APPENDIX NO. 2.-Distribution of General Communication Channels-Continued

NOTE. The grand total is obtained by adding on 65 channels made available through the application of articles 5 and 6 of the Agreement.

[EXCHANGE OF NOTES]

[Chairman of Canadian Delegation to the Chairman of American

Delegation]

[Telegram]

Ottawa, 1st. February, 1929.

Judge E. O. Sykes,

Federal Radio Commission, Washington, D. C.

In accordance with the undertaking given by the Canadian delegation at the closing session of the Conference on Friday last, I now have the honour to advise that the proposals for the distribution of channels as set forth in detail in appendices Numbers One and Two and graphic chart attached to draft of document headed "Suggestions for an agreement between United States, Canada, Cuba, Mexico and other North American nations relative to the assignment of frequencies on the North American continent", as per copy transmitted to you by Commander Craven, are approved and accepted by the Canadian delegation. stop. The United States delegation, having already by majority vote approved of these proposals as generally outlined at the final session of the Conference, it is our understanding that there but remains for approval the Articles of Agreement as suggested in draft document in question. stop. As soon as we are advised that this is confirmed by the United States delegation and that these Articles of Agreement are approved and accepted by them, the whole may be considered as approved and accepted by the Canadian authorities.

(Signed) A. Johnston.

[The American Minister to the Secretary of State for External Affairs]

No. 314.

OTTAWA, CANADA, February 26, 1929. Sir: With regard to the recent short wave length radio conference at Ottawa, I am instructed by my Government to inform you that it approves the recommendations of the delegates at the conference and will announce the agreement effective March 1, 1929.

I avail myself of the occasion to renew to you, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) William Phillips. The Right Honorable William Lyon Mackenzie King, C. M. G., LL.B., LL.D.,

Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa.

[The Secretary of State for External Affairs to the American

No. 16.

Minister]

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CANADA, Ottawa, 28th February, 1929. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge your Note of February 26th, 1929, regarding the recent Short Wave Radio Conference at Ottawa. It is gratifying to the Government of the Dominion of Canada to learn that the Government of the United States approve the recom

mendations of the delegates at the Conference. The Canadian Government have pleasure in stating that they also accept these recommendations.

It is noted that your Government will announce the agreement effective March 1st, 1929. I have the honour to request that you be good enough to inform them that we will accordingly announce the agreement as effective on the same day.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration, (Signed) O. D. Skelton,

For the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

The Honourable William Phillips,

Minister of the United States of America, United States Legation, Ottawa.

[The Secretary of State for External Affairs to the American

No. 21.

Minister]

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CANADA, Ottawa, 6th March, 1929. Sir, With reference to my Note of February 28th, 1929, regarding the recent Short Wave Radio Conference at Ottawa, I have the honour to state that according to a telegraphic communication received from the Newfoundland delegate, the Government of Newfoundland accept the recommendations of the delegates at the Conference and consider the agreement to be effective as from March 1st, 1929.

Í may add that we have not yet received any information from the Governments of Cuba and Mexico as to their views on the same subject.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. (Signed) O. D. Skelton, For the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

The Honourable William Phillips,

Minister of the United States of America, United States Legation, Ottawa.

[The Secretary of State for External Affairs to the American Chargé d'Affaires ad interim]

No. 23.

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, CANADA, Ottawa, 15th March, 1929. Sir, With reference to my Note of March 6th, 1929, regarding the recent Short Wave Radio Conference at Ottawa, I have the honour to state that, according to a Note received from the Consul General of Cuba, the agreement on this subject is accepted by the Government of the Republic of Cuba.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration, (Signed) O. D. Skelton, For the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Ferdinand L. Mayer, Esquire,

Chargé d'Affaires ad interim, United States Legation, Ottawa.

