Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Address of the President to Congress December 2, 1913
File No. 312.11/1041a.
The Secretary of State to the American Ambassador.
Washington, January 9, 1913.
Sir: As supplementary to the Department’s telegraphic instruction of January 7, 5 p.m., I now inclose copies of memoranda of my conversation with Mr. Lascurain on January 3, and of his conversation with the Assistant Secretary of State on the following day. When Mr. Lascurain was received by the President on the 2d instant the President spoke to him along similar lines.
When Mr. Calero called at the Department preparatory to his departure from Washington, I took advantage of the opportunity to speak to him rather strongly along the general lines which were under discussion during your recent visit to Washington.
What with the fact that the situation in Mexico has appeared for the past few weeks to be somewhat quieter and the fact that there has been communicated to the Mexican Government, first through Mr. Calero and then through Mr. Lascurain a very clear impression of the views of this Government and of the more earnest, energetic and friendly action which it expects of the Government of Mexico in behalf of American interests, it does not seem necessary at this time to make to the Government of Mexico any further written representations of a general character. From the present instruction and its inclosures and by consulting the telegram of January 7, to which I have alluded, it is thought that the Embassy will gain a clear idea of what it was sought to impress upon the Government of Mexico through Mr. Lascurain as well as of the present attitude of the Department toward the general situation.
You will note that Mr. Lascurain requested a recapitulation of what he had learned at the Department regarding certain specific cases, and that in reply to his request he was informed that although the specific cases mentioned were simply examples and did not by any means constitute a complete list, such a recapitulation might possibly be communicated to him personally and unofficially. In this connection the Department has prepared a paper, copy of which is inclosed, to be handed to Mr. Lascurain quite informally in compliance with his request.
I am [etc.]
Memorandum of conversation between the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, January 3, 1913.
protection of americans and american interests in general.
His Excellency Pedro Lascurain, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Mexico, called upon me at the Department of State this morning at 10 o’clock, stating that he had been on a visit for the past three weeks to the United States with a view of making inquiry as to the American point of view in respect to American interests in Mexico by personal conversations with individuals and corporations having, interests in his country.
He said that he had in his possession a large number of letters written by owners and representatives of American interests in Mexico, certifying to the fact that conditions with them were quite normal and that they were enabled to prosecute their business without molestation or interference. I called his attention to the fact that the feeling in the United States had no reference to the interests that were undisturbed, but to those that were disturbed; that we were not claiming that all American interests in all of Mexico had been subject to molestation or interference, but that many American interests in many parts of Mexico had suffered from lack of protection in various ways, such as having their property seized and converted to the use of the parties seizing it, their cattle and horses stolen, and in many cases the individual rights and liberties of American citizens seriously interfered with; that the constant reiteration of stories of Mexican outrages on American citizens had produced a condition of mind in this country that had to be taken into account in our dealings with his Government, and that we had called the attention of his Government from time to time to the necessity of greater vigilance in protecting and redressing American rights; that great pressure had been brought upon the President and upon members of Congress for the repeal of the resolution authorizing the President, by proclamation, to forbid the exportation of arms and ammunition to Mexico that would likely fall into the hands of parties engaged in revolution in that country.
We talked over the situation generally and I endeavored to impress upon him the necessity of prompt and effective protection in cases where protection was needed as being the best means of meeting, the pressure to which I had referred.
Mr. Lascurain said that he was authorized to assure me that the greatest vigilance would be employed in correcting the matters of which I had spoken; that he could assure me that in Chihuahua and Sonora they would at once restore complete order so that no further complaints would likely come from those States, and would to the very utmost of their ability employ adequate means to the same end in other parts of Mexico.
claims in general.
He said another branch of his mission, and the one which he came to Washington to discharge, was to come to some understanding about various matters of difference between the two countries and referred to the claims that had been made for injuries to American citizens at Douglas and El Paso.
douglas and el paso claims. chamizal case. colorado river, tlahualilo, and alamo cases..
I then called his attention to the fact that the Chamizal matter was one that it would be wise to have adjusted as early as possible; that the people of Texas were quite concerned in its early settlement and that since last June the Mexican Ambassador here had been promising a reply to the proposition made by this Government as a basis for its adjustment. I sent for Mr. Anderson, the Counselor, and had him explain to Mr. Lascurain somewhat in detail the points connected with the Chamizal case, and Mr. Lascurain assured us that it would receive his immediate attention as soon as he returned to Mexico. I then sent for the Solicitor, Mr. Clark, who took up and discussed in some detail, with Mr. Lascurain the El Paso and Douglas incidents, the Colorado River matter, the Tlahualilo case, and the Alamo case.
[Page 928]Wilson.
douglas and el paso claims.
