Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1912

File No.312.11/1001.

The American Chargé d’Affaires to the Secretary of State.

No. 1792.]

American Embassy,
Mexico, November 27, 1912.

Sir: With reference to my telegram of November 24, 12 noon,¹ I have the honor to transmit herewith a translation of the note which I have received in reply to the Embassy’s strong note of September 15 last.

I have [etc.]

Montgomery Schuyler.

[Inclosure.—Translation.]

The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Chargé d’Affaires.

Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico, November 22, 1912.

Mr. Chargé d’Affaires: I have taken cognizance of the note dated in this city on the 15th and received on the 17th of September last, numbered 5576-300, which the Government of the United States addresses to the Mexican Government through his excellency the Ambassador, Mr. Henry Lane Wilson, in which, after a full expression of its opinion concerning the conditions of American citizens in Mexico and the situation of the country, it asks for an adequate and categorical reply regarding the measures which the Government of Mexico may decide to adopt, first, to arrest and properly punish the authors of murders of American citizens; second, to cause a supposed hostility toward the American interests mentioned to cease; and, third, to ameliorate the general conditions of the country so that American citizens residing therein may not suffer on account of the state of revolution, anarchy and chaos in which Mexcio is said to be.

I must in the first place confess that the tone of the above-mentioned note has been a source of great surprise to the Mexican Government, because it had never expected from the Government of the United States reproaches so severe, so much at variance with the spirit of amity invoked in said note and so pessimistic in their conclusions, many of which are based on a manifest error or an inexplicable misunderstanding.

With the fullness of consideration required by the importance and number of the cases mentioned, with the sincerity and honesty which guide the Mexican Government, without susceptibilities of amour propre, and in pursuance of the instructions I have received from the President, I now have the honor to make an exact and abundant reply to the Government of the United States, concerning the above-mentioned points, admitting the evil wherever it may exist, and trusting that that Government will regard this answer and estimate its details with a calm and impartial judgment, and consider it as the expression of the purposes of the Mexican Government in matters concerning foreign residents.

With reference to the first point, the Mexican Government, under and in spite of the present conditions of the country, has fulfilled its international obligation toward American citizens. A hasty review of the cases mentioned in the note I have the honor to answer will prove the above statement. According to the documents on file in the Foreign Office the following extracts appear on record:

Case of Wm. H. Waite. April 4, 1912, judicial investigation was made. Frequent requests were sent to the court urging action, and the data furnished by several persons have been sent to it, among which are the data furnished by Mr. A. B. Coate, a resident of the State of Veracruz. This person does not dare to affirm that the persons he has pointed out as presumable authors are guilty, and only because the judge and the secretary did not look at him squarely in the face, he believes in the guilt of both the accused and the authorities. There appears on file a record from a revolutionary court, according to which Agustin and Macedonio Rodríguez were sentenced to death by said court and their execution ordered, because among other crimes they committed the murder of Mr. Waite. The investigation is still pending.

Case of Henry Crumbley. July, 1912. His death was due to a fight he had with a peon, who wounded Crumbley because the latter was making love to the peon’s wife. The investigation has been concluded; but the defendant, Santiago Alvarado, is at large and his whereabouts are not known.

Case of Rowan Ayres. August 15, 1912. The investigation of this horrid crime having been commenced, the Foreign Office has been actively urging the local authorities with a view to the prosecution and punishment of the guilty parties. The authorities of Puruándiro and Uruapam have been directed to arrest Rafael Espinosa, presumably the author of the crime. As in that place there have been several bands of bandits who flee upon the approach of the federals, the arrest has not been possible.

Case of James W. Reed. November, 1910. The investigation was commenced in the City of Mexico; and Sebastian Varela, who murdered Reed, was sentenced to nine years in prison and is serving his term.

Case of Geo. Critchfield or Bishop. Tuxpam, Veracruz, April, 1911. Antonio Balderrabano, the guilty party, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison and is serving his term.

Case of Emil Alex Krause, alias Roth. Tampico Alto, December, 1910. The investigation having been commenced, the same is still in course because the guilty parties have not been found.

Case of J. C. Ellick. Badiraguato, October, 1910. The presumably guilty men having been arrested, were afterwards released for want of evidence. The public prosecutor appealed from the above decision. During one of the revolutionary movements the accused escaped and their whereabouts are not known.

Case of J. R. Lockhart. November, 1910. Killed in an uninhabited place. Donaciano Molina and Pedro Mena having been arrested as presumably the authors of the crime, the case has been slowly handled because the court is far from the place of the occurrence, which is situated in the mountainous regions of the Sierra Madre. The rebels have prevented a fruitful investigation.

