711.1928/333
The Chargé in Panama (Burdett) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 25.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama called at the Legation this morning on business in connection with the Costa Rican boundary question, and remained to talk informally about the progress of the conversations regarding the proposed treaty.
[Page 899]Dr. Arosemena said that Article 2 was still the principal obstacle. He thought that a clause obligating Panama to cooperate fully with the United States in the defense of the Canal was not important, but he talked at some length concerning the prohibition against Panamanians convicted of crime in the Zone from re-entering the Zone and felt that this should be taken up in the treaty itself.
Both Dr. Arosemena and the President are apparently taking this matter very much to heart. The former today admitted that other countries might deport or prohibit an individual from entering a certain part of the country, even their own country, where they had committed a crime, but said that this could not be understood in Panama and that there was intense public sentiment against the present regulations. It may be said that the Legation feels that there is no such public sentiment against this regulation and that the sentiment is probably existing chiefly in the minds of the President and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Dr. Arosemena, however, this morning said categorically that they would not sign a treaty which does not remedy this complaint.
It seems a relatively unimportant question, and might be solved by allowing these convicted and deported individuals to pass through the Zone but not to remain there. This would of course be a source of trouble to the Zone authorities. It also seems highly unwise to allow convicted felons to re-enter the Zone.…
The Secretary did not feel that any system of trip permit would be acceptable to the Panamanians. This is a sentimental question with the Panamanians and a practical one with us. If it should be deemed necessary, it would seem that a compromise could be effected, and I gather that the Secretary would be satisfied with allowing these people unrestricted passage in transit through the Zone and would not insist on their having a right to remain there. In actual practice they might be deterred from remaining by a very heavy sentence if after deportation they should return for other than continuous passage.
The Secretary said that the Panamanians regarded the giving up of jurisdiction of the Alhajuela Road as of no importance. This is in direct contradiction to his very firm opinion expressed some months ago that Panama could not surrender this corridor.
I gathered that the Secretary was somewhat less exigent in his attitude toward Article 2 than at the last conversation reported in Despatch No. 585 of January 23, 1935. It is felt that a compromise can be worked out on this Article whereby we would maintain our treaty rights insofar as they are necessary for the future development of the Canal or for military purposes, while at the same time satisfying the Panamanian amour propre.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Page 900]The Secretary again said if the treaty is signed it will be ratified. That Crespo, Goytía, and Sucre may oppose it but that the Administration had a majority and that any treaty the Administration would sign would be ratified by that majority plus certain other members of the former opposition who would for various reasons join with the majority.
Respectfully yours,