711F.1914/621a: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Panama (Wilson)
926. Owing to the absence of a quorum, the only way in which the Panama legislation could be passed by the House would be by unanimous consent. The Department is informed that this is unobtainable since at least 6 Representatives have been asked by Senators who opposed the measure in the Senate to object if the measure is brought out. It has, consequently, been decided that it will not be brought up at this session, which is scheduled to adjourn today, but that it will be the first measure reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the next session. The Department does not anticipate any [Page 618] insuperable difficulty in securing passage of the measure in both Houses since the issue in the Senate has already been fought out and since an ample majority remains available.
The situation is being explained to the Panamanian Ambassador here and you are requested to discuss it with the President and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Department is confident that they will understand the political situation which has confronted the Administration here and the further fact that every effort has been made in this matter. The Department, of course, shares in the disappointment which the Government and people of Panama will feel at this delay. It should be pointed out, however, that opposition to the legislation was in no sense based upon unwillingness to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of Panama, but rather upon internal political factors. The measure itself was reported favorably by the House Foreign Affairs Committee with no dissent. It was reported favorably by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with only two Senators expressing dissent. It was amended and passed by the Senate with a comfortable margin, in spite of the Constitutional issue53 injected for political purposes and it could have been passed in the House if the time factor and the lack of quorum had not operated against the efforts of Administration leaders.
For your information, however, opponents of this legislation would be quick to use any intemperate expression on the subject which might appear in the Panamanian press or be given out by Panamanian officials. It is important, therefore, that you do your utmost to prevent such statements in the interest of the passage of the legislation. This, of course, does not mean that legitimate expressions of Panamanian disappointment, coupled with expressions of confidence in the ultimate passage of the legislation, would be undesirable.
You will, of course, keep the Department fully informed as to local sentiment on this matter with particular reference to the forthcoming meeting of the Panamanian National Assembly.
- The question was raised by Senators Arthur Vandenberg and Robert Taft as to why a treaty form was not used by the two countries.↩