File No. 812.404/112.

Father Kelley to the Secretary of State.

[Extract.]

My Dear Mr. Bryan: A formal reply to your very interesting and very important letter of the 20th ultimo should have been sent you some weeks ago; but [etc.]

How deeply this question of religious liberty in Mexico goes into the causes that brought the country into its present unhappy condition, you may realize by reverting to your reference to the land question. It may seem difficult to believe that this question is a direct result of the antireligious laws of Mexico; yet such is the fact. A very large majority of the people of Mexico are Indians. Under the wise laws made by Spain for the protection of the aboriginal people, [Page 1027] they were wards of the State, just as our Indians are. The pueblos held lands for their Indian population in common, and these lands were worked in common. The law which dissolved communities—aimed chiefly at religious communities—dissolved also the Indian communities, and did away with the Spanish community-lands. These lands were divided amongst the Indians as individuals, but long before all were ready to assume responsibilities. As a consequence, most of the new Indian proprietors sold or bartered them off for what they could get. It was chiefly through this bartering that the lands fell into the hands of large proprietors, and the Indians became their employees. Had the same course been followed in the United States, we all know that the same result could have been expected. The problem in Mexico, on account of the large Indian population, was a larger one than ours, but it was the same problem. Mexico took the wrong solution. No student of the Mexican situation believes today that the redistribution of the lands, unless safeguards are thrown about the right to sell, would bring about a different result. If the land question is all-important for a settlement of Mexico’s troubles, the utmost care alone can prevent it coming again later to inaugurate a new reign of terror. But the point I wish to emphasize is, that it was the antireligious laws which in reality were responsible for the land question, upon which you very justly put so much stress. * * *

Your mention of the need of education in Mexico is as interesting as your reference to a just and wise solution of the land question. There is no doubt whatever but that Mexico needs education; but again I desire to point out to you the fact, easily verified from the knowledge of those who are acquainted with Mexico’s history, that the antireligious laws have been chiefly responsible for the said condition of education in Mexico today. Previous to the passing of these laws, Mexico had many schools for higher, secondary and primary education; and, even in the country districts and amongst the Indian tribes, schools existed, generously supported by offerings on the part of Catholic Spaniards and the wealthier Mexicans. The driving out of religious communities, whose one object was the conversion and uplifting of the Indians, closed the missions and the mission schools, for their foundations were confiscated by the State, or, by “denunciation”, bought by private individuals for practically nothing. * * *

Thanking you [etc.]

Francis C. Kelley,
President of The Catholic Church Extension Society of the United States of America.