Слике страница
PDF
ePub

File No. 822.00/326.

The Secretary of State to the American Minister.

(Telegram-Paraphrase.)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, December 18, 1913. Call the Government's attention to the President's statement of policy, communicated in Department's March 6 [12]' and ascertain if there is anything we can do to discourage the revolutionists and support the constitutional Government. Ascertain the reasons given by the revolutionists for their attack. In Santo Domingo our Minister recently secured a cessation of hostilities on condition that desired reforms would be effected peacefully, and yesterday a special election was held there. We shall be pleased to resort to whatever means the United States can properly employ to cause the revolutionists to follow constitutional methods of obtaining redress,

BRYAN .

File No. 822.00/330.

The American Minister to the Secretary of State.

(Telegram--Paraphrase.)

AMERICAN LEGATION,

Quito, December 24, 1913. I have presented to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the subject of your telegram of December 18. He appreciates our motives but feels that the situation does not warrant any negotiations with the revolutionists, basing his opinion (1) on the killing of physicians and nurses of the Red Cross by revolutionists in so brutal a way that his Government cannot treat with them with self-respect; and (2) on the Government's confidence in soon overcoming the revolutionists. There are two causes for the revolution: (1) the assumption that President Plaza was responsible for the killing of President Alfaro in 1912, and the intention of the revolutionists that the death of President Plaza shall follow; (2) the desire of the revolutionists to get their hands into the public treasury. These causes are probably not susceptible of compromise.

HARTMAN

CLAIMS OF THE GUAYAQUIL & QUITO RAILWAY COMPANY

AGAINST ECUADOR; ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS.2

File No. 422.11G93/555b.
The Acting Secretary of State to Henry L. Janes, American

Arbitrator.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, December 14, 1912. Sir: In accordance with your personal request, I enclose herewith for your information a copy and paraphrase of telegraphic instructions transmitted to the American Legation at Quito in connection with the arbitration of the claims of the Guayaquil and Quito Railroad and of the Government of Ecuador, and your designation as arbitrator under the terms of the contract. I am [etc.]

1 See p. 7.

. Continued from For. Rel. 1912, pp. 412-422,

HUNTINGTON WILSON.

1

File No. 422.11G93/553.

The American Chargé d'Affaires to the Secretary of State.

[Telegram--Paraphrase.)

AMERICAN LEGATION,

Quito, December 14, 1912. The Legation of Ecuador at Washington has been instructed to request the delay of the departure of Mr. Janes until a note on the scope of the proposed arbitration, now in the possession of this Legation, can reach the Department by mail. I send this telegram at the request of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. While appreciating the undesirability of delay, yet, as further proof of the willingness of the United States carefully to consider all arguments advanced by Eevador, I believe that acquiescence in the Minister's request will have a good effect.

BINGHAM

File No. 422.11G93/553.

The Secretary of State to the American Chargé d'Affaires.

(Telegram-Paraphrase.)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, December 16, 1912. Your telegram of the 14th instant. Explain to the Government that Janes has already been appointed arbitrator and that it is now too late to defer his departure. Transmit to Janes at Panama a duplicate of the note of the Foreign Office. Such instructions as may be necessary will be sent upon the receipt of the note here.

Knox.

File No. 422.11G93/563,

The American Chargé d'Affaires to the Secretary of State.

No. 170.]

AMERICAN LEGATION,

Quito, December 16, 1912. Sir: I have the honor, with reference to telegram from this Legation dated December 14, to report that the Minister for Foreign Affairs requested an interview with me on the afternoon of December 14th for the purpose of discussing matters connected with the proposed arbitration

· Printed in For. Rel. 1912, p. 421.

:

The Minister desired to take up the contents of my note No. 122, enelosure in despatch to the Department No. 163 ', dated November 13, 1912, which embodied the Department's instruction dated November 9,

The Minister stated that the Arbitral Tribunal of 1907–1908 had nerer rendered a decision. That the controversy at that time was settled by the contract of September 30, 1908, which was reached by direct agreement between the Government of Ecuador and the Rail. road Company. This agreement was approved, with slight modifications, by the Ecuadorean Congress, November 6, 1908.

