File No. 412.00/23.
The American Ambassador to
the Secretary of State.
No. 1888.]
American Embassy,
Mexico,
February 5, 1913.
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.]
[Inclosure 1.]
The American Ambassador
to the Mexican Minister for Foreign
Affairs.
American Embassy,
Mexico,
January 21, 1913.
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.]
[Inclosure 2.]
The American Ambassador
to the British Minister.
American Embassy,
Mexico,
January 27, 1913.
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.]
[Inclosure 3.]
The British Minister to
the American Ambassador.
Mexico,
January 28, 1913.
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,
[Page 939]
[Inclosure 4—Translation.]
The Mexican Minister for
Foreign Affairs to the American
Ambassador.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico,
January 29, 1913.
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.]
[Inclosure 5.]
The American Ambassador
to the British Minister.
Mexico,
February 3, 1913.
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.]
[Page 940]
[Inclosure 6.]
The British Minister to
the American Ambassador.
Mexico,
February 4th, 1913.
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.]
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.
