[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Extracts from message of President
Diaz.
the pious fund claim.
The first contentious international case, in which the contending
parties are Mexico and the United States of America, has, by mutual
consent, just been submitted to the permanent arbitration court
instituted at The Hague by virtue of the conference called, and
justly called, the peace conference. The case in question grows out
of a claim presented by the Catholic Church of Upper California
against the Mexican Republic and upheld by the Government of the
United States, looking to the payment of interest on a fund which
was created in the colonial epoch for the benefit of the missions in
that former portion of our territory.
Originally, the fund in question was intrusted to the Jesuits for
their California missions, but, as a consequence of the royal order
which expelled the Jesuits from Spanish territory in 1768, the
property constituting the fund passed to the Crown of Spain, which
intrusted its administration to a royal commission, in whose hands
it was at the time when our independence was consummated.
The National Government continued to administer the fund, which was
destined for the reduction of the barbarous Indians and their
conversion to Christianity, and though in 1836 it caused the fund to
be placed at the disposal of the bishop of California to be
administered by him, that arrangement was canceled by decree of
Februarys, 1842, and the administration of the fund reverted to the
Mexican Government to be employed by that Government in such form
and manner as it might determine compatible with the original
intention of the founders.
When, in 1848, Upper California was segregated from the Mexican
federation, the Mexican Government, taking its stand principally on
article 14 of the peace treaty with the United States, concluded in
that same year, which pronounced as ended and canceled all debts and
claims which citizens of the United States might allege against
Mexico, considered itself released from all liability toward the
representatives of the Church in California, who, if they believed
they had any claim to urge, ought to have urged it against the
Government to which the sovereignty of Upper California with all its
correlative rights and obligations had passed.
[Page 832]
Not convinced by the considerations to which I have alluded, the
Church in question, notwithstanding its lack of competency, went
before the Joint Claims Commission which was held at Washington
under the convention of July 4, 1868, demanding payment of interest
up to the date of the claim. Owing to a lack of agreement between
the commissioners, the case was submitted to the arbiter or referee,
who, believing he had found grounds for such action, sentenced us to
pay a certain sum.
The Mexican Government, notwithstanding that it considered the
sentence unjust, paid the interest assessed against it.
On the strength of that decision the California Church has since
claimed that the Republic ought to continue paying interest on the
fund, and its claims were presented through the diplomatic channel.
After an exchange of notes between the representative of the United
States and the minister of foreign relations, and seeing that no
agreement was reached (we, on our side, maintaining that the
arbitral decision of 1875 did noc include subsequent interest and
that there is no ground for claiming that interest or for regarding
the principal itself as still subsistent), it was decided, with that
spirit of conciliatoriness which befits friendly nations, to submit
the case to The Hague court for adjudication. With this end in view
a protocol binding both parties was signed at Washington on May 22
last fixing the basis for the action of the court, and that
protocol, as you will remember, received the approval of the Mexican
senate.
I have to add that, in accordance with the stipulations of the
agreement in question, both Governments in due course appointed
their respective arbitrators who met on the 1st instant at The
Hague, and the arbitrators in turn appointed a fifth arbitrator or
referee to decide in case of disagreement.
The Mexican Government confides in the acknowledged integrity and
high character of the jurists who constitute the respected tribunal,
and once more engages itself to comply with the definite sentence
uttered in this matter.
* * * * * * *
the silver question.
The fate of silver is to us an arduous problem, and as the definite
solution can not yet be conjectured the Executive feels obliged to
maintain a waiting attitude and to continue its studies with a view
to elucidating the various aspects of the question, such as the
conditions surrounding the production, circulation, and consumption
of the metal in question, and as nearly as possible the advantages
and disadvantages which its depreciation has occasioned or may
occasion to Mexico. In any event it is necessary to bear in mind
that with silver we meet about one-half of what for various reasons
the country is compelled to remit abroad and that, notwithstanding
our substantial production of silver, it, would be rash for the
Republic alone to attempt to regulate the world’s output of the
white metal, and in that way to bring about stability in its
price.
* * * * * * *