Case of Wm. W. Fowler. Tuxpam. The guilty man has been arrested; the case is pending.

Case of Sam. Hidy. Los Plátanos, San Luis Potosí. Killed in an uninhabited region. Investigation has been commenced, without results on account of lack of data.

There are no data in the Foreign Office concerning the cases of Caradoc Hughes, Thomas Green, and W. L. Randell.

With reference to the ten cases which have been reviewed, four of which occurred prior to the revolution of 1910, three in 1911, and three more during the present year, judicial investigation, as may be seen, has been instituted in each case; the culprits have been convicted in three cases; in two cases the accused have been released for want of evidence, and in two cases the investigation has produced no results.

In connection with the above cases it is advisable to invite attention to the following circumstances: The great extent of the country and the scanty population in the places in which nine of the above-mentioned American citizens have been murdered, have made the judicial investigation very difficult, in some instances because of the lack of data, and on other occasions because of the reluctance of the lower classes, now as at all times, to reveal the names of the authors of crimes, some men carrying their reluctance to the extent of dying without giving the name of the person who has wounded them.

The scanty population in the places in which the above-mentioned murders have been committed and their distance from important centers do not always permit the courts to obtain a satisfactory result from the investigations undertaken by them. The American Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, on September 18, 1886, in referring to violence suffered by Chinese subjects, made the following statement: “Chinese laborers voluntarily carry this principle of isolation and segregation Into remote regions where law and authority are well known to be feeblest, and where conflicts of labor and prejudices of races may be precipitated on the slightest pretext and carried without check to limits beyond those possible where the power of law may be better organized.”¹

In that case, and in others which we could mention, precisely this point has been emphasized: that the scarcity of population and the difficulty in having duly organized tribunals in remote places, are the cause for the delays in the decisions of the courts and favorable results of the investigations.

Case of Foster, Carrol, and Glennon. The fact that this case has been treated separately must have been intentional, as the same is attended by circumstances absolutely different from those of the others. Messrs. Foster, Carrol, and Glennon operated as filibusters in Lower California, near the boundary line of the United States. They were pointed out as pernicious foreigners and the authorities were ordered to prosecute them.

The character of the crime committed by them places them beyond the protection of their Government, because they voluntarily assumed the risk of their action, which was in violation of the sovereignty and peace of the country in which they were received under the protection of its laws. Notwithstanding, when the Government was informed that the above-mentioned men had been killed, orders were given for the courts to open the proper investigation.

Therefore, the attitude of the Mexican Government with reference to the prosecution and punishment of persons guilty of violence against American citizens has been adjusted to the law and it can not be made the subject for reproach, except as the result of an eminently partial and adverse judgment, which is not in keeping with the proofs of amity previously received and with the course followed by the Government of the United States with reference to crimes committed within its territory against Mexican citizens. By way of an example I may refer to the following among other cases which could be mentioned, to wit: Antonio Rodriguez, burnt alive in Rock Springs, on November 9, 1910; Celso Cervantes, murdered by an American policeman in Los Angeles, California, the murderer having been acquitted; Damian Bios and another Mexican, murdered in Texas in November, 1910; Cruz Rodriguez, murdered in Del Rio by an American customs officer. The latter was acquitted because it was said that the victim was drowned in the river while escaping from Ms pursuers. Nieanor Trevino, murdered in Galveston in June, 1911; Antonio Gámez, a boy, lynched in Thorndale in November, 1911. The above are a few of the many cases which prove the procrastination or indifference of the American authorities. The Mexicans arrested at Seguin on August 5th of this year, wounded by the constables and sheriffs of Marion, Texas, and placed without medical treatment in a dungeon, where one was found dead on the following day and the other lost his reason, prove the injustice of the imputation of cruelty and insensibility on the part of the Mexican judicial authorities.

On the other hand, it is not strange that such a crisis as the one suffered by Mexico, which has caused the death of so many Mexicans, should also have injured foreign residents; but it is to be hoped that the evils suffered may be compensated by the benefits which should result from the establishment of an organic peace based upon respect for the law. In any case, I beg to invite your attention to the fact that last year only three Americans were the victims of violence, and three more during the present year. On the other hand, during the month of September alone, of 1910, there were three American victims and one in the month of November of the same year, prior to the commencement of the revolution.

From the above it can be clearly seen that the outrages committed are those which occur under normal conditions. The American colony being so numerous and having so many interests in Mexico, it is inevitable that conflicts of one class or another should occur with the natives of the country; but it can be declared that such conflicts occur not because the victims may be of American nationality, but because they happen in all the countries of the world.

