes or offenses upon which it would appear that American States might be able to agree, at least so far as concerns the great majority of such crimes or offenses. If it shall appear impossible to reach an agreement upon a list of crimes or offenses, the United States would be willing to accept the criterion contained in the project, namely, the penalty imposed.

It will be seen from the attached memorandum discussing the various Articles of the project that a number of them are unobjectionable in their present form while others will require certain modifications in order to render them acceptable. The desired modifications have been indicated in each instance. This is one subject under Chapter II—Problems of International Law—on which it would appear that no great difficulty should be experienced in reaching an agreement.

[6f.] Nationality (Chapter 2—Problems of International Law—6f)

1. The draft convention proposed by the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law⁷ contains proposals of a highly controversial nature, some of which are revolutionary from the standpoint of international law as well as our own nationality laws and policies.

2. The Secretary of State is in a delicate position in regard to the discussion of a nationality convention at this time. It was on his recommendation to the President that a committee was appointed composed of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor and the Attorney General, to redraft with appropriate amendments the nationality laws of the United States to be laid by the President before Congress. As a result of the appointment of that committee, the competent committees of the two Houses suspended consideration of legislation on the subject of nationality pending the submission of the report of the President’s committee.

For our delegation now, before Congress has had an opportunity to consider what the Executive thinks our own nationality legislation should be, to enter into a discussion of a proposed international convention on nationality would, it seems, be out of place from the standpoint of the Executive branch of the Government and virtually show bad faith on the part of that branch toward the legislative branch of the Government. Clearly the Secretary of State should not be involved in any such situation.

3. The Conference on the Codification of International Law held at The Hague in 1930,⁸ in which the United States participated, adopted a resolution recommending to the participating States the study of certain questions on the subject of nationality. As late as October 5, 1933, the Legal Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations expressed the hope that before the next session of the Assembly the Governments will have made it possible for the Secretary General to indicate to the Council the action they have taken in regard to the resolution adopted by the Codification Conference. On June 27, 1932, the Secretary of State, in a communication to the League of Nations, stated with reference to the question of calling a new international conference for the drafting of a new convention on nationality which would contain provisions concerning the nationality of married women different from those contained in the convention adopted at The Hague Conference:

“In view of the radical differences between positions of the various states concerning the nationality of married women as reflected in their respective laws, and the lack of any indication that uniformity therein is likely to be accomplished in the near future, the subject must be regarded at present as exceedingly complicated and highly controversial. The Government of the United States has therefore been constrained to reach the conclusion that the holding of a further conference on nationality at this time would be undesirable.”⁹

In view of this situation, it seems that this Government is not in a position at the present time to do more than urge that the studies contemplated under the resolution adopted at The Hague will be expedited by all of the interested Governments. It seems that that is the course which should be taken under the usual procedure with reference to conferences and is the only course that is likely to enable the several governments to make progress on the subject of uniformity of nationality law.

4. You may explain to your colleagues the reasons, as set out in paragraph two above, why it is impossible for our delegation to engage at this time in a discussion of a proposed convention on nationality.

6g. Territorial Sea (Chapter II—Problems of International Law—6g)

Much of the language used in the Articles of the Project on Territorial Sea¹⁰ is ambiguous and would, it is believed, be found to be impracticable of application.

Because of uncertainty of meaning it is difficult to propose substitute phraseology. The Articles will doubtless be subjected to discussion in committee where they will probably yield to clarification. They will serve as well as a basis of discussion as proposed substitute Articles would do. However, some suggestions are made below.

Some of the language contained in the project tends to indicate that the project is not merely a declaration of established law but is an attempt to have accepted principles which have not attained the status of International Law. This view finds corroboration in Article LIV of the project which admits of denunciation of the Convention by States parties to it. If the Convention represented a codification of International Law on the subject of “Territorial Waters”, as it purports to do, there would be no purpose in denunciation of the Convention, because even if it were not in force, all nations would be bound by the principles in it that have crystallized into law. International Law is binding in or without a Convention.

To avert any effort to have the Convention, if it comes into force, supersede established International Law and to prevent the use of the Convention to impair existing special rights of States, it is proposed that there be included in the Convention an Article in substance as follows:

“The provisions of this Convention shall not be applied to modify general international law or to impair existing special rights of any State.”

Comments on specific Articles of the project follow.

Articles I, II, III and IV are believed to assert acceptable propositions of law, although the drafting doubtless can and should be improved in committee.

Article V seems to be too uncertain in meaning to accept or to admit of suggesting a substitute.

The comment made as to Articles I to IV is applicable to Articles VI and VII.

Article VIII while lacking in precision and probably difficult of application, is probably unobjectionable.

Article IX is uncertain in meaning and difficult of application. The following is suggested as a substitute:

“Where bays are bordered by the territory of a single State, the territorial sea shall follow the sinuosities of the coast, except that it shall be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay at the part nearest to the opening toward the sea where the distance between the two shores of the bay is ten marine miles unless a greater distance has been established by usage.

“Where bays are bordered by the territory of two or more States, the territorial sea shall follow the sinuosities of the coast.”

The proposed substitute for Article IX takes the place of Articles X and XI also.

It is not apparent why coves should be grouped with ports and roadsteads in Article XII. Coves seem more appropriately to be grouped with bays. This, however, is not a serious objection.

Article XIII seems unobjectionable.

In Article XIV the words “the case foreseen by the foregoing article” should be omitted. The foregoing Article relates to straits all the shores of which are possessed by one single State. Article XIV relates to straits the shores of which belong to more than one nation. “The case foreseen by the foregoing article” is not present in Article XIV.

Article XV is not clearly expressed. Furthermore, it is not believed that a twelve mile zone of territorial waters in straits as is proposed in this Article is generally recognized. The following is suggested as a substitute for Article XV:

“In straits more than six marine miles in breadth which form a passage between two parts of the high sea, the limits of the territorial sea shall be ascertained in the same manner as on all other parts of the coast.”

The reference in Article XVI to Article II should doubtless be to Article XI instead. In Article XI historic bays are mentioned. No mention is made of historic bays in Article II. It has been suggested above that Article XI should be merged in Article IX. In view of the change made with respect to Article XI, it is suggested that the following be substituted for Article XVI:

“Straits shall be subject to the exception in respect to usage stated in Article IX.”

Article XVII presents the difficulty of applying to islands a formula designed for application to bays and straits. It is suggested that “determined in the same manner as established by this convention in regard to bays and straits” be omitted.

It is understood that the definition of nautical mile used in Article XVIII is not the generally accepted one. It is therefore suggested that the words “of sixty to the degree of longitude on the Equator”, used in this Article, be omitted.

Compliance with Articles XIX to XXV may precipitate international controversies without other provocation. Comments made in relation to Article XLVIII are applicable to these Articles. It is suggested that Articles XIX to XXV inclusive be omitted.

Articles XXVI to XXXIV are believed to be acceptable.

The meaning of Article XXXV is not clear. It is susceptible of being given a meaning inconsistent with the provisions of Articles XXXII and XXXIV, in that while the latter Articles subject vessels and seaplanes to control entailing a measure of restraint, Article XXXV seems to exclude the exercise of effective control by inhibiting the exercise of any rights whatever hindering or impeding the passage of vessels.

Articles XXXVI to XXXVIII inclusive are believed to be unobjectionable.

Article XXXIX undertakes to grant exemption from restrictions on vessels and airships in cases of force majeure, accident or wreck.

This is unobjectionable, except as to force majeure. The term “force majeure” is of French origin and is regarded as including war. United States and British court decisions have declared war to be within the scope of force majeure. It is likely to be so regarded in any civil law country.

International Law obligates governments to impose restrictions on war-craft of a belligerent nation. Article XXXIX undertakes to refrain from imposing restrictions on vessels and airships, including war vessels and airships. By subscribing to Article XXXIX, a government would agree to refrain from doing what by International Law it is obliged to do. Furthermore, The Hague Convention concerning rights and duties of neutral powers¹¹ obligates nations parties to it to impose restrictions on belligerent war-craft in part. For reasons indicated, “force majeure” should be omitted from Article XXXIX.

The second part of Article XXXX, that is, the part limiting the application of laws of the coastal State, is ambiguous. The language should be clarified to express more clearly what it is intended to express.

Article XLI prescribes too broad an exemption for commanders of war vessels and military airships. Commanders are not entitled to exemption on shore unless they are on shore in the service of the ship. Enforcement of this provision in the United States would be impossible without new legislation. The Article ought not to be accepted.

Article XLII is unobjectionable.

The comment made on Article XLI in regard to commanders on shore applies to Article XLIII as well. Article XLIII ought not to be accepted.

It is not believed that Article XLIV contains an accurate statement of law. While in the United States jurisdiction in matters of discipline and incidents affecting a vessel and persons on board and not involving the peace and dignity of the country or the tranquillity of the port has, as a matter of comity, yielded to the authorities of the nation to which the vessel belongs, it has not been considered that offenses committed on merchant vessels of private ownership were exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts. Article XLIV ought not to be accepted.

Articles XLV, XLVI and XLVII are unobjectionable.

It is not believed that the provisions of Article XLVIII requiring arbitration should be incorporated in a project on “Territorial Sea”. A General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration was signed at the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration, Washington, in 1929. Twenty American Republics signed the treaty. This treaty has not been ratified by the United States.¹² It is believed inadvisable to provide for arbitration in a convention on a particular subject so long as the General Treaty of inter-American Arbitration, which was given extensive consideration, remains unratified.

The comment made in relation to Article XLVIII applies also to Articles XLIX and L.

Articles LI, LII, LIII, LIV and LV are deemed unobjectionable.

Your attention is invited to a memorandum on this subject which is attached as Appendix 14 Legal—Annex 7.¹³

7. Report of the Permanent Committee on Public International Law of Rio de Janeiro on the General Principles Which May Facilitate Regional Agreements Between Adjacent States on the Industrial and Agricultural Use of the Waters of International Rivers,¹⁴ and Reports of the Said Committee and of the Permanent Committee on Private International Law of Montevideo¹⁵ on the Matters Provided for in the Resolution of the Sixth International Conference of American States of February 19, 1928¹⁶ (Chapter II—Problems of International Law—7)

It is not believed that there can be said to be established and recognized law on the subject of the use of waters of international rivers.

What would constitute a fair and reasonable apportionment of the use of waters of international streams between interested States would depend so much on the circumstances of any specific case that might arise that it is not believed practicable or desirable to define general principles governing the matter in a multilateral agreement.

So far as the United States is concerned, there now exist agreements with bordering States in regard to boundary streams, and it is believed that it would be better to leave any questions which might arise concerning waters of international streams, and which are not covered by existing agreements, to be adjusted with the other interested governments than it would be to attempt to define in a convention general principles to be applied to questions which have not yet arisen.

A discussion of this subject is contained in the attached memorandum (Appendix 15).¹⁷

Chapter III—Political and Civil Rights of Women¹⁸

8. Report of the Inter-American Commission of Women on the political and civil equality of women¹⁹

The report of the Inter-American Commission of Women will present three projects:

1. A Treaty on Nationality of Women; This government does not wish to take part in any discussions at the conference on the highly controversial subjects of nationality; it desires to await the studies being made pursuant to Resolution 6 of The Hague Conference of 1930, and the enactment of legislation in this country pursuant to Executive Order No. 6115²⁰ calling for revision of the nationality laws of the United States. In this connection see instructions on Topicé (f).

2. A Treaty on Equal Rights; This government believes that this is not an appropriate subject for a Treaty.

3. Resolution Recommending the Continuation of the Inter-American Commission of Women; This Government would favor accepting, with a vote of thanks, the report of the Inter-American Commission for consideration by the appropriate authorities of each country and provision for later exchange of views between the respective Governments. In this connection it is noted that Resolution A adopted by the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law on October 31, 1931 (Document No. 4, published by the Pan American Union for the use of delegates to the Conference, page 52) would advise the continuation of the Inter-American Commission of Women “until men and women throughout all the American Republics shall have equal rights.” For your confidential information, it seems undesirable from the point of view of the United States, to provide for such indefinite continuation of the Inter-American Commission of Women, particularly since American representation on that body has not served to reflect the views of this Government and of major groups of women with respect to the status of women in industry and in various social relations. If, therefore, the Conference proceeds to vote on any resolution recommending the indefinite continuation of the Inter-American Commission of Women, you should refrain from voting thereon, stating that you are without instructions.²¹

In respect to the three points mentioned above, your attention is invited to memoranda²² on the subject in the files of the delegation

Chapter IV—Economic and Financial Problems²³

It will be perceived that the Items under this Chapter include in their scope the whole field of international commercial policy, and the delegates may expect that the discussions of these topics will turn into a review of the policies now being pursued by all governments, the serious state of hindrance to international commerce now existing, and a great variety of proposals aimed to lessen this hindrance.

The general memoranda sketch in broad terms the main proposals for international agreement that have come before previous Pan-American conferences and various other proposals that might be worth consideration. At many points and in regard to many proposals, the attitude of the American Delegation will have to be one of just sympathetic consideration.

If circumstances and the attitudes of other countries seem to promise success, the American Delegation may wish to bring forward certain limited positive proposals in this field, and to that end there have been drafted tentative texts of proposals which it is believed fit in with the existing American situation and will serve to advance commerce between the governments represented at the conference. These possible proposals are as follows:

(1) An endorsing agreement of the existing tariff truce²⁴ (which introduces a slightly new note of interpretation of the truce). (Attached as Appendix 16)²⁵

(2) A resolution encouraging the practice of bilateral agreements. (Attached as Appendix 17)²⁵

(3) A resolution dealing with the practice of discrimination under exchange controls. (Attached as Appendix 18)²⁵

(4) A resolution favoring the study by a committee of the possibilities of multilateral agreement, which committee might pursue its work continuously. (Attached as Appendix 19)²⁵

It has not appeared advisable that the American Delegation should seek to put forward any broad project for multilateral agreement, at least until the course of discussion of the conference has given some sign as to whether it might be feasible. The attention of the Delegation is particularly drawn to the proposal in this field put forward by the American Delegation at London on June 22, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix 20.²⁶ A thorough discussion of its ideas might be profitable and lead to the formulation of something mutually acceptable.

9(a). Consideration of the Recommendations of the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference Relative To: (a) Customs Duties.²⁷

It is a well recognized principle that the rate of tariff duties is a matter for the consideration only of the regulating government. However, the rate so adopted may have far-reaching effect on the industry, trade and national economy of other nations whose trade is affected by these rates. The subject is, therefore, susceptible of helpful discussion at international conferences.

The World Economic Conference which met at Geneva in 1927,²⁸ attended by representatives from fifty countries, specifically declared that “the time has come to put an end to the increase in tariffs and to move in the opposite direction.” The conference examined the reasons underlying the increases in tariffs in recent years which were declared to be the desire to meet the abnormal conditions arising out of the World War and the desire of nations by means of tariffs to keep existing or recently established industries in operation on a scale which would not otherwise be possible. Other reasons advanced to justify tariff increases were budgetary considerations, necessity of protecting industries required for national defense and for bargaining purposes.

After considering the whole subject, the Conference reached the following conclusions:

In view of the fact that harmful effects upon production and trade result from the high and constantly changing tariffs which are applied in many countries;

And since substantial improvement in the economic conditions can be obtained by increased facilities for international trade and commerce;

And in view of the fact that tariffs, though within the sovereign jurisdiction of the separate States, are not a matter of purely domestic interest but greatly influence the trade of the world;

And in view of the fact that some of the causes which have resulted in the increase of tariffs and in other trade barriers since the War have largely disappeared and others are diminishing;

The Conference declares that the time has come to put an end to the increase in tariffs and to move in the opposite direction.

The Conference recommends:

(1) That nations should take steps forthwith to remove or diminish those tariff barriers that gravely hamper trade, starting with those which have been imposed to counteract the effects of disturbances arising out of the war. Moreover, in order to ensure that this action is continuously pursued, the Conference recommends;

(2) That States should proceed to the conclusion of commercial treaties on lines and under conditions calculated to ensure the attainment of the aims mentioned herein;

(3) That, in future, the practice of putting into force, in advance of negotiations, excessive duties established for the purpose of bargaining, whether by means of tarifs de combat or by means of general tariffs, should be abandoned;

(4) That the Council of the League of Nations should be requested to instruct its Economic Organization to examine, on the basis of the principles enunciated by the present Conference, the possibility of further action by the respective States with a view to promoting the equitable treatment of commerce by eliminating or reducing the obstructions which excessive customs tariffs offer to international trade.

In this enquiry, the Economic Organization should consult with representatives of the various Governments, including non-members of the League, and also so far as necessary with the competent bodies representing Commerce, Industry, Agriculture and Labour.

The object of the enquiry should be to encourage the extension of international trade on an equitable basis, while at the same time paying due regard to the just interests of producers and workers in obtaining a fair remuneration and of consumers in increasing their purchasing power.

With respect to export duties the World Economic Conference of 1927²⁹ made the following declaration:

The Conference is of opinion that the free circulation of raw materials is one of the essential conditions for the healthy industrial and commercial development of the world.

It is therefore of opinion that any export tax on raw materials or on the articles consumed by producers which has the effect of increasing the cost of production or the cost of living in foreign countries tends thereby to aggravate the natural inequalities arising from the geographical distribution of world wealth.

The Conference therefore considers that export duties should only be resorted to to meet the essential needs of revenue or some exceptional economic situation or to safeguard the vital interests of the country and that they should not discriminate between different foreign destinations.

The Conference therefore recommends:

(1) That the exportation of raw materials should not be unduly burdened by export duties or any other taxes and that, even in cases where such duties or taxes are justified by fiscal needs or by exceptional or compelling circumstances, they should be as low as possible;

(2) That, in any case, export duties on raw materials should never be imposed for the special purpose of subjecting foreign countries using such materials to an increased burden which will place them in a position of unfair inferiority as regards the production of the finished article;

(3) That export duties on raw materials, whether levied for revenue purposes or to meet exceptional or compelling circumstances, should never discriminate between different foreign destinations;

(4) That the above principles apply equally to export duties on articles of consumption.

The International Chamber of Commerce endorsed the recommendations of the World Economic Conference in favor of tariff reductions and has advocated the cooperation among all the nations or a group of nations for the reduction of tariffs. The report of the Chamber for 1930 on “Commercial Policy and Trade Barriers” reported but little progress in this direction in the intervening year. The Chamber reached the conclusion that it would be desirable to allow events to take their course “asserting its sympathy with any measures whatsoever that may ultimately conduce to the greatly desired lowering of tariff barriers.”

With respect to customs tariffs, the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference which met in Washington in October, 1931, adopted the following resolution:³⁰

“Customs Tariff

“Convinced that excessive customs tariffs and discriminatory internal taxes on certain natural products, manufactured or not, constitute one of the principal causes of the economic crisis through which the American Republics are passing, and which it is urgent to remedy.

“Submits to the immediate consideration of the American Governments the hope of the delegates that the American Republics should grant, as far as the conditions of their internal economy may permit, the greatest tariff privileges and reduction of internal taxes on the natural products, manufactured or not, produced by the soil or the industry of the national territory of the other countries, through agreements which are in conformity with the Pan American spirit.”

The matter of customs duties and other obstacles to international trade was one of the two main objects of discussion at the World Monetary and Economic Conference which met in London last summer.³¹ The Economic Commission of this Conference worked through many sub-committees on various phases of the subject. While the discussions were useful in revealing the causes of the present situation and in stimulating various suggestions for attacking it, no agreement was achieved. The report of the Sub-Commission on Commercial Policy is attached.^31a The whole field is continuing to receive the careful study of the permanent bureau of the Monetary and Economic Conference, and the Economic Committee of the League of Nations.

The one definite achievement in the field was a tariff truce that grew out of an American initiative made before the Conference met. The powers represented on the Organizing Committee of the Conference adopted the tariff truce in the following terms:³²

“The Governments of the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, United States of America, France, Italy, Japan, and Norway, represented on the Organising Committee for the Monetary and Economic Conference, convinced that it is essential for the successful conclusion of the Conference that the measures of all kinds which at the present time misdirect and paralyse international trade be not intensified pending an opportunity for the Conference to deal effectively with the problems created thereby, recognize the urgency of adopting at the beginning of the Conference a tariff truce, the provisions of which shall be laid down by common agreement.

“The said Governments, being further convinced that immediate action is of greater importance, themselves agree, and strongly urge all other Governments participating in the Conference to agree, that they will not before the 12th of June nor during the proceedings of the Conference, adopt any new initiatives which might increase the many varieties of difficulties now arresting international commerce, subject to the proviso that they retain the right to withdraw from this agreement at any time after July 31st, 1933, on giving one month’s previous notice to the Conference.

