Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Address of the President to Congress December 2, 1913
File No. 412.00/30.
The American Chargé d’Affaires to the Secretary of State.
Mexico, October 1, 1913.
Sir: Referring to previous correspondence regarding the matter of claims against the Government of the United Mexican States, I have the honor to transmit to the Department herewith a report of a meeting held between certain foreign representatives resident in Mexico and the Subsecretary for Foreign Affairs, Don Carlos Pereyra, on the 22nd of July, 1913.
This meeting was not participated in by any member of this Embassy, but I feel sure that while it may not be instructive to the Department, it will at least be of interest as showing the attitude of this country towards claims of foreigners.
I have [etc.]
Minutes of a meeting relative to the creation of a commission for the settlement of claims growing out of the disturbances in Mexico.
At the invitation of the Subsecretary for Foreign Affairs, the Ministers of Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy and Belgium, the Charges d’Affaires of Germany and Austria-Hungary, assembled at the Foreign Office and Lieenciado Don Carlos Pereyra, Subsecretary for Foreign Affairs, proceeded to explain to them the purpose of the meeting in the following terms:
“The Government of Mexico having considered the notes of several foreign ministers, relating to claims growing out of damages caused by the revolution, and having made a study of the suggestions contained in said notes with reference to the creation of mixed commissions, the Mexican Government considers it fit to make the following statements:
“In the first place, it desires to set in relief, in a clear and precise manner, its purpose to satisfy the just wishes of the nationals represented by your excellencies, provided that these nationals represent in Mexico live forces which have helped and will help the progress of the nation.
“In the second place, the Government of Mexico desires that such indemnities as may be granted should be allowed within a short period of time. There is no doubt that the ministers who proposed the creation of mixed international commissions had in mind the efficiency of the results; but the Government of Mexico is of the opinion, without discarding the idea of the international commissions, that there might be a way by which the intention of my Government to settle just claims, and to reach decisions on the matter as speedily as possible, may both be accomplished at the same time. Therefore my Government believes that the idea it will submit to your excellencies will be more efficacious than the international mixed commissions.
“My Government proposes to your excellencies the appointment of a Mexican commission formed by an uneven number of members, not more than five, chosen from the most distinguished, independent and honorable persons.
“It might be objected to this idea that the Government, supposing that the idea is accepted by your excellencies, would prefer lawyers. Several of [Page 952] the ministers have expressed the opinion that lawyers would by professional tendency evade the merits of cases and go into questions of an entirely technical character; but in private conversations with the ministers who raised this objection I stated that the Government of Mexico would not insist upon the appointment of only members of the bar, even though it is convenient that a legal guidance should be had, but that the commission should be composed of a few lawyers and business men able to consider every feature of the claims presented to them for decision.
“It might be further objected, that we have the example of the former commission, now studying claims presented against the Government; but I must say that there is a marked difference between the old and the proposed commission. In the first place, the former commission has to take cognizance of claims from nationals as well as foreigners, and the one proposed will be confined exclusively and distinctly to the study of claims by foreign ministers. This is a point of notable difference.
“The second point is of still greater importance. It would consist in giving the commission a fixed period of time, say of four or five months, to pass upon all claims presented, establishing their merits—that is, their consistency—and the amount to be awarded.
“With reference to the procedure, formality will not be observed, inasmuch as it is the intention that the commission shall act both as a conscientious tribunal and as a jury, in accordance with its best knowledge and belief—a tribunal of honest men, to use the phrase of the old Spanish laws—which will decide whether there is any right in support of the indemnity and will fix the amount, be it one, five or a hundred thousand pesos.
“I believe, in short—if the ministers have faith in the good intentions of the Mexican Government, in the desire it has to show the nations represented by your excellencies its purpose to do right when the nation again resumes its course of progress and production, and if the ministers are persuaded that this high tribunal will be formed by absolutely irreproachable and respectable men, from the point of view of their moral and intellectual character, and, in conclusion, if the ministers bear in mind the desirability of speedy accomplishment of practical results—that this idea will not only be well received, but that it will be followed by closer bonds between Mexico and the nations represented by your excellencies.”
His Excellency Mr. Stronge, Minister of Great Britain, made the following statement:
“Mr. Minister, we have instructions from our Governments to suggest the creation of an international commission. Therefore we have not the right, the power, to accept your proposition. But I believe, though I do not know whether I can voice the sentiments of my colleagues, that the only thing I can do is to inform my Government of this proposition, which may be accepted if it is regarded as appropriate.”
His Excellency Paul Lefaivre, Minister of France, expressed himself in the following words:
“Evidently, in order to recommend the idea to my Government, I would have to inform it concerning the constitution of the commission, because, so far as I am concerned, the results obtained through the commission created two years since are not encouraging, but rather to the contrary; and in order to recommend the idea I shall have to supply my Government with concrete motives persuading me of the worth of the commission. After being apprised of the persons who are to form the commission, I may be able to say to my Government: This is a tentative proposal, the last to which we can submit, to see whether we can attain results; otherwise we will have to return to our purpose as already accepted by our Governments, that is, to suggest a mixed commission.”