The Solicitor having explained the status of the El Paso and Douglas claims—namely, that the report of the military board appointed by the Secretary of War at the direction of Congress to investigate these claims was now before Congress and was still unacted upon by that body—I informed Mr. Lascurain that, pending action by Congress on these claims, the Department was not in a position to discuss them. Mr. Lascurain appeared to desire to forestall a congressional discussion of them, but I gave him to understand that that seemed not now possible.
colorado river case.
It appeared from the discussion of the matter that the next move in the Colorado River negotiation lay with us, and the Solicitor having indicated that while the Mexican counterdraft contained some things which we could not accept it also contained others which would be unobjectionable to us, and, further, that in no case were the differences of such a character that they could not be easily adjusted. I stated to Mr. Lascurian that it would seem we should be able to make an early arrangement on this matter and that the Department would at once prepare and send to Mexico City a second draft.
tlahualilo case.
Mr. Lascurain stated, with reference to the Tlahualilo matter and the proposition made by England and the United States to arbitrate the questions involved, that there were some questions in the controversy which they regarded as involving the sovereign rights of Mexico, and that Mexico could not, therefore, undertake to arbitrate them. He added, however, that he was most anxious to secure a settlement of this matter, and stated that he desired to waive a further discussion of settlement by arbitration and to take the matter up with the Tlahualilo Co. and make with them a private settlement. I explained to Mr. Lascurain that if he wished to adjust the matter in this way it seemed that he might reply to the proposal for arbitration, stating that he desired to make a private settlement and requesting that to that end the discussion of the question of the arbitration of the matter be postponed. I also stated to him that such a letter should contain a definite offer of settlement of the controversy between the Government and the company, and I assured him that if the offer of settlement was, in the opinion of the Department, just and equitable the Department would advise the company to accept the terms, and that if the company failed to accept the terms it would decline further to interfere in the matter and leave the company and the Mexican Government to arrange the matter between themselves.
alamo case.
Mr. Lascurain stated that they desired to make an adjustment of the Alamo matter and spoke of the Americans killed there as filibusters. The Solicitor pointed out that the Department had had two investigations made, each of them under directions for the exercise on the part of the investigators of the greatest care, and that such investigation had failed utterly to elicit anything upon which could be based an assertion that the Americans who were killed were filibusters. It was suggested that as this Government, obviously desired nothing but what was just and proper in this matter the Department would be very glad to be furnished with the evidence upon which the Mexican Government relied to establish that these people were filibusters. Upon the Solicitor’s suggestion that were the facts of the case as they had been disclosed to the Department generally known to the American people, as also the fact that thus far the parties guilty of the crime had remained unpunished, there could not fail to be a strong feeling of resentment in this country which might make the situation difficult, Mr. Lascurain reiterated his desire to reach an early settlement of the case.
Toward the close of the interview I asked Mr. Huntington Wilson, the Assistant Secretary, to come in to meet Mr. Lascurain, and in the presence of the latter briefly recapitulated what had passed during the interview. Being then obliged to go to the Cabinet meeting, I asked Mr. Wilson to confer with other officials of the Department and then to give Mr. Lascurain any information upon any further points that it might be thought useful to develop.
Memorandum of conversation between the Assistant Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, January 4, 1913.
Office of the Assistant Secretary,
Saturday, January 4, 1913.
When I was about to telephone to Mr. Lascurain this morning, to say that although there occurred to me no specific points requiring mention beyond those covered in the interview of the previous day, it was announced to me that his excellency had arrived with the Mexican Chargé d’Affaires and desired to see me. I then received Mr. Lascurain, who came in alone.
I explained that it did not seem necessary to mention other specific cases because I was sure all the President or the Secretary had intended to do in mentioning certain cases was to give examples of the sort of cases the prompt settlement of which would redound to better feeling in the United States, thus affording the Mexican Government opportunity to give appropriate signs of friendship and of activity. I remarked that, of course, the archives of the Mexican Foreign Office would be found to contain full information upon very many cases, information as to which had been to it presented by the embassy at Mexico City.
Mr. Lascurain inquired about public opinion in this country and mentioned the fact that very many Americans in Mexico were suffering not at all and were satisfied with the situation. I replied that it was natural that those Americans directly interested who were not suffering should see the situation in a rosy light, while those who were suffering greatly should see it in very dark colors. I added that there was a vastly more important body of public opinion—namely, the opinion of the general public of the United States—which was without direct personal interest in the Mexican situation. Of this general public, I said, there was a small section of persons who cared little for foreign affairs and were indifferent to the fate of their countrymen in foreign countries, but that the great and most important body of public opinion comprised, I thought, the average disinterested citizen who had heard for two years or more of wrongs to and failures to protect his compatriots and their interests in Mexico, and was aware of the remarkably friendly attitude of the Government of the United States and who resented the inadequate return shown in Mexico for this friendship and who was beginning to regard as intolerable the continuance of such a situation in a neighboring republic. The great danger, I said, was that this great public opinion should have cause to reach a point where it could no longer be resisted.