With reference to the cases in which the courts have not granted release under bond to prisoners of American nationality accused of crimes of a common order, it must be said that the laws of the country, in view of its peculiar conditions, do not grant this privilege except when aside from other circumstances the penalty for the crime charged is less than seven years imprisonment. The laws of penal procedure of Mexico are in this respect more severe than those of the United States, and therefore American citizens who have to submit to them find a disadvantage when comparing them with the procedure which obtains in their country. The Government is at the present time studying the amendment to this law in the Federal District and the Territories in order that, natives and foreigners may enjoy the benefits of freedom; but until the law is repealed in the Federal District and the States, the same will have to be applied indiscriminately to foreigners and Mexicans alike.

In each particular case which reaches the knowledge of the Government, the latter endeavors to act prudently by recommending that the release under bond be granted, if permitted by the terms of the law and justified by the good behavior of the accused prior to their incarceration, as shown by the investigation.

II.

The Mexican Government most earnestly rejects the imputation that it has acted with or manifested any hostility to American interests. In fact, it fails to know what authorities may have taken advantage of their position to satisfy their greed or animosity by persecuting and robbing American interests at a favorable opportunity, as alleged by the Ambassador in the note I now answer. The vagueness of the Chargé and its enormity relieve this Government from insisting on this point.

With reference to the concrete cases mentioned, to wit: The Associated Press; The Mexican Herald, an American newspaper; the Tlahualilo Company; the oil interests in Tampico, and the Mexican Packing Company, I have the honor to say that the Mexican Government has in no way shown any hostility to the above-mentioned interests, as may be seen from the following:

Associated Press. This concern had daily use, from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m., of a telegraph wire from Laredo to Mexico, dating from October 10, 1906, through a verbal agreement with the Director of Telegraphs, and for a period of three years. In October, 1909, the Government insisted, as had been done before, upon the necessity of entering into a formal contract, to which the representative of the Associated Press was opposed, making objections to the various projects submitted to him. In June of this year, the Government again insisted upon the contract, giving the company on two occasions a term of one month to accept the project or to express its objections.

The last project, dated August 1 of this year, consisted in that the company, aside from the amount it was paying, should pay the sum of $200.00 per month for each additional journal which should receive its service; that the observance of the contract should be governed by the laws of Mexico; that the Government should reserve its right to suspend the service in case of an interruption of the telegraph wires or when public order and the safety of the constituted Government should demand it, without the latter incurring any other liability than that of the refund of the amounts paid in advance. The messages of the Associated Press should be transmitted and received in Spanish, English or French. The agreement would not imply a monopoly and the Director of Telegraphs could, if he saw fit, enter into agreements of the same character with other companies. Practically, these conditions were those of the verbal agreement, therefore the Associated Press did not suffer any injury.

The general office of the above concern declined to accept these conditions which constitute the substance of the contract, and which had been accepted by their representative in Mexico; and for this reason, since the 1st day of September the company makes use of the telegraph wire, paying for such service the rate especially granted to the press.

The Mexican Herald. This journal received a subsidy from the past administration. The present Government has outlined as its policy not to subsidize the press, and for this reason the manager of The Mexican Herald, after unsuccessfully insisting with the Minister of Gobernación upon a new subsidy, started through El Heraldo Mexicano, written in Spanish, and controlled by the above-mentioned concern, a terrific campaign against the Government, publishing false reports of an extremely alarming character which caused panic throughout the country. The chief editor, a Mexican citizen, was incarcerated because he had infringed the penal laws.

The Mexican Government has a perfect right to suppress the abuse of the press, it being no obstacle thereto that the guilty person may seek refuge under; the patronage of a foreign mercantile concern which speculates with the peace of the country. The peaceful residents of Mexico, the American colony included, applauded with gratification the measure dictated by the Government Restricting “El Heraldo Mexicano.”

The directors of this journal took advantage of the opportunity to suspend the publication of the daily, which was not yielding any profits, and they now seek to make charges against the Mexican Government for the supposed losses caused by the suppression of the journal. The Mexican Government, however, has not dictated any order preventing the publication of the above-mentioned paper.

