in Haiti and in the Dominican Republic, in which you are good enough to inform me that the American Ministers at Santo Domingo and at Port au Prince respectively have been instructed by cable in accordance with the request of my Government and have been authorized to issue passports to Chinese citizens for countries other than the United States.1

One of the purposes for which Chinese citizens in Haiti and in the Dominican Republic will apply for passports is to enable them to leave the country and return to China, and the usual route for them to go to China is through the United States. I understand these instructions, therefore, to mean that the privilege of transit through the United States to China, which Chinese citizens from Haiti and the Dominican Republic have hitherto enjoyed, is not affected by these instructions, but that passports issued by the American ministers and consuls in those countries can not be used in lieu of Section 6 certificates for coming to and remaining in the United States.

I shall be obliged if you will be so kind as to inform me if this understanding is correct, and, should it be correct, to consider the advisability of issuing supplementary instructions to the American Ministers at Santo Domingo and at Port au Prince with a view to the preclusion of any possible doubt on the point.

Accept [etc.]

VI KYUIN WELLINGTON KOO

File No. 704.9339/5

The Minister in the Dominican Republic (Russell) to the Secretary of State

No. 354

SANTO DOMINGO, June 19, 1918. SIR: Referring to my telegram of May 30, 8 a. m., and to the Department's reply thereto of June 4, 6 p. m.. I have the honor to report that I requested and obtained from the Military Government. permission for the diplomatic and consular representatives of the United States in this Republic to take charge of Chinese interests and issue passports to Chinese citizens.

I have [etc.]

File No. 704.9339/4

WILLIAM W. RUSSELL

The Minister in Haiti (Blanchard) to the Secretary of State

[Telegram]

PORT AU PRINCE, June 25, 1918, 3 p. m. Department's June 4, 6 p. m., and June 13, 4 p. m.2 Desired permission granted. I am instructing consuls.

BLANCHARD

'Not printed.

'See note 1 on the preceding page.

File No. 704.9339/6

The Secretary of State to the Chinese Minister (Koo) No. 80

WASHINGTON, August 14, 1918. SIR Referring to your note of June 15, 1918, respecting the transit through the United States of Chinese citizens from Haiti and the Dominican Republic who are en route to China, I have the honor to inform you that the Department is in receipt of a communication from the Secretary of Labor stating that his Department has made no changes in the regulations respecting the transit of Chinese citizens, regardless of their point of entry and departure, or the place of their last residence and destination.

Accept [etc.]

For the Secretary of State:
WILLIAM PHILLIPS

ECUADOR

CLAIMS OF THE GUAYAQUIL & QUITO RAILWAY CO. AGAINST ECUADOR1

Resumption of Payment of Interest on Bonds

File No. 422.11G93/944

The Minister in Ecuador (Hartman) to the Secretary of State

No. 263

QUITO, January 2, 1918. SIR: Referring to the Department's telegram of November 26, 1917, 5 p. m., relating to the failure of the Ecuadoran Government to make deposits for railway bonds, I have the honor to inform the Department that, on November 30, I prepared and delivered in person a note to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, wherein I set out textually that portion of the Department's telegram directed to be so delivered, and at the same time, in further compliance with such telegraphic instructions, I orally emphasized the gravity with which the Government of the United States views the situation into which Ecuador has allowed the disregard of her obligations to bring the relations of the two Governments. I further informed the Minister that the Government of the United States can not allow the annihilation and destruction of this legitimate and important American enterprise.

To this, the Minister replied that he would bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of the Interior, and that an answer would be forthcoming within two weeks. Thus far, no answer has been received.

In view of the recent action of the Government of Ecuador in severing relations with Germany, and the conditions growing out of the Mueller incident, and the internment of the escaped German officers, I have thought it advisable not to press the Ecuadoran Government for speedy answer, until so instructed by the Department. I have [etc.] CHAS. A. HARTMAN

File No. 422.11G93/945

The Minister in Ecuador (Hartman) to the Secretary of State

No. 274

QUITO, January 22, 1918. SIR: I have the honor to enclose herewith triplicate copies, together with translation, of note No. 1, of January 11, 1918, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in reply to my note No. 254, dated November 30, 1917, wherein I transmitted textually to the Government of Ecuador, as directed, a certain portion of Department's

'Continued from Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 730-47. 'Op. cit., p. 746.

91114°-30 33

401

telegram of November 26, 1927, 5 p. m., relating to the failure of Ecuador to comply with its obligations growing out of its contractual relations with the Guayaquil & Quito Railway Co.

In the last paragraph, on page 2 of enclosure No. 2, the Department will observe that the Minister for Foreign Affairs does not make complete answer to Department's said telegram, but says that he has "transmitted to the Ministries of Public Works and the Treasury the pertinent parts of Your Excellency's communication for their reply."

I have no opinion as to when they will reply, but, judging from previous experience, it will probably be in the distant future.

I have not answered this note, deeming it proper to be submitted to the Department for further instructions, which I respectfully

await.

I have [etc.]