1933

ANTI-WAR TREATY OF NONAGGRESSION AND CONCILIATION, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OTHER AMERICAN REPUBLICS

Signed at Rio de Janeiro, October 10, 1933; adhered to on behalf of the United States, subject to ratification, April 27, 1934; adherence advised by the Senate of the United States, subject to a reservation, June 15, 1934 (legislative day of June 6, 1934); adherence ratified by the President of the United States, subject to the said reservation, June 27, 1934; instrument of adherence of the United States deposited with the Government of the Argentine Republic, August 10, 1934; proclaimed by the President of the United States, March 11, 1936

(Treaty Series, No. 906; 49 Statutes at Large, 3363)

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas an anti-war treaty of non-aggression and conciliation was signed at Rio de Janeiro on the tenth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, by the respective plenipotentiaries of Argentina, the United States of Brazil, Chile, with a reservation, the United Mexican States, Paraguay, and Uruguay, which Treaty, in the Spanish and Portuguese languages, is word for word as follows:

[Translation]

ANTI-WAR TREATY OF NONAGGRESSION AND CONCILIATION

The states designated below, in the desire to contribute to the consolidation of peace, and to express their adherence to the efforts made by all civilized nations to promote the spirit of universal harmony; To the end of condemning wars of aggression and territorial acquisitions that may be obtained by armed conquest, making them impossible and establishing their invalidity through the positive provisions of this treaty, and in order to replace them with pacific solutions based on lofty concepts of justice and equity;

Convinced that one of the most effective means of assuring the moral and material benefits which peace offers to the world, is the organization of a permanent system of conciliation for international disputes, to be applied immediately on the violation of the principles mentioned;

Have decided to put these aims of nonaggression and concord in conventional form by concluding the present treaty, to which end they have appointed the undersigned plenipotentiaries, who, having exhibited their respective full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE I. The high contracting parties solemnly declare that they condemn wars of aggression in their mutual relations or in those with other states, and that the settlement of disputes or controversies of any kind that may arise among them shall be effected only by the pacific means which have the sanction of international law.

ARTICLE II. They declare that as between the high contracting parties territorial questions must not be settled by violence, and that they will not recognize any territorial arrangement which is not obtained by pacific means, nor the validity of the occupation or acquisition of territories that may be brought about by force of arms.

ARTICLE III. In case of noncompliance, by any state engaged in a dispute, with the obligations contained in the foregoing articles, the contracting states undertake to make every effort for the maintenance of peace. To that end they will adopt in their character as neutrals a common and solidary attitude; they will exercise the political, juridical, or economic means authorized by international law; they will bring the influence of public opinion to bear, but will in no case resort to intervention, either diplomatic or armed; subject to the attitude that may be incumbent on them by virtue of other collective treaties to which such states are signatories.

ARTICLE IV. The high contracting parties obligate themselves to submit to the conciliation procedure established by this treaty the disputes specially mentioned and any others that may arise in their reciprocal relations, without further limitations than those enumerated in the following article, in all controversies which it has not been possible to settle by diplomatic means within a reasonable period of time.

ARTICLE V. The high contracting parties and the states which may in the future adhere to this treaty may not formulate, at the time of signature, ratification, or adherence, other limitations to the conciliation procedure than those which are indicated below:

(a) Differences for the solution of which treaties, conventions, pacts, or pacific agreements of any kind whatever may have been concluded, which in no case shall be considered as annulled by this agreement, but supplemented thereby insofar as they tend to assure peace; as well as the questions or matters settled by previous treaties;

(b) Disputes which the parties prefer to solve by direct settlement or submit by common agreement to an arbitral or judicial solution; (c) Questions which international law leaves to the exclusive competence of each state, under its constitutional system, for which reason the parties may object to their being submitted to the conciliation procedure before the national or local jurisdiction has decided definitively; except in the case of manifest denial or delay of justice, in which case the conciliation procedure shall be initiated within a year at the latest;

(d) Matters which affect constitutional precepts of the parties to the controversy. In case of doubt, each party shall obtain the reasoned opinion of its respective tribunal or supreme court of justice, if the latter should be invested with such powers.

The high contracting parties may communicate, at any time and in the manner provided for by article XV, an instrument stating that they have abandoned wholly or in part the limitations established by them in the conciliation procedure.

The effect of the limitations formulated by one of the contracting parties shall be that the other parties shall not consider themselves obligated in regard to that party save in the measure of the exceptions established.

ARTICLE VI. In the absence of a permanent conciliation commission or of some other international organization charged with this mission by virtue of previous treaties in effect, the high contracting