File No. 738.3915/112.]

[Untitled]

[Memorandum of the second meeting.]

Dear Mr. Wilson: Pursuant to the adjournment on Saturday, the Ministers of Haiti and Dominican Republic met this morning to continue the discussion of the boundary question. The Ministers exchanged their full powers, each declaring that he found the power of the other in due and proper form, and exchanging copies. The Dominican Minister first asked the Haitian Minister if he had any suggestions to offer regarding the procedure, to which Mr. Menos replied that he had, that he thought that the protocol of arbitration should provide that what seemed to him and his Government to be a previous question should be decided by the tribunal before it entered into a further examination of the case. This question arises out of the fact that the Dominican Republic and Haiti have heretofore entered into conventions which have endeavored to fix the boundary line, and it is alleged on the part of Haiti that money has been paid the Dominican Government pursuant to the arrangement in these conventions and accepted by that Government, and that the conventions are entirely valid and binding and in themselves settle the boundary question. This, I understand, the Dominican Republic is unwilling to admit, claiming that the conventions are invalid, as never having been executed with proper authority and therefore not binding. I told the Ministers that although I could see no intrinsic objection in having this question determined as a previous question, I thought that all difficulties might be evaded if the protocol was made general and both parties permitted to submit all evidence in their possession and to rely on all documents heretofore executed.

After this Mr. Peynado said that he had in his mind a question which seemed to him would have to be decided before the negotiations could be fully concluded by a convention, and that that question was that the status quo on the frontier at the time of the acceptance of the good offices of the United States should be restored, and he stated that Haiti had advanced up to Pedernales and other points which they had not occupied in January of last year, and that his Government felt that the Haitians must withdraw from these positions, and that such violation of the status quo which both Governments had promised the United States to preserve should cease, otherwise the negotiations that they were now trying to conduct would be futile. He said that this was a question that the Ministers must discuss and decide before proceeding to any further negotiations, and for a time seemed determined to press this point, to which the Haitian Minister would not in any degree assent. I told Mr. Peynado that I thought this was a very important and essential question, but that it might be disposed of if he would formally bring this question of status quo to the attention of this Government and submit whatever documents he had by way of proof, when we could make such representations to Haiti as we might deem wise in the premises, and that meantime the negotiations which all were so anxious to hasten could proceed to a conclusion. Mr. Peynado said that he did not care at this time to be understood as saying that the negotiations should not proceed unless and until the status quo was restored, but that he would put his complaint in the form of a memorandum and submit it to the Department, [Page 385] leaving a copy with the Haitian Minister if he desired it; as soon as he had time to prepare the minutes of today’s and yesterday’s meeting and get them into shape, and to prepare the memorandum to which he referred, he would notify the Haitian Minister and me and a subsequent meeting of the plenipotentiaries could be arranged.1

The Haitian Minister thereupon suggested that we continue, and submitted to Mr. Peynado for his study a draft in French of what he proposed to be the first article of the convention of arbitration, but of which he left me no copy. It has however been arranged that the Department shall have a copy of the minutes of the meetings from time to time, and this will undoubtedly be incorporated in them.

Doyle.
Read to the two Ministers June 22d and no objection.
D.
  1. The memorandum here promised was delivered to the Department in the form of a note, dated June 12, 1912. It is printed in this volume under “Political affairs” at page 349. The portion of it pertinent to this correspondence is the second part, after the dash, p. 355.