“One of the main motives which brings the Governments together in Conference is to surmount the obstacles to international trade above referred to; the said Governments therefore urge all other Governments represented at the Conference to act in conformity with the spirit of this objective.”

While this resolution was subject to certain reservations it was accepted in principle by a large number of countries. In this connection particular interest is centered in the action on the resolution by the Latin American countries. The minutes of the Monetary and Economic Conference contain the information that the following South and Central American countries adhered to the customs truce: Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

This truce is still in force. But since it has been interpreted to still permit tariff action under legislation already in existence at the time of its adoption, many new tariff changes have been made even by countries which are parties to it. Furthermore, some countries have begun to withdraw from it, notably, the Irish Free State, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Venezuela.³³

Shortly before the adjournment of the Conference, the American Delegation submitted a project for agreement on commercial policy (copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix 20)³⁴ which represented the attack that seemed feasible at the time.

Subsequently the Government of the United States announced that it is preparing to enter into conversations with various countries (first Cuba, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina) for the possible negotiation of reciprocity treaties and has appointed an interdepartmental committee to carry the matter forward. The negotiations with Cuba had gone some distance when the revolution occurred.³⁵ Preliminary discussions are under way with Brazil³⁶ and Colombia³⁷ and memoranda have been exchanged with Argentina.³⁸ It is the intention of the Government to try to push these bilateral negotiations to a successful conclusion.

9b. Consideration of the Recommendations of the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference Relative to: (b) Currency Stabilization and the Possibility of Adopting a Uniform Monetary System.

The Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, meeting in Washington in October, 1931, adopted the following resolution on the subject:³⁹

“Currency Stabilization

“The Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference considers it of the greatest importance that a careful and complete study be made of all questions relative to currency stabilization and without prejudging in favor of any of the doctrines advanced resolves to recommend:

• “1. That all the Governments, members of the Pan American Union, consider the desirability of submitting to a world conference the possibility of rehabilitating silver, and the best means to carry this into effect.
• “2. That the American countries adopt a monetary standard which will assure to the circulating medium the stability necessary to guarantee the normalcy of commercial operations, in harmony with their metallic deposits, the necessary flexibility in the circulating medium and the index of the cost of living.”

The matter of currency stabilization is obviously a matter of leading policy. In considering it, it may be useful to make the same distinction as was attempted at London between immediate monetary measures and ultimate monetary policy.

As for stabilization as a measure of immediate monetary policy, obviously the American Government cannot urge this course unless it is willing to commit itself to stabilization action as an immediate measure. If the American Government should decide before the Conference meets to stabilize, or if the American Government can commit itself with any certainty to the idea of early prospective stabilization, then it may be advisable to consider at the Conference the ways and means by which currency stabilization can be undertaken by the other States represented at the Conference. This of course might involve a consideration of their trade balance, their external indebtedness, et cetera. In view of the uncertainties attendant on our own situation and of the difficulties of attempting to work out immediate stabilization by concerted governmental action, it would appear likely that this subject would present such difficulties as to make it inadvisable for the Delegation to put it forward. When and as this country and Great Britain may have turned to stabilize, the countries of Latin America are likely to follow a similar attempt.

As for stabilization as an essential element in wisely conceived monetary policy for the future (that is when and as economic and financial affairs become relatively stable), this involves the determination of the main lines on which it is contemplated the American monetary system will operate. It brings to the front for consideration the whole broad program of ultimate monetary measures which the American Delegation presented at the Conference at London⁴⁰ (copy attached). Appendix 20.⁴¹ If the American Government is willing to commit itself now to this statement of outline of permanent monetary policy (or with such modifications as may be desirable), then the organization of a discussion group at Montevideo might serve a useful purpose, with the idea that this group could continue its work after the Conference had adjourned. If, however, the question of permanent monetary policy and the nature of the monetary system for this country towards which this country may be working is still at issue and still to be determined, then it becomes difficult to see how the Delegation can take any active position in regard to the subject.

The Treasury when last consulted on this point wrote as of August 19, 1933, as follows:

“Under prevailing circumstances I feel it would be premature to undertake constructive comments on this subject, and suggest that the formulation of instructions for the Delegation which this Government may send to the Conference be postponed in this regard until a later date, pending clarification of the Administration’s monetary policies.”

For the information of the Delegation there is attached a short outline of the discussions on this subject which have taken place at previous Pan American Conferences. Appendix 21.⁴²

The question of the possibility of adopting a uniform monetary system is entirely involved with the preceding. If this resolution is to be construed to mean the establishment of an identical currency, it seems plain that it is inachievable. Even if other obstacles are overcome, governments are not likely to give up their present forms of national currency for one identical form.

However, if what is meant is the establishment of uniform monetary systems, to the extent that circumstances permit, the subject merits discussion.

Previous to the depression, the countries of Latin America were developing an ever-increasing wish and practice of adopting the same type of gold standard as existed in the United States. In the absence of recent expressions on their part and in view of the fact that the features of our future monetary policy still remain to be decided, it is impossible to know whether the groundwork for agreement on a uniform type of monetary system exists. Nevertheless an exchange of views on this subject at the Conference, which perhaps could be followed up by a standing committee after the Conference, would seem to be useful. It would make for mutual understanding of the factors determining the monetary policy of the different countries involved.

It may be hazarded that on the whole, if the countries of Latin America adopted the same monetary system as that of the United States, American commercial interests would be benefited, but it is difficult to see how anything more than a discussion is possible at the present moment.

For information, it may be added in conclusion that none of the States of Latin America can be said to be on a complete free gold standard at the present time. Virtually all of them have restrictions on the movements of gold, and many of them have exchange controls. During recent weeks there has been apparent a distinct tendency on the part of certain important governments, e. g., Argentina and Colombia, to permit their currencies to depreciate in the trail of the dollar.

Of course, the instability of all currencies is a disturbing influence to international trade, yet the question of whether these countries can wisely determine now a new fixed gold value for their currencies is as much a central policy one for each of them as it is for the United States. It is not likely that they will be able to take this step until the more important industrial countries in which they dispose of their products have reached currency stability.

9(c) Commercial Arbitration

It is doubtful that the laws of the countries participating in the Conference have been sufficiently developed to admit of putting into operation a system of commercial arbitration. Examination of the report of the American Arbitration Association to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, published as No. 2 of the Documents for the Use of Delegates, corroborates this view.

The adoption of a convention without first bringing the laws of the countries concerned to a condition which would admit of its enforcement would almost certainly result in violations of the convention. It is believed inadvisable to adopt a convention on the subject of commercial arbitration until the laws of the various countries are shaped with a view to enforcing arbitration agreements between private parties.

A discussion of “Commercial Arbitration” is contained in the attached memorandum, Appendix 22.⁴³

9(d) Promotion of Tourist Travel

The Department is, of course, desirous of encouraging and facilitating tourist travel in so far as this may consistently be possible with the maintenance of an entire freedom to control the entry of aliens into the United States in connection with the administration of the immigration laws. Although it is believed to be undesirable for the United States to participate officially in the organization of a travel bureau, it may be stated that the United States would be glad to cooperate with the other American Republics in the matter of facilitating tourist travel in so far as this may consistently be possible. This might be done by a resolution of the Conference recommending that all governments endeavor by such legislation or other means as may prove appropriate to facilitate the entry and departure of tourists and to minimize the sanitary and other requirements which may be deemed necessary as well as visas and other fees.

It may be pointed out that this Government, with a view to facilitating travel of aliens to the United States and of American citizens to the other American States would be glad to conclude reciprocal agreements for the reduction or waiver of visa fees for non-immigrants. Such agreements have already been concluded with a few of the American States and although it would not be possible to waive the production of passports, the conclusion of agreements for the waiver of visa fees would be of distinct assistance in encouraging tourist travel.

It is not contemplated that technical questions of procedure and immigration law will come up for discussion. Questions necessitating information of this nature should be referred to the Department. Your attention is called to the memorandum on this subject attached hereto as Appendix 23.⁴⁴

[12.] Collective Commercial Agreements

The main substance of this agenda item has already been covered in the memoranda dealing with item 9(a), customs duties, and items 10 and 11, import quotas and prohibitions.

The subject of a universal customs union may be presented at the Conference. It has arisen at almost every previous Pan American Conference. However, there would seem to be no chance for the development of such a union at the present time and it is suggested that the role of the American Delegation, if the subject arises, should be a passive one.

The matter of a regional agreement may arise with more reality. There is in effect between Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua at the present time such an agreement providing for free trade in these countries. The text of the agreement is attached.⁴⁵ The position of the American Government has usually been to favor regional agreements provided the governments will conclude customs unions of this type. It is suggested, however, that the Delegation will want to safeguard our rights to most-favored-nation treatment as towards the whole customs area created.

The matter of regional agreements falling short of a customs union is a much more difficult and complicated one. Since in the main the countries of Latin America are not the creditor of the United States it is probable that this Government could regard regional agreements between the countries of Latin America with somewhat more equanimity than regional agreements elsewhere. However, our ability to take a position on the matter anywhere in the world would naturally be affected by the position assumed at Montevideo. In the project put forward by the American Delegation at London, on July 21,⁴⁶ the American Government showed itself willing to consent to certain limitations of its most-favored-nation rights as regards plurilateral agreements meeting certain conditions as follows: (a) that they give a reasonable promise of bringing about general economic strengthening of the trade area involved; (b) that this trade area be of substantial size; (c) that the reductions are made by some formula of plurilateral agreeability; (d) that they are open to the accession of all countries, (e) or that any other countries willing to take the same reductions could get the same concessions, (f) and when the countries party to the agreement do not, during the terms of the agreement, materially increase trade barriers against imports from countries outside such agreements (these are substantial conditions and it may be as towards Latin American countries the Government may wish to somewhat curtail them, certainly as in the case of the small countries of Central America).

The above comments apply to regional agreements including more than two countries; otherwise the problem is merely the ordinary problem of bilateral treaty agreement. It is ordinarily considered also, that the countries party to the agreement should have some special relation to each other, generally geographical contiguity.

13. Report on the resolutions of the Inter-American Conference on Agriculture

A copy of the Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Agriculture, which was held in Washington September 8–20, 1930, is in the files of the Delegation.⁴⁷

Of the seventy-one resolutions passed at this Conference, some fifty were relevant to the subject and still fewer were important to the United States. Their number and diversity suggest a tendency at these gatherings to multiply conferences, boards, standing committees and permanent officers, as well as to discuss schemes more grandiose than feasible. You are accordingly desired, in such discussions of the resolutions as may take place, to exercise your influence in the direction of concentration, simplicity, and economy. Your colleagues can hardly be too often reminded that, in common with the rest of the world, the American republics are passing through an economic crisis which makes it imperative to keep plans for agricultural cooperation within the limits of the practical.

The Department does not consider that resolutions Nos. 3, 16, and 46, calling for the aggrandizement of the Division of Agriculture in the Pan American Union and the creation of a Pan American Experiment Station and of a Pan American Agricultural Bank, fall within this category. The usefulness of the Division of Agriculture is recognized, and its present activities should be continued; but in view of the constant increase in appropriations requested by the Union and the difficulty of obtaining them, the Department feels that you should not countenance a policy of expansion. As for the other two projects, which are of more questionable utility and would require new annual appropriations of some size, you should make it clear that your Government is not in a position to contribute toward them.

For similar reasons it does not appear practicable to give effect to paragraph 4 of resolution 23, recommending that a Pan American conference be called for the purpose of establishing uniformity in methods of investigation and agricultural terminology. While the end in view is a desirable one, it could well be placed on the agenda of the next Agricultural Conference; but whether that Conference need be held in 1935, in accordance with resolutions 12 and 13, will require your careful consideration. Otherwise the Agricultural Division of the Pan American Union might be authorized, after consultation with the respective Departments of Agriculture, to propose a system not too elaborate to be followed by twenty-one countries on both sides of the equator.

Especially worthy of your attention appear to be the resolutions recommending local surveys in the various departments of agriculture and forestry (Nos. 7, 22–29, 32, 34), the standardization in such surveys of methods, terminology, spelling, and units of weight and measurement (Nos. 22, 23, 24, 33, 42, 52), the interchange or pooling of agricultural information (Nos. 9, 11, 19, 52, 53), and measures for the eradication of insect pests and plant and animal diseases (Nos. 14, 28, 36). The majority of these resolutions can be carried into effect by means of existing agencies, they require no system of quotas contributed annually by all the governments, and if acted upon the results would benefit not only the country making the effort. It will be noted, however, that resolution 36, relating to animal diseases, recommends the institution of an inter-American livestock advisory board. The United States Government might consent to a scientific study board (which might even be called on for a report in case of dispute, under carefully guarded terms) but the United States Government could not consent to have its decision subject in any way to such a board.

The resolutions pertaining to cacao and coffee (Nos. 37, 47–48) do not immediately concern this country. They are of interest to this country, however, in relation to the complex question of surplus production, most distinctly broached in resolution 45, with particular reference to the sugar industry. This will require your most serious consideration; and you should make persistent efforts to impress upon the Conference the advantages of concerted action in adjusting the production of these and other staples within limits which will not vastly exceed the capacity of available markets to absorb them. In considering this question emphasis should be laid on the hope of expanding consumption and developing market possibilities and attention should be called to the importance of adhering to the conditions laid down in the resolutions adopted by the World Monetary and Economic Conference in the matter. The resolutions adopted at the Conference read as follows:

1. In order to assist in the restoration of world prosperity, it is essential to increase the purchasing power of the producers of primary products by raising the wholesale prices of such products to a reasonable level.

2. In the exceptional conditions of the present world crisis, concerted action is required for this purpose. Apart from any other measures that may be taken to restore the purchasing power of producers and consumers and thus to increase demand, it is desirable that plans should be adopted for co-ordinating the production and marketing of certain commodities.

3. Any agreements to give effect to such plans should conform generally to the following conditions:

(a) The commodity must be one of great importance for international trade in which there is such an excess of production or stocks as to call for special concerted action.

(b) The agreement should be comprehensive as regards the commodities to be regulated, that is, it should not be so narrowly drawn as to exclude related or substitute products, if their inclusion is necessary or desirable to ensure the success of the plan.

(c) It should be comprehensive as regards producers, that is:

(i) it should in the first instance command a general measure of assent amongst exporting countries, and within these countries a substantial majority of the producers themselves:

(ii) where necessary or desirable for the success of the plan, it should provide for the co-operation of nonexporting countries whose production is considerable.

(d) It should be fair to all parties, both producers and consumers; it should be designed to secure and maintain a fair and remunerative price level; it should not aim at discriminating against a particular country, and it should as far as possible be worked with the willing cooperation of consuming interests in importing countries who are equally concerned with producers in the maintenance of regular supplies at fair and stable prices.

(e) It should be administratively practicable, that is, the machinery established for its administration must be workable, and the individual Governments concerned must have the power and the will to enforce it in their respective territories.

(f) It should be of adequate duration, that is, it should contain provisions for its continuance for such a period as to give assurance to all concerned that its objects can be achieved.

(g) It should be flexible, that is, the plan should be such as to permit of and provide for the prompt and orderly expansion of supply to meet improvement in demand.

(h) Due regard should be had in each country to the desirability of encouraging efficient production.

14. Report of the Establishment of an Inter-American Economic and Financial Organization under the Auspices of the Pan American Union.

You are referred to pages 78 to 81 of the Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates for the historical background of this topic.

Congress failed to appropriate funds for the United States Section of the Inter-American High Commission for the fiscal year 1933–34 because it “could find no justifiable reason for the continuance of the Commission” and it therefore ceased to function on June 30, 1933. Vacancies occurring in the National Section, and consequently in the Central Executive Council, have not been filled in view of the fact that the removal of the only legislative authorization for the organization precluded the appointment of new officials.

The various National Sections of the Commission have not been active in the sense of maintaining staffs for several years, with two or three exceptions, and for the past few years have added nothing to the work of the Commission. The Commission itself has not met since 1916, while the Central Executive Council has had no meetings since October, 1923. A detailed memorandum⁴⁸ concerning the activities of the Inter-American High Commission has been prepared for the use of the delegates and is in the files of the Delegation.

You may join with the other delegations in adopting a resolution taking note of the fact that the Inter-American High Commission has ceased to exist. You may also favor including in the resolution a recognition of the discontinuance of the Pan American Committees, created in pursuance of a resolution of the Third International Conference of American States. The National Sections of the Inter-American High Commission superseded the Pan American Committees in most countries, but the resolution of the Third Pan American Conference is still in force and a few countries, including the United States, have retained the Committees as paper organizations.

As to the title of Topic 14, it is noted that the project presented to the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference refers only to an economic, not a financial, organization. It is felt that this is as it should be and that any organization under the auspices of the Pan American Union should be restricted to economic and should not have financial functions. It would seem that the office set up in the Pan American Union, in accordance with the plan approved by the Governing Board, December 2, 1931, “to serve as a central body for the Pan American Commercial Conferences and for Pan American commercial and economic cooperation in general”, has already been granted authority for appropriate action under the auspices of the Pan American Union. If the Conference, however, should desire to adopt a project similar to that submitted to the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference,⁴⁹ you should not interpose an objection provided such project is not too ambitious, does not go beyond the provisions of that submitted to the Fourth Commercial Conference, deals only with economic and commercial questions, and will not, as stated in the Pan American Union Handbook, involve any additional expense on the budget of the Pan American Union.

15. The Inter-American Protection of Patents of Invention (Chapter IV—Economic and Financial Problems—15)

The inclusion of this topic in the Agenda grew out of a proposal made at the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference held at Washington in October, 1931. At that conference, the Cuban delegation submitted two draft conventions, namely, (1) “Draft of a general convention for the Inter-American protection of patents, utility models, industrial models and industrial drawings”, and (2) “Draft of protocol on the Inter-American registration of patents.” The texts of these drafts are published as Annexes H and I, respectively, in the pamphlet containing the Final Act of the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference.⁵⁰

Both drafts are very comprehensive in scope and include a provision for establishing a central patent office to which applications for patents in all Pan American countries would be submitted and to which the patent offices of all Pan American countries would send copies of all applications for patents and related documents received by them. The proposal, in short, contemplates the setting up of a super patent office (probably at Habana) to which large fees would be paid for obtaining patents in the several Pan American countries. In this connection it may be observed that the Convention signed at Washington in 1929, establishing the Inter-American Trade Mark Bureau at Habana,⁵¹ has been ratified by only two countries in addition to Cuba, thus indicating disapproval of the project by nearly all Pan American countries. It may safely be assumed that the proposal to establish a central clearing house for patent applications would receive even less support than has been accorded to the Inter-American Trade Mark Bureau.

The Pan American Commercial Conference of 1931 adopted a resolution declaring its lack of authority to sign such a convention and protocol on the subject of Patents, and recommended that the question be studied by experts. The principal recommendations of the resolution read as follows:

• “1. That the Pan American Union appoint, after consultation with the American Republics, an Inter-American Commission on Industrial Property, composed of one expert from each country who, from their places of residence, shall send their views in writing on the questions submitted to their consideration. This Commission shall designate from among its members an Executive Committee of five entrusted with the direction of the work.
• “2. That the Inter-American Trade Mark Bureau at Havana serve as the Secretariat and the Archives of the Commission, and as an intermediary between the members of the Commission.
• “3. That through said Commission there be transmitted to the Governments of the American Republics the above mentioned projects of convention and protocol, in order that prior to April 1, 1932, they may communicate their objections and observations to the Inter-American Trade Mark Bureau, which shall, without delay, transmit these communications to the Commission, in order that they may be utilized in the coordination and formulation of the instruments to be signed later.
• “4. That on completion, this work be submitted on the study and decision of the Seventh International Conference of American States, in case the latter has among its members sufficient experts on this matter, the appointment of whom is respectfully urged upon the American Governments, or to a conference of experts authorized to negotiate and sign the necessary agreements and to be convened by the Pan American Union.”⁵²

It appears that, while a number of countries named representatives on the “Inter-American Commission”, recommended in the resolution above quoted, the Commission was never organized and did not consider the draft conventions, and, of course, did not submit the draft projects to the interested Governments for the study and comment contemplated by the resolution.

It results, therefore, that the proposed preliminary study of the draft conventions has not been made, and it would be highly impracticable to attempt to have the drafts considered at the forthcoming Conference with any serious idea of their adoption, even if there were general agreement as to the need for such a radical revision of the existing treaty and the establishment of the super patent office for which the draft projects provide.

On August 20, 1910, there was concluded during the Fourth International Conference of American States at Buenos Aires an Inter-American Agreement on Patents.⁵³ According to the Department’s records the following countries are parties to the Convention: Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay, and the United States.