[Enclosure-Translation]

CHAS. S. HARTMAN

The Ecuadoran Minister of Foreign Affairs (Tobar y Borgoño) to the Minister in Ecuador (Hartman)

QUITO, January 11, 1918. MR. MINISTER: I beg to refer to Your Excellency's note, No. 254, dated November 30, in which, by order of the American Government, you are pleased to quote me a telegram received by you from the Department of State, relative to the refutation of statements made by me in my note of February 28, of last year, addressed to the Legation worthily directed by your excellency. Whereas, reads the telegram referred to, the original contract of 1897 between the Government of Ecuador and the Guayaquil & Quito Railway Co. provides that the difficulties that might arise between the two parties should be a matter of diplomatic concern, of sufficient importance to be settled by arbitrators appointed by the Presidents of Ecuador and the United States; and, whereas the arbitration contract of 1908 rendered valid that agreement by giving it the legal status of an award, which has been repeatedly transgressed by Ecuador, the Government of which seems to have the intention of violating it afresh; whereas the daily allotments to be set aside from the customs' receipts, in accordance with the agreement of 1908, have been neglected; and, finally, taking into consideration the failure of the two attempts at arbitration in 1913 and 1914, it must be admitted that there has resulted a ease of denial of justice. The Government of the United States, the telegram goes on to say, sees nothing in the said note of February 28 to give reason for any change whatever in its attitude; for years it has pointed out repeatedly in an explicit manner to the Ecuadoran Government its intention to exercise its rights by the interposition of diplomatic influence to protect the American interests of the Guayaquil & Quito Railway Co. The telegram ends by admonishing the Government of Ecuador to collect the deposits in accordance with the arbitration contract, and demanding that it shall name an early date for said collection.

The communication to which I hereby reply may thus be reduced to two points: the one being an exposition of the American Government's opinion to the effect that the affairs of the Guayaquil & Quito Railway Co. show cause for diplomatic intervention, since such action was authorized from the beginning by assigning to the Presidents of Ecuador and the United States their part in the arbitration tribunal, and because there has been a denial of justice; the other part relates to the interpretation and fulfilment of the contracts of the Ecuadoran Government with the said company.

Your excellency will pardon me for not replying to the second part; for, as I have had occasion to state at other times, it is not within the province of the Department under my charge to reply thereto. I have transmitted to the Ministries of Public Works and the Treasury the pertinent parts of your excellency's communication, for their reply.

With respect to the first point, namely, the question of legalizing diplomatic intervention, I regret not to be able to agree with the communication to which I reply.

Your excellency, quoting the telegram from the Department of State, says that the original contract of 1897 provides that the differences that should arise between Ecuador and the company must have been of sufficient importance in the opinion of the contracting parties to be settled by arbitrators appointed by the Presidents of Ecuador and the United States, and that, hence, it is shown that in said contract diplomatic intervention was admitted. Clause 27 of the said original contract does, indeed, provide that the controversies or disagreements that might arise between the two contracting parties should be settled by the President of Ecuador and the President of the United States, or by the arbitrators they themselves might appoint; and that clause has been allowed to stand in the subsequent reformatory contracts; but, is it possible to deduce from that fact the legality of diplomatic intervention? No, by no means. The arbitrators are the persons of the Presidents; that is to say that at the present moment they are Doctor Baquerizo and Mr. Wilson, just as they were Mr. Taft and Mr. Plaza, and as previously they might have been Mr. Alfaro and Mr. Roosevelt. If, in the contract, Presidents are spoken of, it is because the persons who were to fill those offices could not have been designated by name, since it was not known who they might be at the time when the parties might have to appeal to them. If the Presidents were designated as arbitrators, or to appoint the arbitrators, it was not because of any intention of bringing about the intervention of diplomatic machinery; but thereby was sought only wisdom and justice, by the selection of judges who, on account of their high political position, would be a guaranty of that wisdom and justice, both in respect of the award and of the selection of the persons who were finally to render it. Had there been any other thought in mind, it is very certain it would have been stated that it should belong to the two Governments to make the appointment. Hence I think there could be no room, in any way, for accepting diplomatic intervention on the part of the American Government founded on the fact that the two Presidents, or those who may be appointed by them, are the arbitrators. I can not comprehend on what the affirmation can be founded that the contracting parties in 1897 wished to put in movement the machinery of diplomacy by the wording of that clause. The arbitrator appointed by one of the Presidents should act in a diplomatic character if he represented his country in the exercise of his functions as arbitrator, or if at least he represented the supreme authority; but the arbitrators, in the present case, represent neither Ecuador nor the United States, nor the persons of the heads of the two Republics, whose only attribution is that of making the appointments. The arbitrators, in this case, as in every other, are nothing more than judges who are to exercise the functions of such, whether in accordance with law or equity-judges, who, once appointed, do not represent those who appointed them; nor are they to pronounce sentence in representation thereof. Therefore, the participation of the Presidents is no more than a procedure to bring about the designation of the judges, who, once designated, cause the participation of those who elected them to cease. Moreover, supposing the Presidents should have chosen to settle the disagreements themselves, they would do so, not as Presidents, but as judges, there being simply the concurrence of the two offices in their persons: that of the head of State in their own country, and that of arbitrator in this suit.

And that this has been the stand constantly maintained by the Ecuadoran Government, I have no need of reminding your excellency. Dr. José Peralta, Minister of Foreign Relations at the time, stated to the American Legation on June 1, 1911, that, as Article 23 of the Constitution sets forth clearly that all contracts entered into by foreigners with Ecuador carry with them the implicit condition of the waiving of all diplomatic claim, and as, furthermore, our Civil Code declares to be incorporated in the contracts the laws in force at the time of their celebration, it is understood in the transaction contract of September 30, 1908, as also in all the previous contracts the Government has entered into with the Guayaquil & Quito Railway Co., that this latter contracting party has waived the presentation of claims it may try to enforce against the Ecuadoran Government through diplomatic channels.

This same opinion has been set forth in the most explicit manner by the Ecuadoran Government which in 1913 rejected a proposed protocol relating to arbitration between the Government of Ecuador and the company, precisely because that project implied the transfer of the controversy to international and diplomatic ground, which was in opposition to that which Ecuador had been careful to determine from the start, namely, the distinction between the person of the President of the United States and the American Government, between the person of the President of Ecuador, and the Ecuadoran Government.