« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER AMERICAN REPUBLICS, SIGNED OCTOBER 19, 1927, AMENDING THE PAN AMERICAN SANITARY CONVENTION OF NOVEMBER 14, 1924 "2
Treaty Series No. 763
Additional Protocol Between the United States of America and Other American Republics, Signed at Lima, October 19, 1927 43
The Presidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, the United States of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay and the United States of Venezuela, desirous of adding to the Sanitary Convention signed at Habana on November 14, 1924, have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, to wit:
United States of Brazil:
United States of America:
Dr. Laurentino Olascoaga
Dr. Nicolás Lozano
Dr. Alfredo Sordelli
Dr. Adolfo Flores
Dr. João Pedro de Albuquerque
Dr. Solón Núñez F.
Mr. Pablo Emilio Guedes
Mr. Víctor Kieffer Marchand
Dr. Guillermo Angulo P. A.
Mr. Julio C. Gastiaburú
"For text of the convention of 1924, see Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. I, p. 266.
Signed in Spanish; the translation printed in the Department of State Treaty Series is reproduced here. Ratification advised by the Senate, Feb. 24, 1928; ratified by the President, Mar. 14, 1928; ratification of the United States deposited with the Government of Peru, July 3, 1928; proclaimed by the President, July 5, 1928.
United States of Venezuela: Dr. Emilio Ochoa
Who, after communicating to one another their full powers and finding them in due form, have agreed to adopt, ad referendum, the following:
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE PAN AMERICAN SANITARY CODE
The ratification[s] of the Pan American Sanitary Code shall be deposited in the Office of the Secretary of State of the Republic of Cuba and the Cuban Government shall communicate these ratifications to the other signatory States, which communication shall constitute exchange of ratifications. The Convention shall become effective in each of the signatory States on the date of ratification thereof by said State, and shall remain in force without limitation of time, each one of the signatory or adherent States reserving the right to withdraw from the Convention by giving in due form a year's notice in advance to the Government of the Republic of Cuba.
Done and signed in the City of Lima on the nineteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, in duplicate, one of which shall be sent to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Peru and the other to the Pan American Sanitary Office, so that copies thereof may be distributed through the diplomatic channel, to the signatory and adhering Governments.
For the Argentine Republic:
Adolfo F. Durán
For the United States of Brazil:
João Pedro de Albuquerque
For Costa Rica:
Jaime G. Bennett
D. F. Rensoli
Dr. Mario G. Lebredo
Luis M. Cueva
For the United States of America:
Hugh S. Cumming
Bolivar J. Lloyd
John D. Long
Pablo Emilio Guedes
V. Kiefer Marchand
Gmo. Angulo P. A.
José J. Callejas
J. C. Gastiaburú
José G. Lewis
Carlos Enrique Paz Soldán
D. E. Lavorería
J. C. Gastiaburú
For Dominican Republic:
R. Baez Soler
Justo F. Gonzalez
For the United States of Venezuela:
CIRCULAR INSTRUCTION TO DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS AND CERTAIN CONSULAR OFFICERS CONCERNING QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE NEGOTIATION OF FOREIGN LOANS BY AMERICAN BANKERS
The Secretary of State to Diplomatic Officers and Certain Consular Officers
Diplomatic Serial No. 681
WASHINGTON, December 28, 1927. SIRS: The following discussion of questions arising in connection with the negotiation of foreign loans by American bankers is transmitted in view of inquiries and suggestions received from diplomatic officers.
(1) The Department expects its diplomatic officers to extend to responsible representatives of legitimate American interests, without discriminating between competing American interests, such assistance as may be consistent with their other duties and their diplomatic character (see Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States, March 8, 1927, Paragraphs VIII-10, XI-1, XI-7, XI-10, XI-11, XVI-4, and XVI-7). The Department must of course rely largely on the good judgment and sense of propriety of its representatives as to the form of proper assistance. Such assistance normally may include aid in the establishment of contacts, the giving of information, and the making of judicious suggestions, but diplomatic officers will carefully avoid acting as intermediaries or participating in private business transactions, or taking responsibility for decisions of the private American interests concerned.
It will be recognized, however, that assistance in the negotiation of loans is affected with considerations of special delicacy, not only because of the reserve customary in any relationship affecting important credit transactions, but also because of tendencies evident in several quarters to emphasize, exaggerate, or misunderstand any relationship of the Department or its officers to financial negotiations. While this does not preclude the assistance normally given to American interests, special care should be taken that the record with respect to financial negotiations be clear and self-explanatory and that diplomatic officers in no way inadvertently lend color to claims or imputations that there exist, between the Department and bankers interested in negotiating foreign loans, relationships involving the responsibility of the Department in connection with such loans.
Thus, for example, in cases where there is no obvious occasion for recourse to missions for a letter of introduction, it may be well discreetly to discourage such requests or to satisfy them by giving merely a card of introduction. Similarly, missions should discour
age the transmission of private messages through official channels, or, where the conditions are such as to justify the use of official channels, as in the case of authenticating the signatures of important papers, the text of the message should be self-explanatory as to its private origin and the occasion for the channel of transmission (see Diplomatic Serial No. 28 , July 9, 1924). A United States Senator has cited such a telegraphic authentication as evidence of the Department's sponsorship of a private loan.
Information which diplomatic officers can give in reply to inquiries of bankers is, in the nature of the case, merely supplementary to information otherwise available to them-a well-known manual lists under twenty-five heads "some of the points" to be considered in purchasing foreign Government bonds. Presumably it will be oral, personal in tone, and accompanied with some disclaimer of relieving the bankers of any part of the responsibility toward bond buyers which the ethics and practices of investment banking impose upon them with respect to sponsoring flotations of foreign and domestic issues alike. In this connection the following is quoted from the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for the year ended June 30, 1926:
"The question of the soundness of a particular loan is not one upon which the Federal Government should pass, but it is the banker floating the loan in this country who must decide this question in the first instance, and it is the investor using his savings to acquire the security who must finally decide whether or not the risk is to be accepted. The test of the security of a foreign loan does not differ from the test of the security of a domestic loan."
(2) Suggestions have been received that in connection with the Department's announcement of March 3, 1922 15 (see Diplomatic Serial No. 118, May 16, 1922), the Department should require of American bankers, in the case of loans for industrial purposes, a guarantee that the books of the borrower have been audited by responsible accountants, or that the Department should at least ask its missions abroad whether they know of any reason why the Department should object to a loan.
The Department, in its announcement of March 3, 1922, and its letters to bankers pursuant to the announcement, has uniformly stated that it will not pass upon the merits of foreign loans as business propositions, nor assume any responsibility whatever in connection with loan transactions. In view of the consideration that if the Department in some instances raises questions of the investment merit of particular loans, it may soon be considered to have no doubt