The position of the Commissioner of Patents as to the need for a further multilateral Convention on the subject of Patents is set forth in a memorandum of August 21, 1933, prepared for the Secretary of State for the information of the American delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States. The Commissioner of Patents states that:

“While the existing convention (August 20, 1910) is limited in effect, its provisions conferring upon the signatory nations bare reciprocal and priority privileges, the United States is not ready to enter into an ‘Inter-American protection of patents of invention’ which is one of the topics on the Agenda for the Seventh International Conference of American States to be held at Montevideo in December, next. The United States, as one of the largest industrial nations of the world, has a highly developed patent system based on the examination principle, as distinguished from mere registration, and maintains a large staff of scientifically trained men, at a great expense to the inventors of the country, to examine patent applications for novelty, utility and invention before patents are issued. No other country in the world, even those industrially inclined, can claim a superior or more effective patent system and no one of the Central or South American nations has a patent system which is remotely comparable. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that these nations are not highly industrialized and for that reason an effective patent system is not essential. This fact, together with indications that the peoples of these nations are not patent-minded, makes it inevitable that the United States would be the major contributor to an Inter-American patent convention while being the least benefited. The sentiment of the patent profession in this country is that the 1910 Convention is satisfactory as to form and substance, and should not be modified.

At the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference at Washington in 1931, the delegate from Cuba proposed⁵⁴ a General Convention for the Inter-American Protection of Patents involving the establishment of a central patent bureau to collect and classify patents from all parts of the world and to distribute information in regard thereto. This bureau would be in effect a super Patent Office. The proposal is one of such tremendous magnitude and scope as to be impractical, requiring as it would the duplication of our own Patent Office as well as all similar offices now maintained by the several nations. It is a proposal on which the various nations could never reach an agreement. However, rather than for the American delegates to reveal an antagonistic or uncooperative attitude, it might be advisable for them to express an interest in the plan of the Cuban delegate, and even to go so far as to suggest the appointment of a committee of experts to consider the plan and to report at some future convention. Being assured that no committee of experts could agree upon an effective plan, satisfactory to all the nations, this suggestion would serve to remove the subject from the present convention, and to suppress attempts to modify or revise the existing convention, which basically is about as far as the United States should go.” (File No. 710.G 1A/165).

If the subject of patent protection should be discussed at the Conference, the delegates of the United States should act in accordance with the following instructions:

1. They should refrain, if reasonably possible, from participating in any discussion of the subject, but should give their support to any proposal made to eliminate Topic 15 of the Program from discussion, or to defer its consideration to some future Conference, after adequate study by a committee of experts and the submission of their report to all interested Governments, with ample opportunity for examination and decision by the appropriate authorities of each Government.

2. In the unanticipated event that a serious effort be made to have the Conference sign the draft convention and protocol, either in their original or modified form, the delegates of the United States will oppose such efforts, emphasizing the lack of preparation by the Conference for the proper consideration of the very important and complex problems involved in the draft projects, and the imperative need for a comprehensive study of the projects by carefully selected experts.

3. In the event that the Conference should decide to conclude any convention on the subject of Patents, the delegates of the United States will refrain from signing such a convention.

16. Convention on Customs Procedure and Port Formalities

The draft convention to be presented to the Conference on the subject of simplification of customs procedure and port formalities⁵⁵ was prepared at a meeting of experts on the subject, on which the United States was represented, and meets with the approval of the various branches of the American Government concerned, except as indicated below. See Appendix 24.⁵⁶ Therefore, subject to the modifications herein suggested, you may approve the convention, making at the same time in writing, specific reservations to Article III, Section 1, last paragraph and Section 14, and Article IV Section 3, in case these sections are not amended to meet the views hereinafter set forth.

1. Article III, Section 1. The last paragraph of this section, which reads:

“It is also agreed that where ad valorem duties are assessed the value in the country of origin be adopted as the uniform basis for determining the dutiable value, and that value shall be construed to mean the f. o. b. value of the merchandise as defined by the laws of the importing country in the port or point of export in the country of origin.”

should be eliminated since it is of a highly controversial nature. It is a matter which was under consideration during the last Congress of the United States and in all probability will be given further consideration by Congress when it reconvenes. If it is not omitted a specific reservation that this Government does not adhere to this provision should be made.

2. Article III, Section 5 should be modified to limit the requirement for thirty days’ advance notification of changes in tariff duties to “administrative changes”.

3. Article III, Section 14 should be amended by the insertion of the words “other than commercial importations contracted for abroad”. This clause would then read:

“(14) that free entry of descriptive catalogues and price lists other than commercial importations contracted for abroad be permitted.”

4. Article IV, Section 3 as to documents required for aircraft might be omitted, but in any event should at least be amended by omitting the words “a single document” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “as limited a number of documents as possible”. This is necessary to meet the requirements of American law and is in keeping with the provisions of Article X of the Commercial Aviation Convention concluded February 20, 1928 between the United States and other American republics.⁵⁷

5. Article IX, regarding arbitration, might be omitted, or if not, it should include more definite provisions as to the manner of arbitration. Moreover, arbitration should not be resorted to unless it shall be found impossible to reach an understanding by less formal methods, such as diplomatic discussion, etc. It is hardly to be expected that every difference of opinion on the interpretation of the Convention, regardless of its importance, shall go to arbitration.

It is suggested that a provision might be added to the effect that such arbitration shall be in conformity with any existing agreement between the parties with respect to the arbitration of differences arising between them.

17(a). Bills of Exchange, Checks and other Commercial Papers.

The Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference which met in Washington, D. C., in October, 1931, adopted the following resolution dealing with the subject:

“Resolves:

“To declare itself in favor of the adoption and enactment of uniform legislation on bills of exchange, checks and other commercial papers in the American Republics.

“The Conference further feels that the uniformity of such legislation should partake of an international as well as an Inter-American aspect. It, therefore, recommends the appointment by the Pan American Union of a small committee of experts for the purpose of readjusting the laws existing in the Americas, the British Bill of Exchange Act, and the already existing conventions and draft conventions on the matter, for the purpose of submitting to the Seventh International Conference of American States a project which shall as completely as possible secure uniformity of laws among all the American Republics without sacrificing substantial international uniformity.”⁵⁸

In compliance with the provisions of the foregoing resolution the Pan American Union has requested the Permanent Committee on Comparative Legislation and Uniformity of Legislation at Habana to make this study. No record appears to be available in the Department indicating whether this Committee has concluded its investigation.

In 1925 the Central Executive Committee of the Inter-American High Commission published a study on “Comparison of American legislation and all Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes with the Uniform Regulation adopted at the Hague Convention of 1912”. This study is published in English and Spanish and should prove useful if the discussion is undertaken at the Conference. Copies of these are in the files of the Delegation.

This is a topic that has been often and thoroughly considered by various agencies of the League of Nations. It is well recognized that there are two general types of legislation: (1) The Anglo-Saxon, and (2) the Latin. International efforts have tried to harmonize the two types and have annotated them thoroughly and led to the production of many drafts. We have a uniform law adopted by each of the 48 States, and it would be unwise to attempt to modify it in any material way.

However, the American Delegation reaffirms support of a proposal substantially similar to that adopted by the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference to provide for a proper group to study the pertinent data and formulate a project which will as nearly as possible bring about substantial uniformity either in practice or result. (Note: It is believed essential that the basic work should be done by a small group which shall include persons thoroughly familiar with civil law practice, interpretation and procedure, and with common law practice, interpretation and procedure, both under the Negotiable Instruments Law and the Bill of Exchange Act. Such a project to be successful will require not only thorough study but meticulous draftsmanship.)

A memorandum on this subject⁵⁹ prepared in the Department of Commerce giving a background summary of previous international efforts in this field and the recommendations of that Department is in the files of the Delegation.

17(b) Bills of Lading

The Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference adopted the following resolution regarding ocean bills of lading:

“Whereas, the Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference is in favor of uniform laws governing ocean transportation and is prepared to support the work which has been done since 1921, by the International Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of securing the enactment of such laws by the leading commercial countries.

“Whereas, the Conference believes that the Hague Rules represent a fair division of the risks of transportation between carriers and the cargo interests and they should be the basis upon which international uniformity is sought.

“Resolves:

“To recommend the prompt enactment of the Hague Rules by all of the nations of the Americas, and that the subject be placed upon the agenda of the Seventh International Conference of American States to be held at Montevideo in December 1932.”⁶⁰

Your attention is invited to a study entitled: “Comparison of American Legislation and the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading” which was undertaken by Mr. Watson A. Baumert on behalf of the Central Executive Council of the Inter-American High Commission and published by the United States Government Printing Office in 1928. A copy of this is in the files of the Delegation.

In commenting on the program of the Seventh International Conference of American States, the United States Department of Commerce suggested that the delegation from the United States should favor the adoption of the Hague Rules, in principle, by the American Republics either through adherence to the Convention or by separate national legislative action. It should be noted that the United States was represented at the Conference which adopted these Rules but has not as yet ratified the Convention. In general, American ocean carriers have expressed approval of the Rules and legislation is now pending consideration by the Congress of the United States. Some minor modifications are believed necessary for the smooth transaction of business. The consensus of American opinion seems to be that the adoption of the principles of the Hague Rules should be undertaken by legislative action since it is felt that the Rules should be given a period of trial and that in case revisions are found desirable these can more readily be effected through a change in national legislation than through modification of an international convention.

17(c) Insurance

It would not appear to be a propitious time to consider an international convention on uniform legislation relating to insurance; the movement to develop uniformity between the several States of the United States has not advanced sufficiently to permit agreement. However, the Delegation of the United States expresses sympathy with any movement within the separate republics to advance uniform national insurance regulations.

Uniformity of marine insurance might yield useful results. In this connection your attention is called to a memorandum prepared by the Inter-American High Commission, a copy of which is in the files of the Delegation.⁶¹

17d. Simplification and Standardization of the Requirements for Powers of Attorney. (Chapter IV—Economic and Financial Problems—17d)

No project on this subject has been submitted by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union. It appears, however, that a draft of five paragraphs was prepared by Antonio Vardelde and submitted to the Pan American Union by Dr. Cartaya, President of the Permanent Committee on Comparative Legislation and Uniformity of Legislation established at Habana under a Resolution of February 18, 1928, of the Sixth Pan American Conference. The Resolution⁶² provides in paragraph 3 (e) that the committees provided for therein should compile material for transmission, together with draft-projects, to the Pan American Union, which should submit them to the executive council of the American Institute of International Law “to the end that through a scientific consideration thereof the latter may make a technical study of such draft-projects and present its findings and formulas, in a report on the matter.”

Paragraph 6 of the Resolution states that, in order to include in the program of the International Conferences the matters susceptible of codification or uniformity of legislation, and whenever agreed upon, “it shall be necessary that the governments have the draft-projects and antecedents for study at least one year in advance.” Inasmuch, therefore, as this draft apparently has not been prepared and submitted in accordance with the terms of the Resolution, it is not to be considered as having any official status, although it may be presented directly to the Conference for consideration.

A legal memorandum on the general subject, Legal—Annex 8, Appendix 25, is attached, as is also a copy of the draft (Appendix 26) and a memorandum prepared in the Commercial Law Section of the Department of Commerce. (Appendix 27).⁶³ The legal memorandum contains a brief discussion of the legal problems arising in connection with powers of attorney, also a discussion of the draft just mentioned, and has attached to it copies of documents and excerpts from writings that may prove helpful.

You should bear in mind that, in the United States, questions involving powers of attorney executed abroad for use in the United States generally relate to matters within the jurisdiction of the States. For this reason it is believed that any project recommended for adoption should be given effect through legislative action in the respective countries. If the Convention form is used little or no benefit will accrue to our commerce, since it is doubtful, in view of the fact that these matters are controlled largely by the States, whether such a Convention would be approved by the Senate. It appears that the law in many States is in harmony with the project and in many respects much more liberal than the draft proposal (i. e., permitting representatives and litigation without a formal power of attorney, in not requiring technicalities of form, protocolization, translation, etc.). If this procedure for adoption of the project is followed it can be recommended to the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and other proper bodies for consideration and with possible prospects of adoption at least in so far as foreign commerce is concerned.

It seems doubtful in view of the large number of subjects on the Program, and the fact that preparation for discussion of this subject has not been made in the manner contemplated by the above-mentioned Resolution of February 18, 1928, whether serious consideration will be given this subject.

17(e). Juridical Personality of Foreign Companies. (Chapter IV—Economic and Financial Problems—17(e))

The Program of the Seventh International Conference of American States, as approved by the Governing Board of the Pan American Union at the session of May 31, 1933, provides in the above-entitled Chapter, paragraph 17(e), for the consideration of the subject Juridical Personality of Foreign Companies.

No project concerning this subject appears to have been prepared for consideration at the forthcoming Conference as contemplated by the Resolution of the Habana Conference. In the absence of such a project, it is not possible to determine exactly what the scope of the discussion, if any, on this subject will be.

It is not improbable, however, that some attempt will be made to obtain uniform regulations concerning the registration and inscription of foreign companies, as well as a more concise definition of the rights which the companies of one country shall enjoy in the territories of another and also, possibly, a definition of the authority which the legal representative of a company must have to represent it in another country. While uniform regulations on questions such as this would be desirable, there is considerable doubt as to the extent to which this Government should participate in any such provisions since, under our form of Government, matters of this sort are largely within the jurisdiction of the several States and territories of the Union. Nevertheless we would desire to encourage, in so far as possible, the conclusion of any agreement the provisions of which would liberalize the treatment now accorded foreign corporations in certain of the Latin American countries.

While we have provided in some of our treaties of commerce for the recognition of the juridical status of foreign corporations and for allowing them access to the courts, the right of such corporations to establish themselves within territory of the United States and to fulfill their functions has been left to the control of the several States. See Article XII of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights (1923) with Germany (Treaty Series 725).⁶⁴ Similar provisions are contained in our treaties with El Salvador of 1926 (Treaty Series 827)⁶⁵ and Honduras of 1927 (Treaty Series 764),⁶⁶

Article XII of the Treaty with El Salvador and Article XIII of the Treaty with Honduras, just referred to, after providing that the right of corporations and associations of either High Contracting Party to establish themselves within the territory of the other, establish branch offices, and fulfill their functions therein, shall depend upon and be governed by the consent of such Party as expressed in its National, State or Provincial laws, contains the further stipulation that:

“If such consent be given on the condition of reciprocity, the condition shall be deemed to relate to the provisions of the laws, National, State or Provincial, under which the foreign corporation or association desiring to exercise such rights is organized.”

The Department would be disposed to have included in any general convention that may be drafted provisions similar to those contained in the treaties with El Salvador and Honduras.

The Department of Commerce has submitted the following suggestions and recommendations as to the course that might be pursued by the American Delegation:

“Recommendations.

“It is suggested that the American delegation support any project to refer this matter to a proper group of experts for further consideration and the preparation of a project which may help to eliminate these difficulties and uncertainties. It is suggested that the following principles should be kept clearly in mind and that the project to be submitted should embody these principles:

• “(1) That the juridical personality of foreign corporations be generally recognized upon proof of their existence under the laws of their domicile, as set forth in a power of attorney presented by a judicial or other agent (see section 4 of project on Powers of Attorney).
• “(2) That the juridical personality be so recognized except upon failure to comply with the requirements for the registration when foreign companies have created

  (a) an agency

  (b) a branch, or

  (c) when they habitually engage in commerce within the jurisdiction in question.

• “(3) That the terms ‘agency’, ‘branch’ and ‘habitually engages in commerce’ be clearly and unmistakably defined at least to the extent which will make as certain as possible the dividing line between those foreign juridical entities required to register and those which are not so that such juridical entities may have the protection of knowing with certainty into which category they fall or that they are engaged in a course of conduct which may involve them in difficulty if they do not comply with the registration requirements.
• “(4) That a procedure for the registration of foreign companies be suggested sufficient in detail to meet the proper purposes of the requirement of registration but obviating to the greatest extent possible unnecessary and complicated formalities and proto-colization of corporate documents within the foreign jurisdiction.

“Conclusion.

“The form which such a project should take presents a difficult problem. If it is presented in the form of a convention it is possible that it would not apply to United States corporations unless such a convention could be ratified under a proper exercise of the regulatory power over foreign trade. Even if this is possible, it is very doubtful if such a ratification could be obtained on the ground that the matter is purely one for the exercise of State control.

“It is, therefore, probably more desirable that the project should be presented as a recommendation for adoption as a part of the domestic legislation of such jurisdiction. The laws of many of the States of the United States would then to a large extent conform to the project, and it is possible that a greater degree of uniformity and clarity in keeping with the project might be obtained through a project of uniform legislation. At least the matter could be recommended to the attention of the Commissioners on Uniform State Law.”

In view of our constitutional difficulties in regulating matters of this character in so far as regards operations within a State, the suggestion of uniform legislation would appear to be the more feasible course to pursue.

There is attached for the information of the delegates a Memorandum, Legal—Annex 9, Appendix 28, for use by the Delegation in the event that the subject is brought up for consideration, also a copy of the memorandum submitted by the Department of Commerce. (Appendix 29).⁶⁷

17(f). The losses caused by theft and pilferage of cargo in maritime commerce.

It is suggested that your efforts be directed toward encouragement of legislation empowering administrative authorities to promulgate regulations for the protection of merchandise while in transit from the vessel and while in storage.

Pilferage was a very serious problem in our foreign trade immediately after the World War but the Department of Commerce states that during the last three or four years no important complaint of pilferage has been received in connection with our trade with Latin America.

Chapter V—Social Problems⁶⁸

18. Consideration of the Establishment of an Inter-American Bureau of Labor.

There is in the files of the Delegation a copy of a memorandum⁶⁹ received from the Department of Labor on the various topics treated under Item 18 of the Agenda, which should prove to be useful (though the conclusions therein should not be construed as instructions).

In regard to the main items, the position of the American Delegation should be as follows:

Consideration of the Establishment of an Inter-American Bureau of Labor

This would appear to be impracticable as an immediate step. The United States Government could hardly expect to receive a return adequate to the expense in which it would be involved.

The United States Department of Labor is making great efforts to expand and improve its fact-finding work in the field of labor conditions, industrial relations, and economic conditions affecting labor conditions, et cetera. All governments might be encouraged to push this work for themselves. Direct communication between the Departments of Labor and Industry of the various governments, for the exchange of information, might be developed, if the interest exists.

The International Labor Office in Geneva is carrying out extensive work in this field now on a comparative international basis.

[18](a) Improvement of the condition of livmg of workmen:

(1) Promotion of Safety in Industry

Encouragement might be given to

a. Keeping proper accident records in each country.

b. Dissemination of information on accident prevention.

c. The passage in each country of adequate compensation legislation.

d. Periodical meetings of national groups engaged in safety work. (A joint association already exists between Canada and the United States.)

(2) Improved Housing Conditions

The discussion of the subject is welcomed. But there are not adequate reasons for international action in this field; nor would such action be practicable.

Support might be given in this field to the already existing private international body “The International Federation for Housing and Town Planning”.

[18](b) Social Insurance: Unemployment and Practical Forms of Unemployment Insurance.

The competence of the United States Federal Government is very limited, and for this reason international agreement by this Government would be impracticable. But discussion of the problems involved, especially on unemployment insurance, might be fruitful.

[18](c) Uniformity of Demographic Statistics.

This is a fundamental activity of governments and each government should be encouraged to do thorough work in this field. The work of the Permanent Office of the International Statistical Institute should be encouraged. Your attention is called to the above referred to memorandum prepared by the Department of Labor.

19. Results of national and international conferences on child welfare, with a view, to broadening the work of the inter-American Institute at Montevideo.

The work of the International American Institute for the Protection of Childhood⁷⁰ appears to be of a specialized nature and perhaps not appropriate for a general discussion at this conference. You may, however, express the interest of the Government of the United States in the work of the Institute. Your attention is called to a memorandum⁷¹ prepared by the Department of Labor on this subject, a copy of which is in the files of the Delegation.

With regard to any plan to reorganize the Institute, you will bear in mind that the economic program of this Government makes it improbable that this Government would at present increase its contribution to the Institute. You will, therefore, endeavor to confine the action of the conference to modest and feasible measures, which would not require an increase of the financial quota of this Government.

20. Application to foodstuffs and pharmaceutical products exported to other American countries, of the same sanitary, pure food and drug regulations which are in effect in the country of production on all those commodities consumed therein.

The Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference which met in Washington, D. C., October 5 to 13, 1931, adopted the following resolution regarding Animal and Vegetable Sanitary Police:

1. To acknowledge as fundamental principles that sanitary police regulations effective at the present time, or enacted in the future to regulate the inter-American traffic of vegetable and animal products, must not have in their practical application the character of protective customs measures.

2. That in the application of all restrictions of a sanitary nature in the inter-American traffic of animal and vegetable products, in order to determine the origin of the product, the term “infected zones” be used instead of “infected countries”; upon condition that the country of origin give all necessary facilities to determine its sanitary condition.

