721.2315/192
The Secretary of State to the Peruvian Ambassador (Velarde)
Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of March 10, 1925, acknowledging the receipt of my predecessor’s note of March 4, transmitting to you original copies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese of a Procès Verbal signed at the Department of State on that day by Your Excellency, by the Minister of Colombia, by the Chargé d’Affaires of Brazil, and by my predecessor.
You state that you regret that you cannot concur with the understanding expressed by Mr. Secretary Hughes that the signing of the convention between Brazil and Colombia would follow the ratification by Colombia and Peru of the boundary treaty signed by the two countries on March 24, 1922, nor with what you consider a change in the declaration of the Minister of Colombia that his Government will conclude the above mentioned treaty with Brazil immediately after the ratification by Peru of the Colombian-Peruvian boundary treaty.
The original proposal made by my predecessor in the discharge of the good offices requested by the three Governments concerned in the settlement of this question contemplated three steps:
- 1.
- The withdrawal by the Government of Brazil of its observations regarding the boundary treaty between Colombia and Peru;
- 2.
- The ratification by Colombia and Peru of the above mentioned boundary treaty;
- 3.
- The signing immediately after the ratification of that treaty, of a convention between Brazil and Colombia by which the boundary between those countries would be agreed to on the Apaporis-Tabatinga line, Brazil agreeing to establish in perpetuity in favor of Colombia freedom of navigation on the Amazon and other rivers common to both countries.
On the basis that the third step in the proposal of the Secretary of State was a matter exclusively between Colombia and Brazil your Government requested several modifications in the Procès Verbal as originally drafted, bearing on that question. Changes were requested in the statement to be made by Your Excellency in the meeting and your Government also requested that the words “immediately after the ratification of the above treaty”, which referred to the boundary treaty between Colombia and Peru, should [Page 466] be omitted from the third part of the proposal by the Secretary of State thus leaving that part to deal with matters exclusively between Brazil and Colombia. This was agreed to and the Procès Verbal was signed in that sense. However, in order that there might be no misapprehension on the part of those concerned that the various steps in the proposal of the Secretary of State were to be carried out in the sequence mentioned, my predecessor made this clear by stating in his covering note that the third proposed action would be taken after the carrying out of the second step. It was likewise the understanding that Mr. Secretary Hughes’ second suggestion would not be carried out until the first suggestion had been complied with but it was not necessary to mention this in the covering letter as his first suggestion was complied with in the Procès Verbal itself wherein the Brazilian Chargé d’Affaires informed Your Excellency of the withdrawal by Brazil of its observations regarding the Colombian-Peruvian treaty.
There is thus no change whatsoever in the Procès Verbal as signed. The Procès Verbal is itself clear and the covering note merely sets forth what is obvious in the Procès Verbal that the settlement proposed by the Secretary of State is to be accomplished in three steps in the order mentioned.
With reference to Your Excellency’s remarks regarding Mr. Secretary Hughes’ reference to the renewal by the Colombian Minister of his statement made in the meeting on March 4, that his Government will conclude the treaty with Brazil provided for in the third portion of the Secretary of State’s proposal, immediately after the ratification by Peru of the Colombian-Peruvian boundary treaty, I have the honor to reply as follows:
In the Procès Verbal as originally drawn up it was provided as Your Excellency remembers that the Colombian Minister would say that he was authorized by his Government to state that should the treaty of March 24, 1922, between Colombia and Peru be ratified by the Government of Peru the Government of Colombia would conclude immediately thereafter the treaty with Brazil provided for in the third step of the proposal of the Secretary of State. Although this step of the proposal provided for action only by Colombia and Brazil, those Governments agreed, at the request of your Government, to change the words “by the Government of Peru” for the words “by both Governments”.
It is manifest that this change, while it could benefit none of the three Governments concerned, might conceivably cause a delay to the prejudice of Brazil by requiring one extra step, namely the ratification by Colombia of the treaty of March 24, 1922, between Colombia and Peru, before the third step in the Secretary of State’s proposal, which relates only to action by Brazil and Colombia, would [Page 467] be carried out. The Colombian Minister therefore spontaneously addressed a note to the Secretary of State on March 4, before the signing of the Procès Verbal, which made it clear for the benefit of the Brazilian Government, the one principally concerned in this matter, that the Colombian Government would conclude with Brazil the convention stipulated in the third step of the Secretary of State’s proposal immediately upon the ratification by Peru of the boundary treaty between Peru and Colombia signed March 24, 1922. In other words this was an assurance from Colombia to Brazil that although under the changed wording of the Procès Verbal, which was made to meet the desire of your Government, Colombia need not conclude the convention with Brazil until the boundary treaty between Colombia and Peru had been ratified by both those Governments, it would nevertheless do so upon the ratification of that treaty by Peru thus obviating the delay which might occur should the Colombian Congress not then be in session. This was a friendly act on the part of the Colombian Government which, I feel sure you will concur with me, not only does not change the Procès Verbal in any way, especially in so far as Peruvian interests are concerned, but is in the nature of an additional act of comity and friendship beyond the strict requirements of the Procès Verbal.
Your Excellency will thus see that there are no changes in the Procès Verbal which I am glad to feel forms an equitable basis for the settlement of the questions pending between the three countries concerned in the matter of boundaries. As said before the suggestions of my predecessor consist in three steps. The first one has now been complied with and I feel confident that Your Excellency’s Government and the Government of Colombia will very shortly comply with the second and that the Brazilian and Colombian Governments will in due course comply with the third thus definitely disposing of the matter.
Accept [etc.]