738.39/270

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of the American Republics (Duggan)

Mr. Philip said that he had just come from a conversation with M. Abel Léger. M. Léger received this morning a letter from the President in which the President informed him that he had requested the Papal Nuncio to return to Ciudad Trujillo with the following counter-proposal to the Dominican offer: That Haiti would agree to a settlement of the dispute on the agreement that the Dominican Government should pay $750,000—$350,000 to be paid down and the remainder at the rate of $100,000 a year until extinguished. The Haitian Government also would require that the settlement be accompanied by the return in good condition of all properties of Haitians in the Dominican Republic that had been expropriated; by assurances with regard to the observance of Haitian rights in the Dominican Republic in the future, and by suitable guarantees covering the regulation and safety of Haitian labor in the Dominican Republic.

M. Léger stated that the President had indicated his apprehension with regard to future political developments if the dispute was not [Page 189] settled rapidly. Therefore, M. Léger expressed the belief that once an arrangement had been arrived at as a result of direct discussions it should be presented to the Permanent Commission, which taking note of it should declare the controversy at an end.

Mr. Philip stated that he had argued the point with M. Léger as a result of discussions that he had had with members of the Permanent Commission. The Argentine Ambassador in particular felt that it would be a mistake for the Permanent Commission to assume any responsibility for the terms of any agreement that might be arrived at outside of the treaty framework. He suggested that if an outside agreement were arrived at, it be submitted to the Commission of Inquiry which would return it to the Permanent Commission, which would then be in a position to declare the controversy terminated. Mr. Philip said that M. Léger proposed this procedure because of his belief that the Dominican Government would most reluctantly and after great delays agree to the composition of the Permanent Commission, since they seemed to fear trickery if the outside settlement were submitted to the Commission of Inquiry.

Mr. Philip and I had some discussion of this aspect of the matter but arrived at no definite conclusion. Having just read Mr. Welles’ memorandum of his conversation with the Ambassador of Peru on January 12 I took the line that there would seem to be no objection to the Permanent Commission merely taking notice of the agreement reached and of announcing the termination of the controversy in view of that agreement.

Mr. Philip also stated that the members of the Permanent Commission were arguing that the proceedings of the 1929 Conference16 made it clear that even though requested by one of the parties to exercise conciliatory functions the Permanent Commission should not do so unless imminent danger to the peace of the continent threatened.

With regard to the last point made above, Mr. Kelchner17 has studied the proceedings of the 1929 Conference. Mr. Kelchner believes that the proceedings made it very clear that the drafters envisaged two categories: one in which a disputant requests the Permanent Commission to act, and the other in which the Permanent Commission functions on its own initiative. In the latter case there is the limitation that the Commission can function only at a time when there is a threat to the peace of the continent. On the other hand, when one of the disputants requests the Permanent Commission to function there would appear to be no such limitations. It was the consensus of the Conference [Page 190] that there should be some protection against undue delay by a disputant in constituting the ad hoc commission and hence the provision was made that the Permanent Commission could exercise conciliatory functions, without limitation, in case of a request by one party.

In the present case it must be kept in mind that there is little doubt that the Dominican Government has sought to delay the establishment of the Commission of Conciliation while Haiti on the other hand has weakened its position through entering into direct negotiations in spite of specific assurances to the contrary. Irrespective of the terminology used by the two Governments it cannot be denied that the proposed settlement is in effect a settlement by direct diplomatic negotiations.

Under these circumstances it would seem that the Permanent Commission cannot appropriately assume any responsibility for the terms of the proposed accord. While for obvious reasons the Permanent Commission would not wish to disapprove the settlement it would seem that approval by the Commission would give the Commission’s support to a violation of solemn treaty obligations, irrespective of the merits of the positions of the parties in dispute,—thereby weakening the whole peace structure of the Americas.

It is our opinion that the best procedure under the circumstances would be for the Permanent Commission to receive from the delegates notification of the direct settlement reached and to take cognizance of such settlement. The Permanent Commission might limit its action to taking note formally of this direct settlement between the disputants and to a statement that in view of this settlement no controversy between the disputants appears longer to exist.

L[aurence] D[uggan]
  1. 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).
  2. Warren Kelchner, secretary-general to American delegation, Eighth International Conference of American States, Lima, 1938.