3. To recommend to the American countries the negotiation of agreements for the regulation of the foregoing principles.⁷²

In order that the American delegation to the International Conference of American States may have as definite and recent information as possible with respect to the position of the Government of the United States on this subject in connection with any discussion which may come before the Conference, the Department has obtained the following information from the Department of Agriculture in a letter dated October 20, 1933.

“Understanding from your letter that you wish a statement as to the present legal position of this Department with reference to the matters embraced in the quotations given, I am pleased to advise you as follows:

“1. With respect to Resolution 1, which reads as follows:

‘To acknowledge as fundamental principles that sanitary police regulations effective at the present time, or enacted in the future to regulate the inter-American traffic of vegetable and animal products, must not have in their practical application the character of protective customs measures.’

“It is not at any time intended by the Department (a) that its animal quarantine regulations, issued pursuant to Section 2 of the Act of February 2, 1906 (1903, (32 Stat. 792), which is the only one of the several so-called animal quarantine acts which authorizes the Secretary to regulate the importation of animals with a view to preventing the introduction of dangerous animal diseases, except Section 6 of the Act of August 30, 1890, (26 Stat. 416), as amended, which relates only to a certain class of diseased animals coming from Mexico, or (b) that its plant quarantine regulations issued pursuant to the Plant Quarantine Act of August 20, 1912 (37 Stat. 315), shall ‘have in their practical application the character of protective customs measures’, and it is believed that they do not have that character. It is quite obvious, however, that they do have the effect of such customs measures in some instances, and this is a result which the Department cannot avoid and ought not to attempt to avoid.

“When, under the authority given by Section 2 of the Animal Quarantine Act of February 2, 1903, or by Section 5 of the Plant Quarantine Act of August 20, 1912, it is found that diseases of animals or plants exist in any foreign country, the regulations adopted because of that finding are concerned solely with the prevention of the introduction of such animal or plant diseases into the United States. The collateral fact that such regulations may decrease or even prevent the importation of the dangerous animals or plants, and thus have the effect of a protective customs measure, cannot properly concern this Department.

“2. With respect to Resolution 2, which reads as follows:

‘That in the application of all restrictions of a sanitary nature in the inter-American traffic of animal and vegetable products, in order to determine the origin of the product, the term “infected zones” be used instead of “infected countries”; upon condition that the country of origin give all necessary facilities to determine its sanitary condition.’

“It will be quite possible to comply with the suggestion thus made so that animal and plant quarantine regulations which restrict the importation of animals and plants may be made to relate to infected zones or infected regions in a foreign country instead of an infected country as a whole, because the present animal and plant quarantine laws providing for such restrictions on importation permit the suggested action, and, as a matter of fact, such limited restrictive action has been taken in some instances.

“The fact must not be lost sight of, however, that, so far as rinderpest and foot-mouth diseases are concerned, Congress has by Section 306 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930⁷³ taken the matter of regulating the importation of animals and domestic ruminants from ‘countries’ where those diseases exist, entirely out of the hands of the Department. The importation of such animals, as well as fresh, chilled or frozen beef, veal, mutton, lamb and pork from ‘any foreign country’ where the Secretary of this Department finds either or both of such diseases to exist, is absolutely prohibited; and the Attorney General, in his recent opinion of August 11, 1933,⁷⁴ has held that the phrase ‘foreign country’ as used in the Tariff Act, means an entire political entity.

“In view of this Section of the Tariff Act and its interpretation by the Attorney General, this Department cannot use a zone or region of a foreign country in which such diseases exist as the basis of its regulation of animal importation because animals and meats, as specified in the Act, cannot be imported from such a country at all.

“With respect to Item 20, which reads as follows:

‘20. Application to foodstuffs and pharmaceutical products exported to other American countries, of the same sanitary, pure food and drug regulations which are in effect in the country of production on all those commodities consumed therein.’

it is assumed that the same is based on the fact that the Seventh Pan-American Sanitary Conference, which met at Havana, Cuba, in November, 1924,⁷⁵ adopted a model food and drugs act to be recommended for consideration for enactment in principle by all American republics.

“This Item as now stated would make admissible into the various countries any food or drug which met the regulations in effect in the country of production. In other words, foods and drugs entering the United States would be allowed entry if they met the laws of the country of origin. At the present time, of course, these laws vary greatly in the separate countries. Therefore, our standard for entry would be different for each particular country; while the Federal food and drugs act requires us to determine by our own examination whether they meet its requirements, and to apply a uniform method of examination and action to foods regardless of country of origin.

“The proposition put up in Item 20 is quite contrary to the spirit of the model food and drugs act previously referred to. Such a proposition as now put up for consideration would only be fair if there were uniform food laws in all these countries and they were carried out uniformly and the provisions of such act also uniformly carried out in these various countries. Obviously legally we could not accept this proposition nor would we think in fairness that it should be accepted even though it were possible so to do. It would in fact be discriminatory and would simply provide that foods and drugs be examined in the country of origin as laxly or as strictly as might be desired in the country of origin and no supervision of imports as such, therefore, with no uniformity of requirements as regards importation into any particular country. It would place the onus of examination on the country making shipment.

“Furthermore, I might indicate that the food and drugs act was passed for the protection of the American people with the idea of uniform quality for foods and drugs whether import or domestic. In fact, Section 11 dealing with imports and domestic sections of the act dealing with domestic procedure are intended to be essentially identical in so far as the effect produced is concerned. The act includes uniform definitions of adulteration and misbranding whether applied to imports or domestic products. As regards imports, too, I may say that Section 11 of the Act is almost identical in wording with an earlier law passed several years before the final food and drugs act was passed. The present proposal would be entirely contrary to and in fact nullify the intent of the act now in effect.

“The Tariff Act of 1930, Section 306 (b), requires imported meats to comply with the regulations governing the inspection of domestic meats as provided for by the Act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 674). Regulation 27, Section 2, of the Bureau of Animal Industry Order 211 also prohibits the importation of meats and meat food products from any country which does not maintain a system of meat inspection the substantial equivalent of the one maintained in this country.”

The letter from the Department of Agriculture referred to a model food and drugs act recommended to all the American republics by the Seventh Pan American Sanitary Conference which met at Habana, Cuba, in November, 1924. This model food and drugs act is quoted in the Transactions of the Seventh Pan American Sanitary Conference of the American Republics.

21. Inter-American Copyright Protection and the Possibility of Reconciling the Habana and Rome Conventions⁷⁶

It is not expected that this item of the agenda will be pressed for consideration, but if the discussion of the subject should be urged by any of the delegates, you will be guided by the following instructions.

The Department is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by the conclusion of a new copyright convention unless it were possible to agree upon a convention which all countries of the Pan American Union—including those which are not now parties to any Pan American convention on copyrights—would be willing to ratify and make effective by appropriate legislation. The correctness of this view seems to be amply confirmed by the fact that Pan American copyright relations are based on four separate and materially different treaties, beginning with the convention of Montevideo concluded in 1889 down to the last convention concluded at Habana in 1928.

A list is appended hereto showing the countries which are mutually bound by the several conventions⁷⁷ according to the statement of ratifications contained in Document No. 5⁷⁸ prepared for the information of the delegates by the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law. The inferences drawn by the Committee on pages one and two of this report do not appear to be entirely consistent with the data on which they are based, which is given on page one of the document, and the correctness of the appended list depends on the accuracy and completeness of the Committee’s data, which the Department has not had opportunity fully to examine. It is believed, however, that the statement as to ratification of the several treaties is substantially correct.

Assuming the correctness of the Committee’s data on ratifications, it appears that of the twenty-one countries in the Pan American Union, four are not parties to any Pan American copyright convention and that the largest number of countries having mutual relations under any of the treaties is thirteen, under the convention of 1910. The convention of 1928, concluded at Habana, is mutually binding on only three countries, the convention of Rio de Janeiro on only nine countries, and the Montevideo convention on only five countries.

It is apparent, therefore, that there is a serious lack of uniformity and effectiveness in the copyright relations of the countries of the Pan American Union and that this situation can be remedied only by the conclusion of an agreement which will be acceptable to all or to practically all of the countries of the Union and actually made effective by them.

The formulation of such a convention would seem to require a comprehensive preliminary study by all the governments concerned in order that general principles might be agreed upon before the convening of a conference to conclude such a convention. It is obvious that the subject has not received the consideration and study which its importance and complexity warrant, and this Government would therefore recommend that the action of the conference on Item 21 be limited to the adoption of a resolution strongly urging all the governments of the Union to enter upon an immediate exchange of views with the purpose of endeavoring to reconcile and adjust differences of opinion on the more important phases of the question and that a committee of qualified experts be appointed by each country to cooperate with similar committees in all other American countries with a view to arriving at a general consensus of opinion as to the provisions of a convention which would be generally acceptable in all countries and which they would agree to make effective.

However, if a determined effort should be made to conclude a copyright convention, the Delegation of the United States is authorized to support a revision of the Habana Convention of 1928⁷⁹ so as to bring it into General conformity with the convention of Bern⁸⁰ as revised at Rome in 1928.⁸¹ Copies of the two conventions are attached hereto. If such a revision should be undertaken by the conference, the American Delegation is particularly instructed to urge the elimination of the formalities prescribed by Article 3 of the Habana convention and the adoption of substantially the same provision respecting automatic copyright which is contained in Article 4 of the convention of Rome. The delegation will also make every effort to include a provision for the control by the copyright owner of the radio diffusion of his work at least to the extent provided by Article 11 bis of the Rome Convention.

If the conference should decide to conclude a convention substantially similar to the convention of Rome, the Delegation of the United States is authorized to sign it in behalf of this Government, but if a convention should be adopted containing any material departures from the Rome convention, an adequate statement of the differences should be telegraphed to the Department with a request for instructions.

The Department refrains from any detailed comment respecting the views of the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law contained in Document No. 5 herein mentioned, but it questions whether the asserted superiority of the Habana convention over the Rome convention could be established in any practical way, particularly in view of the fact that the Habana convention has been accepted by only three of the countries of the Pan American Union while at least seventeen countries of the Copyright Union of Bern have accepted the convention of Rome. The Department also considers highly impracticable the suggestion tentatively made by the Committee in the concluding paragraph of its report respecting the formulation of a common convention to be open to adherence of all the states of the world.

Since this proposal apparently contemplates the eventual substitution of the suggested convention for the conventions of the International Copyright Union of Bern, the practical objections to the suggestion are apparent and it is deemed improbable that the suggestion will be seriously considered by the conference. If it should be urged, however, the American Delegation will oppose this suggestion emphasizing the importance of attaining the greatest degree of present practical cooperation and frankly recognizing the practical problems and difficulties disclosed by long experience which seem clearly to render impossible the conclusion at this time of a convention which would be entirely satisfactory to the numerous and conflicting interests concerned with copyright throughout the world.

LIST OF PAN AMERICAN COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS, SHOWING COUNTRIES IN WHICH EACH CONVENTION IS IN FORCE

Signed-At	Date Concluded	Countries Mutually Bound by Convention
Montevideo	January 11, 188982	Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.
Mexico	January 27, 190283	None.
(This treaty has been superseded by subsequent treaties to which original signatories have become parties.)
Rio de Janeiro	August 23, 190684	Chile, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Salvador.
Buenos Aires	August 11, 191085	Haiti, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, United States, Uruguay.
Habana	February 18, 192886	Costa Rica, Guatemala and Panama.

The countries hereinafter listed do not appear to be parties to any Pan American copyright convention:

Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba.

22. American Bibliography:

(a) Exchange of information.

(b) Encouraging national and continental bibliographic effort.

You may join with other delegations in reaffirming the Resolution adopted at the Sixth International Conference of American States on this subject which is printed on page 98 of the Pan American Handbook for the Use of Delegates. It is, of course, understood that there will be no financial commitments connected therewith.

23. Report on the results of the Congress of Rectors, Deans and Educators, which met at Habana in February, 1980.⁸⁷

Your attention is called to a memorandum on the Congress of Rectors, Deans, and Educators at Habana, 1930,⁸⁸ which is attached hereto as Appendix 30.⁸⁹ Following the meeting of this Congress, prompt steps were taken in this country to form a National Council of Intellectual Cooperation. A Council of sixty-three distinguished members and an executive committee of nine, both headed by President Ray Lyman Wilbur of Stanford University, were appointed by the Secretary of State. Funds were then requested of Congress for the maintenance of central offices, with a permanent secretary in charge. But, on account of the economic crisis which had begun to develop in 1929, the necessary appropriation was not granted; and the Council, whose members are widely scattered, has not been able to function.

This situation and its causes should be explained to the Latin-American members of the Conference. They are more familiar with a system in which the government manifests a direct interest in and exercises its control over cultural activities. Many of them may be unaware that in this country these matters are left almost exclusively to State or individual initiative. You will doubtless find opportunity to make it clear to them that in Washington there are Departments neither of Public Instruction nor of the Fine Arts; that the Federal Government does not maintain or supervise the educational system of the country; that many of our outstanding universities and secondary schools, of our learned societies, research laboratories, museums, and libraries, if occasionally supported in part by States or municipalities, are largely due to private generosity.

At the same time it should also be made clear that there exists in the United States among educators, scientists, artists, and writers, a strong sentiment in favor of intellectual cooperation. Such organizations as the National Research Council, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the American Geographical Society, and the Institute of International Education are already engaged in intellectual cooperation with Latin American countries on a large scale. This sentiment and these activities will continue to operate, even if the traditions and circumstances of our Government make it improbable that the Government will at present contribute toward the maintenance either of the National Council or of the Inter-American Institute of Intellectual Cooperation at Habana.

In short it is desirable that you do your best to confine discussion of the future of the Institute to modest and feasible projects, such as can be adopted by all its members. Nothing is less likely, for instance, than that the twenty-one governments would, even in more reassuring conditions, find it practicable to create and to maintain at Panama the proposed University of Bolivar. It appears equally improbable that the same governments will at present feel disposed to guarantee regular contributions for the maintenance of the headquarters of the Institute, as sooner or later will be recommended. If the Institute is to function at all during these difficult times it can do so only by beginning in a small way, with plans which can be carried out, requiring a minimum of expenditure. The most feasible and not the least useful appear to be those which concern the collection of bibliographical data, the pooling of information in regard to the cultural facilities of the various countries, and the interchange of professors, graduate students, and research missions.

You are especially desired to impress upon the Conference the desirability of testing the possibilities of existing agencies before creating new ones. An interesting example of what may be done in this direction is afforded by the experience of a series of Congresses in which several Latin American countries are represented. According to a report on the recent Pacific Science Congress, more has been accomplished in the oceanographic exploration of the Pacific Ocean since 1928 than in all previous time. This was the result of concerted action adjusted to a general plan and carried out by organizations or individuals who had not bound themselves to execute this or that resolution. “The spirit is worth more than the promise,” states the report.

It will be recalled that a resolution of the Sixth Conference provided that “Pending the definitive organization of the Inter-American Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, the Pan American Union will proceed”⁹⁰ to perform many of the functions which were contemplated for the Institute. In accordance with this resolution the “Division of Intellectual Cooperation” of the Pan American Union has been endeavoring in every way possible to foster and promote intellectual cooperation throughout the Western Hemisphere. There is also a Permanent Committee of the Governing Board on Intellectual Cooperation.

24. International Cooperation to Make Effective Respect for and Con-servation of the National Domain Over Historical Monuments and Archaeological Remains.

This Government is heartily in sympathy with the conservation and protection of historical monuments and archaeological remains, and the great amount of work done in this country and abroad by various American scientific and educational institutions in the field of archaeology is well known.

The Department looks with favor upon the cooperation of the Pan American Union in the diffusion of archaeological studies, as is contemplated by the Resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States (see pages 103–106 of Pan American Handbook). You may join with other delegations in approving continued action along this line, provided it does not entail additional expenses to this Government. Should any plan be proposed at the Conference calling for action by the respective Governments, you will call attention to the fact that in general such matters come within the jurisdiction of the State Governments in this country.

25. Inter-American Fluvial Navigation: Reports of the Governments on Technical Studies Relative to the Navigation of Rivers and the Elimination of Obstacles to Navigation, and the Possibility of Connecting or Bettering the Connections Which Exist Between Them.⁹¹

The resolution concerning the navigability of rivers which was adopted at the Sixth Conference in Habana⁹² is printed on pages 107–109 of the Handbook for the Use of Delegates.

This Government has complied with the provisions of the resolution by submitting to the Pan American Union on March 10, 1930, a report of the character in question entitled “Transportation in the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys”, together with a copy of the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1929, in two parts, containing detailed information relating to the scope and methods of improvement of rivers and harbors throughout the United States. One copy of each of these publications mentioned is in the files of the Delegation as well as a copy of the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1932.

26. Report of the Pan American Railway Committee⁹³

The Fifth International Conference of American States adopted a resolution⁹⁴ providing for the reorganization of the inter-Continental Railway Commission established by the First International Conference of American States under the name of the Pan American Railway Committee. This Committee, in its report to the Sixth Conference, proposed that the project of Mr. Briano for the change of the route of the Pan American Railway be adopted. The Sixth Conference, however, rejected this proposal and favored the retention of the original Andean route.⁹⁵ The Acting Chairman of the Committee has presented a report, which is attached as Appendix 31.⁹⁶ An historical account of the Pan American Railway Committee is in the files of the Delegation.

You may manifest the interest which has always been felt by the United States in improving inter-American communications and endorse any deserving action by the Conference with a view to recommending that the participating States use their best efforts to further the work of the Pan American Railway Committee.

27. Study of the penal provisions and of the regulations of the Convention on Commercial Aviation signed at the Sixth International Conference of American States.⁹⁷

It is felt that the Habana Convention on Commercial Aviation⁹⁸ has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries and has not been in force between the parties thereto a sufficient length of time to determine the effect of the provisions of the Convention. The American delegation should, therefore, take the position that the very limited experience in the practical operation of the Convention does not afford a sufficient basis for a satisfactory discussion of the matters covered by Topic 27 of the Agenda.

While the members of the American delegation should refrain from making any commitments with respect to Topic 27 they should advocate the adoption of a resolution providing that the views and recommendations of any delegations participating in a discussion of this Topic should be referred to all the governments signatories to the Habana Convention on Commercial Aviation, with a view to having them fully considered at the Eighth International Conference of American States, provided that the Convention shall have been more generally ratified by that time.

The American delegates should favor the adoption of a resolution recommending that countries that have not ratified the Convention do so at an early date.

It may be stated for the information and guidance of the American delegates that it is felt that should any definite action be taken by the Conference looking to the adoption of regulations under the Convention, such action might have an unfavorable effect upon air transportation lines in the Latin American countries operated by American citizens and upon American aircraft making occasional flights to those countries.

Only one of the larger Latin American countries, namely, Mexico, has so far ratified the Convention and it has not been ratified by any South American country. There is reason to believe that some of the countries which have not ratified the Convention may not at the present time be favorably disposed toward ratification.

Under Article 4 of the Convention on Commercial Aviation each contracting state undertakes in time of peace to accord freedom of innocent passage above its territory to the aircraft of other contracting states, subject to the conditions laid down in the Convention. The Government of the United States considers that this Article obviates the necessity of making a request through diplomatic channels that special authorization be obtained whenever a private aircraft of a contracting state is to be flown on a special or tour flight over the territory of another contracting state. An effort has been made by this Government to have the countries now parties to the Convention accept this interpretation.⁹⁹ It has been agreed to by the Governments of Costa Rica, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic but opposed by the Government of Guatemala. Other Latin American countries now parties to the Convention have not reached a decision in the matter. If special permission must be obtained for each flight the purposes of the Convention which, like other international agreements of the kind, was intended to facilitate international air navigation, would be largely nullified.

While, as stated, it is not desired that the members of the American delegation make any commitments with respect to the matters covered by Topic 27, they may if the question of the right of entry under Article 4 of the Convention on Commercial Aviation comes up for discussion, take a position on the question in line with the viewpoint of this Government.

A copy of a memorandum on the Habana Convention on Commercial Aviation is enclosed. (Appendix 32).¹

28(a). Results of the International Conferences of American States; (a) Reports submitted by the delegations on the action taken by the States on the conventions and resolutions adopted at the ‘Pan American Conferences, with special reference to the Sixth Conference.

There is attached for your information a memorandum on the action that has been taken by the Government of the United States on the conventions and resolutions adopted at the Pan American Conferences. (See Appendix 33.)² The report concerning the Sixth Conference appears on pp. 24 to 36 of this memorandum. There is a copy of this memorandum in the files of the Delegation which you will present to the Conference at the appropriate time.

