« AnteriorContinuar »
and 10 below. They shall not be approved, however, until they have been communicated to the officials of the other sections, who shall have a period of one month within which to present, on their account, such observations as they shall judge useful.
The construction shall be under the management of, acceptance of work shall be passed upon by, and putting it into service authorized by:
The state engineers of France and Spain, in the French and Spanish sections, respectively;
The special tax officials, or, in case this service is discontinued, the officials to whom their duties are transferred, in the Tangier-and-vicinity section.
ARTICLE 10 Operation shall be assured upon the entire line in conformity with the regulations established by Article 6, paragraph 3 of the FrancoGerman treaty of November 4, 1911.
It shall be policed according to the laws and regulations of each state, by the French and Spanish Governments in their respective sections, and by the authority qualified for this purpose in the Tangier-andvicinity section.
Each section shall be under the management of the same official as supervised the construction, it being understood that the Tangierine management shall, especially at the terminus at Tangier, prescribe such measures as shall be considered useful to the proper working of the line as a whole, and see to their execution.
The French and Spanish Governments and the Tangierine authority qualified for this purpose, shall approve respectively the rates applying exclusively to the French, Spanish and Tangier-and-vicinity sections; rates which apply to two or all three of the sections of the line shall be approved by each of the interested zonal governments.
In case the concessionary company, either during the period of construction, or after the beginning of its operation, should fail to fulfil any one of the essential obligations of its contract, a legal demand shall be made upon it to fulfil these obligations within a stated period, which shall not be less than one month or more than three. If it fail to comply with this legal demand, its rights shall be forfeited. The legal demand may be made and the forfeiture declared by the French and Spanish Governments as to that section of the line which is situated in its territory, with the reservation that each give notice of same to the other.
If forfeiture is declared at one and the same time as to both the French and Spanish sections, it shall include ipso facto and of full right the Tangier-and-vicinity section.
Each of the two governments (French and Spanish) reserves the right to proceed at any time after the entire line has been put into operation to the redemption of the section of the said line situated in its own territory, the price of redemption being calculated upon the basis which shall be fixed by the act of concession.
In this case, it shall, three months in advance, give notice of its intentions to both the other government and the Tangierine authority, so that measures applying to the operation of both the redeemed and unredeemed sections of the line, thus made distinct, may be drawn up by mutual agreement.
Whichever of the two governments shall make use of its right to redeem, must either itself assume the management of the redeemed section, or reconvey the concession only to a company of its own nationality.
France and Spain agree to take all necessary steps in order that the concession of the Tangier-and-vicinity section may be either granted by the Tangierine authority at the same time as the French and Spanish concessions, if the said authority is, at that time, constituted; or accepted by that authority immediately after it is constituted, if in the meantime the concession shall have been granted by the two governments in conformity with the last paragraph of Article 2.
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS
The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State
Washington, February 27, 1913. Sir:
His Majesty's Government are unable before the administration leaves office to reply fully to the arguments contained in your despatch of the 17th ultimo to the United States Charge d'Affaires at London regarding the difference of opinion that has arisen between our two governments as to the interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, but they desire me in the meantime to offer the following observations with regard to the argument that no case has yet arisen calling for any submission to arbitration of the points in difference between His Majesty's Government and that of the United States on the interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, because no actual injury has as yet resulted to any British interest and all that has been done so far is to pass an Act of Congress under which action held by His Majesty's Government to be prejudicial to British interests might be taken.
From this view His Majesty's Government feel bound to express their dissent. They conceive that international law or usage does not support the doctrine that the passing of a statute in contravention of a treaty right affords no ground of complaint for the infraction of that right, and that the nation which holds that its treaty rights have been so infringed or brought into question by a denial that they exist, must, before protesting and seeking a means of determining the point at issue, wait until some further action violating those rights in a concrete instance has been taken, which in the present instance would, according to your argument, seem to mean, until tolls have been actually levied upon British vessels from which vessels owned by citizens of the United States have been exempted.
The terms of the proclamation issued by the President fixing the Canal tolls, and the particular method which your note sets forth as having been adopted by him, in his discretion, on a given occasion for determining on what basis they should be fixed do not appear to His Majesty's Government to affect the general issue as to the meaning of the HayPauncefote Treaty which they have raised. In their view the Act of Congress, when it declared that no tolls should be levied on ships engaged in the coasting trade of the United States and when, in further directing the President to fix those tolls within certain limits, it distinguished between vessels of the citizens of the United States and other vessels, was in itself and apart from any action which may be taken under it, inconsistent with the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty for equality of treatment between the vessels of all nations. The exemption referred to appears to His Majesty's Government to conflict with the express words of Rule I of Article 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, and the Act gave the President no power to modify or discontinue the exemption.
In their opinion the mere conferring by Congress of power to fix lower tolls on United States ships than on British ships amounts to a denial of the right of British shipping to equality of treatment, and is therefore inconsistent with the treaty irrespective of the particular way in which such power has been so far actually exercised.
In stating thus briefly their view of the compatibility of the Act of Congress with their treaty rights His Majesty's Government hold that the difference which exists between the two governments is clearly one which falls within the meaning of Article I of the arbitration treaty of 1908.
As respects the suggestion contained in the last paragraph but one of your note under reply His Majesty's Government conceive that Article I of the treaty of 1908 so clearly meets the case that has now arisen that it is sufficient to put its provisions in force in whatever manner the two governments may find the most convenient. It is unnecessary to repeat that a reference to arbitration would be rendered superfluous if steps were taken by the United States Government to remove the objection entertained by His Majesty's Government to the Act.
His Majesty's Government have not desired me to argue in this note that the view they take of the main issue-the proper interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty—is the correct view, but only that a case for the determination of that issue has already arisen and now exists. They conceive that the interest of both countries requires that issue to be settled promptly before the opening of the Canal, and by means which will leave no ground for regret or complaint. The avoidance of possible friction has been one of the main objects of those methods of arbitration of which the United States has been for so long a foremost and consistent advocate. His Majesty's Government think it more in accordance with the general arbitration treaty that the settlement desired should precede rather than follow the doing of any acts, which could raise questions of actual damage suffered; and better also that when vessels begin to pass through the great waterway in whose construction all the world has been interested there should be left subsisting no cause of difference which could prevent any other nation from joining without reserve in the satisfaction the people of the United States will feel at the completion of a work of such grandeur and utility. I have, etc.,
TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION BETWEEN BELGIUM
AND THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS
Signed at Guatemala City, March 25, 1909; ratifications exchanged Au
gust 20, 1910
His Majesty, the King of the Belgians, and His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Honduras, inspired equally with the desire to maintain the cordial relations existing between Belgium and Honduras, to strengthen if possible their bonds of friendship and to facilitate and to extend the relations of commerce and navigation between their respective states, have resolved to conclude a treaty to that effect, and have named as their plenipotentiaries, to wit:
His Majesty, the King of the Belgians, Mr. Edward Pollet, Officer of the Order of Leopold, etc., Minister Resident in Guatemala; and
His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Honduras, Dr. Manuel J. Barahona, Chargé d'affaires to Guatemala;
Who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:
There shall be perpetual peace and permanent friendship between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Republic of Honduras, and between the citizens of the two countries, with no reservations as to persons or places.
1 Translated from Le Memorial Diplomatique, October 23-30, 1910, p. 567.