711.1928/3189/10
The Panamanian Legation to the Department of State
Supplementary Aide-Mémoire
Supplementing the statements contained in the Aide-Mémoire of January 14th on the question of the Canal annuity, the Minister of Panama begs to call the attention of the State Department to the facts reported in the Evening Star’s edition of January 15th, in connection with the cases awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question of the abolition of the gold clause in private contracts.
It is stated in the above mentioned paper that “the Philippine currency act of last June 1921 appropriated money to pay the islands the dollar profits accruing to its gold deposits in this country through devaluation.”
With reference to this point, it is further stated:
“Angus MacLean, assistant solicitor general, during his argument before the court referred to the Philippine act. He contended that while the United States reimbursed the islands, this action did not [Page 913] commit the Government to a recognition of the right of individuals or corporations to demand gold which was on deposit in this country.
MacLean said it was an act of amity, in recognition of the semi-sovereignty of the Philippines and was to aid that country in placing itself on an independent footing.”
Assuming the above quoted reports to be exact, the Minister of Panama submits that if the measures before referred to have been adopted for the benefit of the Philippine Islands as “an act of amity in recognition of the semi-sovereignty of the Philippines”, it would be most appropriate for the United States as an act of amity toward a sovereign Republic with which the United States has such special and close ties, to adopt some other measure whereby the Republic of Panama may immediately receive in full the amount of the annual compensation agreed upon by the Isthmian Canal Convention of 1903.
- 48 Stat. 1115.↩