Subsecretary Pereyra replied as follows:
“The statement just made by the Minister of France has already been considered by me; in fact, I referred to the commission now operating in anticipation of an objection of this character, and I said that the Government of Mexico desires to avoid the repetition in this commission of the objections to the former one. Mexico is persuaded that one of the means by which it can secure the cooperation of the persons, capital and great institutions of the nations here represented is undoubtedly the settlement of this question. We are not in the condition of Mexico in 1830 or 1838 when we defended ourselves against claims presented by nations which exerted pressure upon us, and when we, [Page 953] without any other hope than that of eluding the burden which had fallen upon us, had to resort to jurisprudence and all possible forms of international law, to evade the evils by which we were menaced. I believe that at this moment Mexico is no way depressed; it may be deeply concerned, but it has great hopes and the certitude that with the cooperation of civilized nations it will yet see a new flourishing of civilization. In view of this, the question of distrust should be laid aside.
“The Minister of France has referred to the unsatisfactory results of the commission now operating, and I could also refer to the unsatisfactory results obtained from international commissions; in many cases, after the effect of them has been frustrated, diplomatic or some other action has been adopted to settle such difficulties as have been left unattended to by an international commission.
“Therefore, if we are to establish a national commission, we are not going to reproduce past errors but prevent them, and this is to be done in two ways: First, the formation of a commission that will guarantee the desires of the Ministers; second, the procedure: if the method adopted leaves no room for a postponement, then it can not be said that we are resorting to the commission tentatively but are fully hopeful of arriving at a satisfactory result.”
The Minister of Italy said: That he appreciated the explanation made by Mr. Pereyra and had full faith in him; that the idea of the creation of a Mexican commission does not exclude the formation of a mixed one, if the former should be a failure, and that in this way some of the representatives, such as the British Minister, could meet the instructions they had from their Governments.
The Minister of Belgium said that he also appreciated the explanation made by Mr. Pereyra, but would like to learn the names of the persons who were to form the Commission.
Subsecretary Pereyra spoke again, as follows:
“I will answer the suggestions of the Belgian Minister. The guaranty sought by the nations represented by your excellencies concerning the formation of the commission is regarded by me as perfectly just; and it seems to me that I have said that the Mexican Government would appoint persons of an irreproachable character, that is, such as would cause your excellencies to congratulate yourselves upon their appointment and to have nothing more to say than that the names of the commissioners were a sufficient guaranty.”
The French Minister said:
“Since we accept the principle, I believe we should be informed upon the rules under which the commission will admit claims.” Mr. Pereyra said:
“I will at once say that with reference to the term, we must not place any limitation. I believe that the claims which have been presented to this date, a complete list of which is in the possession of the Foreign Office, will furnish the data for the manner of operation of the commission.
“With reference to rules, they will be brief and precise, as they will be applied by an equity court, what is called in Spain a tribunal of good men, who will regard every indication tending towards the results.
“We would pass over the principles of international law, the rigor of which would be entirely set aside, and we would state that this is done for the purpose of inspiring good will and with a desire for closer relations.
“The Minister of Spain has not allowed us to hear his opinion, and I should like very much to hear it.”
The Minister of Spain said:
“With reference to the formation of the commission, we know there must be something of jurisprudence and law, as should be the case; but we have the assurance that formalities will be avoided, and in this I am absolutely in accord, because I have always maintained that to adhere blindly to the letter of a code is the thing which is most in opposition to justice.
“With reference to the consultative commission, I see an inconvenience in the restrictive term which would limit the commission to June 5. Besides, there is the question of private patrimony as interpreted by the consultative commission, (and in this connection I attribute a great value to the remarks of Mr. Pereyra, when he tells us that the commission proposed by him will treat only cases in which foreigners are concerned, which is, in fact, a further guaranty), as this question of private patrimony and the incompetency of the commission in cases of death, has for me a very great interest not only because among my nationals I have had similar cases, but because, in due justice, I believe [Page 954] that the widows and orphans of a man without fortune are much more worthy of an indemnity, than a man several times a millionaire who may have suffered the misfortune of seeing his estate reduced to one million pesos.
“There is another question of positive interest which we must take up. For example, in the promise that all legal formalities will be set aside, I suppose exaggerated formalities. In the Consultative Claims Commission, where I have to go often, I have found that the receipts signed by rebel chiefs, perfectly well known, have to be legalized and certified to in each case through the efforts of the person in interest. All of this will be set aside in the present case. Therefore, I, for my part, have heard my colleagues with pleasure and I adhere to the ideas of Mr. Pereyra.”
The Minister of Italy closing the argument:
“It appears, Mr. Minister, that, more or less, we are all in complete accord.”
The Subsecretary said:
“If such is the case, I am greatly pleased by the result.”
The meeting then adjourned.