814.00/1214
The Minister in Guatemala ( Hanna ) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 20.]
Sir: Supplementing my despatch No. 645, of May 11, 1935, 1 have the honor to report that, in response to a verbal request of the Minister for Foreign Affairs for copy of the statement expressing the non-sympathy of the Government of the United States with any plan to amend the Guatemalan Constitution illegally and to continue President Ubico in power contrary to its provisions, I called on the Minister for Foreign Affairs on May 13 and showed him the English version of the statement.
He studied the statement with some care before handing it back to me in the course of which he made somewhat rambling comment which indicated that he was searching for some ulterior interpretation. Finally he inquired if “to continue President Ubico in office contrary to the provisions of that Constitution” meant contrary to the Constitution as it now is or contrary to it after some possible amendment of its provisions. I told him that, so far as I knew, the statement meant what it purported to say and that it had not occurred to me to search for any hidden meaning. I added that my understanding was that the Department felt that it was under an impelling obligation to clarify the attitude of the Government of the United States and particularly to remove all possibility of a misinterpretation of its attitude if by chance an incorrect impression concerning it should have been formed here. The Minister did not pursue the point but then proceeded to enlighten me concerning President Ubico’s reaction to the statement. He said the President was pained [Page 629] that the Department should have felt compelled to make the statement, and thought that perhaps it would have refrained from doing so had it waited until his views on the subject were made public in the message he will send to the Constituent Assembly. The Minister expressed the opinion that the message will present the matter in a new light and will make quite clear the logic and reasonableness of President Ubico’s attitude. He said the President felt that he could not disregard the spontaneous and Universal demand made by all classes of the Guatemalan people but, on the contrary, must bow to it however reluctant he might be to do so, once the existence of such a demand is established beyond doubt by the unanimous vote of the Constituent Assembly and by the Guatemalan people in a general election. He said the President always has been a firm supporter of the principles of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency, and was in fact one of its original advocates. He added that the President will oppose any change in those principles but felt that making an exception to them in response to the unanimous will of the Guatemalan people presents a very different question.
He stated further that the President in discussing the matter with him mentioned particularly, as adding to his surprise and pain, the seeming disregard of the friendly and loyal manner in which his Government had cooperated with the Government of the United States, and the personal attention he had given uniformly to all matters affecting American interests in Guatemala, concerning which he enumerated a number of instances. I assured him that there was no lack of appreciation on the part of the Government of the United States for the cooperation of President Ubico’s government but that, on the contrary, the former’s sense of appreciation as well as the peculiarly close and friendly relations between the two countries, combined with the high esteem which the Government of the United States has for President Ubico, made it particularly desirable that there should be no mistaken interpretation of the attitude of the Government of the United States.
In response to an inquiry from me, the Minister said that the Constituent Assembly probably will take speedy action on this particular matter and would remain in session until the results of the general election had been announced. He seemed to think that the elections would be held before the end of this month and that the whole matter would be definitely decided in the early days of June.
When the Minister was studying the statement and making observations concerning possible hidden meanings in it, he went out of his way to say that of course nothing would be done which would in the faintest way resemble a “golpe de estado”. It would appear that [Page 630] he might have had in mind the Washington Treaty of 192330 concerning nonrecognition.
Arrangements are being completed for the opening session of the Constituent Assembly tomorrow, and invitations to be present have been sent to the members of the Diplomatic Corps.
Respectfully yours,
- Signed February 7, 1923, Conference on Central American Affairs, Washington, December 4, 1922–Feoruary 7, 1923 (Washington, 1923), p. 287.↩