Mr. Plumb to. Mr. Seward.
No. 70.]
Legation of the United States;
City of Mexico,
January 24, 1868.
Sir: On the 13th instant the telegraphic
announcement, of which a translation is inclosed herewith, was published
in the papers of this city that a large number of the leading and most
respectable merchants, chiefly foreigners, of San Luis Potosi had been
arrested, under an order condemning them to imprisonment for three
months for their failure to pay a forced loan, or anticipation of
contributions, summarily levied upon them by the governor of that
state.
The event created great alarm and anxiety in foreign commercial circles
here, and was apparently viewed with regret by many leading
Mexicans.
After the pledges made with regard to foreigners, both by the executive
and by the Mexican congress, I did not doubt that immediate action in
the matter would be taken by the general government.
In this I have been disappointed.
On the 20th and 21st instants letters stating the facts reached here from
San Luis and were placed in my hands, and I was appealed to to make some
interposition in behalf of the foreigners so thrown into
imprisonment.
As the only foreign representative in this country, I felt that I should
be wanting in my duty if I permitted such an occurrence to pass without
some notice at my hands.
At the same time, under the tenor of the correspondence that has taken
place with this government regarding the protection to be extended
[Page 404]
by the United States to
foreigners in a condition of non-representation in this country, and
your latest instructions in that regard, I did not feel at liberty to
address this government officially upon the subject, nor to assume to
make any demand, but I thought it to be my duty at least to lay before
it the information that had reached me to recall to their attention
their own pledges and their own laws, and to show that such acts could
not pass without notice, but that they would be officially laid before
the judgment of the world.
I therefore addressed to Mr. Lerdo de Tejada, on the 22d instant, the
unofficial note of which a copy is inclosed herewith.
Yesterday, the 23d instant, a further telegraphic communication from San
Luis Potosi was published here, of which I annex translation, which
shows that the merchants who have been arrested are still in prison.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
From the paper published in the city of Mexico called the Siglo
XIX, No. 183, of the afternoon of January 13, 1868.]
[Telegram.—Translation.]
San Luis
Potosi,
January 13, 1868— 10 o’clock and 15 minutes a.
m.
Editors of the Siglo XIX: The undersigned,
representatives of the commmereial houses to which we belong, have
been reduced to prison for three months, by order of the governor,
for not having made a forced advance of contributions.
We beg of you to publish this:
[Unofficial.]
Mr. Plumb to Señor Lerdo de Tejada.
Mexico,
January 22, 1868.
Dear Sir: I feel it my duty, as the only
foreign representative in this country, and in the spirit of the
correspondence that has taken place between the government of the
United States and the government of Mexico, upon the subject of the
extension of the protection of the United States to foreigners
resident in this country who are in a condition of
non-representation, to call your earnest attention to the occurrence
that has taken place in San Luis Potosi, where a number of the
leading foreign merchants have been imprisoned, in addition to the
embargo of their property, because they have declined to pay a
contribution summarily levied upon them by the governor of that
state.
My attention was called to this matter by the telegraphic accounts of
what occurred published in the papers of this city; but I now lay
before you copies of two letters, not addressed to me, but which
have been placed in my hands, from highly respectable commercial
houses at San Luis, whose partners have been imprisoned, and which
give a full account of the affair.
By no modern legislation is the person of the individual held for the
payment of public taxes. His property is liable to the extent of all
he possesses, to meet the equitable and proportional contributions,
levied in accordance with law, required by the
[Page 405]
legitimate necessities of the
government under which he lives; but the individual is not held
liable to personal imprisonment because he is unable or unwilling to
pay the civil demands that may be made upon him. This was the case
under Marquez, but it had been supposed that time had passed.
In your note to Mr. Otterbourg, of the 7th of September last, you
state that “foreigners resident in Mexico, who have no
representative of their government, have been and are under the
protection of the Mexican authorities, to whom they can apply with
confidence that they have enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy, the
guarantees conceded by the laws of the republic.”
In your note to me of the 26th of October last, you add: “Although
such subjects have not a representative of their own, the government
will watch with special care to see that they are protected by the
Mexican authorities, and that they enjoy the guarantees conceded by
the laws of the republic.”
In your note on the 11th of December last to Mr. Middleton, the late
chargé d’affaires of England in this country, I find it stated that
“the government has taken care that English subjects resident in
Mexico shall be under the effective protection of the laws,” and
“the same as until now, the government of the republic will comply
with the duty imposed upon it by public law and by its own
legislation.”
