File No. 412.00/23.

The American Ambassador to the Secretary of State.

No. 1888.]

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Department’s instruction No. 1168 of the 10th ultimo, relative to the correspondence exchanged between the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs and the British Minister concerning the status of claims growing out of the revolution.

In order, if possible, to have an authentic explanation of the attitude taken by Mr. Stronge, I wrote both to him and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and transmit herewith copies of the correspondence exchanged.

The general instructions mentioned by Mr. Stronge are substantially in accord with the position taken by the Government of the United States and by other governments regarding claims, when considered in a general way, and presuppose the non-liability of a government for damages occasioned by insurrectionists over whom it can not exercise control.

I am unable, however, to understand Mr. Stronge’s position as regards the difference in character between claims arising from one or the other of the recent revolutions in Mexico. It was taken apparently by him in agreement with statements made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to which he probably assented without considering their full import and which the Minister cleverly incorporated in his reply to the British note.

The significance of the statement made by the Foreign Office, as I understand it, is that the Mexican Government, wishing to show special consideration regarding the claims arising out of the Madero Revolution, appointed the Consultive Claims Commission with a view to the separate treatment of such claims, and endeavors to emphasize the difference between those claims and others which might be brought forward. Although the commission was heralded abroad as showing the good faith of the Mexican Government in this matter, I am unable to find that its work has resulted in the settlement of a single claim made by any American citizen. Claims have been promptly transmitted to that body for “consideration” and there, so far as I am aware, they still remain. The Mexican Government in thus separating the two classes of claims obviously intended to give preference to the Madero Revolution claims if at some, future time it should become necessary to give serious consideration to their settlement.

In view of the fact that the damages to American life and property and consequently the claims arising therefrom growing out of the [Page 937] Madero Revolution were trifling compared with the losses to American interests clue to the subsequent revolutionary disorders throughout Mexico, the appointment of the claims commission has been of no material advantage but on the contrary has served only to delay and befog the question of prompt and adequate settlement of our claims.

I can not see the difference pointed out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the British Minister between the two classes of claims mentioned and I should be glad to have the further views of the Department upon this matter, which may at any time assume great importance.

It might be advisable for the Department to exchange views with the British Foreign Office for the purposes of arriving at a common understanding relative to the claims question. The British Minister here agrees entirely too easily with the Mexican Foreign Office in matters affecting all classes of questions growing out of the revolution and it might be well to secure uniformity of policy.

I have [etc.]

Henry Lane Wilson.
[Inclosure 1.]

The American Ambassador to the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs.

My dear Mr. Lascurain: Referring to the note which it is understood your excellency wrote to the British Minister in this capital in November last, in which as I am informed the statement was made that the disturbances now occurring in Mexico, “do not have the character of the Revolution of 1910,” in the matter of the settlement of claims, I am instructed to obtain from your excellency an explanation of this statement and its significance, since the Government of the United States is unaware that there is any difference between the two movements as they may relate to the question of claims of foreigners for damages to life and property.

Believe me [etc.]

Henry Lane Wilson.
[Inclosure 2.]

The American Ambassador to the British Minister.

My dear Mr. Stronge: Mr. Schuyler has handed me a memorandum of a conversation had with you on January 23rd relative to the question of claims against the Mexican Government for damages growing out of revolutionary disturbances in Mexico. In this memorandum Mr. Schuyler states that you quote page 207 of the printed instruction to His Majesty’s consular officers, which says:

Where claims are made for compensation for damages done by insurgents in armed insurrections against a government which was unable to control them, claimants should be reminded that His Majesty’s Government do not regard a government as liable in such cases unless that government were negligent and might have prevented the damage arising or unless they pay compensation to their own citizens or subjects or to other foreigners in similar cases, or unless the rebellion has been successful and the insurgent party has been installed in power.

These instructions do not differ in any material way from the printed instructions of the Government of the United States by which this Embassy must be guided in its consideration of the claims of American citizens against [Page 938] Mexico for damages growing out of the revolutionary disturbances. To that extent we are in full accord, therefore, and doubtless will remain so until such time as His Majesty’s Government or the Government of the United States shall, one or the other, modify the established rule. This, however, was not the point which I desired Mr. Schuyler to ask you to be good enough to explain and which I fear he did not make sufficiently clear. In the letter of Mr. Lascurain to you, which I asked Mr. Schuyler to call to your attention, you are placed in the position of assenting to the statement of the Minister that the claims growing out of the Madero revolution differ in character from those growing out of the revolution which has been in more or less active progress since the installation of the present Government. Whether you inadvertently permitted Mr. Lascurain to assume that this was your position or whether you really hold such an opinion and your reasons therefor is what I am endeavoring to ascertain. My Government recognizes no difference in the character of claims growing out of the Madero revolution from those growing out of the more recent revolutionary disturbances and has instructed me to ask Mr. Lascurain for a clearer explanation of the general statement contained in his note to you of November 9th last. At some time in the future my Government intends to take up the matter of claims against the Government of Mexico for damages growing out of revolutionary disturbances in a very active and vigorous way and I am informed that His Majesty’s Government intends to do likewise. This circumstance will account for my desire to have the situation made perfectly clear and unembarrassed.

Believe me [etc.]

Henry Lane Wilson.
[Inclosure 3.]

The British Minister to the American Ambassador.

