ARTICLE I. Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to the interpretation of treaties existing between the two contracting parties, and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the permanent court of arbitration established at The Hague by the convention of the 29th July, 1899, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, and maintained by The Hague Convention of the 18th October, 1907; provided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern the interests of third parties. ARTICLE II. In each individual case the high contracting parties, before appealing to the permanent court of arbitration, shall conclude a special agreement, defining clearly the matter in dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the periods to be fixed for the formation of the arbitral tribunal and the several stages of the procedure. It is understood that on the part of the United States such special agreements will be made by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and on the part of Ecuador shall be subject to the procedure required by the constitution and laws thereof. ARTICLE III. The present convention is concluded for a period of five years and shall remain in force thereafter until one year's notice of termination shall be given by either party. ARTICLE IV. The present convention shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and by the President of Ecuador in accordance with the constitution and laws thereof. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible, and the convention shall take effect on the date of the exchange of its ratifications. Done in duplicate, in the English and Spanish languages, at Washington, this seventh day of January, in the year one thousand nine hundred and nine. ELIHU ROOT. [SEAL.] And whereas the said convention has been duly ratified on both parts, and the ratifications of the two Governments were exchanged in the city of Washington, on the twenty-second day of June, one thousand nine hundred and ten. Now, therefore, be it known that I, William Howard Taft, President of the United States of America, have caused the said convention to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this twenty-third day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ten [SEAL.] and of the independence of the United States of America the one hundred and thirty-fourth. By the President: P. C. KNOX, Secretary of State. WM. H. TAFT. BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU-MEDIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARGENTINA, AND BRAZIL. No. 324.] Chargé Cresson to the Secretary of State. [Extract.] AMERICAN LEGATION, SIR: I have the honor to report, continuing the observations made in my dispatch No. 3221 that while public opinion here remains generally undisturbed as regards the outcome of the Spanish arbitration of the frontier questions pending between Peru and Ecuador, at the same time active preparations by the Peruvian Government are becoming daily more evident with a view to meeting any possible hostile move on the part of the other Government interested. I attribute the markedly calm and judicious attitude of the the Peruvian press, and indeed the tone of the public in general, to the growing conviction that the rumored line of the Spanish award, as reported from Madrid, and published in the newspapers of both countries, is very nearly-if not exactly the delineation already chosen by the King of Spain. Such a decision would be eminently favorable to Peruvian pretensions, and a distinct gain of territory as compared with the provisions of the Garcia-Herrera treaty. I also annex with the above a curiously exaggerated version of the same conditions published in Ecuador and reproduced here as tending to show the manner in which public opinion in Ecuador is being aroused against such a verdict as the one expected. I would remind the department that the line of the Garcia-Herrera treaty, adopted under especially favorable conditions in 1893 (under the terms of the Bonifaz-Espinoza Convention of 1887), is a line of demarcation which was intended as a compromise between the pretensions of the two countries. This treaty was ratified in 1891 by the Ecuadorian Congress, but the Peruvian Congress, following the report of a diplomatic commission, introduced several important modifications. The executive branch of the Government, declaring this act to be unconstitutional, the matter remained in abeyance till 1893 when the decision of the legislative branch to maintain its pretensions very nearly brought about a conflict with the Ecuadorian Government. Not printed. It will be remembered that the Peruvian minister for foreign affairs during his term of office called the attention of the Peruvian Congress to the fact that on the 1 th of August, 19 5, a secret treaty was signed between Colombia and Ecuador, mutually guaranteeing the integrity of the territory of both countries. It would seem evident in case of a serious difference with a third party over territory so intimately affecting both Republics, that such a treaty might be called upon to play a considerable rôle. In spite of the somewhat apathetic state of public opinion noted above, in view of the warlike preparations daily reported from Ecuador, the Peruvian Government is unquestionably making extraordinary preparations to meet any emergency. I have, etc., WM. PENN CRESSON, No. 68.] Chargé Pierrepont to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, Santiago, March 8, 1910. SIR: Referring to my cable of March 6, 12 noon,' in which I spoke of the order expelling the Peruvian curates from Tacna within 48 hours, I have the honor to inclose several newspaper clippings, with translations, from El Mercurio, the Government organ, explaining the action, and from the La Union, the Church paper, in which the action of the Government is attacked. Several other clippings on the same subject are included among the general clippings for which there is no covering dispatch. The affair is arousing so much discussion that it seems proper for me to bring it to your attention in a dispatch, though the newspapers give a clear account. According to the laws of Chile all priests throughout the Republic, upon being named to exercise their functions in a parish, must obtain the constitutional "pase" or permit from the President of the Republic, before proceeding to carry on their ministry. Some months ago the Chilean authorities, outraged because the Peruvian