The point which the Minister for Foreign Affairs wished to make was the following: Has the Railroad Company carried out its part of the contract of September 30, 1908, or has it failed in some of its obligations?

The Minister stated that the Government of Ecuador was very desirous of having this question passed upon by the Arbitral Tribunal. If the Arbitral Tribunal decides that both the Government of Ecuador and the Railroad Company have complied with the stipulations of the contract of September 30, 1908, the other questions to be decided will be those of a date later than September 30, 1908; but if on the other hand either the Ecuadorean Government or the Railroad Company has failed to carry out the obligations imposed upon them by the above-mentioned contract, it is evident (according to the Minister) that these points can not be considered as being res judicata, and should be presented to the proposed Arbitral Tribunal for decision.

Therefore the Minister for Foreign Affairs informed me (Legation's telegram of December 14) that he had instructed the Ecuadorean Legation in Washington to request that the departure of Mr. Janes be delayed until receipt by mail of the note, copy and translation of which is enclosed herewith, by the Department, in order that Mr. Janes' instructions might be amplified, so that the Tribunal could pass upon the question of the fulfillment by the Railroad Company of its obligations under the contract of September 30, 1908.

It is not felt that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador has made the main point of his argument sufficiently clear in the note enclosed herewith. As the contents of this despatch was reached by the writer as the result of a long personal conversation with Mr. Dillon, it is hoped that it may serve to throw some light on the real feelings of the Government of Ecuador with regard to the proposed arbitration. I have [etc.]

RUTHERFURD BINGHAM.

[Inclosure-Translation.)

No. 118. ]

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Quito, December 12, 1912. Sir: I have the honor to reply to your note No. 122 dated the 11th of last November, in which you state that the Government of the United States cannot noy regard as open for discussion matters involving the existence and validity of the fundamental contractual agreements between the Government of Ecuador

* Not printed.

* For. Rel. 1912, p. 421.

and the Railway Company"; matters which, as you state, “were under discus. sion in a former controversy and were passed upon by the Arbitral Tribunal of 1907-1908, in an act having the status and value of an arbitral award, which has since not only been fully recognized but until the present time unquestioned by the Ecuadorean Government." Finally you add in the above-mentioned note that: “ The status as to the fundamental agreements being thus, and the mat. ters of present dispute between the Ecuadorean Governinent and the Company, as heretofore considered by the two Governments, having solely to do with the transactions between the Government of Ecuador and the Railway since September 30, 1908, the Government of Ecuador will perceive that the present proposed arbitration can have relation only to such latter matters and that in the discussion and decision thereof the status referred to must be accepted as a fundamental basis upon which to ground the determination of the questions involved."

With reference to what I have quoted, I shall begin by stating certain ideas which I consider of the greatest importance:

Regarding the arbitration, it is the President of the United States, individually, and not the Government of that Republic who possesses the character of Arbitrator, by reason of the contract entered into with the Railroad Company. Therefore I believe that the intervention of the North American Govern. ment in the matters treated of in this note can not be accepted.

Therefore I can do no less than deplore that your judgment in this matter differs materially from the opinion of the Ecuadorean Government and that this discrepancy may result in the postponement of the settlement, which the Chief of the State greatly desires to conclude in the shortest possible time.

In fact, theoretically as well as practically, the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal whose members had not received ample and equal full powers for the discharge of their functions, would be unacceptable.