28(b). The Inter-American Highway

The Sixth International Conference of American States adopted two resolutions looking toward the promptest practicable construction of a motor highway, or the coordination of existing national highway systems, which would connect all of the member countries, especially those of the continental areas. (See Report of United States Delegation, Appendices 34 and 47.) Both the executive and legislative branches of this Government took appropriate early occasions to express their interest in having it do what it properly could toward cooperating with other American Governments in carrying out these recommendations of the Habana conference.

Early in 1930 the Congress of the United States appropriated $50,000 to be expended in cooperating with the other interested Governments which should request such cooperation in reconnaissance surveys to locate the best route or routes for such a highway. The Governments of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras and Costa Rica requested such cooperation. Engineers of the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Agriculture of this Government, who were assigned to the task, have, during the last three years, completed such surveys of the routes through the five countries which requested their assistance, coordinating these routes with the termini of the routes already determined through the other two interested countries. The engineers are now preparing a report, for the Secretary of State to communicate to Congress, showing the results of their work.⁴ (See memorandum entitled “The Inter American Highway” attached hereto as Appendix 34.)⁵

You are instructed to submit to the Conference at the appropriate time a “Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Seventh International Conference of American States on the Inter-American Highway Reconnaissance Survey”, a copy of which is in the files of the Delegation. This shows the steps taken by your Government to cooperate with those of other American States (in compliance with the recommendations of the several international conferences referred to in the preceding paragraph) toward the realization as promptly as may be practicable of the projected Inter American Highway.

The Act of Congress authorizing the expenditure provided that the funds were to be used in carrying out reconnaissance surveys

“to develop the facts and to report to Congress as to the feasibility of possible routes, the probable cost, the economic service and such other information as will be pertinent to the building of an inter-American highway or highways”.

This report for the Congress has not yet been completed and, until it is available, it would seem advisable to hold in abeyance any definite plans for the realization of the project. Should discussion of it occur, you are authorized to use any of the information embodied in the attached memorandum (Appendix 34) which you may choose to employ in evidence of your Government’s interest in furthering the project.

28 (b) The Pan American Institute of Geography and History⁶

It is probable that at the Conference there will be discussion of the status of the Pan American Institute of Geography and History. If inquiries concerning the attitude of this Government toward the Institute are made you should in general point out that the Government of the United States is not a member of the Institute and in the light of the present economic conditions probably will not be in a position seriously to consider adhering to the Institute and paying its quota for a number of years to come. This attitude is occasioned by the necessity for restricting Government expenditures and not by a lack of interest in the work of the Institute.

With reference to meetings of the Assembly of the Institute, you are informed that at the first Assembly held in Rio de Janeiro on December 26, 1932, this Government, in response to the invitation of the Brazilian Government, was represented by Doctor Wallace W. Atwood,⁷ assisted by the Honorable Edwin V. Morgan, American Ambassador to Brazil. This meeting voted to hold the second Assembly in the United States in 1935 and elected Doctor Atwood as executive president for three years. In accepting this office Doctor Atwood stated that he was without instructions from his Government but that on behalf of the many scientific bodies which he represented, he voiced their desire to cooperate toward the success of the next meeting.

The Department’s attitude with reference to the second Assembly is that in the absence of specific authorization by Congress and provision of funds for the expenses thereof, this Government is unable officially to invite the Institute to hold its next Assembly in this country but that while this Government would not object to the meeting being held here and would grant every appropriate facility, it should be thoroughly understood that no responsibility can be undertaken respecting the arrangements for or the conduct of the meeting and that no funds are available for use in this connection.

In any discussion which may arise, therefore, concerning the second Assembly of the Institute you are instructed to present the views outlined above, emphasizing particularly that since the United States is not a member of the Institute and cannot seriously consider membership in the near future, the only course properly open to it is to refrain for the present from activity in connection with the Institute.

Your attention is further invited to the fact that the Mexican Government has made generous contributions to the support of the Institute and has erected a building to house its activities. The Government of that country therefore feels a particular interest in the welfare of the Institute and is perhaps inclined to regard it as much in the light of a Mexican organization as an international organization. Our position should therefore be explained as sympathetically as possible to the interested Mexican representatives and regret should be expressed that we cannot give the practical cooperation to the Institute which they have desired.

You are referred to the following documentation on this subject which are attached hereto: A memorandum with enclosures, giving the background of the Department’s attitude towards the Institute; Appendix 35.⁸ A communication dated August 19, 1933, addressed to Doctor Atwood; Appendix 35. Encl. 1. A note from the Mexican Chargé d’Affaires dated August 8, 1933; and Appendix 35. Encl. 2. The Department’s reply thereto dated September 1, 1933. Appendix 35. Encl. 3.

29(a). Consideration of the Extraordinary Convocation of the Inter-national Conferences of American States.⁹ It is the opinion of this Government that the periodic international conferences of American states afford desired opportunities for interchange of views and the discussion of matters of common interest to the various American republics. The instructions to the delegates to the fifth conference in 1923¹⁰ stated:

“It is highly important that every facility for conference should be provided. The more important need is the arrangement for cooperation in technical services, for the coordination of expert investigation, for facilities for negotiations leading to uniformity of action where that is desirable, and for the promotion of vital interests of health and education. This Government strongly favors any arrangements which may be effective to these ends.”

It is the opinion of this Government, however, that the number of conferences, both general and technical, should be limited only to those which are necessary and for which there has been the appropriate amount of technical preparation and investigation to warrant practical action by the conference.

It is the opinion of the Department that the method now followed in the convocation of the periodic international conferences of American states would be the most practical and efficient method to be followed in the convocation of extraordinary conferences. It would seem that the effectiveness of international organization can best be promoted through the close coordination and the linking together of the various inter-American agencies. Since the Governing Board of the Pan American Union is the continuing organ of the international conferences of American states and the centralizing agency of inter-American activities, it is believed that the Governing Board should be given the function of providing for the convocation of extraordinary conferences provided a majority of the delegations at the conferences favor such a provision.

29 (b). Participation in the Pan American Conferences, and the adhesion of non-signatory States to the conventions signed at such Conferences.

This topic was included on the agenda at the suggestion of the Government of Mexico. The original proposal referred specifically to the participation of Canada in the Pan American Conferences, but due to certain objections of a technical character, the item was changed to a more general nature. This eliminated the question of the participation of Canada at the Seventh Conference, but left the question open for the consideration of the Conference as far as the future is concerned.

The question of participation in the Pan American Conferences will probably center around the admission of (I) Canada, but it is possible that the participation, either officially or by unofficial observers, of (II) Spain, or the colonies of European nations located in the Western Hemisphere, and of the (III) League of Nations, might also be considered.

i. canada

1. Sixth Conference. The question of the admission of Canada to the Pan American Union and the Pan American Conferences was unofficially broached during the Sixth International Conference in 1928. The head of the Mexican delegation, Seiior Julio Garcia, in an interview, expresssed himself in favor of admitting Canada as a member of the Pan American Union. His colleague, Fernando Gonzales Roa, and the Chilean delegate, Carlos Silva Vildosola, were also represented as favoring such a move. No proposal, however, was presented to the Conference.

During the conference, the following telegrams were exchanged between the delegation and the Department:

“57. February 1, 5 p.m.

“But only for the Secretary.

“Your number 38, January 31, 6 p.m.¹¹

“I know of no movement to propose inclusion of Canada in Pan American Union. It is of course entirely possible that Mexico or even some other delegation may propose Canada for membership. In such case I do not think it would be advisable for the United States to oppose. Rather I think it desirable in case such proposal is made that we should welcome it at once. My feeling is that while we should not make such a proposal we should not take the attitude of opposing. I am inclined to think no statement should be made in Washington in relation to the matter.

Hughes”

“February 4, 1928, 11 a.m.

“Confidential for Mr. Hughes.

“Your 57, February 1, 5 P.M. garbled in transmission. Just corrected this morning. I could not understand original telegram that I should make statement in Washington. As corrected, I understand I should make none. Quite agree with you. Please disregard my telegram of February third. I have made no statement whatever.

“I have just talked the matter over with the President. He is very disinclined to have the present status of the Pan American Union changed. Does not like the idea of British Empire being indirectly admitted. Agrees with me, however, that if it is proposed by South American countries with any prospect of its being accepted, the United States should not oppose it.

Kellogg”

The Canadian Minister, in a conference with Secretary Kellogg on January 31, 1928, said that there was no movement in Canada to obtain membership in the Pan American Union. He stated that he did not think the British Government would object, but made no statement regarding Canada. Mr. Kellogg, however, felt that Canada would probably be gratified by such action. The Legation at Ottawa reported that the press contained no editorial comment regarding the proposal and therefore it would seem that the suggestion did not arouse any great interest or enthusiasm in the Dominion. (File, 710.001/451.)

2. Mexican proposal for agenda of the Seventh Conference. The Mexican Government proposed for inclusion in the program for the Montevideo Conference the following: “Consideration of the desirability of having Canada participate in the Inter-American Conferences”. This topic was changed by the Committee on Program to: “Participation in Pan American Conferences”. The Mexican Ambassador let it be known that in addition to proposing the topic for inclusion on the agenda, he intended to introduce at the meeting of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union a resolution to extend an invitation to Canada to send an observer to the Montevideo Conference. Most of the Latin American Chiefs of Missions seemed opposed to the suggestion in principle and the proposed resolution was not introduced by the Mexican Ambassador.

The following considerations seemed to present themselves as opposing the admission of Canada:

(1) There was the technical difficulty involved, in that the official name of the Pan American Union is the “Union of American Republics”. The preamble of the Convention on the Pan American Union, signed at Habana in 1928,¹² and already ratified by a number of the signatory countries, refers to the “American Republics”. It would therefore appear that the Convention would have to be changed should Canada be admitted to the organization. The Resolutions¹³ regarding the Pan American Union also provide for a Union of American Republics.

(2) The admission of a new member into an international organization should first be made the subject of an interchange of views between the Governments, Members of the Union. It would not seem appropriate to invite a prospective member before there is a unanimity of opinion regarding the matter.

(3) It would seem that Canada has not shown any indication that she desires to attend the Pan American Conferences or to become a member of the Pan American Union. The Department has no information regarding any movement or agitation in Canada at the present time in favor of joining the Pan American Union.

The Legation at Ottawa, in commenting upon the Mexican proposal that Canada be invited to participate in the Seventh Conference, reported as follows:

“The matter has apparently never been officially brought up or examined by the Canadian Government, but has merely remained at the stage of being informally discussed by the officials of the Government interested in the foreign relations of Canada. I gather the very distinct impression that Canada has no desire whatsoever to be represented in any way at Pan American conferences and that the excuse that Canada is not a republic was found a very convenient one and was immediately seized upon with delight and encouraged as far as possible. …

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

While the Department feels, in view of the considerations set out above, that it would be inadvisable to admit Canada to the Pan American Union, nevertheless if the proposal comes before the Conference, you will not oppose it.

ii. representation of spain or other european countries at the conferences

You will be guided by the following instructions to the delegates to the Sixth Conference on the question of the participation of Spain or other European countries at the Pan American Conferences:¹⁴

“You are instructed to oppose any suggestion which may be made for the representation of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy or any other country not a member of the Pan American Union to be represented at the Conference by an unofficial observer.

“The Pan American Conferences are strictly conferences of American States, held to discuss matters of especial and peculiar importance to the nations of the Western Hemisphere and it would obviously not be possible or proper to have other states represented at these conferences even by unofficial observers who would take no part in the discussions and would not even vote. Should there be no necessity for discussing matters affecting only the American nations there would be no reason for these conferences; and should there be a necessity for discussing matters of world-wide concern or affecting non-American countries the need would be for some other form of conference of wider scope. For the discussion of questions affecting nations in both hemispheres there are many international conferences at which both European and American States are represented and at which world-wide problems are discussed. But as there are also problems pertaining especially to this hemisphere, these Pan American conferences are held.

“The United States entertains the friendliest feelings towards all the European countries and its action in opposing their representation at the Conference, even by unofficial observers, should not be considered as showing any lack of friendliness for them. It is clear that if they were represented the conferences would cease to be purely Pan American conferences. Furthermore, if one non-American power should be represented there would be no reason why others who have possessions in this hemisphere, or who bear the relation of a ‘mother country’ to one or more of the American nations, should be excluded. It would be difficult to say that one non-American country should be represented and not any other, and in any case the presence of one non-American country would change the character of the conference, which would no longer be a conference of purely American States to discuss purely American problems.” (See Appendix 36)¹⁵

iii. league of nations

Should the question of the participation of the League of Nations be considered, you will be guided by the following instructions to the delegates to the Sixth Conference:¹⁶

“Reference may here be made also to the participation, which has been informally suggested, of representatives of the League of Nations in the Pan American Conference. It should be understood that no disparagement or criticism of the League of Nations is intended, when it is observed that the Pan American Conference is organized upon a distinct and separate basis. The scope of the League of Nations is intended to be world-wide and a number of American States are members of the League and are thus able to express their point of view on matters of world-wide import which come before the attention of the Council and the Assembly of the League respectively. The Pan American Conference exists because of the distinct interests of American States which, without antagonism to any world relationship, makes it desirable for them to confer with respect to the problems which especially relate to States of this hemisphere.”

There has been full cooperation with the technical services of the League of Nations through the exchange of reports and information, and reciprocal advantage may thus appropriately be taken of statistics and reports of investigation. This Government has always taken an active interest in the maintenance of peace, but in its efforts it has been necessary for this Government to retain a freedom of action in exercising independence of judgment. With this in view, it has cooperated with and supported the League in its efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement of recent international disputes and, accordingly, a representative has participated, without the right to vote, in certain deliberations of the Advisory Committee of the League Council. This has been prompted by the wholehearted desire of the United States to obtain, in so far as possible, a universal support for peace.

The instructions for the Sixth Conference also stated:

“Participation of representatives of the League of Nations in the Pan American Conference, however, would bring to the Conference the viewpoints and policies of the States who are members of the League of Nations and are not American States and thus fundamentally alter the nature of the Conference itself. The scope of the Pan American Conference is denned by Pan American interests and aims and if its usefulness is to be preserved, the integrity of the Conference as an exclusively American Conference should be maintained.”

Your attention is called to a memorandum which is attached hereto as Appendix 37¹⁷ concerning this matter.

It appears that in connection with the preparation for the Montevideo Conference, Seiior Buero, Secretary General of the Montevideo Conference, with the concurrence of the Uruguayan Government, requested the Secretariat of the League of Nations to prepare a memorandum for the use of the Montevideo Conference on the activities of the League concerning problems regarded as of particular interest to the latter. It was understood that this memorandum would merely set forth in “objectivity the work of the League.”

The Department instructed our Minister at Montevideo to express to Señor Buero this Government’s surprise at this action. Señor Buero informed our Minister, Mr. Wright, as follows regarding the matter:

“33, October 8, 10 a.m.

“Your 18, October 6, 6 p.m.¹⁸

“Buero informs me that some time ago, at the time of the Conference on matters pertaining to the region of the Pacific, Nogueira, Uruguayan member of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, suggested to him that information concerning those matters to be dealt with at the Seventh Pan American Conference, which had their ‘antecedents’ in questions which had been dealt with by the League or by its dependent or affiliated organizations, might be of value. Buero recently informed Nogueira of his acquiescence in the suggestion and requested that he prepare a memorandum,¹⁹ which is understood to be in course of preparation, in order that reference material otherwise unobtainable here may be available in case requests or necessity therefor should arise. He has especially in mind such matters as fluvial questions, labor, and the rights of women.

“He adds that his action met with the concurrence of the Uruguayan Government but I have not spoken to any other Uruguayan official regarding your inquiry. He further tells me confidentially that he contemplates suggesting to the Committee on Initiatives of the Conference, also with the concurrence of his Government, that the American states which have not yet ratified the Narcotics Convention be invited during the Conference to do so, as Uruguay is particularly concerned about smuggling from Brazil which has not yet adhered.

Wright”

Should an attempt be made to submit officially to the Conference a memorandum from the League Secretariat you will take up the matter confidentially with the Secretary General of the Conference and point out the understanding as indicated in the above telegram.

29(c). Future International Conferences of American States.

The series of International Conferences of American States, of which this is the seventh, was initiated by the invitation of this Government in 1889 to the Latin American Governments to meet in Washington. The United States has always shown a deep interest in these periodic conferences and has been represented at each of the six preceding ones. It has been customary for each conference to designate the meeting place for the next conference and it is the opinion of this Government that such a procedure would be appropriate in the present case.

E. SUPPLEMENTARY MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT WHICH MAY BE PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER ART. 25 OF THE REGULATIONS

Non-Recognition of the Martinez Régime in El Salvador

A detailed memorandum regarding the Salvador situation and the question of recognition under the 1923 Central American Treaty of Peace and Amity²⁰ is attached as appendix 38.²¹ It may be stated here briefly that the Martinez régime came into power in El Salvador as the result of a revolution²² and that there can be no reasonable doubt that General Martinez is barred from recognition under the terms of the 1923 Treaty. The other Central American states, principally Honduras and Guatemala, took the lead in stating their views to this effect immediately after the revolution took place. The four Central American states all announced publicly, after full consideration, that they regarded the Government of General Martinez as barred from recognition by the Treaty. The United States Government consulted with the other Central American Governments and, in view of its policy publicly announced in 1923 of supporting the Treaty, in order to assist the Central American states in their own efforts to promote stability and discourage revolution in Central America, took the same position.

There has of course at no time been any animus on the part of the United States against the Martinez Government. As a matter of fact, General Martinez seems to have given El Salvador a relatively satisfactory and efficient government.

The non-recognition of the Martinez Government by the other Governments of Central America has created, obviously, an anomalous situation. Friendly informal relations are carried on with El Salvador by the other four Central American countries through a Chargé d’Affaires, in the case of Costa Rica, a Consul in the case of Nicaragua, and confidential agents in the cases of Guatemala and Honduras.

The situation has been further complicated by the denunciation of the treaty by Costa Rica and El Salvador, to take effect January 1, 1934.²³ The Treaty provides that so long as three countries which have ratified it have not denounced it, it remains in force as among those three. The Department understands that the Governments of Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras support the Treaty and believe it of decided value to their countries. On the other hand, it is quite likely that those Governments desire to clear up the present anomalous situation and to be in a position to recognize the Salvador an Government, without sacrificing the benefits which they have derived from the Treaty.

Of course the decision to be taken as regards the future of the 1923 Treaty is one for the Central American Governments to determine themselves. The United States Government feels that, looking at the matter objectively, and comparing the state of chronic revolution and international warfare which existed in Central America prior to the 1907 Treaty²⁴ (the principles of which were developed in the 1923 Treaty) with the situation which has existed in Central America since that time, there can be no reasonable doubt that these treaties have been of positive benefit to Central America in the way of progress towards stability and orderly government. We can only hope that the Central American states, before reaching a decision as to the future of the 1923 Treaty, will consider the whole matter carefully, keeping clearly before them the long time interests of their people which are obviously bound up with the maintenance of peace and stability.

While of course the question of El Salvador is not on the agenda of the Conference there will nevertheless undoubtedly be considerable discussion of the matter among the different delegations. It is not unlikely that a suggestion will be made along something like the following lines: That in view of the denunciation of the Treaty by El Salvador and Costa Rica, the three Governments maintaining the Treaty in force, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala, would reach an agreement declaring that they regard the 1923 Treaty as being in force with respect to the relations maintained by said three states with each other, but not in force with respect to their relations with Costa Rica and El Salvador. The purpose of such an agreement would be to clear the way for recognition of the existing de facto Government of El Salvador by the Governments of Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Presumably some provision would also be made for holding another conference to consider modification or some other action regarding the 1923 Treaty.

It is possible that there may exist a feeling on the part of some of the Central American Governments that the United States Government would not regard with favor any arrangement looking to the ultimate recognition of the Martinez Government by the other Central American Governments, or any arrangement for modification of the 1923 Treaty. In any discussions you may have with other delegates regarding these questions, you should make it clear that the Government of the United States feels that these are questions to be dealt with by the Central American states themselves.

Proposal of El Salvador Regarding International Cooperation

The Provisional Government of El Salvador sent a note to the various Governments on May 10, 1933,²⁵ a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix 39, suggesting the advisability of adopting a basis of conduct that might determine a common attitude at the Conference.

Inter-American Court of Justice

One of the suggestions in this note was for the establishment of an inter-American Court of Justice. You are referred to a memorandum on this subject which is attached hereto as Appendix 40.²⁶

The Mexican Government proposed the following item for the agenda of the Conference:

“Consideration of the establishment of an inter-American Court of Justice.”

but it was eliminated by the Governing Board when the agenda was approved. It is possible that an attempt may be made in accordance with Chapter V, Article 25 of the Regulations providing for the introduction of new topics, to have the proposal of El Salvador discussed at the Conference. Should such be the case you will be guided by the following instruction which was given to the delegates to the Fifth and Sixth Conferences:

“… it is not believed to be desirable to establish an American Permanent International Court. There would seem to be no reason why; a permanent organization of this sort should be established here to rival the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague, and the difficulties in establishing, in view of the relations of the Latin American States, a satisfactory method of selecting the judges of an American Permanent Court would be very great.”