bishop of Arequipa, who still governs the Church in Tacna, would not recognize Chilean priests there, in spite of the fact that priests of other nationalities, in addition to the Peruvian, were recognized, asked the Peruvian priests if they had ever sought the permit required by Chilean law. Upon receiving a negative reply the Chilean Government closed the parochial churches in Tacna, and forbade the said curates. to continue in the exercise of their functions without the necessary constitutional "pase." Nothing daunted, the Peruvian curates proceeded to minister the sacraments in private dwellings and other places, still unauthorized by the President and in direct opposition to the prohibition of the Chilean authorities; and still the Bishop of Arequipa refused to recognize the Chilean priests. Thus the order of March 3, issued by the intendente of Tacna, expelling the said curates within 48 hours was provoked. The minister of foreign affairs says that in thus exercising their functions contrary to the law the priests, according to articles 213 1 Not printed. and 214 of the Codigo de Procedimiento Civil, rendered themselves liable to imprisonment. "Not wishing to treat them too harshly," to quote his own words, "we are sending them back to their own country certainly not a hardship-instead of putting them in prison." The day following the order the internuncio protested to the minister of foreign affairs. The outcome of their interview was an order extending the period 48 hours, in which time the internucio was to try to persuade the bishop of Arequipa to recognize the Chilean priests. The view of the minister of foreign affairs is that as the treaty of Ancon put Tacna and Arica under the Chilean law and the constitution of Chile, it is the first duty of the Government to see that the constitution be not violated. He says also that Chile does not object so much to the Peruvian curates, but that she will not stand having them receive privileges in territory under Chilean control which are denied to the Chileans themselves. He added that if the bishop should recognize the Chilean priests the Government would probably not insist on the expulsion of the Peruvians, but that if the internuncio should fail in this mission he also might have to leave. This last, of course, was in confidence, but it shows the extent to which his wrath has been aroused. The extended period of time came to an end yesterday. As I am closing this dispatch I learn that the internuncio has failed; that the bishop of Arequipa still refuses to license Chilean priests in Tacna; and that, if the Chilean local authorities in that Province obeyed their orders, the Peruvian priests should have departed yesterday. As yet we have not heard of their actual departure, but judging from the firmness of the Government in this matter there is no doubt but that the order was strictly enforced. You will of course hear from Peru how the affair is regarded there. Even here there is considerable comment, and I fear this aggressive policy on the part of Chile will not help to bring about a settlement of the long standing irritating question of Tacna and Arica. I have, etc., SETH L. PIERREPONT. The Secretary of State to Chargé Cresson. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 24, 1910. The following is being sent for action by the diplomatic representatives of the United States, at Lima, Quito, Santiago, Petropolis, and Buenos Aires. Hand the following textually to the minister for foreign affairs of the Government to which you are accredited: The Representatives at Washington of Peru and Ecuador having requested on behalf of their Governments that the United States consider whether it could not take some action toward an amicable settlement of the existing strain between them on account of the apprehension regarding the award of the King of Spain on the boundary dispute, and the Government of Eucador, having made such representations also, through the legation of the United States at Quito, the Secretary of State makes in reply the following statement: The present apprehensions appear based upon unauthenticated theories as to what the award may be. The United States sees in the situation no elements of danger which should not at once disappear if the two Governments immediately concerned, heeding the wise counsels of their friends and the dictates of their real interests, approached the subject in a calm and conciliatory spirit. It might suggest itself to the two Governments that, upon mutual assurances of a sincere adherence to this attitude, they should instruct their respective representatives at Washington, or at some equally disinterested American capital, to discuss the question under the auspices of the Government at such capital, and, if able to find a common ground for diplomatic adjustment of the question, that they should request such third Government to inform the King of Spain that happily they had reached a situation where they would like once more to attempt a direct settlement by amicable negotiation and to request His Majesty, therefore, to withhold the award pending the result of these negotiations. KNOX. Minister Fox to the Secretary of State. [Telegram.] AMERICAN LEGATION, Quito, March 31, 1910. Department's March 24. In extended conference with the President of Ecuador this morning he expressed himself as very much pleased with the proposition of United States, which he accepted, saying that it was salvation of peace. A meeting of the cabinet this afternoon will make formal declaration, when I will be able to convey information officially to the department. In the meantime Ecuador has made direct proposition to Peru to accept Menendez Pidal line as compromise. Prompt answer from Peru expected. The President of Ecuador does not think, however, that it will be favorable. Minister Fox to the Secretary of State. Fox. [Telegram.] AMERICAN LEGATION, Quito, April 1, 1910. Following is translation of the note received from minister for foreign affairs, April 1:1 No. 605.] Minister Fox to the Secretary of State. Fox. AMERICAN LEGATION, SIR: I have the honor, in further reference to department's cablegraphic instructions of March 24 and my reply thereto of April 1, to inclose herewith copies of notes exchanged between this legation and the minister for foreign relations upon the subject of the adjustment of the boundary line between the Republics of Ecuador and Peru. I have, etc., WILLIAMS C. Fox. 1See following dispatch. |