In the discourse of the President of the republic at the opening of
the sessions of the national congress on the 8th of December, he
said:
“The government has also taken care that the subjects of such nations
resident in the republic shall be under the protection of the laws
and the authorities. The efficacy of this protection has been such
that there has been no ground for complaint. It has been practically
demonstrated that under the illustration of our people, and under
the principles of our liberal institutions, foreigners resident in
Mexico, without the necessity of the special protection of treaties,
are considered on an equality with Mexicans and enjoy the rights and
the guarantees established by the laws.”
In the manifesto, issued on the 8th instant by the national congress
of the republic, bearing the signature of one hundred and fifteen
deputies, from twenty-one States, the Territory of Lower California
and the federal district, it is stated as follows:
“Meanwhile it is honorable for our people who have been so
atrociously calumniated, that the world is seeing that in Mexico
foreigners, in order to enjoy every guarantee, require no other
protection than that of the laws and the Mexican authorities.”
Whether, therefore, what has now occurred at San Luis is the act of
the State authorities or of the federal authorities, the duty has
been assumed by the general government of the republic of securing
to foreigners the guarantees authorized by the constitution and the
laws of the country.
Section 1, article 1, of the constitution of the republic, I find is
as follows:
“The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the basis
and the object of social institutions. Wherefore it is declared that
all the laws and the authorities of the country must respect and
sustain the guarantees established by the present constitution.”
Article 14 states that “no retroactive law shall be passed. No one
shall be judged or sentenced except under laws of date anterior to
the fact, and exactly applicable to the case, and by a tribunal
which shall have been previously established by law.”
Article 16 states that “no one may be molested in his person, family,
domicile, papers, or possessions, except in virtue of a written
order from a competent authority, based upon legal cause for the
proceeding.”
Article 17 prescribes that “no man can be arrested for debts of a
character purely civil;” and article 18 that “imprisonment shall
only take place for offenses which merit personal punishment. In
whatever stage of the proceedings it shall appear that the accused
may not be liable to this penalty, he shall be put at liberty under
bail. In no case shall the imprisonment be prolonged for default of
payment of fees, or whatever other furnishing of money.”
Article 19 further adds that “no detention shall exceed the term of
three days, except upon proof of sufficient reason for imprisonment,
in conformity with the requisites required by law.
“The sole lapse of this time shall render responsible the authority
that orders or consents to it, and the agents, officers, or jailors
that execute it.”
In section 2, article 31, it is declared that it is obligatory upon
all Mexicans “to contribute towards public expenses as well of the
federation as of the state and municipality where they may reside,
in an equitable and proportional manner, as shall be prescribed by
the laws.”
And in section 3, article 33, with reference to foreigners, it is
stated that “they are entitled to the guarantees established by
section 1, article 1, of the present constitution, (which have been
quoted,) except that in all cases the government has the right to
expel those who are pernicious to society. It is obligatory upon
them to contribute toward public expenses in the manner that may be
prescribed by the laws, and to obey and respect the institutions,
laws, and authorities of the country, submitting to the
[Page 406]
judgments and sentences of
the tribunals, without power to seek other protection than that
which the laws concede to Mexican citizens.”
And, finally, article 126 of the constitution states as follows:
“This constitution, the laws of the congress of the union which
emanate from it, and all treaties made or that may be made by the
President of the republic, with the approbation of congress, shall
be the supreme law of all the union. The judges of each State in
giving their decisions shall do so in conformity with said
constitution, laws and treaties, anything to the contrary that there
may be in the laws or constitutions of the States
notwithstanding.”
Under these constitutional provisions, and under the declarations
that have been made by the Mexican government, there can be but one
opinion entertained by the world, if the foreigners who have been
thus imprisoned at San Luis are not immediately plaeed at liberty,
and there be not some power felt throughout the republic, by which
the occurrence of such acts in the future can be prevented.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
Sr. D. Sebastian Leedo be Tejada, &c., &c., &c.
[Untitled]
Imprisoned in Casa de
Beneficencia,
San Luis Potosi,
January 15, 1868.
Sir: I had this pleasure, on the 3d
instant, with a resume of what was passing here in consequence of a
new law laying a direct tax on merchants from $38 up to $18,000 per
year, and I have to state subsequent events that have caused my
imprisonment with other eight confrères.
I think it was on the 4th that the State congress, by a decree,
authorized the governor to ask (pedir) an anticipation of $27,000 to
account of the contribution, which is nothing else than an authority
to contract with the commerce a loan.
Instead of so doing and calling on us to lend an amount to account,
he assigns the Slim among a few of us of amounts from $500 to
$1,000, and ordering that the amount be paid within twenty-four
hours.
If you look over the law you will find that it has a retroactive
effect; that it deprives a man of the full use of his property, and
in fact it is unconstitutional, let alone the exorbitance of the
amount of taxation. It is natural that every one should resist
lending any amount to account of a tax that, by the constitution,
could not affect us, let alone that we were not asked to lend the
money, but had a peremptory order to pay the same at a stated
time.