American League of Nations

The note sent by the provisional government of El Salvador on May 10, 1933, to the various Governments, also contained a suggestion for the creation of an American League of Nations. Suggestions have been made at various times during the past century concerning the establishment of an American Association of Nations. The United States has taken the view that it did not consider the establishment of such an organization as desirable.

The agenda for the fifth conference at Santiago in 1923 contained the item: “Consideration of measures tending toward closer association of the Republics of the American continent with a view to promoting common interest.” The instructions to the delegates to the sixth conference regarding this item stated in part as follows:²⁹

“This topic was proposed by Uruguay and was intended to provide the basis for discussion of a project to create an association of American States in this hemisphere similar to the existing League of Nations. The Uruguayan delegation at Santiago during the early sessions of the Conference let it be known that it was not their intention to press the consideration of this topic. A resolution was subsequently passed by the Conference which read as follows:

“‘Resolved:

• “‘1. To entrust to the governing board of the Pan American Union the special task of studying the bases which may be proposed by one or more of the Governments of the Republics of this continent to make closer the association between said Republics with the object of promoting the common interests of all.
• “‘2. To entrust to the same governing board the special task of studying the bases which may be proposed by one or more of the Governments of the Republics of America relative to the manner of making effective the solidarity of the collective interests of the American Continent.’

“The Pan American Union inquired of the States, members of the Union, whether there were any proposals relative to these subjects which they desired to submit to the governing board of the Pan American Union for study as provided by the resolution. No proposals were received by the Union, and therefore no action was taken in accordance with this resolution.”

The note of the provisional government of El Salvador contained no definite plan for the creation of an American League of Nations. It is possible that an attempt may be made in accordance with Chapter V, Article 25, of the Regulations providing for the introduction of new topics, to have the subject discussed at the conference. Should such be the case you will be guided by the following instructions to the delegates to the sixth conference:³⁰

“The United States would not view with favor the inclusion of this subject in the agenda and should such a proposal be made, you are instructed to vote against it. However, if it should be included by a two-thirds vote you will be guided in any discussion which results by the following views of the Department, included in the instructions to the American delegates to the Fifth Conference.

“A proposal to establish an American League of Nations with a formal organization and specific guaranties would probably encounter in this country difficulties similar to those that were met when the proposal to participate in the League of Nations was submitted. Even if it were possible to obtain an agreement which would embody such a plan, it is not probable that it would be ratified by this Government.

“On the other hand, the Government of the United States is most hospitable to the consideration of measures tending to the maintenance of peace and stability in Latin America and ensuring a basis for beneficent cooperation. This end can be attained most readily and without engendering a futile controversy over a proposal for an organization similar to that of the League of Nations, if attention be directed to the fundamental purposes of international institutions of the sort contemplated. These may be said to be:

• “First. Judicial settlement of justiciable disputes;
• “Second. Appropriate means of conciliation;
• “Third. Conference.”

The Monroe Doctrine

It is not the desire of this Government that the Monroe Doctrine³¹ should be discussed at the Conference.

In the view of this Government, that Doctrine has no place in the discussions of the Conference as it is essentially a national policy of the United States. It is not a part of international law nor is it a “regional understanding”,³²—to refer to the inaccurate phrase used in the Covenant of the League of Nations. While conditions have changed, and the attitude of the non-American Powers does not at this time give rise to apprehension with respect to aggression on their part as against at least the stronger Latin American Republics, still the Monroe Doctrine, however infrequent or limited may be the necessity of its application, should be maintained in its integrity and no action should be countenanced by this Government which would in the slightest degree impair its efficacy.

Note may be taken of the content of this Doctrine. Properly understood, it is opposed (a) to any non-American action encroaching upon the political independence of American States under any guise, and (b) to any acquisition by any non-American Power of any territorial control over American soil by any process whatever. It may be observed that the United States is uninfluenced even by the willingness or desire of an American State to yield any transfer of its territory or to submit to any form of political control or influence of a non-American State. In maintaining its position, the United States has been governed primarily by its own interests, involving its conception of what was essential to its security and its distinctive position in this hemisphere. Its unselfish and friendly regard for its American neighbors has had a potent influence and should never fail of recognition in an estimate of our traditional policy, but the controlling consideration has been one of national interest.

Mr. J. Reuben Clark, in his memorandum the the Secretary of State of December 17, 1928,³³ pertinently stated:

“The Doctrine does not concern itself with purely inter-American relations; it has nothing to do with the relationship between the United States and other American nations, except where other American nations shall become involved with European governments in arrangements which threaten the security of the United States, and even in such cases, the Doctrine runs against the European country, not the American nation, and the United States would primarily deal thereunder with the European country and not with the American nation concerned. The Doctrine states a case of the United States vs. Europe, and not of the United States vs. Latin America. Furthermore, the fact should never be lost to view that in applying this Doctrine during the period of one hundred years since it was announced, our Government has over and over again driven it in as a shield between Europe and the Americas to protect Latin America from the political and territorial thrusts of Europe; and this was done at times when the American nations were weak and struggling for the establishment of stable, permanent governments; when the political morality of Europe sanctioned, indeed encouraged, the acquisition of territory by force; and when many of the great powers of Europe looked with eager, covetous eyes to the rich, undeveloped areas of the American hemisphere.”

In maintaining and applying the Monroe Doctrine the United States has commonly avoided concerted action with other States, especially European States. Nor has the Government of the United States been disposed to enter into an arrangement with States of this hemisphere for the purpose of safeguarding them against conduct which would be regarded by this Government as in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The essential character of the Doctrine itself has led to the taking of this attitude which it is believed should be maintained. The nature of the Doctrine should not be altered, its strength weakened or its effect diminished by any concert.

On the other hand, it should always be remembered that the Monroe Doctrine thus fully maintained as a national policy of the United States, carries with it no suggestion which threatens in any sense the just independence, or the political integrity of the American States; much less does it involve any thought of action inimical to their security or interest. On the contrary, it has received a constantly widening recognition on the part of thoughtful Latin Americans, as a bulwark of their independence, safety and progress. The United States has not, and does not intend to use, this national policy’ for the purpose of conserving any other national interest than its own essential security. The United States seeks no territory; it does not seek to establish any state of tutelage with respect to any American Republic; it has no desire to aggrandize itself at the expense of its Latin American neighbors or to promote selfish interests in diminution of their own. It earnestly desires a common prosperity.

There is thus nothing in the Monroe Doctrine which is opposed to Pan American cooperation. It establishes the necessary and most hopeful bases of that cooperation. As stated by President Roosevelt before the Special Session of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union on the occasion of the celebration of Pan American Day, April 12, 1933:³⁴

“The essential equalities of a true Pan Americanism must be the same as those which constitute a good neighbor, namely, mutual understanding, and, through such understanding, a sympathetic appreciation of the other’s point of view. It is only in this manner that we can hope to build up a system of which confidence, friendship and goodwill are the cornerstones.

“In this spirit the people of every Republic on our continent are coming to a deep understanding of the fact that the Monroe Doctrine, of which so much has been written and spoken for more than a century, was and is directed at the maintenance of independence by the peoples of the continent. It was aimed and is aimed against the acquisition in any manner of the control of additional territory in this hemisphere by any non-American power.”

No arrangement should be entered into, or resolution agreed to, which could possibly be interpreted as curtailing in any way the application by the United States of the Monroe Doctrine. There should be no opening for the limitation of its action in that application through acquiescence in any arrangement whereby an American State could accept non-American control of its territory or political action. No opportunity should be given to a non-American state through any Pan American agreement to seek to impair the position which the United States has won through its assertion of its national policy.

This Government, however, has no objection to the adoption of resolutions, if this course is desired by the Latin American Republics, asserting their opposition to all attempts at aggression or invasion of their rights by non-American Powers. It is not deemed to be probable that proposals for a definite alliance would meet with the favor of the Conference. Such proposals should not be encouraged by the delegates from the United States. If it were proposed that if the rights of an American nation were threatened by the unjust and aggressive action of a non-American Power, the American Republics should communicate with one another fully and frankly in order to reach an understanding concerning the measures to be taken, jointly or separately, to meet the exigencies of the particular situation, there would be no objection on the part of this Government provided always that freedom of action on the part of the United States under the Monroe Doctrine were completely reserved.

While the question of the Monroe Doctrine, as such, is, of course, not on the Agenda of the Conference, nevertheless, it is likely that an effort will be made, probably by the Mexican Delegation, to provoke discussion of the Doctrine by the Conference. It is understood that the Mexican Government has been sounding out the other Governments of Latin America in the matter. There is attached hereto a translation of a memorandum³⁵ furnished to Ambassador Daniels at Mexico City by Dr. Puig, Foreign Minister of Mexico, comprising Dr. Puig’s ideas on the Monroe Doctrine and its “amplification” at the Montevideo Conference. It is understood that this memorandum has received the approval of President Rodriguez of Mexico. The formula suggested by Dr. Puig is as follows:

“The Nations of America, which are as one in the defense of their respective sovereignty and integrity, make their own the principle of continental independence proclaimed by the President of the United States, Mr. James Monroe, in his Message to the Congress of the Union of December 2, 1823,³⁶ elevating said principle to the category of the American Doctrine, with the rights and obligations which its maintenance confers upon each one of them.

“At the same time they proclaim the inviolability of the principle of national autonomy, subordinating it only to the compulsory arbitration which they establish for the solution of their differences; and they proscribe absolutely all interference (intromision) among themselves which does not emanate from national treaties freely concluded or from the awards of arbitral tribunals, or which does not result from the offer of mediation, good offices, or other means recognized by international law, which means, as in all similar cases, may be accepted or rejected freely by the countries to which offered.”

There would probably be no objection on the part of the United States to the first paragraph quoted hereinabove, provided, of course, that complete freedom of action on the part of the United States under the Monroe Doctrine were reserved. The second paragraph, however, is evidently intended to strike at the rights of the United States under existing treaties with certain Latin American countries, and at the right clearly recognized under international law for a Government to take action for the purpose of protecting the lives of its nationals in a foreign country, when, they are endangered through a breakdown of the local government. For the United States to accept this second paragraph would necessitate a reservation of the rights of the United States under existing treaties and conventions, and also the rights recognized under international law. Furthermore, the reference “to the compulsory arbitration which they (the nations of America) establish for the solution of their differences” is inaccurate as regards the existing status of arbitration treaties in the American continent. In other words, this second paragraph of the Mexican proposal would be wholly unacceptable to the United States.

It is believed that the best course for you to pursue, in the event of efforts to promote discussion of the Monroe Doctrine before the Conference, will be to discuss the matter discreetly but frankly with your various colleagues of the other Delegations, being guided by the views expressed hereinabove, in an effort to avoid having the subject of the Doctrine come before the Conference for discussion. One way to achieve this result might be for you to make the proposal referred to earlier in this instruction, namely, that in the event of a threat of use of force by a non-American power against an American power, the American Republics should communicate with one another in order to reach an understanding concerning the measures to be taken, jointly or separately, to meet the exigencies of the particular situation, it being, of course, clearly understood that freedom of action on the part of the United States—as well as on the part of every other American State—is completely reserved. Another possible way of forestalling action on the part of other Delegations to bring the subject of the Doctrine before the Conference might be for the Secretary to make an address to the Conference defining the content of the Doctrine in its original terms stripped of the subsequent interpretations and so-called corollaries which have undoubtedly given rise to much of the criticism of the Doctrine heard in the Latin American countries. The wisdom of making such an address at the Conference, of course, appears somewhat doubtful. The fact that an address was made on the subject might readily be seized upon by other Delegations as opening the door for a discussion and attack on their part on the Doctrine. You should, therefore, hold this course in reserve as a final step in your effort to forestall any effort to bring the Doctrine before the Conference. There is attached hereto the text of an address³⁷ on the subject of the Doctrine which you are authorized to use under the conditions set out above.

International Traffic in Arms

Should questions relating to the international traffic in arms be raised at the Conference, the Delegation should bear in mind that the General Disarmament Conference now in session in Geneva³⁸ is considering all the aspects of the questions arising from the manufacture of and the international traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war. It is hoped that the Disarmament Conference may be able to agree upon provisions to be included in the General Disarmament Convention, which will obligate the contracting parties to establish and maintain strict supervision of the manufacture of and traffic in arms. It is, therefore, important that no action should be taken at Montevideo which will in any way interfere with the efforts now being made in this connection at Geneva. Should any concrete suggestions be made at the Conference in regard to this suggestion, the Delegation is instructed to communicate with the Department before assuming any position concerning them.

Transfer of the Pan American Union from Washington to Some Other Capital

Should a proposal be made to transfer the seat of the Pan American Union from Washington to the capital of some Latin American nation you will be guided by the following instructions to the delegates at the Sixth Conference:³⁹

“It is said that this action would be based on the theory that in Washington the Pan American Union is too much influenced by the State Department and dominated by the United States. Also that the Pan American Union containing as it does a great majority of Spanish-speaking countries should have its seat in a Spanish-speaking capital.

“The Department does not believe that any serious effort will be made to adopt such a plan at the Seventh [sic] Conference. If a suggestion is made to include this question among the agenda it would seem desirable that the United States delegates, while being careful not to express their approval, should not, unless absolutely necessary, take a leading part in opposing it. It is felt that some of the Latin American delegates will see the disadvantages of opening this question and the advantages of maintaining the Union in Washington; …

…A number of arguments against such a change will readily occur to you, among others:

1). The eminent suitability of the present Pan American building in Washington, which was constructed on land donated by the United States, at a cost of about $850,000, the entire amount being contributed by the well known philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. This building could not be duplicated in another locality for anything like its original cost.

2). The advantages which the United States offers as a center of information on all subjects connected with the advancement of human knowledge and welfare. This country contains the headquarters of many organizations working for world improvement in sanitary, engineering, economic and social matters.

3). The fact that Washington is the only capital on the American continents at which all Latin-American nations constantly maintain a representative.”

Chaco Dispute

There have been many unsuccessful attempts to settle the Chaco question which has been pending between Bolivia and Paraguay ever since their independence from Spain. Long direct negotiations were supplemented by a conference in Buenos Aires in 1927 and 1928 which failed.⁴⁰

On December 5, 1928, there was a further outbreak of hostilities in the Chaco.⁴¹ On December 10, 1928, the Pan American Conference of Arbitration and Conciliation met in Washington,⁴² as a result of a resolution passed at the Sixth Pan American Conference at Habana, Cuba, on February 20 [18] 1928.⁴³ The Conference offered its good offices to the contending parties⁴⁴ and as a result they signed an agreement setting up a commission of inquiry and conciliation composed of one representative from each of five neutral states. The five neutrals were picked by agreement on the part of Bolivia and Paraguay and the United States was included therein.

The Chaco question is a purely South American matter and we would not have been in any wise connected with it were it not for the facts above set forth.

The Neutral Commission worked with great patience for four and a half years and made every possible suggestion and combination of suggestions for the settlement of this dispute. There was objection on the part of either one or the other of the contending parties to every proposal put forward.

Furthermore, the Neutral Commission, beginning in April, 1932, endeavored by suggestion to the Argentine and Brazilian Governments to enlarge the Neutral Commission to take in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru.⁴⁵ Argentina and Brazil declined to enter the Commission, and, up to the dissolution of the Neutral Commission, every effort was made to obtain cooperation between the Neutral Commission and the four neighboring countries, without success.

In the meanwhile the League of Nations took up the matter and the Neutral Commission offered the League its full support and cooperation.⁴⁶ The Neutral Commission suggested that the five neutral governments and the four neighboring countries should meet and support the League’s action. This was rejected by the neighboring countries.

The Committee of the League of Nations, which had been considering the question since September 23, 1932, finally in May, 1933, submitted to the Council of the League its report⁴⁷ in which it invoked Article XI of the Covenant⁴⁸ in conformity with which the two countries are under obligation to settle their dispute by pacific means.

In view of the fact that the new Paraguayan Minister, upon his arrival in Washington, February, 1933, stated that he had no instructions to discuss the matter in any way; and that the Bolivian Minister had been ordered to Geneva by his Government to enter the negotiations there regarding the settlement of the Chaco matter; and that the League of Nations had actively taken up the question, it was decided on June 27, 1933,⁴⁹ that, in view of the present negotiations in other places between Bolivia and Paraguay for a settlement of the Chaco question, it could best contribute to the establishment of peace, which was the only object it had in view during the long negotiations it had patiently carried on, by withdrawing from the situation.

Since the dissolution of the Neutral Commission on June 27, 1933, the matter has rested with the League of Nations. In case any suggestion is made as to an appeal to the countries that formed the Neutral Commission for further good offices in working for a peaceful settlement between Bolivia and Paraguay, your attention is invited to the last paragraph of the Statement made by the Commission at the time of its dissolution on June 27, 1933 (copy attached as Appendix 41).⁵⁰ The interest of this Government is purely in a peaceful settlement of the dispute and it has consistently supported, and continues to support, the League’s effort since the dissolution of the Neutral Commission.

There is a complete memorandum⁵¹ in the files of the Delegation concerning the Chaco question.

Lettcia⁵²

The Government of the United States of America has given its fullest support to the proposal of the League of Nations which resulted in the suspension of hostilities between Peru and Colombia over the Leticia corridor. After the withdrawal of Colombian and Peruvian forces from Peruvian and Colombian territory, respectively, a League Commission, on June 25, 1933, took over the administration for a maximum period of one year of the Leticia territory pending negotiations between the two Governments “for the purpose of discussing all problems outstanding and the best manner of reaching a solution of them which shall be just, lasting and satisfactory”. In informing the Peruvian and Colombian Governments on February 27, 1933, of the full support given by this Government to the proposal made by the League of Nations on February 25 looking to the settlement of the Leticia incident, the Secretary of State declared that he found “the proposal suggested by the League of Nations a most straightforward, helpful one which if accepted by both parties should make possible a peaceful solution of the present controversy, honorable to both Governments.”

Under the friendly auspices of the Government of Brazil, representatives of the two Governments concerned initiated these negotiations at Rio de Janeiro on October 20, 1933.

The Government of the United States awaits with sympathetic interest the outcome of these negotiations undertaken under League auspices and continues to lend full support thereto.

Should the Leticia matter come up for discussion in the course of the Conference, this Government is of the opinion that, in the circumstances, action at Montevideo would not seem appropriate in view of the direct negotiations proceeding at Rio de Janeiro, in order to prevent confusion arising from duplication in peace efforts (which has happened in the past in connection with the Chaco and Leticia incidents, with unfortunate results).

External Loans of Latin American States

Our historic policy has been one of noninterference in transactions between private citizens and foreign governments. Recently the Government has emphatically reiterated the principle that the Government of the United States does not undertake to pass upon the soundness of investments and that parties engaging in such transactions do so upon their own responsibility and at their own risk.

The plight of American investors holding foreign issues floated and sold in the American market in the post bellum period received the sympathetic attention of the President of the United States and Congress and culminated in the passage by Congress of Title I known as “Securities Act of 1933” and its approval by the President on May 27, 1933, and the passage by Congress of Title II known as “Corporation of Foreign Bondholders Act, 1933”.⁵³

A copy of the Securities Act of 1933 is attached hereto.

The President, on October 20, 1933, conferred with a group of individuals to discuss the creation of an organization for the protection of American bondholders. Following this preliminary meeting the President issued the following release concerning the purpose of the proposed organization:

“A task of adequate organization obviously exists to be undertaken. In many situations the proper organization of the American bondholders is urgently needed in order to make possible fair and satisfactory arrangement with foreign governments undergoing difficulties, and to properly protect American interests.

“This is a task primarily for private initiative and interests. The traditional policy of the American Government has been that such loan and investment transactions were primarily private actions, to be handled by the parties directly concerned. The Government realizes a duty, within the proper limits of international law and international amity, to defend American interests abroad. However, it would not be wise for the Government to undertake directly the settlement of private debt situations.

“It was decided, therefore, to call together a small group to take upon themselves the patriotic duty of bringing into existence an adequate, effective and disinterested organization to carry on this work. The organization should exist not for profits but for aiding the American interests which it will represent, and of aiding them at the lowest possible expense to the many thousands of bondholders.