My Dear Mr. Wilson: I am glad to learn from your letter of yesterday that the general instructions issued by our two Governments in regard to claims are in substantial accord.

As regards Mr. Lascurain’s letter to which you refer, I certainly do think that, if the principles laid down in the British instructions are admitted, it must also be admitted that the claims for damages by rebels since the accession of the present Government to power are in [on] a different footing from those resulting from damages by rebels during the previous period. This difference, as I see it, is specially dealt with in the British instructions, for it is expressly stated that except under certain conditions, which are duly specified, His Majesty’s Government do not regard a government as liable for compensation for damage done by insurgents in armed insurrection unless the rebellion has been successful.

Now, the rebellion against General Díaz’ Government was successful and the quondam insurgent chief, Francisco Madero, is now the President. On the other hand the various revolutionary movements directed against the present Government have, so far, entirely failed.

Whatever view our Governments may take of claims for damages by rebels during the present disturbances I think it will be impossible to ignore this distinction. It may be that they will hold that the present Government has shown such negligence in protecting the foreign interests that it must be held liable for the losses incurred, if not in all, at least in many of the cases where claims have been presented. This consideration does hot, however, affect the distinction which can, and I think must, be drawn between the present and former claims.

I may mention that in forwarding to Sir Edward Grey a translation of Mr. Lascurain’s letter I stated that the latter’s proposal to postpone a decision respecting the present claims until the cessation of the disturbances did not seem to me to meet the requirements of the case.

Yours sincerely,

Francis Stronge.
[Page 939]
[Inclosure 4—Translation.]

The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Ambassador.

My dear Mr. Ambassador: I have taken notice of your excellency’s note of January 21, in which reference is made to a note addressed to the British Minister, wherein, according to your excellency’s information, I made the statement that the present disturbances do not have the character of the revolution of 1910, with regard to the payment of indemnities, and your excellency wishes to know the scope of this statement, inasmuch as the Government of the United States does not see any difference between one movement and the other, concerning the question of indemnities to foreigners on account of damage suffered in their lives and properties.

In reply I have the honor to say to your excellency that in answer to a question from the British Minister as to whether any action had been taken to indemnify British subjects and other foreigners on account of the losses suffered by them in consequence of the present conditions of the country, as was done with the claims presented to the special Consultative Claims Commission which is at present operating, notwithstanding that the circumstances, as stated by the British Minister, are not the same, I said to him that while the disturbances which have occurred during this year in various points of the Republic do not have the character of the revolution of 1910 the Government has not taken any action with reference to the claims of foreigners, because it has been awaiting the conclusion of the above disturbances; but that as soon as any measure is adopted, the same shall be communicated to him.

I have seen no impropriety in causing your excellency to know of this determination, notwithstanding that the note of the British Minister is of a confidential character, and that the reply to it should be considered likewise; but as I do not know the manner in which your excellency became acquainted with these documents, I have preferred to let you know, as I have done by the above lines, the details of this correspondence, in order to avoid comment which might be based on the lack of exact knowledge of the facts. I must say right now that the responsibility which the nation assumed on account of damages caused by the revolution of 1910 was a voluntary act, but that this attitude can not be invoked as a precedent, considering international correspondence on the subject.

I avail [etc.]

Pedro Lascurian.
[Inclosure 5.]

The American Ambassador to the British Minister.

My Dear Mr. Stronge: Replying to your note of January 28th last, for which I beg you to accept my thanks, I have again to say that a claim which has any status under international law is not altered in character by the circumstance of its having originated in either one or the other of the two revolutions which have taken place in Mexico since 1910. A claim which, according to rules now established and universally accepted, is valid as growing out of one revolutionary movement is equally valid as growing out of the other. As to any obligations which this Government may voluntarily assume in dealing with those claims having their origin exclusively in 1910, they must necessarily fall outside the rule and have a peculiar and special character. It is true that this Government has of its own volition established a claims commission to exclusively consider and pass upon claims growing out of the revolution of 1910, but I have yet to learn of any cases decided by this commission wherein the Government has accepted responsibility for the payment of any kind of claims except those falling within the strict rule of international practice. If I am mistaken in this estimate of this Government’s present attitude respecting claims I shall be glad to be informed wherein as I have no knowledge of the adjudication by the Consultive Claims Commission of any claims for which this Government would not be responsible under established precedents.

I am [etc.]

Henry Lane Wilson.
[Page 940]
[Inclosure 6.]

The British Minister to the American Ambassador.

My Dear Mr. Wilson: I am much obliged to you for your letter of yesterday. As regards my letter to which it is a reply, I do not think that the opinions expressed therein in any way go beyond the tenour of the general instructions issued to British consular officers with which you are already acquainted.

The various arguments and considerations which you have put forward in your letter do not seem to me to be strictly relevant to the point which we were discussing, and I do not think it would be prudent for me to comment upon them in default of explicit instructions from my Government.

Believe me [etc.]

Francis Stronge.

Note.—On February 21, 11 p.m., the Department telegraphed to the Ambassador regarding this Government’s attitude toward the Provisional Government of Mexico and recognition thereof. The matter of claims and of such controversies as the Tlahualilo, Chamizal, Colorado River, Alamo, Agua Prieta and Juárez matters are involved, in this instruction, which see under Political Affairs.