Government has reached the conclusion that the arguments advanced in this communication have already been fully answered in previous notes addressed by the Government of the United States to the Government of Panama. It is greatly regretted that it has proved to be impossible for the Governments of Panama and Costa Rica to come to a direct agreement for the delimitation of that portion of the boundary between the two Republics laid down by the White Award. In view of the fact that the Government of Panama appears unwilling to carry out this delimitation in the manner provided in the Porras-Anderson Convention, and inasmuch as a reasonable time, mentioned in the note of this Government dated May 2, 1921,18 for the reaching of an agreement as to the manner of carrying out this delimitation, has already been afforded, there would seem to be no reason why the Government of the United States should, as the friendly mediator between the two Governments, or by virtue of its special relations to the Government of Panama, feel compelled to suggest to the Government of Costa Rica that it delay longer taking jurisdiction over the territory which is now occupied by Panama and which was adjudged to belong to Costa Rica by the terms of the Loubet Award. "The Government of the United States is now advised by the Government of Costa Rica that since it considers that the PorrasAnderson Convention is in force, and since it believes that there is no valid reason for delaying its complete execution any longer, it is ready to assume immediately the jurisdiction over the territory above referred to." 18.1915/550: Telegram HUGHES The Secretary of State to the Minister in Panama (Price) WASHINGTON, August 22, 1921-2 p.m. 19 65. Your 132, August 20, 10 p.m.19 In reply to memorandum you are instructed to hand the following memorandum to the Government of Panama. "The Government of the United States has received the memorandum addressed by the Government of Panama on August 20, to the American Minister in Panama, making an inquiry with regard to the note transmitted by the American Government through the American Minister at Panama, dated the 19th instant. In the memorandum the Government of Panama states that it feels the Department's note can be construed as meaning that the United States has stepped aside in the Panama-Costa Rica conflict and will allow hostilities to be reopened and points out that the reopening of hostilities would be contrary to the notification made by the Department under date of its telegram of April 16, 1921.a1 See telegram no. 38, Apr. 27, to the Minister in Panama, p. 207. Not printed; it contained memorandum of Aug. 20 from the Panaman Minter of Foreign Affairs in reply to note of Aug. 19 transmitted in telegram no. Aug. 18, to the Minister in Panama, supra. "Not printed. In answer, the Department wishes to point out that through the reference in its last note to the note of this Government of May 2, this Government meant to indicate that its present attitude towards Panama and Costa Rica is the same as that announced in the note of May 2, in which it was clearly stated that if, upon the expiration of a reasonable time the steps indicated in that note had not been taken 'the Government of the United States will find itself compelled to proceed in the manner which may be requisite in order that it may assure itself that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriately transferred'. “ In view of the fact that the United States as friendly mediator regards as just the claims of Costa Rica to the lawful possession of the territory on the Pacific awarded to her by President Loubet it cannot, because of its special treaty relations to Panama, permit a renewal of hostilities by Panama against Costa Rica by reason of Costa Rica's now taking peaceful possession of that territory." HUGHES 718.1915/555: Telegram The Minister in Panama (Price) to the Secretary of State PANAMA, August 23, 1921—noon. 134. Department's instruction 65 received this morning. Memorandum delivered. Panaman Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that there will be no further resistance to Costa Rica's taking posses sion, and that their present intention is to recall at once Corregidor and policemen from Coto so there will be no occasion for friction when Costa Ricans arrive. PRICE #92. Panamanian Proposals for the Negotiation of a New Treaty: Minister Alfaro to the Secretary of State, April 2, 1921* 811 f 244/50 The Panaman Secretary of Government and Justice on Special Mission (Alfaro) to the Secretary of State3 [Translation ❝] WASHINGTON, April 2, 1921. EXCELLENCY: In compliance with instructions received from my Government for the discharge of the special mission with which I am entrusted, I have the honor to lay before the Department of State for its enlightened consideration, various matters to which I desire to call the special attention of the American Government, as their satisfactory settlement is of vital importance to the Republic of Panama. These have their origin in the special relations created by the project of the Canal and the treaty of November 18, 1903, concluded for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a canal to unite the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The circumstance that the said treaty was concluded 15 days after the proclamation of the separation of Panama, and the urgent necessity that it be signed without delay by the two countries, explains why such a document contains articles, some of which are vague, some too broad, some inconsistent, and which, applied as interpreted by the American authorities of the Isthmus, impart to that covenant a unilateral and oppressive character which it is impossible to admit was the mature thought or deliberate intent of the two signatory countries. The application of several of these articles has given rise to constant controversies between the two countries because the Republic of Panama considers itself seriously menaced in its economic, commercial, civil and even international life by the manner in which the treaty is now applied and interpreted by the American authorities of the Isthmus. Panama, therefore, in opposing such interpretations is fighting for her very life. And, inasmuch as the United States not only cannot do us injury through the application of the treaty as Panama interprets it, but has on many occasions manifested its intention not to do us any injury or in any way hinder Foreign Relations of the United States, 1922, Vol. II, pp. 751-761. 