Mr. Lascurain wanted to know in what form there came to the Government the pressure for a change of policy, to which Mr. Knox had alluded. I intimated that it came from reputable editors, public-spirited citizens, students of foreign affairs, and such people who were fairly representative of public opinion, as well as from those who were directly interested in the situation.
Mr. Lascurain intimated his doubt as to the basis for any impression that the Mexican Government was unfriendly or apathetic in its attitude toward American interests. To avoid a useless discussion of matters of fact, I reminded his excellency that we were discussing public opinion, not making allegations.
I emphasized the great lengths of friendliness and patience to which this Government had gone, and referred to the fact that the bandits and rebels in Mexico had been alleging resentment of this policy as a reason for increased depredations upon American interests. I pointed out that this placed upon the Mexican Government a peculiarly heavy moral obligation to protect American citizens and their interests from suffering as a result of the friendly policy of the Government of the United States. I pointed out that a continuance of our policy ought to suggest on the part of the Mexican Government an attitude, not of captious criticism and excessive sensitiveness, but one of active effort to do its utmost share toward making longer possible the policy of the United States, which it was generally admitted had been a sine qua non to the continuance of the Madero administration.
I alluded to the great wrong of occasionally introducing false stories of American aggression as elements in the internal politics of Latin-American countries. I admitted, however, that this had not, so far as I was aware, [Page 930] been recently done at Mexico City, although this most damaging expedient had been resorted to, I was sorry to say, early in the Madero administration.
The whole interview was most amicable and agreeable. Mr. Lascurain said that he was going home by way of El Paso, where he intended to examine into certain matters on the spot, and he gave the impression that upon his return to Mexico City he expected to be able to do much to improve the relations of the two countries.
Mr. Lascurain said that he would like to have repeated to him the details of what we desired in the Chamizal case and also the details of the other specific incidents which Mr. Knox had mentioned. Since it was not possible to have this done orally immediately, I suggested the possibility of a personal and unofficial letter, recapitulating some of these points. I impressed upon him again, however, that the specific cases mentioned were simply examples and were no complete list. He was anxious that such a letter be written him, either this evening before his departure, or to the Foreign Office to meet him on his arrival at Mexico City.
Recapitulation of cases discussed at the Department of State with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico.
chamizal case.
The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Lascurain, had a conference this morning at the Department with the Secretary of State and the Counselor for the Department of State with regard to the Chamizal case and expressed a desire on behalf of his Government to reach a prompt settlement, but he stated that he personally was not familiar with the situation or the course of the negotiations up to the present time, and asked that the position and wishes of the Department of State be explained to him. In compliance with this request he was informed that the bases for a settlement which would be acceptable to the Department of State had been handed to the Mexican Ambassador here last spring, and that these bases, together with certain alternative suggestions brought forth by the Mexican Ambassador, had been exhaustively discussed at that time; that at the beginning of the negotiations the Mexican Ambassador had been anxious to secure for Mexico an additional supply of water somewhere along the boundary for irrigation purposes, either from the Rio Grande by enlarging the guaranteed supply under the treaty of 1906 between the United States and Mexico, or from the Colorado River in connection with the settlement of that question; that a careful examination of the situation had shown that it was impossible to increase the guaranteed supply from the Rio Grande, and that combining this case with the Colorado River case would lead to unnecessary delays and complications, and inasmuch as they were wholly unrelated questions it was finally decided that it would be advisable to deal with them separately. The final proposition of the Department of State, therefore, had been to exchange Mexico’s claim to a portion of the Chamizal for the Hereon Bar tract, which was equivalent in surface area, although not equal in value, and that the difference in value of that tract and the portion of the Chamizal claimed by Mexico was to be made up by the payment of an amount of money to be agreed upon, which the Mexican Government was to use as compensation for the holders of Mexican titles in the portion of the Chamizal claimed by Mexico, which would be eliminated by the surrender of that claim. He was further informed that when these negotiations were suspended last summer, in consequence of the departure of the Mexican Ambassador, the Government of the United States had been assured by him that he would promptly take the matter up with the Mexican Foreign Office and endeavor to secure new instructions conforming as nearly as possible with the terms of settlement proposed by the United States, and that he expected upon his return to Washington to be able to bring with him two draft treaties, one for the settlement of the Colorado River question and one for the settlement of the Chamizal question; that notwithstanding these assurances the Department of State had received no further communication from the Mexican Ambassador on the subject since his return to Washington this fall except a vague [Page 931] suggestion of a possibility of the settlement of the Chamizal question on advantageous terms if it was delayed until the settlement of the Colorado River question, or, in the alternative, a more prompt settlement of the Chamizal if some entirely new bases of settlement could be agreed upon. This suggestion was not in writing, but was communicated orally at an interview which was secured only after great delay, and apparently with considerable reluctance on the part of the Ambassador.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs then stated that it would be impossible for him to make any positive reply without consulting the records of the case, which he could not do until his return to the Foreign Office; that he was opposed to delay, and saw no reason why the case could not be settled at once in a way which would be satisfactory to both Governments.
