422.11G93/1718
The Minister in Ecuador ( Gonzalez ) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 4.]
Sir: With reference to the Department’s telegram No. 27 of July 27, 6 p.m., 1936, concerning a conversation between officers of the Department and the Ecuadorean Minister and Mr. Sherwell, a representative [Page 546] of the Manufacturers Trust Company of New York, I have the honor to confirm my telegram of today No. 35, July 28, 12 noon, 1936,80 to the effect that the information conveyed to the Department by Mr. Sherwell that I had lodged a protest was incorrect. I added that, as I had stated in my despatch No. 437 of July 10, 1936,80 my action in this particular case had been limited to a statement of the Department’s policy and an expression of the hope that the Ecuadorean Government would consult with the Council prior to presenting any settlement.
In view of the fact that a misunderstanding appears to exist, I venture to report more fully the steps taken by me in conveying to the Ecuadoran Government the substance of the Department’s telegraphic instruction No. 23 of July 7, 2 p.m., 1936. With the very end in view of avoiding any possible misunderstanding as to our position, I prepared a memorandum setting forth the substance of the Department’s telegram, copy enclosed,80 which I permitted the Minister for Foreign Affairs and also the Minister of Public Works to read, but without leaving a copy. The Department will observe that the memorandum contains only a statement of the policy of the American Government with respect to difficulties arising in regard to government securities held by Americans, and an expression of the deep hope of the American Government that the Ecuadorean Government would consult with the Foreign Bondholders Protective Council and receive its views prior to presenting any settlement to the bondholders. Moreover, the note of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of July 18, 1936, a copy of which was transmitted with my despatch No. 452 of July 21, 1936,80 indicates conclusively that the Government of Ecuador understood fully and correctly our position. Under the circumstances I am at a loss to explain on what grounds Mr. Sherwell could possibly have based his statement that we had lodged a protest with the Ecuadorean Government concerning the proposed settlement of the Guayaquil and Quito Railway bonded indebtedness. In the light of the foregoing it would appear unnecessary for me to reassure the Department that I lodged no such protest.
Respectfully yours,