“Because of the fact that these interests are widely scattered, the fact that there are so many different loan issues to be considered, and so many different groups to be consulted, this is no easy task. But it must be achieved and the Government expects that it will be achieved. The organization when it comes into existence is to be entirely independent of any special private interest; it is to have no connections of any kind with the investment banking houses which originally issued the loans. It will decide its own affairs independently. Naturally, its decisions will ultimately depend on the will of those who possess the securities. Too, another of its duties naturally will be to keep intimate contact with all American interests concerned and to unify, so far as possible, all American groups that seek to act in protection of American interests. The organization contemplated in a sense will be a unifying center for the activities of all proper American interests.

“The meeting was called in order to get the task well launched. Administration officials will follow the course of developments with interest. They have no intention, however, of seeking governmental direction or control of the organization, nor will they assume responsibility for its actions. Towards this organization, as towards all other legitimate American interests, the Government will seek to give such friendly aid as may be proper under the circumstances. The group undertaking the foundation of this organization will announce, as soon as possible, its plans. In the meeting today all phases of the form and work of the contemplated organization were discussed.”

The Mexican Government has suggested to various American Governments an extension of the agenda of the Montevideo Conference to include a number of new topics, among which is the subject of “debts”. Upon learning of this Mexican initiative, Mexico was advised that this Government has no authority to deal with external debts due from foreign countries to private creditors in this country. We would deprecate any discussion of this debt question at Montevideo but if other states insist on discussing it you will not oppose a discussion but endeavor to see that no action at all be taken by the Conference.

If, despite your efforts, it appears that the Conference contemplates taking some action on the subject, you should invite attention to the report of the Monetary and Financial Sub-Commission I, of July 20, 1933, at the London Conference⁵⁴ (copy attached hereto as Appendix 42)⁵⁵ and endeavor to have the principles of this report govern any resolution adopted at Montevideo. You should completely disassociate yourselves from any action such as proposed by Mexico looking to a general moratorium on external debt service.

You will find in the records of the Delegation data concerning Latin American loans floated in the United States. If there appears to be any inclination on the part of others at Montevideo to criticize the flotation of these Latin American loans in the United States, it is the view of this Government that a very adequate defense can be made by the Delegation. It is noted, for instance, that in the period from the beginning of the World War to the end of 1932, a total of $2,382,000,000 Latin American loans were floated in the United States, of which $1,518,000,000 were outstanding as of the end of 1932; of this amount outstanding $1,032,000,000 are in default. It further appears that of the total floated during this period in the United States some $2,127,000,000 were for such purposes as public works, debt retirement and refunding, and banking facilities, all of which obviously provided direct and substantial benefits for the Latin American countries. Furthermore, it is noted that the average price per country at which these loans were offered to the American investors was over 96. It would appear evident that in any equitable and dispassionate consideration of this problem, the plight of thousands of small American investors who put up in good faith their money for the obligations of the Latin American countries should be borne in mind.

If it should appear to you, as the Conference develops, advisable to make a statement along these lines regarding this question of the flotation of Latin American loans in the United States, there is attached hereto a draft of such a statement⁵⁶ for your use and guidance.

F. SUBJECTS WHICH MIGHT BE OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH CONVERSATIONS AT THE CONFERENCE

Nicaragua

During the last revolution in Nicaragua, after American naval forces had been landed for the protection of American lives and property, Colonel Henry L. Stimson was sent to that country as personal representative of President Coolidge to endeavor to bring about peace.

His mediation resulted in the so-called Tipitapa Agreement of May 11, 1927,⁵⁷ which brought peace between the contending Liberal and Conservative Parties, and provided, among other things, for supervision by the United States of the 1928 Presidential elections in Nicaragua.

The United States supervised not only the Presidential elections of 1928,⁵⁸ but also, at the further request of Nicaragua, the Congressional elections of 1930,⁵⁹ and the Presidential and Congressional elections of 1932.⁶⁰ The fairness of the three supervised elections has been attested by both political parties, and their results have been accepted without question.

The Tipitapa Agreement provided also that American officers should organize and train a non-partisan national constabulary for Nicaragua⁶¹ and that the United States should leave in that country a sufficient force of Marines to support the constabulary and insure freedom at the elections.

Following the peace of Tipitapa all the Nicaraguan forces laid down their arms except a small group under Sandino, a Liberal leader who repudiated his word pledged to the Commander of the Liberal forces and, thenceforth, and until the Marines had evacuated Nicaragua, engaged in armed resistance to the Government. His campaign was anti-American and anti-intervention in nature and was characterized by barbarous cruelty toward foreigner and native alike. Nevertheless, his successful resistance made of him a world figure and evoked widespread sympathy for his cause.

As stated, the Government of the United States, through Colonel Stimson, at Tipitapa, acceded to the request of both Nicaraguan parties to supervise their elections and train a non-political constabulary. In accordance with a plan announced in February, 1931,⁶² the United States, after having completed its program, turned over the direction of the Guardia Nacional de Nicaragua to Nicaraguan command and withdrew all its armed forces on January 2, 1933.⁶³

Before the 1932 elections the two political parties in Nicaragua entered into a series of agreements the object of which was to insure the maintenance of peace following the withdrawal of the American forces.⁶⁴ These agreements provided for the continuance of the non-political character of the Guardia Nacional and for minority representation in the national Government. They provided also for cooperation in the pacification of the country. However, Sandino laid down his arms shortly after the Marines withdrew and has since led a life of comparative retirement, although he is still considered a menace to the future peace of Nicaragua.

Under the leadership of President Sacasa, Nicaragua has been carrying out the pre-election pacts with reasonable success and it is believed that the country has a fair chance of remaining peaceful and retaining the benefits which have accrued to it as a result of American assistance.

Cuba

The relations of this Government with the Republic of Cuba are determined primarily by the treaty between the United States and Cuba, signed at Habana, May 22, 1903,⁶⁵ the terms of which likewise are embodied as an appendix to the Cuban Constitution promulgated on May 20, 1902. While all of the articles of this treaty have an important bearing on the relations between the two countries, Article 3, by which “the Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty … is by far the most important. The general policy of this Government with respect to Article 3 has been based on the well-known telegram, dated April 2, 1901, of Secretary of War Boot to General Wood, then the Governor General of Cuba, containing the following statement:

“You are authorized to state officially that in the view of the President the intervention described in the third clause of the Piatt Amendment is not synonymous with intermeddling or interference with the affairs of the Cuban Government, but the formal action of the Government of the United States, based upon just and substantial grounds, for the preservation of Cuban independence, and the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and adequate for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris.”⁶⁶

This statement was made in response to certain fears expressed in Cuba with respect to the purpose of the amendment at the time it was under the consideration for the Cuban Constitutional Convention.

Widespread opposition to President Machado arose during his second administration. Even though this discontent manifested itself in terrorism, assassination, bombings, et cetera, this Government on the basis of the Boot interpretation of the Piatt Amendment saw no cause for formal intervention. At the time of Ambassador Welles’ arrival in Cuba, both the Cuban Government and its opponents seemed to desire to terminate the long continued political turbulence. They recognized the impartiality of Mr. Welles and indicated to him their wish to utilize his personal good offices in bringing them together in order that they might themselves peacefully reconcile their difficulties through discussion. The efforts to reach a peaceful solution broke down at the time of the general strike which finally resulted in a revolt of the army and the retirement of President Machado. Both before and during this critical period, Mr. Welles used his good offices in an endeavor to help the Cuban people work out their own solution for their own difficulties. Immediately after the Cespedes Government came into office and upon recommendation by Mr. Welles, the President felt constrained to despatch naval vessels to certain Cuban ports. In announcing this step the President said:

“No possible question of intervention or the slightest interference with the internal affairs of Cuba have arisen or is intended by this precautionary step to protect, if necessary, the lives of American citizens, pending the restoration of normal conditions of law and order by the Cuban authorities.”

The Cespedes Government was suddenly displaced by a coup d’état. Again there were disturbances and again the President considered it a wise precaution to despatch vessels. In pursuing this course, the President and the Department informed diplomatic representatives of the various Latin American countries of the reasons thereof.

As regards the new regime in Cuba, the position of this Government is summed up in the following statement made by the Department on September 12, 1933:⁶⁷

“The chief concern of the Government of the United States is, as it has been, that Cuba solve her own political problems in accordance with the desires of the Cuban people themselves. It would seem unnecessary to repeat that the Government of the United States has no interest in behalf of or prejudice against any political group or independent organization which is today active in the political life of Cuba. In view of its deep and abiding interest in the welfare of the Cuban people, and the security of the Republic of Cuba, our Government is prepared to welcome any Government representing the will of the people of the Republic and capable of maintaining law and order throughout the island. Such a Government would be competent to carry out the functions and obligations incumbent upon any stable Government. This has been the exact attitude of the United States Government from the beginning …”

Mexico, under the Estrada Doctrine,⁶⁸ has continued to carry on diplomatic relations with the Grau Government. Three other countries, Panama, Uruguay, and Spain have recognized the present authorities.

There is attached as Appendix 43⁶⁹ a chronology of recent important political events in Cuba.

Haiti

Under a treaty entered into in 1915⁷⁰ for the purpose of remedying the distressing conditions created by a long period of civil war and economic disorganization, this Government assumed the obligation to assist the Republic of Haiti in the rehabilitation of its finances, the organization of an efficient police force, and the development of its natural resources. American citizens were nominated by the President of the United States to serve as Financial Adviser, Chief of the Constabulary, Chief of the Public Works Department and Chief of the Public Health Service. American experts were subsequently placed in charge of the agricultural service and entrusted with the establishment of schools for agricultural and vocational education. In 1922, in accordance with the recommendations of the special committee sent by the United States Senate to investigate the situation in Haiti, a High Commissioner was appointed to supervise and coordinate all of these so-called treaty services.⁷¹

In view of the approaching expiration in 1936 of the Treaty of 1915 and the major problems of policy concerned with our relationship to Haiti under the Treaty, the President on February 7, 1930, appointed a commission for the study and review of conditions in the Republic of Haiti under the chairmanship of Mr. W. Cameron Forbes.⁷² This commission was known as the Forbes Commission. The Commission proceeded to Haiti and, after making a study of conditions there, submitted a report to the President.⁷³ Among the recommendations of the Commission was that the High Commissionership should be abolished and that a Minister be appointed to take over the duties of that office as well as those of diplomatic representative. In accordance with this recommendation Dr. Dana G. Munro was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary and proceeded to Haiti in November 1930.⁷⁴

Upon the arrival of Dr. Munro he immediately proceeded to carry out the Haitianization of the various treaty services⁷⁵ as recommended by the Forbes Commission. Negotiations were carried on to this end with the Haitian Government and on August 5, 1931, an Accord was signed⁷⁶ providing for the return to Haitian control of the Department of Public Works, the Sanitary Service and the Technical Service of Agriculture, which included the industrial educational system. All American personnel were withdrawn from these services on October 1, 1931. In order to provide for the sanitation of the cities of Port-au-Prince and Cap Haitien where American troops were stationed, a small mission of naval medical personnel under the title of American Scientific Mission was left to supervise sanitation in those cities.

Following the signature of the Accord of August 5, 1931, there were prolonged negotiations between the Haitian Government and the American Legation regarding other questions arising out of the 1915 Treaty, particularly the form of financial control to be exercised after the expiration of the treaty in accordance with Article VIII of the Protocol of October 3, 1919,⁷⁷ and the Haitianization of the Garde d’Haiti. A treaty with related protocols was signed on September 3, 1932,⁷⁸ but was not ratified. Various proposals were exchanged regarding these two questions and finally on August 7, 1933, an agreement was signed at Port-au-Prince⁷⁹ covering the financial control to be exercised under the Protocol of October 3, 1919, to commence on January 1, 1934, the Haitianization of the Garde d’Haiti, and withdrawal of the American Scientific Mission and the Marine forces to begin October 1, 1934, and to be completed within 30 days thereafter.

For detailed discussion of Relations with Haiti see memo in the files of the Delegation.⁸⁰

Dominican Republic

Under the terms of the Convention signed December 27, 1924,⁸¹ the Dominican Government agreed to the continuation of the Collectorship of Customs established under the previous Convention of 1907⁸² and further agreed that until the Dominican Republic had paid the whole of the amount of the bonds of its foreign debt, this Collectorship would be maintained; and that its public debt would not be increased except by a previous agreement between the Dominican Government and the Government of the United States. However, toward the close of the year 1931 it became apparent that with the great reduction in revenue brought on by the world depression, the Dominican Government would be unable to meet the full service on its debt and at the same time maintain necessary functions of Government. Accordingly, the Dominican Government, by the Emergency Law of October 3, 1931, suspended amortization payments on the debt service.⁸³ While this action was obviously in violation of the Convention of 1924, the United States Government decided not to intervene in view of the fact that it appeared absolutely necessary for the Dominican Government to have funds with which to cover the ordinary expenses of the Government and to maintain public order in the country. The Emergency Law, while providing for full interest payment on the foreign bonds, authorized the diversion of part of the customs revenues which under the terms of the Convention were to be used for amortization payments, up to a maximum sum of $1,500,000 annually for the ordinary needs of the public administration. Under the provisions of this Law amortization payments on the external debts have been practically suspended, though the interest on the debt has been regularly paid.

Relations Between the United States and Panama

The relations of the United States and Panama in connection with the Canal have been, on the whole, extremely cordial. These relations have been based on the Treaty of 1904⁸⁴ and the so-called Taft Agreement, a series of orders issued by Mr. Taft while Secretary of War under President Theodore Roosevelt, which did away with the American customs tariff in the Canal Zone, and provided that no importations should be entered at the ports of the Zone except those articles specified in Article XIII of the Treaty of 1904: namely, all articles necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the Canal, and for the employees in the service of the United States and their families. This agreement was intended only for the construction period and was abrogated in 1924.⁸⁵ A new treaty, endeavoring to adjust certain difficulties which had arisen between the two governments, was signed in 1926,⁸⁶ but was not ratified by either country, Panama objecting particularly to the cession to the United States of jurisdiction over New Cristobal, and extensive section of the Panamanian city Colon, which is occupied almost entirely by employees of the United States Government.

With the Canal Zone administration set down in the midst of the territory of Panama, it is inevitable that there will always be sources of friction. There is also a natural tendency at the present time in Panama to attribute to the activities of the Canal Zone some of Panama’s economic ills, which are probably due for the most part to the effect on Panama of the world wide economic depression.

In recent years there has been an increasing feeling of irritation in Panama arising from the belief that the Canal Zone commissaries and post exchanges furnish unfair competition with Panamanian merchants, thereby adversely affecting the economic life in the country. There are other sources of friction, such as those arising from the fact that the United States Government, through its ownership of the Panama Railroad Company, owns a large proportion of the land in the City of Colón, which it leases for business and residence purpose: Panama objects to the United States Government being in the real estate business in the Republic of Panama. There is also the difficult question of radio control, as well as many other points of misunderstanding.

As a result of President Arias’ recent visit to President Roosevelt, it may be safely said that the way has been paved for the solution of the present difficulties between the two countries, as indicated by the attached press release of October 17, 1933, giving a joint statement of the two Presidents,⁸⁷ Appendix 44.⁸⁸

Participation of El Salvador at the Conference

Article V of the Resolution of the Fifth International Conference of American States provides that “the governments of the American republics enjoy, as a right, representation at the International Conferences of American States and in the Pan American Union.”⁸⁹ It would appear, therefore, that there can be no question regarding the right of El Salvador to be represented at the Conference. It is well established, however, both in theory and in practice, that participation in an international conference does not affect the status of recognition or nonrecognition of a participating government. The participation at the Conference by delegates from El Salvador in no way affects, either by implication or otherwise, the position of this Government regarding recognition of the present régime in El Salvador.

In accordance with Article I of the Resolution of the Sixth International Conference of American States on the Pan American Union⁹⁰ providing that “the government of the Pan American Union shall be vested in a Governing Board composed of the representatives that the American governments may appoint”, the present régime in El Salvador, although not recognized by the United States, has had its representative on the Governing Board of the Pan American Union. It will be recalled that the representative of El Salvador also signed the declaration of August 3, 1932,⁹¹ which was sent to Bolivia and Paraguay concerning non-recognition of territorial gains acquired by force.

In Conclusion:

The continuation and development of friendship, mutual understanding, and sympathy, among the nations of the Western Hemisphere are the ends which the United States hopes that the Seventh International Conference of American States may further and you will use your best efforts toward the accomplishment of this purpose.

Sincerely yours,

Cordell Hull

39. President Roosevelt on November 9, 1933, designated the following as delegates: Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, Chairman; Alexander W. Weddell, Ambassador in Argentina; J. Reuben Clark, former Ambassador in Mexico; J. Butler Wright, Minister in Uruguay; Spruille Braden of New York; and Sophonisba P. Breckinridge of Kentucky, Professor of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago.
40. See International American Conference [1889–1890]; Reports of Committees and Discussions Thereon (Washington, 1890), vol. i, p. 9; also Foreign Relations, 1888, pt. 2, p. 1658.
41. For correspondence concerning the Economic and Monetary Conference, see vol. i, pp. 452 ff.
42. Congressional Record, vol. 77, pt. 1, p. 5.
43. Sixth International Conference of American States, held at Habana, January 16–February 20, 1928; for correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 527 ff.; for text of instructions to the American delegation, see ibid., p. 534.
44. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, Motions, Agreements, Resolutions and Conventions, p. 112.
45. Appendix 1 not printed, but see Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, p. 1.
46. See note from the Uruguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs, August 7, 1933, p. 9.
47. For text, see pp. 49–51.
48. Appendix 2 not printed.
49. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Pan American Union, Washington, D. C., October 5th–13th, 1931, Final Act (With Annexes and a Summary of the Work of the Conference) [Washington, n. d.], p. 27.
50. Post, p. 133.
51. Post, p. 148.
52. See Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 35–52.
53. Appendix 3 not printed.
54. Signed at Santiago, May 3, 1923; also known as the Gondra Treaty. For text, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 308; for correspondence regarding establishment of permanent commissions, see ibid., 1928, vol. i, pp. 644 ff.
55. Signed at Washington, January 5, 1929, ibid., 1929, vol. i, p. 653.
56. Appendix 4 not printed.
57. See Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, Uruguay, December 8–26, 1988, pp. 10–11.
58. For text of the declaration, see Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, p. 159.
59. Treaty signed August 27, 1928, ibid., 1928, vol. i, p. 153.
60. For text, see p. 234.
61. Appendix 5 not printed.
62. For text, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 308; for correspondence concerning the establishment of permanent commissions under the treaty, see ibid., 1928, vol. i, pp. 644 ff.
63. Ibid., 1929, vol. i, p. 653.
64. Ibid., p. 659.
65. Carlos Saavedra Lamas, Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs.
66. For correspondence concerning the decision of the United States to sign the Argentine Anti-War Treaty, see pp. 228 ff.
67. For the Stimson doctrine (also called the Hoover doctrine), see telegram No. 7, January 7, 1932, noon, to the Ambassador in Japan, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 76; also telegram No. 50, February 24, 1932, 2 p.m., to the Consul General at Shanghai, quoting text of letter (dated February 23) to Senator Borah, ibid., p. 83.
68. See Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, p. 659, footnote 4, and bracketed note, p. 667.
69. Appendix 6 not printed.
70. See Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 52–56.
71. See Second International Conference of American States, Message from the President of the United States; … the Report, with Accompanying Papers, of the Delegates of the United States, S. Doc. 330, 57th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1902).
72. Ibid., p. 201.
73. For a more complete history of the steps taken toward the codification of International Law between 1902 and the Sixth Pan American Conference held at Habana in 1928, see the memorandum prepared by Mr. Hackworth, December 22, 1927, and incorporated in the instructions to the American delegates to the Sixth Pan American Conference. [Footnote in the original; memorandum not printed.]
73. For correspondence concerning the Third Pan American Conference, see Foreign Relations, 1906, pt. 2, pp. 1565 ff.; for text of the convention, see ibid., p. 1601.
74. • “(a) In addition to keeping separate the usual divisions of the subject into public international law and private international law, it should also subdivide its work into matters of universal application and of American application;
    • (b) The matters of American application would be made up into a plan which, after having been brought to the knowledge and attention of the governments, could be presented for the approval of the next Pan American conference in accordance with Article III, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the convention of Rio de Janeiro;
    • (c) The matters of universal character would be made up into a separate project that would follow a like course and it would be presented in the name of the American States which might have approved it to the next conference at The Hague.” (Fourth International Conference of American States, p. 71). [Footnote in the original.]

75. The places of meeting and the subjects to be considered were as follows:

    • “1. Washington, D. C. Subjects: Preparation of Drafts of Codes on Maritime War and the Rights and Duties of Neutrals;
    • 2. Rio de Janeiro. Subjects: War on Land, Civil War and Claims of Foreigners Growing out of Such Wars;
    • 3. Santiago, Chile. Subject: International Law in Time of Peace;
    • 4. Buenos Aires. Subjects: The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes and the Organization of International Tribunals;
    • 5. Montevideo. Subjects: Capacity, Status of Aliens, Domestic Relations, Succession …
    • 6. Lima. Subjects: Matters of Private International Law not Embraced in the Preceding Enumeration, Including the Conflict of Penal Laws.” (Sol. Ops. 1923, p. 71). [Footnote in the original.]

