Date and number GENERAL BOUNDARY DISPUTES-Continued COLOMBIA AND PERU-continued Subject 1925 Feb. 25 (16) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.) Feb. 25 (3) Acceptance of minor verbal changes by Colombian Minister and Peruvian Ambassador; withdrawal by Brazilian Foreign Minister, at U. S. request, of modifications of boundary line, in order not to delay matter beyond March 4. To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) Page 445 445 Information that Colombian Minister has received instructions to sign procès-verbal. Instructions to endeavor to have Peruvian Ambassador authorized to sign without delay. Feb. 26 (18) Feb. 26 (5) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.) 446 Information from Foreign Office that Brazilian Chargé has been instructed by telegraph to sign procès-verbal. From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 446 Foreign Minister's inability to instruct Peruvian Ambassador until he has heard from Brazilian Government. Feb. 26 (4) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 447 Information that instructions are being sent Brazilian Feb. 27 (6) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 447 Foreign Minister's promise to send instructions immediately, and his suggestion of a modification in the Peruvian-Colombian treaty. Feb. 27 (5) Feb. 27 (6) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 448 Information that Brazilian Chargé has received instructions to sign procès-verbal. To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 450 Department's surprise at suggestion for modification in treaty, in view of Peruvian President's statement that withdrawal of Brazilian protest would remove his only objection to the treaty. Feb. 28 (8) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 450 President's disapproval of Foreign Minister's suggestion for modification in treaty; his promise that draft instructions for Ambassador in Washington would be ready shortly. Feb. 28 (9) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 451 Sec. 1. Foreign Minister's assurance that instructions will be cabled to Peruvian Ambassador before 1 p. m., February 28. Feb. 28 (9) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 451 Feb. 28 (8) Sec. 2. Insistence of President and Foreign Minister on certain changes in procès-verbal, as contained in proposed instructions to Peruvian Ambassador. To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) Instructions to point out to Peruvian Government that insistence on the modifications in procès-verbal, as contained in Peru's instructions to Ambassador, will necessitate reopening of negotiations with Colombia and Brazil, thus making it impossible to conclude matter before March 4. 452 GENERAL BOUNDARY DISPUTES-Continued COLOMBIA AND PERU-continued Date and number 1925 Mar. 1 (10) Subject Page From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 454 President's insistence on two of the modifications in procèsverbal; his willingness to make a substitution in the third modification. Mar. 2 (17) To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.) 456 Instructions to inquire if Brazilian Government will accept procès-verbal with modifications specified by Peru, and to endeavor to expedite Brazil's reply. Mar. 2 (11) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 457 Ambassador's expression of opinion, in reply to Colombian Minister's inquiry, that it would be advantageous to Colombian Government to authorize the signing of the modified procès-verbal. Mar. 2 (9) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 457 Instructions to endeavor to have Peruvian Government send instructions authorizing the substitution to be made in one of the modifications specified. Mar. 3 (21) From the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.) 458 Foreign Office opinion that instructions already sent to Mar. 3 (12) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 458 Peruvian promise to forward substitute modification (text printed). Mar. 3 (13) Mar. 3 (10) From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 458 Report of conversations with President and Foreign Minister. 459 Mar. 4 (15) Mar. 4 Information that Peruvian Ambassador has received instructions as promised, but that certain words in the substitute modification are objected to on behalf of Colombia. U. S. desire to know if Peru will delete words or agree to one of several acceptable alternatives. From the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) View of Ambassador and Colombian Minister, after consultation, that all parties should sign procès-verbal immediately in accordance with last instructions sent to Peruvian Ambassador, as reopening of negotiations with Peru would be hazardous, and the words objected to cannot be construed as having any material effect on agreement. To the Peruvian Ambassador Transmittal of copies of procès-verbal (text printed) of a meeting between the Secretary of State, the Peruvian Ambassador, the Colombian Minister, and the Brazilian Chargé, March 4, 1925. (Similar notes to the Colombian Minister and the Brazilian Chargé.) 460 460 Mar. 4 (11) To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) 463 Information that procès-verbal was signed March 4. Appreciation of Ambassador's cooperation. (Footnote: The same to the Ambassador in Brazil; first sentence to the Minister in Colombia.) Mar. 24 July 3 Oct. 30 (62) Ambassador's expression of inability to concur in certain points which he considers to be changes in procès-verbal. To the Peruvian Ambassador Secretary's conclusion after reviewing the steps leading to signature of the procès-verbal, that there are no changes in the procès-verbal and that it forms an equitable basis for the settlement of questions pending between the three countries. To the Ambassador in Brazil (tel.) Information concerning a conversation between the Secretary and the Brazilian Ambassador as to the carrying out of the procès-verbal, with_suggestion that Ambassador might discuss the matter with Foreign Minister. To the Ambassador in Peru (tel.) Information that Colombia has ratified Colombian-Peruvian boundary treaty; indication that similar action by Peru would be welcome. (Footnote: First paragraph sent also to Brazil.) Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the Colombian Minister, October 31, 1925 Nov. 30 (477) Ecuadoran protest to United States that ColombianPeruvian treaty would make it more difficult for Ecuador to agree with Peru as to the boundary between those two countries. Secretary's inability to see how treaty could affect Ecuadoran interests or to offer U. S. good offices unless requested by all countries involved. From the Ambassador in Peru Report of representations on behalf of boundary treaty; opinion of leader of the Government party that favorable action could be obtained on the treaty when the Tacna-Arica plebiscite had made further progress or had been disposed of. 465 467 468 468 469 COSTA RICA AND PANAMA To the Minister in Panama (tel.) Information that, as Costa Rican Government has approached United States with a view to delimitation of the boundary between Panama and Costa Rica, the United States would be glad to have Panama appoint its engineer to delimit, in conjunction with those appointed by the arbitrator and by Costa Rica, the boundary as set forth in the arbitral award. From the Minister in Panama Foreign Minister's note, January 29 (text printed), expressing opinion that settlement of the pecuniary claim on Costa Rica should be considered precedent to the demarcation of the frontier. Foreign Minister's note, January 30 (text printed), stating that in order to proceed with nomination of the Panaman engineer, it is essential that a previous agreement be reached along lines indicated in his note of January 29. 471 472 Date and number GENERAL BOUNDARY DISPUTES-Continued COSTA RICA AND PANAMA-continued Subject 1925 Feb. 6 (17) Apr. 9 (46) To the Minister in Panama (tel.) U. S. note to Foreign Minister (text printed) declaring U. S. willingness to await for a reasonable time the outcome of such direct negotiations as Panama may undertake with Costa Rica; readiness to proceed in January 1926 with the demarcation of the boundary line, if no agreement has been reached by that time. From the Minister in Panama (tel.) Foreign Minister's statement that Panama is willing to enter into direct negotiations with Costa Rica only to settle indemnity question. (Repeated to Costa Rica.) (Footnote: Minister's report, June 25, of appointment of Julio Fabrega as Panaman confidential agent to go to Costa Rica to solve the boundary controversy.) Page 474 476 Sept. 22 (16) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) 476 Instructions to use good offices informally with the President to further success of the negotiations. (Footnote: Arrival of Señor Fabrega in San José on September 18.) Nov. 10 (21) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) 477 Information concerning a compromise settlement of boundary line which Panama might accept. Inquiry as to what solution, in Minister's opinion, would be acceptable to Costa Rica, if Panaman proposal is not. (Footnote: Repeated to Panama.) Nov. 11 (22) To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) 478 Information as to minimum amount acceptable to Panama, including straightening of the boundary line. (Footnote: Repeated, except for first paragraph, to Panama.) 479 Dec. 11 (82) To the Minister in Panama (tel.) Costa Rican Minister's opinion that he might be able to induce Costa Rica to accept a solution on basis of the convention providing for demarcation of the boundary according to the award, the matter of indemnity to be submitted to arbitration. Instructions to discuss the matter informally with President and Foreign Minister to determine if some such arrangement could be agreed upon. (Footnote: Repeated to Costa Rica.) Dec. 18 (121) From the Chargé in Panama (tel.) 480 Foreign Minister's statement of Panama's unwillingness to accept Department's suggestion at present, as they still hope Costa Rica will accept Fabrega's proposition for straightening the boundary line. From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) 481 Dec. 18 (54) Dec. 27 (123) Information that Panaman proposal was rejected by Costa Rica but that counterproposal has been submitted to Panaman representative. From the Chargé in Panama (tel.) 482 Fabrega's rejection of Costa Rican proposal and submission of a counterproposal for rectification of the boundary. Date and number 1925 Dec. 29 (29) GENERAL BOUNDARY DISPUTES-Continued COSTA RICA AND PANAMA-continued Subject To the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) Instructions to endeavor to find out whether Costa Rica has accepted counterproposal of Fabrega for rectification of the boundary or has agreed to put off further negotiations till May. 1926 Jan. 7 (2) Page 483 From the Minister in Costa Rica (tel.) 483 Costa Rica's rejection of Fabrega's counterproposal and of his proposal to postpone the negotiations till May. EXTENSION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER SWAIN'S ISLAND BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS, APPROVED MARCH 4, 1925 1924 May 22 To President Coolidge Résumé of U. S. Government's relation to Swain's Island for more than 50 years; discussion of status of the island so far as jurisdiction of the United States is concerned; draft of proposed joint resolution of Congress (text printed) extending U. S. sovereignty over Swain's Island and making the island a part of American Samoa. (Footnote: Approval by Congress of the joint resolution on March 4, 1925.) 483 ALBANIA RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF AHMED ZOGU 1925 Jan. 5 From the Minister in Albania (tel.) 489 Request for instructions as to attitude to be assumed toward the government of Ahmed Zogu, in view of his having been sentenced as one of those responsible for the murder of Coleman and De Long, American citizens, in 1924. Jan. 8 (3) From the Minister in Albania (tel.) 489 Report on possible attitude of other governments toward the government of Ahmed Zogu. Jan. 10 (2) To the Minister in Albania (tel.) 490 Information that Department would not be disposed to withhold recognition because of the charges that Zogu was implicated in the killing of Coleman and De Long. Instructions to maintain informal relations with authorities pending further instructions. Jan. 14 (4) From the Minister in Albania (tel.) 490 Report that in order to clear Zogu officially, the case of the murder of Coleman and De Long is to be reopened. Jan. 22 (3) To the Minister in Albania (tel.) 491 Information that if Minister can secure definite assurances from Zogu that the prosecution will be pressed, Department would consider sending early instructions to accord recognition. Inquiry as to what definite action has been taken by other powers. |