714.1515/787
The Minister in Honduras (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 9.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to your telegrams No. 65 of July 20, 1928, No. 68 of July 27 and to previous correspondence, all relative to the Honduran-Guatemalan boundary controversy.
Mr. Bogran has not, I think, represented altogether accurately the opinion in this country of your proposal to submit the dispute to the International Central American Tribunal. Certainly the inclusion of the provision by which the arbitrator would take into consideration the political, economic and commercial interests of both states has not been interpreted by the Government as meaning that the boundary will be decided purely on those considerations, although great objection has been taken by the press to their inclusion at all. There have, however, been certain misunderstandings on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs which I believe I have succeeded in clearing up. At first he raised the objection that a panel of thirty judges could not be obtained because Salvador had failed to ratify the convention. I explained, of course, that the convention was fully in effect among the four states which have ratified it and that there would be a panel of twenty-four judges from which to make a selection of three. He then raised the objection that the Costa Rican panel having been nominated in 1923, the terms of the judges have expired or are about to expire. In reply to this objection, I showed him a copy from the files of the Legation of a note of 1925, from Mr. Aguirre, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, from which it appeared that the Costa Rican panel was named in that year, there being thus two years more before the terms of its individuals expire. This same objection might be made to the Nicaraguan panel, which was nominated in 1923, but Dr. Dávila has not raised the question. The misunderstanding in regard to the date of appointment of the Nicaraguan panel was cleared up before the receipt of your telegram No 68 of July 27, 1 P.M., as the result of the visit to Tegucigalpa last week of Mr. Munro, Secretary of the Legation at Managua, who had informed me of the actual date of the appointment. From these [Page 759] objections of Dr. Dávila it would appear that he is not entirely familiar with the Treaty of 1923, or is deliberately playing for time.
I have not failed on every proper occasion to explain the situation to the President, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to other prominent persons, emphasizing its importance and the great opportunity that is now being offered to Honduras to settle for good and for all, this long standing and vexatious dispute. However, the proposal for arbitration of the question by the International Central American Tribunal is unpopular with all classes and all political parties. Great hopes had been entertained that the matter would be arbitrated by the President of the United States, and when the proposal came to submit it to the Central American Tribunal it was a disappointment. The real reason for the delay of the Government of Honduras in accepting this arbitration, is due, in my opinion, to reluctance to bind the country to a decision, which it does not believe will be a just one. The mistrust of the International Central American Tribunal, or for that matter, any tribunal connected with Central America, is too profound to be uprooted by arguments that the prejudice has no basis in fact. I think even President Paz has doubts whether Honduras would receive justice from the Central American Tribunal. It may be that in time, this feeling can be overcome, and that the country can be brought to see that its legitimate interests will suffer nothing in the hands of the International Central American Tribunal, but the change cannot be effected speedily.
It is unfortunate too, from the viewpoint of conditions in Honduras, that this question should have come to the front during a presidential election year. The politicians naturally seize upon such a fertile subject for propaganda and inflaming appeals to patriotism. The Government will probably be bitterly attacked if the arbitration of the International Central American Tribunal is accepted. This situation tends to make official action timid and added to the fact that the officials themselves feel no enthusiasm for the proposal, offers a reasonable explanation for the fabian tactics of the Foreign Office since the proposal was first received.
Dr. Dávila has taken the stand that, inasmuch as the Foreign Office of Honduras is the central chancellery of the International Central American Tribunal, his Government will not nominate its panel of judges until Guatemala has done so. In any event the Honduran panel cannot become effective until confirmed by the Congress which does not meet until next January.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I have [etc.]