With few exceptional cases, arising from fear, all determined to
resist what we could not interpret otherwise than a forced loan; and
some in writing, and others by word, made their excuses for
non-compliance.
The reply given all of us was, that our reasons could not be admitted
as sufficient, and giving us another twenty-four hours.
This second term expired and no one paid, because a voluntary payment
would have proved against us, and that we were conformed to the law.
Seeing this resistance, the minister ejucator calls on all
non-contents with an order, that if by 12 o’clock on the 11th we had
not paid, he had to embargo us.
When I and others knew this we at once addressed ourselves to the
district judge, requesting protection, (amparo,) not only from the
effects of the law, but also the payment of the forced loan levied
on us. We thought ourselves pretty secure, but the sequel proved
that we had something else in store for us.
About 6 p. m. on the 11th, as many as could be found were called up
before the prefect, who presented an order from the governor
condemning all and each one of us to a fine of $500, or imprisonment for the term of three
months.
I was notified the next day at 10 a. m., and as I had refused to pay
the amount assigned me, I naturally refused also to pay the fine of
$500, and in accordance was imprisoned.
I fortunately got what was refused to others—a copy of the order—as I
said that I naturally wished to have a document stating the reasons
for my arrest.
I inclose you an alcance of the “oppozicion,” in which you will find
the same; and the remarks commenting on this order I think you will
find such as to show that it is illegal to all intents and purposes,
and instead of having that liberty so much talked about, we are only
under the rule of a petty tyrant who recognizes no law but his own
will.
I have now completed three days in prison; but I have heard it said
that if in fifteen days we do not give in and pay the fine we are
all to be put in the common jail. I do not know if this is a tale or
a threat, but be it as it may, I am as ready to go to the common
jail as to remain here.
We have applied again to the district judge, as we have not been
consigned to any
[Page 407]
of the
State justices, as the law enforces, to know what we are accused of;
because refusing to pay what we do not owe is no disrespect to the
authorities or to any one. With equal reason he might have assigned
the full amount on me of the $27,000 instead of the $1,000; and this
surely does not condemn me that I should pay such an amount.
The foregoing is a true statement of facts, and as I make no doubt a
differing coloring will be given to this scandalous business, I
would esteem it as a favor that you would publish this statement,
even subscribing my name to it if you so wish.
I hear that an execution was put into my house this morning to cover
the 81.000 forced loan, and they took nine pieces of broadcloth
valued at five dollars and fifty cents per vara.
I also hear since that it has been sold at public auction at three
dollars to three dollars and thirty-seven cents per vara.
I suppose I shall again be embargoed for the costs, and you may think
how pleasant it must be when I do not even owe the money.
Yours truly,
[Extract from a letter from Messrs. Davies & Co.]
San Luis
Potosi,
January 17, 1868.
Here the excitement about the new law is as great as ever, and
business quite at a stand. Our authorities seem determined to carry
the law into effect, and if they do so all the houses will have to
liquidate and go to some other State.
The quotas for first class houses we hear have been reduced from
$18,000 to $6,000, but even this we cannot pay, as it would be
simply so much money lost.
Because we decline to pay a loan on account of the new contributions,
our Mr. Endara was arrested on the 12th instant, and thrown into
prison, together with nine other merchants, and is still in
confinement.
In addition to the above, we were embargoed on the 15th instant, and
the sum of $1,000 forcibly taken out of our chest.
This is the way in which our authorities understand constitutional
liberty.
We have petitioned our State congress, asking for the derogation of
the new law, but they have refused to take our petition into
consideration. We have also applied to the judge of the district for
protection, both against the law and the imprisonment.
As regards the first request, he has not yet replied, but about the
latter he has decided “that there is ground for the petition,” and
the prisoners are to undergo some kind of a trial to-morrow.
We have telegraphed to the President on the subject, but as yet have
received no answer. We are now preparing a petition to the general
congress.
It seems that our government is determined to get the first third of
the new law out of us, even if it has to abrogate the law
afterwards; and to insure this, a resolution of our congress was
published yesterday imposing a fine of $500 on any person who closes
his house of business in order to evade payment of the tax.
[From the paper published in the
city of Mexico, called the Siglo XIX, No.
193, of the afternoon of January 23,
1868.]
[Telegram.—Translation.]
San Luis
Potosi,
January 23, 1868. (Received in Mexico, at
12.25 a. m.)
Editors of the Siglo XIX: All of our houses
have been embargoed and the effects sold at the lowest prices. The
embargoes are to be repeated to complete the loan. We are still
imprisoned.
Please to publish this.