The reasons which in your opinion have determined the President of the United States to restrict the powers of his representative are based upon this false idea : that the difference between the Government of Ecuador and the Railroad Company previous to September 30, 1908, “ were discussed and passed upon” by the Arbitral Tribunal of 1907-1908, it being the case that the said Tribunal, although it was properly constituted, did not pronounce any award, as appears from the evidence. These differences were arranged, it is true, but not by the Arbitral Tribunal above mentioned; they were arranged by the mutual agreement of September 30, 1908, approved with modifications by the Legislative Decree of November 6 of the same year: an adjustment which does not bave the legal status peculiar to an arbitral award. The agreement is a contract, and bilateral contracts have the characteristic that they are null and void in case one of the contracting parties does not carry out his part of the agreement. It is not thus with arbitral awards, which have the character of finality or definitiveness independent of the accomplishment or non-accomplishment of the undertakings therein contained. In consequence, the only arrangement that exists between the Government of Ecuador and the Railroad Company, that is to say, the transaction of 1908, does not have the decisive character with which you desire to endow it in the note to which I am now replying.

On the other hand, the discussion as to what shall constitute the matters which the projected Arbitral Tribunal shall decide I consider irrelevant because the Tribunal is the only authority empowered to determine them, without further limitations than those established by the mutual obligations of the parties, obligations which in this case are no other than the contract of June 14, 1897, between the Government of Ecuador and the Railroad Company. The powers of the Arbitrators should have the scope that is indicated by Article 27 of the above-mentioned contract. It is not the attribute of one only of the Arbitrators to determine in advance the matters that shall fall under the jurisdiction of all the Tribunal, because, in the exercise of its functious, not even the Tribunal itself can amplify or restrict the limits of the pact that gives it life.

On account of what I have above set forth, I should appreciate it if you would suggest to His Excellency the President of the United States of North America the expediency of not limiting the juridical powers of his Delegate, in order that he may exercise them without restriction, whatever may be the claims of the Government of Ecuador or its disagreements with the Railroad Company, provided that these disagreements are those contemplated by article 27 of the contract of June 14, 1897. My Government considers it an indispensable condition for the perfect working of the Arbitral Tribunal that no one of its members have restricted powers, differing from the ample powers with which both Representatives should be invested, as the Representative of the Republic will in fact be invested. I avail (etc.)

Luis X. DILLON,

File No. 422.11 G 93/573.

The American Chargé d'Affaires to the Secretary of State. No. 175.]

AMERICAN LEGATION,

Quito, January 16, 1913. Sır: I have the honor to report that Mr. Henry L. Janes, American Arbitrator for the settlement of claims between the Government of Ecuador and the Guayaquil and Quito Railroad Company, arrived in Quito January 11, 1913. I have [etc.]

RUTHERFURD BINGIIAM.

File No. 422.11G93/563.

The Secretary of State to the American Chargé d'Affaires. No. 62.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, January 21, 1913. Sir: The Department has received your No. 170 of the 16th ultimo, transmitting a note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard to the proposed arbitration of the differences between the Government of Ecuador and the Guayaquil & Quito Railway Company, and reporting in regard to your interview with the Minister in which he stated that he had instructed the Ecuadorean Legation at Washington to request that the departure of Mr. Janes be delayed.

Before replying, the Department will wait to hear from Mr. Janes, as requested by him. I am [etc.]

P. C. Knox,

File No. 422.11G93/584.

The American Chargé d'Affaires to the Secretary of State. No. 187.]

AMERICAN LEGATION,

Quito, February 19, 1913. SIR: I have the honor to enclose herewith duplicate copies and translations of notes numbered 202 and 212 from the Ecuadorean Foreign Office, dated February 7 and February 13 respectively. The latter one of the notes above mentioned informs the Legation that Dr. Baquerizo Moreno reached the capital on February 13.

After the arrival of the Ecuadorean Representative, the next few days were taken up by an exchange of visits between the Arbitrators. As soon as this formality had been concluded the Legation addressed a note to the Foreign Office, No. 150, dated February 18, 1913, requesting the Minister for Foreign Affairs to designate the place and hour for the formal meeting of the two Arbitrators for

« ПретходнаНастави »