At this point in the conference the Secretary of State called the Minister’s attention to the importance to Mexico, as well as to the United States, of reaching a prompt settlement of this and several other questions which had already been unnecessarily delayed, and were likely to occasion considerable friction between the two Governments. In this connection it was stated to the Minister that although the portion of the Chamizal tract claimed by Mexico was comparatively small in area and of no great value, nevertheless it so happened that a number of important American interests were centered in it, including the railroad terminal facilities at that point; and the delay of the Mexican Government in proceeding with these negotiations had aroused strong criticism and feeling.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs then stated again that he was anxious to take the matter up at once and would do so immediately upon his return, and he assured the Secretary of State that a proposal for a settlement would be immediately made by the Mexican Government and that no further delays in negotiation would be permitted, as he was aware of the importance of settling the question promptly, and particularly before the expiration of the two years’ period from the date1 of the award of the Chamizal Arbitration Tribunal.
el paso and douglas claims.
The Solicitor having explained the status of the El Paso and Douglas claims—namely, that the report of the military board appointed by the Secretary of War at the direction of Congress to investigate these claims was now before Congress and was still unacted upon by that body—the Secretary of State informed Mr. Lascurain that, pending action by Congress on these claims, the Department was not in a position to discuss them. Mr. Lascurain appeared to desire to forestall a congressional discussion of them, but the Secretary of State gave him to understand that that seemed not now possible.
colorado river negotiation.
The Solicitor having indicated that while the Mexican counterdraft contained some things which the Department of State could not accept, it also contained others which would be unobjectionable to the Department of State, and, further, that in no case were the differences of such a character that they should not be easily adjusted. The Secretary of State stated to Mr. Lascurain that it would seem that the two Governments should be able to make an early arrangement on this matter and that the Department of State would at once prepare and send to Mexico City a second draft.
the tlahualilo matter.
Mr. Lascurain stated, with reference to the Tlahualilo matter and the proposition made by England and the United States to arbitrate the questions involved, that there were some questions in the controversy which the Mexican Foreign Office regarded as involving the sovereign rights of Mexico, and that Mexico could not, therefore, undertake to arbitrate them. He added, however, that he was most anxious to secure a settlement of this matter, and stated that he desired to postpone a further discussion of settlement by arbitration and to take the matter up with the Tlahualilo Co. and make with them a private settlement. The Secretary of State explained to Mr. Lascurain that if he wished to adjust the matter in this way it seemed that he might reply [Page 932] to the proposal for arbitration, stating that he desired to make a private settlement and requesting that to that end the discussion of the question of the arbitration of the matter be postponed. The Secretary of State also stated to him that such a reply should contain a definite offer of settlement of the controversy between the Government and the company, and the Secretary of State assured him that if the offer of settlement was, in the opinion of the Department of State, just and equitable the Department would advise the company to accept the terms, and that if the company failed to accept the terms it would decline, further to interfere in the matter and leave the company and the Mexican Government to arrange the matter between themselves.
the alamo matter.
Mr. Lascurain stated that the Mexican Government desired to make an adjustment of the Alamo matter and spoke of the Americans killed there as filibusters. The Solicitor pointed out that the Department of State had two investigations made, each of them under directions for the exercise on the part of the investigators of the greatest care, and that such investigation had failed utterly to elicit anything upon which could be based an assertion that the Americans who were killed were filibusters. It was suggested that as the Government of the United States obviously desired nothing but what was just and proper in this matter, the Department of State would be very glad to be furnished with the evidence upon which the Mexican Government relied to establish that these people were filibusters. Upon the Solicitor’s suggestion that were the facts of the case as they had been disclosed to the Department generally known to the American people, as also the fact that thus far the parties guilty of the crime had remained unpunished, there could not fail to be a strong feeling of resentment in this country which might make the situation difficult, Mr. Lascurain reiterated his desire to reach an early settlement of the case.
- June 15, 1911.↩