839.51/4588
The Minister in the Dominican Republic (Norweb) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 4.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatch no. 204 of February 17, 1938, reporting the views of the Dominican Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ortega Frier, in respect of forthcoming conversations looking toward the revision of the 1924 Convention between the United States and the Dominican Republic.
As further illustrating the feeling in the Dominican Government as to the necessity of abrogating the 1924 Convention, I desire to report a conversation between President Trujillo and Colonel James Roosevelt yesterday on the occasion of a luncheon given Colonel Roosevelt by the President during his brief visit in Ciudad Trujillo.
[Page 494]President Trujillo mentioned the eager desire of the Dominican Government for a removal of the restrictions on Dominican sovereignty imposed by the 1924 Convention and intimated his confidence that President Roosevelt in pursuance of the Good Neighbor Policy would give sympathetic consideration to the revision of that treaty. Colonel Roosevelt replied (at my previous suggestion) that he understood that the question was one under discussion between the two governments and that he was sure it was his father’s wish that a satisfactory arrangement be worked out.
I mention this exchange between President Trujillo and Colonel Roosevelt because it illustrates not only the point of view in the Dominican Government but a probable line of policy which will be followed in the negotiations for the moderation of the 1924 Convention. The Dominican thesis seems to be that the United States, strictly to comply with the Good Neighbor Policy, must in any and all cases where some previous treaty commitment implies an American interest supposedly at variance with that policy at once throw over the treaty commitment. In other words, the presumed “obligations” of the United States under the Good Neighbor Policy are paramount as compared with the obligations of the United States as expressed in the 1924 Convention.
In rejoinder it may be pointed out that good neighborliness is reciprocal, that the fulfilling of contracts properly incurred is of its essence, and that the United States in pursuance of this idea expects to have assurance that the bondholders, for whom it holds a moral responsibility under the 1924 Convention, will be protected beyond any doubt under such new system as may be proposed by the Dominican Government to replace the Receivership now in effect.
Respectfully yours,