721.2315/178a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Peru (Poindexter)
8. Peruvian Ambassador has received instructions to sign Procès Verbal with following modifications:
- 1.
- In the third suggestion of the Secretary of State omit the words “immediately after the ratification of the above treaty.”
- 2.
- In statement of Colombian Minister the words “should be ratified by the Government of Peru” to read “should be ratified by both Governments”.
- 3.
- In the statement of Doctor Velarde delete whole paragraph and substitute following: “Doctor Velarde then stated that he also was authorized by his Government in view of the withdrawal by Brazil of its friendly observations upon which consideration of the treaty was suspended to express its acceptance of the friendly suggestion which the Secretary of State had just made in the sense (and to state that (?)) consideration of the treaty by the Peruvian Congress would be resumed and it would take its regular constitutional course before that body.”
Colombian Minister definitely refuses first modification as this was a sine qua non of his Government. He gladly accepted second and cannot accept third without communicating with his Government to [Page 453] whom he is sure it will not be acceptable. Brazilian Chargé is unable to accept any modifications without referring matter to his Government. He thinks it possible that second suggestion might be acceptable but greatly doubts whether the others will be.
Please call upon President Leguía and point out to him that of the three countries concerned Peru is asked to do the least. Colombia is asked to give up its pretensions to land east of the Apaporis-Tabatinga line; Brazil to grant Colombia freedom of navigation on Amazon and other rivers common to both countries. All Peru is asked to do is to take part in this meeting to receive the withdrawal of Brazil’s observations against the Colombian-Peruvian treaty on certain conditions, to hear Colombian Minister say his Government is willing to meet those conditions and then for Peruvian Ambassador to state that in view thereof his Government will advise its Congress of this fact repeating the recommendation that Congress approve the boundary treaty with Colombia already signed by Peru and submitted to its Congress. There appears to be nothing in the Procès Verbal that injects any new element into the situation as far as Peru is concerned. The insistence of the Peruvian Government on the modifications will make it necessary to re-open negotiations with Bogotá and Rio thus making it impossible to sign the Procès Verbal by March 3. You will please explain to him again the desire if possible to bring about this amicable settlement before I leave office on March 4, which means the Procès Verbal must be signed not later than Tuesday afternoon, March 3. In case all Governments were in agreement it had tentatively been arranged to sign on Monday afternoon at 4 o’clock. Should the President feel that he can instruct Señor Velarde to sign the Procès Verbal it will be appreciated if instructions to that effect could be sent on Sunday in order that it may be signed on Monday.
In a telegram to the Peruvian Ambassador sent yesterday, which was superseded by instruction above mentioned, Señor Salomón informed Velarde it would be contrary to the Peruvian constitution to recommend to Congress the approval of the treaty. Should this contention again be advanced you will call attention to the statement made to you by Minister for Foreign Affairs reported in your No. 6, February 27, noon, that should Colombian–Peruvian treaty be modified as he suggested “the Peruvian Congress, he felt sure, would ratify the treaty in 15 days and that the Peruvian Executive Government would use all means in its power to bring that about.” If the Executive can make the recommendation in one case there would appear to be no constitutional reason why it cannot do it in the other.
You may also point out that the agreement of the Executive as provided in the Procès Verbal to renew its recommendation of approval would appear to be an undertaking well within the province [Page 454] of the Executive and in no manner interfering with the prerogatives of the legislative branch whereas the third modification suggested by the Peruvian Government that “consideration of the treaty by the Peruvian Congress would be resumed” is a definite undertaking on the part of the Executive for the legislative branch.
You will please state to President Leguía that the Department is making this last effort to bring about a friendly agreement between the three countries concerned and that it would very much regret to have to inform Brazil and Colombia that the Department’s good offices had been unfruitful because of the apparent disinclination of Peru to accept the friendly suggestion proposed.