File N. 422.11 G 93/625.
[Inclosure—Translation.]
The American Arbitrator
to the Minister of the Interior.
Office of the American Arbitrator,
Quito,
April 2, 1913.
My Dear Mr. Minister: I take pleasure in
acknowledging receipt of your communication, dated the 31st ultimo,
which reached my hands yesterday morning, and to hasten to reply in
order that any doubts that may have prevailed in your superior
intelligence as to the conception I have of the nature of the high
duties with which I have been charged by the President of the United
States of America may at once he banished.
It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that I must beg to differ
from you as to the chief points you urge regarding the character of
the tribunal provided for the settlement of the disputes arising
between the government of Ecuador and the Guayaquil and Quito
Railway Company. However, these are points which, both because of
the importance as well as the intrinsic nature thereof, should be
properly left for friendly diplomatic consideration and adjustment.
I desire to make it quite clear that I do not regard it either as
expedient or within my province to enter now upon a discussion with
you of these matters, and of others which were mentioned in your
greatly esteemed letter. I am convinced that this should be taken up
through the diplomatic channels by way of which the present Arbitral
Tribunal as well as that of 1907 came to be formed.
Nevertheless, before closing, I deem it my duty to correct an
erroneous impression which seems to have been received by you and to
be reflected in your courteous communication under acknowledgment,
as to the nature and effect I ascribe to the oath which arbitrators
before beginning their labor are, in accordance with the most common
practice, wont to take. I have never at any time been of the opinion
that such oath should be instrumental in placing me in possession of
the charge of arbitrator; which, on the contrary, I have already
received from the hands of the President of the United States of
America, without the intervention of any judge nor through the act
of contending parties. I do not consider that such oath can furnish
more than a protocolar guaranty in controlling the conclusions of
the Arbitrators or Umpire taking it.
In this connection it has given me pleasure, however, to note your
personal assurance that the administering of the oath by a judicial
magistrate of Ecuador can not be taken to imply “that the
Arbitrators would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Judge of
Letters, as they would not be either to the Supreme Court, if,
according to what was suggested to the Railway Company, the latter
had presented its petition before the President of said Court.” So
far as the constitution of the present Arbitral Tribunal is
concerned, it is then a subject of entire indifference, in fact,
whether the oath be taken before the Juez de
[Page 492]
Letras, or the President of the Supreme Court,
or whether a simple declaration be subscribed by the
Arbitrators.
I therefore must beg leave to terminate this correspondence in order
to await the result of the friendly diplomatic exchange of views
already initiated, and to subscribe myself again,
Sincerely your friend,