The Tlahualilo Company. This company brought suit against the Mexican Government for the payment of damages because it had failed to receive a determined amount of water from the Nazas River to irrigate its property in the State of Coahuila. The Mexican Government, during the administration of President Díaz, denied the company’s right to lay upon it that liability and brought a counter-suit claiming the nullity or expiration of the concession, under which the company received the water. The decision of these questions having been entrusted to the Supreme Court of Mexico, the highest tribunal ill the country, the attorneys for the claimant and those for the Government have argued the questions at length, very complicated questions indeed, that arise from the examination of the rights alleged; the decision of the court of first instance, pronounced before General Diaz left the presidency, was adverse to the claims of the company; and the decision of the court of second instance confirms the decision of the lower court. The present Government, which from the time it came into power, announced its firm purpose not to interfere in judicial matters, has faithfully kept its word. The briefs presented by the parties and the arguments set forth in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice fully demonstrate that the contentions of the Tlahualilo Company are not beyond discussion, but they do not seem to be so unquestionable as to bar any opinion to the contrary; rather, it can be said that they serve to show, that the company did not comply with the obligations imposed upon it by the concession, and that the company having acquired by this concession the surplus of certain amounts of water of the Nazas River, now claims that it has preferential rights over the other riparians, much older possessors, of the above-mentioned river. The company from its incipiency was a Mexican corporation and it agreed that it could not transfer its rights to any company of a different nationality, or to a foreign company not organized according to the laws of this country.

The Tampico oil companies. The Mexican Government has not decreed any taxes on oil out of an anti-American sentiment. In order to meet its expenses it has to tax such national sources of wealth as can stand taxation, and oil, one of the wealths of Mexico, did not pay any tax. The contracts entered into with several companies exempt them from all sorts of taxes, excepting the one paid by means of revenue stamps.

Before the enactment of the stamp tax of twenty cents per ton, which is the equivalent of three Mexican cents per barrel—in no way an exorbitant tax, inasmuch as it is less than the rate paid by oil in California—a meeting was held with the representatives of the various companies engaged in the oil industry, and the majority accepted it without protest. Therefore, the Government in decreeing this tax has shown no anti-American spirit nor any special hostility against any particular company, because it has afforded identical treatment to companies representing English and Mexican interests, many of them very powerful, which have accepted the tax without discussion.

Popo Packing Company. The Government had under consideration the concession of the above-mentioned company with a view to declaring it revoked, provided the stipulations under which the concession had been granted had not been observed, and for the purpose of preventing the monopoly sought by the grantees. The case has been favorably decided for the company and the latter has transferred its rights by means of a contract authorized by the Government.

The Mexican Government does not forget the proofs of sympathy it has received from the American people in times of national distress, such as the French Intervention and the Revolution of 1910, which meant for Mexico the acquisition of its political rights, and which on this account aroused the sympathy of the American people. The Mexican Government can not note without surprise that it has been accused of an anti-American sentiment and of a spoliating persecution of American interests. It feels certain that an impartial and careful investigation of all the other cases, which, according to the note I have the honor to answer, could be mentioned and be the subject for protest, would be satisfactory, as the Mexican Government is clearly unaware of any act of its own which with serene and unprejudiced judgment could be the basis of the above imputation. It invites your honor to disclose those other cases which might be the subject for protest, in order to show its impartiality and justice, inasmuch as the Government has adopted as its rule of action to respect the law and consequently all rights legitimately acquired.

III.

The Mexican Government, as is known throughout this country and as is also known by the Government of the United States, had hardly assumed the direction of public matters when it was attacked by revolutionary movements, the first of which, initiated by General Reyes failed in its incipiency. The second, initiated by Pascual Orozco, who revolted with the volunteer forces he had in charge, succeeded, through his treason, in taking possession of the State of Chihuahua and advancing rapidly toward the south with the intention of overthrowing the constituted Government.

The Mexican Government with the scanty means it received from the previous administration, but having the support of public opinion, was able to face this new movement so successfully that it now has sixty thousand armed men distributed throughout the country, and to repel the enemy from its positions and reestablish its authority in the State of Chihuahua. At the same time that it obtained this success over the rebels in the north, it has had to fight the vandal movement lead by Zapata in the south, in the State of Morelos, and it has been able to suppress it to such an extent that during the last few months it seemed almost completely reduced and about to disappear, although during recent days it has again increased. The Government has also suppressed those minor movements which have occurred in Michoacán, Puebla, and other places; it has had to afford assistance to the governors of the various States, where public order has been disturbed on account of local questions, and at the present time it is endeavoring to suppress in the most efficient way the brigandage which has followed the political crisis. Its efforts in the north to protect American interests in Sonora have to this day been crowned with success.

The Government does not fail to see that the bands which are scattered and pursued by the Federal troops will, as a measure for self-preservation and for the purpose of causing the Government new difficulties, cause injuries not only to the interests of Americans, but also to those of other foreign residents of the country, even as they do particularly against the interests of the natives; but the Government is also confident that the Government of the United States will see that the above results are not caused by a neglect on the part of the Mexican Government to correct such evils, which it is the first to deplore.

