Office of the Historian

812.00/17714½

The Secretary of State to President Wilson

Washington, July 3, 1916 .

My Dear Mr. President: In view of your request this morning for a memorandum on the policy to be adopted in regard to Mexico I will [Page 561] endeavor to present an idea which is not new but which in the present circumstances I think may be worked out in a new way.

The idea is simply the naming of a joint American-Mexican Commission of four or six members to study the various questions relating to the boundary troubles and the necessary means to prevent them in the future.

If the Carrizal incident was a clear case of Mexican aggression I doubt if I would be favorable to this policy, but it appears to me that Captain Boyd was possibly to blame.37 At least there is sufficient contradiction in the statements of those present to put us on inquiry as to the facts before taking drastic action.

In regard to the creation and work of a joint commission I would offer the following suggestions:

1st.
The proposal for such a commission should be made by the de facto Government in answer to our note of June 25th38 as evidence of its friendly intentions. (I feel convinced that this can be accomplished through Arredondo and through the financial agent of Carranza, Dr. Rendon. In fact I know the latter is already making representations to his Chief in favor of a commission of some sort.)
2nd.
The Commission should be composed of an equal number of Americans and Mexicans, and should sit in Washington as soon as possible.
3rd.
The members should be diplomatic commissioners clothed with formal powers to negotiate a protocol or protocols ad referendum, and to make joint or several reports.
4th.
The subjects to be considered by the Commission should embrace:
(a)
The Carrizal incident,
(b)
The raids which have taken place across the border.
(c)
The general state of lawlessness and brigandage which has prevailed in Mexican territory contiguous to the international boundary.
(d)
The treatment of Mexican citizens on the American side of the boundary.
(e)
Efficient means of suppressing the lawless elements and re-storing peace and safety by cooperation of the military and civil authorities of the two countries.
(f)
The right to pursue marauders within a fixed or flexible zone without regard to territorial sovereignty, the pursuers to be properly restricted in dealing with the civil and military authorities of the other country.
(g)
The use of the railroads in exercising the right of pursuit.
(h)
A cooperative scheme of border protection which will insure safety to life and property.
(i)
Any other pertinent subject which will aid in the accomplishment of the ends desired.
[Page 562] Subjects a, b, c, and d should be embodied in a report or reports. The other subjects included in a protocol or protocols of agreement.
5th.
Until the Commission has met and completed its labors and the Governments have acted upon their reports and protocols the status quo as to American troops in Mexico should continue, and in case of raids into American territory American military authorities should be permitted to cross the boundary in hot pursuit of the raiders.

This in crude form is the general scheme which I have in mind as offering a possible amicable solution to the present difficulty.

At the same time I would not abate for one hour the military preparation which we are making, for this effort at peaceable settlement may in the end fail. If it does, we ought to be fully prepared, and I think that we will be by the time the Commission completes its work.39 We certainly would be better off than we are now if force is necessary. I believe too that our increasing strength would have a salutory effect on the negotiations. . . .

Faithfully yours,

Robert Lansing
  1. For correspondence previously printed on the Carrizal incident, see Foreign Relations, 1916, pp. 592–596.↩
  2. Ibid., p. 595.↩
  3. For correspondence previously printed concerning the setting up of the Commission, see Foreign Relations, 1916, pp. 601, 603–608.↩