'Left at the Department on April 4 by Señor Alfaro. File translation revised. 8 For text of treaty, see Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 543, our development and prosperity, the Government of Panama considers that the time has come frankly to express its grounds of complaint and its wishes for the purpose of reaching with the United States an understanding that may once for all define the extent of the rights and obligations flowing from the treaty. All these differences are briefly enumerated in this memorandum. They show that the treaty in its present form is open to more or less conflicting and absurd interpretations and allegations and the two countries ought to be earnestly interested in removing those causes of disagreement. The Panaman Government proposes one of two measures: 1. The concluding of a new treaty amending or explaining that of November 18, 1903, and in which would be included all the clauses that facilitate the use and defense of the Canal that is now built. 2. The signing of a protocol in which by way of explanation, the juridical scope of each of the articles of the Canal treaty, about which there are divergent interpretations, shall be fixed. Those questions are as follows: One of the articles that has given rise to the greatest difficulties is that relative to the grant of lands and waters which Panama bound herself to make to the United States for the construction; maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the Canal, which grant is dealt with in article II of the treaty. The authorities of the Panama Canal maintain the theory that they can take and occupy immediately any area of the territory of the Republic and place it under the jurisdiction of the United States without any more formality than a notice to the Panaman Government that they have taken that area as being necessary for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation or protection of the Canal. The most recent example of that doctrine is the taking of an area of land in Las Minas Bay, which caused a formal protest from the Government of Panama, presented in a note of the Legation dated the 24th of January of this year and is now under the consideration of the Department of State, according to Under Secretary Norman H. Davis' note of February 12, last.' Panama cannot accept such an interpretation, since it would be tantamount to placing in the hands of foreign authorities the absolute power of destroying the existence of the State. That could be done by simply declaring that the whole Panaman territory from the boundaries of the present Canal Zone to the Colombia and Costa Rica borders, is necessary for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the Canal, and the Republic of Panama would no longer exist. Such an interpretation is unac'Ibid., 1921, vol. п, р. 616. 'Ibid., p. 619. 96-673 - 77-49 ceptable and never could be intended by the contracting parties, because it cannot be conceived that a treaty should contemplate in one of its articles the possibility of the juridical death of a nation whose independence and sovereignty are guaranteed by the United States in another article, namely, the first of the same treaty. II. NECESSITY OF DETERMINING WHAT LAND IS NEEDED FOR THE CANAL But this is not all. There is also something else that is likewise essential to the life of the Republic, and that is the necessity of divesting article II of the indefinite and all embracing character with which some officials desire to clothe it. Article II of the treaty granted to the United States, as has been remarked above, the right to acquire certain lands in the Republic of Panama, in addition to those which formed the ten-mile strip described in the same article; but that was provided in case the grants which comprised the said strip proved insufficient for the work of construction, sanitation, and operation of the undertaking that was to be begun in 1904. From that year to date, the United States has received or taken without any compensation whatever to the Republic of Panama, the following additional areas outside the Canal Zone: 1. The land needed for the formation of Gatún Lake to the level of 87 feet above the level of the sea, the lake now covering 167 square miles; 2. The land needed to raise the same lake up to 100 feet above the level of the sea; 3. The former Chagres land commonly known as Fort Lorenzo; 4. The Paitilla land near the City of Panama measuring 50 hectares; 5. The Island of Largo Remo in Las Minas Bay measuring 220 hectares; 6. 14.95 hectares on the Island of Taboga; 7. 125 hectares in Las Minas Bay east of Colon. The Canal work being completed and the tracts of land sought for that purpose having already been delivered, that concession is now terminated and complied with in fact. Yet some of the authorities of the Canal, who believe that they are dealing with an indefinite and permanent concession, do not seem to understand it so, an attitude which is not just and, furthermore, is inconsistent with the guarantee of independence as given in article I of the same treaty. That interpretation is damaging to the interests of the Republic of Panama, because it places upon all, absolutely all, the lands and properties of the Republic the burden of sudden condemnation without previous indemnity. This checks and paralyzes the development of industry and agriculture, especially near the Canal, owing to the |