Minister Fox to the Secretary of State.
Quito, June 5, 1910.
Minister for foreign affairs has sent note to me, confirming withdrawal of the troops and giving certain details of the operation. Translation of the note continues, as follows:
June 4. In reference to the memorandum which your excellency was pleased to place in my hands, it is my duty to remind you that we were in accord in the conference of May 23, in which my Government received the gracious offer of the Argentine Republic, United States of Brazil, and of the United States of America, that the offer had two parts: The first relative to future mediation, in connection with the [Page 468] principal question as to the boundaries; and the second, actual mediation upon the incident which arose from the unfortunate occurrences on the first days of April both in Ecuador and Peru.
The right interpretation of the mediation being thus established, I stated verbally in the conference and afterwards in the note of May 24, that Ecuador demanded from Peru fulfillment of article 6 of the treaty of arbitration of 1887; that the above-mentioned Republic could not refuse a direct settlement, for the breaking of the aforesaid article 6 would leave the treaty itself without value or effect; that the royal arbitrator, in view of all this, had deferred pronouncing the award in order that the parties should arrive at a friendly and expedient arrangement; that in view of a new aspect of the controversy no other pacific solution was possible than direct settlement.
As the offer of mediation relative to the boundaries was for the future, I frankly indicated that the only conditions which, when the case comes up, would make effective the labor of the mediating powers, and as my Government has the greatest confidence in nations so illustrious and great, I manifested in advance the acceptance of Ecuador, in the indicated sense; that is to say, in that of the direct arrangement. It would neither be possible for us to accept another solution now, nor can the royal arbitrator pronounce the decision, now that Ecuador has accepted the suspension of the judgment, expressly declaring that it could not be renewed without the joint petition of both parties. And were it not thus, Ecuador would not in any case renounce the right which article 6 of the treaty of arbitration concedes—to ask, as it has asked, that our opponent come to a direct negotiation before the pronouncing of the arbitration decision, since the above-mentioned article is just as binding as the rest of the treaty, and that, broken by Peru, Ecuador would be free from all obligation arising from the aforesaid treaty. Our acceptance was then strictly within the limit of article 6 of the treaty of arbitration, in accordance with that already decided upon by the royal arbitrator as to the suspension of the arbitration award and for the future.
It is not thus relative to the second part of the offer of mediation, which being for the present, was accepted from that moment by the Government of Ecuador. I have believed it necessary to insist in this, in order to make clear the bases of the ulterior discussions which you were pleased to announce to me. I have transmitted this note also to the other worthy representatives of the mediating powers.
Peralta.