All the countries of the world have passed through similar crises. The United States has not been an exception to this rule. After its war of Independence and the Confederate war, it had to suffer long periods of internal difficulties of all kinds, more severe perhaps than those which are suffered at the present time by the Republic of Mexico.

The Mexican Government can not be made responsible, without committing an injustice, for the present status of the country.

The present Government of Mexico has decided to adopt the law as the rule of its action in every case. This determination has caused it to appear weak in the opinion of a portion of society which was accustomed to a despotic regime; but there is no doubt that the real strength of the Government depends upon such action. The Mexican Government begs to invite attention to the fact that the American Government has not been able to prevent the organization of armed expeditions within its territory, that Mexican revolutionaries import arms and ammunition and continue to hold with perfect freedom and regularity revolutionary meetings in American territory. It is indubitable that if the United States had expelled all such Mexicans from its territory, or if they had been removed from the frontier States, the Mexican Government would have been able with less difficulty to bring about peace in the Republic. If the Government of the United States has not adopted the above measures, it is not through a lack of good will, always shown, towards Mexico, nor because of weakness, but because it is a Government whose principal prestige and strength are based upon the observance of law. Can the Government of Mexico be blamed because it is inclined to follow the same rule of conduct?

This note was already written when a new revolutionary movement headed by Brigadier General Felix Diaz broke out, and stirred the minds of people in Mexico and abroad; but it was checked and annulled by the Mexican Government within just eight days from the date on which it broke out.

This brief statement will show to any calm judgment the important task of organization and pacification undertaken and accomplished by the Mexican Government.

IV.

I have given a reply in the preceding pages to the note from his excellency Henry Lane Wilson concerning matters which affect American interests established in Mexico. The preceding explanation shows in the opinion of this Government that it does not spare any effort to prove its decided purpose to comply, to the full extent of its ability, with its international duties, and that it recognizes at the same time the right of the Government of the United States to inquire into the way in which the above duties are performed with reference to its citizens.

I should, therefore, consider this note as closed if it were not that the one I have the honor to answer, sent by the express instructions of your Government, contains, principally in its last paragraphs and in phrases interlined in the body of the note, expressions concerning the personnel of the Mexican Government by which that Government is seldom addressed, the term “the administration which in Mexico controls business,”¹ or another of similar nature being substituted. Such expressions compel me to state that such a form of address is inexplicable after the American Government has officially recognized the Mexican Government as legitimate and addresses it as if it alone governed in the City of Mexico.

Without aspiring to unusual consideration, the Mexican Government believed that it might expect from a friendly Government that the latter would avoid reference² to what the note under acknowledgment calls an unavailing regard for the amour propre of Mexico, and that if it considered it necessary to refer to the personnel of its Government it would employ a form less harsh than the one used—probably without precedent to this day in diplomatic courtesy and so at variance with the always just, calm and honest attitude of President Taft, the recognized friend of Mexico.

The personnel of the present Government deplores the incident and forgets it; and as a token of its true friendship for the American people, and in consideration of the high esteem and respect it has for the American President and for his Government, it prefers not to reply to that portion of the note in the terms in which it is written.

I avail myself of this occasion [etc.]

Pedro Lascurain.

1. Should be November 27, 12 noon.
1. The date September 18, 1886, above given as that of the text quoted from Secretary Bayard, is incorrect; it should be February 18, 1886; the text is contained in a note directed to Mr. Cheng Tsao Ju, the Chinese Minister, “touching the treatment of Chinese subjects in the United States.” (See For. Rel. 1886, p. 167; Moore’s Digest, vol. vi, p. 834.)
1. There is no such expression in the Ambassador’s note; the reference is probably to “the Federal administration at present in control in Mexico City,” “the administration now discharging the duties of government in Mexico,” etc.

2. In order to adhere more closely to the probable meaning of the Mexican Government, the translation of this paragraph departs considerably from the copy of the Spanish text received by the Department (File No. 312.11/1005), which is manifestly corrupt, as the following verbatim quotation from that text will show:

   Sin pretender entrar en consideraciones inusitadas, creía esperar de parte de un Gobierno amigo que éste no [sic] prescindiera como expresa la citada Nota, de una inútil consideración al amor propio de Mexico y empleara, ya que lo creyó necesario, para calificar el personal de su Gobierno, una forma menos dura, quizá sin precedents hasta ahora, en la cortesía diplomática, y tan ajena al espíritu siempre justiciero, sereno y honrado del Señor Presidente Taft, el reconocido amigo de Mexico.