74. See Report of the Delegates of the United States to the Fifth International Conference of American States held at Santiago, Chile, March 25 to May 8, 1923, with appendices (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1924), pp. 7, 131.
75. See section entitled “Representation of the United States at the Meeting of the International Commission of Jurists, Held at Rio de Janeiro, April 18–May 20, 1927”, Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, pp. 364 ff.
76. For a summary analysis of the 12 projects, see ibid., pp. 383–389.

77. The eleven Conventions adopted at the Sixth Pan American Conference were not signed as separate instruments but were incorporated in the Final Act of the Conference, signed by all the delegates. However, the delegates of the various States made numerous reservations to the separate Conventions.

    The position of the United States with reference to these Conventions is as follows:

    Of the eleven Conventions adopted, the following have been ratified by the United States: [For texts, see Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 585 ff.]

    • 1. Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife (Treaty Series, No. 814).
    • 2. Status of Aliens (Treaty Series, No. 815). [Continued on p. 61.]
    • 3. Commercial Aviation (Treaty Series, No. 840).
    • 4. Consular Agents (Treaty Series, No. 843).
    • 5. Maritime Neutrality (Treaty Series, No. 845).
    • 6. Pan American Union.

    The last-named Convention, although it has been ratified by the United States, and the deposit of ratifications has been made, is not in force, since the Convention requires the deposit of ratifications by all 21 countries before it becomes effective.

    The following Conventions were not submitted for approval by the Senate, for the reasons stated in each case:

    1) Convention on Private International Law. [Final Act, p. 16.]

    This Convention was not accepted by the American delegation.

    2) Convention on Asylum. [Final Act, p. 166.]

    The custom of affording asylum within foreign territory is not sanctioned by general international law, and is not encouraged by this Government. When signing the Final Act the American delegation recorded an explicit reservation to this effect, and the Legal Adviser, then Solicitor, recommended that the Convention be not submitted to the Senate for ratification.

    3) Convention on the Revision of the Convention of Buenos Aires regarding literary and Artistic Copyright. [Final Act, p. 123.]

    The study of this Convention, also made by the Legal Adviser, indicated that certain of its articles contain provisions which would require material amendments of the copyright laws of the United States. For this reason, among other important reasons cited by him, it was recommended that for the present the Convention be not submitted to the Senate.

    4) Convention on Diplomatic Officers. [Final Act, p. 142.]

    An analysis of this Convention made by the Legal Adviser showed numerous features contrary to long existing practice with respect to this subject, and which indicate that the Convention does not merely codify existing rules but also in some respects amends or extends them. The Legal Adviser was of the opinion that the ratification of the Convention would tend to complicate or confuse rather than clarify existing rules of international law or international practice with respect to diplomatic officers. It was therefore deemed undesirable to present the Convention to the Senate.

    5) Convention on Treaties. [Final Act, p. 135.]

    The Convention on Treaties was carefully examined by the Legal Adviser, and, as in the case of the Convention on Diplomatic Officers, it was found to be in several respects undesirable. Article 15 of this Convention, relating to the manner in which the caducity of a treaty may be declared “when it is permanent and of non-continuous application,” seems to have been formulated with a view to its future application to the Piatt Amendment. [For citations to the Piatt Amendment, see Foreign Relations, General Index, 1900–1918, p. 202; see also indexes to the individual volumes of Foreign Relations subsequent to 1918; for the Root interpretation of the Piatt Amendment, see Report of the Secretary of War dated November 27, 1901, Annual Reports of the War Department on the fiscal pear ended June 30, 1901, pp. 7, 48.]

    [Footnote in the original.]

78. Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Sixth International Conference of American States ((1928) 315, Appendix 73). [Footnote in the original.]
77. Not printed.
78. File 710 F Codification of International Law B/5. [Footnote in the original.]
79. Ibid. [Footnote in the original.]
78. Not printed.
79. Ibid./8. [Footnote in the original.]
79. For correspondence concerning the Conference, see Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, pp. 204 ff.
80. See telegram No. 73, April 12, 1930, from the Minister in the Netherlands, ibid., p. 223.
81. For texts, see American Institute of International Law, Codification of American International Law: Projects of Conventions Prepared at the Request on January 2, 1924, of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, etc. (Washington, Pan American Union, 1925).
82. Ibid., p. 26.
83. Alejandro O. Alvarez, Chilean writer, co-founder, with James Brown Scott, of the American Institute of International Law.
84. See Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, Montevideo, Uruguay, December 3, 1933, No. 4 (Washington. Pan American Union. 1933).
85. For citations to the Piatt Amendment, see Foreign Relations, General Index, 1900–1918, p. 202; see also indexes to individual volumes of Foreign Relations subsequent to 1918; for the Root interpretation of the Piatt Amendment, see Report of the Secretary of War dated November 27, 1901, Annual Reports of the War Department for the fiscal year ended June 80, 1901, pp. 7, 48.
86. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 243.
87. Ibid., 1915, p. 449.
88. See section entitled “Official Statement of and Commentary Upon the Monroe Doctrine by the Secretary of State”, Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, pp. 698 ff.
89. Appendices 7 and 8 not printed.
90. Treaty signed at Paris, August 27, 1928, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 153.
91. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, Motions, Agreements, Resolutions and Conventions (Habana, 1928), p. 135.
92. Orestes Ferrara, Cuban delegate to the Sixth International Conference of American States, which assembled at Habana on January 16, 1928. At that time Sr. Ferrara had been Ambassador in the United States since December 21, 1928.
93. Appendix 9 not printed.
94. See section entitled “Representation of the United States at the Meeting of the International Commission of Jurists, Held at Rio de Janeiro, April 18–May 20, 1927”, Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, pp. 364 ff.
95. The 12 projects are set forth in Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Sixth International Conference of American States, p. 9; see also Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, pp. 383–389.
96. Appendix No. 5 was not printed. For instructions to delegates, see Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 534, 542.
97. See Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, p. 176; also Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Sixth International Conference of American States Held at Habana, Cuba, January 16 to February 20, 1928, with appendices (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1928), pp. 8, 12, 13, 321.
98. See Research in International Law, Harvard Law School, Nationality, Responsibility of States, Territorial Waters, Drafts of Conventions, Prepared in Anticipation of the First Conference on the Codification of International Law, The Hague, 1930 (Harvard Law School, Cambridge, 1929).
99. Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 4.
1. Appendix 10 not printed.
2. Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 4, p. 23.
3. Appendix 11 not printed.
4. Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 4, p. 25.
5. Appendix 12 not printed.
5. Appendix 12 not printed.
6. Signed May 6, 1931, Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. ii, p. 371.
7. Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 4, p. 35.
8. See Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, pp. 204 ff.
9. League of Nations, Minutes of Committee I of the 13th Assembly, 1932, p. 50.
10. Presumably the reference is to the Project on Territorial Sea contained in Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 4, p. 38.
11. Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. 2, p. 1216.
12. See Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, p. 659, footnote 4, and bracketed note, p. 667.
13. Appendix 14 not printed.
14. Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 1: Report of the Permanent Committee on Public International Law of Rio de Janeiro, on Topic 7 of the Program of the Conference.
15. See Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates, p. 56.
16. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, p. 176.
17. Appendix 15 not printed.
18. See Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 4.
19. See Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates, p. 57; Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, pp. 204, 222; League of Nations, Acts of the Conference for the Codification of International Law, vol. i, p. 163.
20. Dated April 25, 1933.
21. In Department’s telegram No. 66, December 11, 1933, 6 p.m., the delegates were instructed that this sentence should read: “If, therefore, the Conference proceeds to vote on any resolution recommending the continuation of the Inter-American Commission of Women, you should state that your Government does not desire any longer to be represented on the Commission and intends to continue its studies in this field through branches of the Government charged with responsibility in these matters.” The full text of telegram No. 66 is printed on p. 174.
22. Not printed.
23. See Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 58–88.
24. See vol. i, pp. 574 ff.
25. Appendices 16, 17, 18, and 19 not printed.
25. Appendices 16, 17, 18, and 19 not printed.
25. Appendices 16, 17, 18, and 19 not printed.
25. Appendices 16, 17, 18, and 19 not printed.
26. Appendix 20 not printed.
27. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Pan American Union, Washington, D. C., October 5th–13th, 1931, Final Act (With Annexes and a Summary of the Work of the Conference) [Washington, n. d.], p. 27.
28. See Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, pp. 238 ff.
29. For correspondence concerning American representation at this Conference, see Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. i, pp. 238 ff.
30. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, p. 27.
31. For correspondence concerning this Conference, see vol. i, pp. 452 ff.
32. Not attached to file copy.
32. For further correspondence regarding the tariff truce, see vol. i, pp. 574 ff.
33. See telegrams No. 40, December 9, 11 a.m., from the Chairman of the American Delegation to the Seventh International Conference of American States, p. 169; No. 61, December 9, 4 p.m., and No. 71, December 12, 8 p.m., to the Chairman of the American Delegation, pp. 171 and 177.
34. Appendix 20 not printed.
35. For correspondence concerning the revolution in Cuba, see vol. v, pp. 270 ff.
36. For correspondence concerning discussions respecting a trade agreement with Brazil, see ibid., pp. 13 ff.
37. See section entitled, “Unperfected Reciprocal Trade Agreement Between the United States and Colombia, Signed December 15, 1933”, ibid., pp. 217 ff.
38. For correspondence concerning a trade agreement with Argentina, see post, pp. 642 ff.
39. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, p. 19.
40. For text of proposed American plan, see vol. i, p. 622.
41. Appendix 20 not printed.
42. Appendix 21 not printed.
43. Appendix 22 not printed.
44. Appendix 23 not printed.
45. Not attached to file copy.
46. See letter of July 21 from the Chairman of the American Delegation to the Chairman of the Economic Commission, vol. i, p. 727.
47. Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Agriculture, Washington, September 8–20, 1930 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1930).
48. Not printed.
49. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, pp. 28, 117.
50. Ibid., pp. 74, 100.
51. For text of convention, see Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, p. 670.
52. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, pp. 22–23.
53. Foreign Relations, 1910, pp. 50–52.
54. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, p. 22.
55. For text of convention, see Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates, p. 84.
56. Appendix 24 not printed.
57. Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 585.
58. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, pp. 21–22.
59. Not found in Department files.
60. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, p. 24; see also section entitled “Postponement of the Seventh International Conference of American States”, Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, pp. 1 ff.
61. Not found in Department files.
62. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, Motions, Agreements, Resolutions and Conventions (Habana, 1928), p. 176.
63. Appendices 25, 26, and 27 not printed.
64. Signed December 8, 1923, Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, p. 29.
65. Signed at San Salvador, February 22, 1926, ibid., 1926, vol. ii, p. 940.
66. Signed at Tegucigalpa, December 7, 1927, ibid., 1927, vol. iii, p. 101.
67. Appendices 28 and 29 not printed.
68. See Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 89–96.
69. Not found in Department files.
70. See Handbook for the Use of Delegates, p. 91.
71. Not found in Department files.
72. Fourth Pan American Commercial Conference, Final Act, pp. 27–28.
73. Tariff Act of June 13, 1930, approved June 17, 1930; 46 Stat. 590.
74. 37 Op. Atty. Gen. 225.
75. See Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, pp. 266 ff.; also Transactions of the Seventh Pan American Sanitary Conference of the American Republics Held at Havana, Cuba, November 5 to 15, 1924 (Washington, Pan American Sanitary Bureau [1925?]), p. 160.
76. See Handbook for the “Use of Delegates, pp. 97–98.
77. Post, p. 118.
78. Documents for the Use of Delegates, No. 5: “Report Submitted by the Executive Committee of the American Institute of International Law.”
79. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, p. 123.
80. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxvii, p. 22.
81. Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works Signed at Berne, September 9, 1886, As Revised and Signed at Berlin, November 13, 1908, and at Rome, June 2, 1928, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 403.
82. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xc, p. 680.
83. Foreign Relations, 1908, p. 621.
84. Third International American Conference, General Acts, 1906, p. 1.
85. Foreign Relations, 1910, p. 157.
86. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, p. 123.
87. See Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 100–103.
88. Department of State, Conference Series No. 8: Inter-American Congress of Rectors, Deans, and Educators in General, Habana, Cuba, February 20–23, 1930: Report of the Chairman of the Delegation of the United States of America (Washington, 1931).
89. Appendix 30 not printed.
90. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, pp. 129–130.
91. See Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 107–109.
92. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, p. 95.
93. See Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 109–110.
94. Fifth International Conference of American States, Acta Final, Convenciones y Resoluciones (Santiago, 1923), pp. 44, 46.
95. See Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, p. 95.
96. Appendix 31 not printed.
97. See Documents for the Use of Delegates to the Seventh International Conference of American States, No. 3: A Comparative Study of the Laws and Regulations Governing Aerial Navigation in the Countries, Members of the Pan American Union, by Leland Hyzer of Miami, Florida, a contribution to the consideration of Topic 27 of the Program of the Conference (Washington, Pan American Union, 1933).
98. Signed February 20, 1928, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 585.
99. See section entitled, “Interpretation of Article IV of Habana Convention on Commercial Aviation Adopted February 20, 1928”, pp. 607 ff.
1. Appendix 32 not printed.
2. Appendix 33 not printed.
4. See section entitled “Cooperation of the United States With Several Other Governments in Reconnaissance Surveys for an Inter-American Highway”, Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, pp. 279 ff; Senate Document No. 244, 73d Cong., 2d sess.: Proposed Inter-American Highway.
5. Appendix 34 not printed.
6. Created by resolution of the Sixth International Conference of American States (Final Act, p. 7).
7. President of Clark University and Director of the School of Geography.
8. Appendix 35 not printed.
9. See Handbook for the Use of Delegates, pp. 113–114.
10. Not printed.
11. Not printed.
12. Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 615.
13. See Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, p. 112.
14. Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 581–582.
15. Appendix 36 not printed.
16. Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 583.
17. Appendix 37 not printed.
18. Not printed.
19. The completed memorandum was published by the League of Nations under the title “The Work of the League of Nations in relation to the agenda of the Seventh Pan-American Conference” (Geneva, November 1933). Copies filed under 710.G 1A/285.
20. Signed at Washington, February 7, 1923; for text, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 320; see also Conference on Central American Affairs, Washington, December 4, 1922–February 7, 1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923).
21. Appendix 38 not printed.
22. For correspondence concerning refusal of the United States to recognize the Martinez regime in El Salvador, see Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. ii, pp. 169 ff.; ibid., 1932, vol. v, pp. 566 ff.; ibid, 1933, vol. v, pp. 678 ff.
23. See section entitled “Efforts of Costa Rica To Effect the Denunciation of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed February 7, 1923”, ibid., 1932, vol. v, pp. 330 ff.
24. General Treaty of Peace and Amity, signed December 20, 1907, Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. 2, p. 692.
25. Ante, p. 5.
26. Appendix 40 not printed.
29. Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 574–575.
30. ibid., p. 575.
31. See section entitled “Official Statement of and Commentary upon the Monroe Doctrine by the Secretary of State”, Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. i, pp. 698 ff.
32. See article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Treaties, Conventions, etc., vol. iii, pp. 3336, 3342.
33. Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine prepared by J. Reuben Clark, Undersecretary of State, December 17, 1928 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1930), pp. xxiv–xxv.
34. Department of State, Press Releases, April 15, 1933, p. 245.
35. Ante, p. 20.
36. James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1896), vol. ii, pp. 207–220.
37. Not printed.
38. See vol. i, pp. 1 ff.
39. Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 582.
40. See “Minutes and Documents of the Conferences of Paraguayan and Bolivian Plenipotentiaries held in Buenos Aires under the auspices of the Argentine Government” in Proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation, Bolivia and Paraguay, March 13, 1929–September IS, 1929 (Washington[, 1929?]), pp. 265 ff.
41. For correspondence concerning boundary disputes between Bolivia and Paraguay, see Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, pp. 672 ff.
42. See Proceedings of the International Conference of American States on Conciliation and Arbitration, Held at Washington, December 10, 1928–January 5, 1929 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1929).
43. For text of resolution, see telegram of June 19, 1928, to the Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions in Latin America, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 637.
44. See ibid., pp. 690–694.
45. For correspondence concerning efforts of the Commission of Neutrals to gain the cooperation of the ABCP Republics, see ibid., 1932, vol. v, pp. 136 ff.
46. See section entitled “Cooperation of the League of Nations With the Commission of Neutrals”, Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, pp. 220 ff.
47. See telegram No. 182, May 18, 1933, from the Minister in Switzerland in which sections of the Committee’s report are quoted, p. 325.
48. Treaties, Conventions, etc., vol. iii, p. 3336.
49. See telegram No. 118, June 27, 1933, to the Minister in Switzerland, p. 343.
50. For text of this statement, see Department of State, Press Releases, July 1, 1933, p. 1.
51. Not printed.
52. For correspondence concerning the Leticia dispute between Colombia and Peru, see pp. 384 ff.
53. 48 Stat. 74; 48 Stat. 92. See section entitled “Organizing the Foreign Bondholders Protective Council”, vol. i, pp. 934 ff.
54. League of Nations, Journal of the Monetary and Economic Conference, London, 1938, No. 35 (July 21, 1933), pp. 207 ff.
55. Appendix 42 not printed.
56. Not printed.
57. For correspondence concerning the mediation of the President in the Tipitapa Affair, see Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. iii, pp. 345 ff.
58. See section entitled “Assistance by the United States in the Supervision of Elections in Nicaragua”, ibid., 1928, vol. iii, pp. 418 ff.
59. See ibid., 1929, vol. iii, pp. 646 ff.; ibid., 1930, vol. iii, pp. 636 ff.
60. See ibid., 1932, vol. v, pp. 785 ff.
61. For text of the agreement establishing the Guardia Nacional de Nicaragua, signed at Managua, December 22, 1927, see ibid., 1927, vol. iii, p. 434.
62. See memorandum by the Secretary of State, February 5, 1931, Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. ii, p. 841.
63. See section entitled “Transference of Control Over the Guardia Nacional to Nicaraguan Officers and Withdrawal of the United States Marines From Nicaragua”, ibid., 1932, vol. v, pp. 852 ff.
64. See section entitled “Agreements for Cooperation Between the Two Political Parties To Effect the Pacification and To Insure the Peace of Nicaragua”, ibid., pp. 833 ff.
65. Ibid., 1904, p. 243.
66. See Report of the Secretary of War dated November 27, 1901, Annual Reports of the War Department on the Fiscal Year ended June 80, 1901, pp. 7, 48; also section entitled “Revolution in Cuba”, Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. v, pp. 270 ff.
67. See telegram No. 96, September 11, midnight, to the Ambassador in Cuba, vol. v, p. 424.
68. See Institute Americano de Derecho y Legislación Comparada, La Doctrma Estrada (Mexico, Publicaciones del Institute Comparada, 1930).
69. Appendix 43 not printed.
70. Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 328.
71. See ibid., 1922, vol. ii, pp. 472, 515.
72. See sections entitled “The President’s Commission for the Study and Review of Conditions in the Republic of Haiti”, Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. iii, pp. 204 ff. and ibid., 1930, vol. iii, pp. 198 ff.
73. Ibid., p. 217.
74. See memorandum to the Appointed Minister in Haiti, October 18, 1930, ibid., p. 255.
75. See ibid., pp. 261 ff.
76. For negotiations, see ibid., 1931, vol. ii, pp. 403 ff.; for text of agreement, see ibid., p. 505.
77. Ibid., 1919, vol. ii, p. 347.
78. Ibid., 1932, vol. v, p. 671.
79. Vol. v, p. 755.
80. Not printed.
81. Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, p. 662.
82. Ibid., 1907, pt. 1, p. 307.
83. See ibid., 1931, vol. ii, pp. 124 ff.
84. Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama for the Construction of a Ship Canal to Connect the Waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, signed at Washington, November 18, 1903, Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 543.
85. See telegram No. 39, May 28, 1924, to the Minister in Panama, ibid., 1924, vol. ii, p. 522.
86. See section entitled “Unperfected Treaty Between the United States and Panama for Settlement of Points of Difference, Signed July 28, 1926”, ibid., 1926, vol. ii, pp. 829, 833.
87. Department of State, Press Releases, October 21, 1933, p. 218.
88. Appendix 44 not printed.
89. Fifth International Conference of American States, Acta Final, Oonvendones y Resoluciones (Santiago, 1923), pp. 18, 20.
90. Sixth International Conference of American States, Final Act, pp. 112–113.
91. Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, p. 159.