File No. 812.00/20689.
The Confidential Agent of the Provisional Government of Mexico to the Department of State.
memorandum.
The undersigned, Confidential Agent of the Provisional Government of Mexico, has read in the public press what purports to be the reply of Mr. Venustiano Carranza, First Chief of the Constitutionalist Forces, addressed by him on the 10th instant to the Secretary of State of the United States, the Ambassadors of Brazil, Chile and Argentina and the Ministers of Bolivia, Uruguay and Guatemala, in response to their note of August 11 last. The observations made by Mr. Carranza in the above-mentioned communication persuade the undersigned to comment on certain of the statements contained therein, which, by reason of the many personal responsibilities of Mr. Carranza and the trust imposed in him by certain of the military leaders of the revolution, may induce the public to accept those statements as true.
In an ambiguous and unworthy manner, Mr. Carranza accuses those who support the Provisional Government as endeavoring to attack the sovereignty of their country, merely because, in response to a suggestion in harmony with their peaceful desires, they have seen fit to accept a disinterested proposal that the contending factions meet and enter into a conference for the purpose of reaching an accord in respect to existing difficulties in Mexico, brought on through the ambitions of Mr. Carranza himself—a proposal that Mr. Carranza rejects merely because it is in conflict with his desire to continue to govern by means of a dictatorship, with reference to the wise and fundamental laws of the nation providing a proper check [Page 749] against abuses arising out of the unwarranted exercise of power by any one man or any group of men.
In announcing this purpose, Mr. Carranza’s acting Minister of Foreign Relations has recourse to the same devices that many times have been announced by his inspired press, namely: that those who have revolted against the national authority, which he pretends to represent, have been aided by the reactionary element now in exile, a statement so flagrant and notoriously false that it is considered unnecessary to seriously deny it. In this connection, however, it may not be improper to allude to the fact that Mr. Carranza himself has not hesitated to receive into his military service many officers of the former Federal Army, which would seem to signify on his part an obsession that all those officers who favor his cause are patriots, while those who fail to join him are traitors—a mental process often identified with the character of those autocrats who endeavor to unite the pretended necessities of the State with their personal ambitions.
Mr. Carranza’s gratuitous accusation of rebellion against those who oppose him is as unfortunate as it is inconsistent. He conveniently forgets that the Convention of Aguascalientes, composed of a majority of his own generals who ostentatiously bore the title of “armed citizens,” declared him a rebel.
The title of “First Chief,” with which he was invested by his own Plan de Guadalupe, became inoperative with the overthrow of Huerta, and the Convention of Aguascalientes recognized that fact. Carranza, consequently, possesses none of the attributes of provisional president, because he was divested of all power by that Convention; furthermore, he has never assumed the title. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to conceive how a state of rebellion against the authority of Mr. Carranza, a mere chief of a faction, can or could exist.
Mr. Carranza does not exercise exclusive control over a single state in the entire Republic, though it is to be admitted that, like the Provisional Government, he enjoys a partial sway in many of them, in some more and in others less, a sway evenly counterbalanced by that of his opponents. Meanwhile, attention is specially invited to the fact that in the states of the south the forces of the Provisional Government have been making steady headway, by the capture and occupation of points of strategic advantage.
It is painful, in a public correspondence of this character, to make accusations against a fellow citizen, but I am compelled by the declarations of Mr. Carranza himself, in support of his obstinate claims of recognition as chief of a de facto government, in reality a dictatorship, to point out that, according to the Carranza theory, it will be necessary for an indefinite period to maintain in Mexico a government opposed to constitutional principles. It is asserted that, during the lapse of lawful order in Mexico, he proposes to bring about the social reforms demanded by the revolution, which would thereafter, as he asserts, be sanctioned, modified or rejected by a constitutional congress. This remarkable idea of initiating provisional reforms sheds a true light on the qualities and vain ideas of Mr. Carranza as a statesman, and on his concepts of constructive administration, all contradictory and inconsistent with his motto of “Constitution and Reforms”. This is brought out in bold relief when it is noted that Mr. Carranza declares his intention of disobeying [Page 750] Article 128 of the Constitution, which provides that immediately upon the restoration of peace the Constitution shall be revived in vigor. Thus it would seem that the Carranza faction is composed alone of Constitutionalists who oppose the Constitution.
Were Mr. Carranza and his supporters true Constitutionalists, they would long have accepted and proclaimed Mr. Manuel Vasquez Tagle as legal successor of the late President Madero. Mr. Vasquez Tagle, aside from his constitutional title to office, is eminently fitted to fill the presidency, not only in compliance with the requirements of the law, but because he has remained in dignified retirement and without identification with either of the contending parties. Indeed, I am gratified to add that his character, leaning always towards the side of justice, and possessed, as he is, of absolute respect for the law, would insure those guaranties which ought not to be dependent on personal favoritism. If Mr. Vasquez Tagle is at present residing within territory occupied by the Carranza forces, why is he not recognized and invested with the authority with which the Constitution endows him? This question is not difficult to answer. The Constitutionalist faction is, for the moment, blinded by a temporary success which inspires a complete indifference to all save the military dictatorship which has committed so many depredations wherever it has passed.
As an example of the anti-constitutional attitude of Mr. Carranza, attention is respectfully invited to his pretended exercise of the right of removal of José M. Maytorena and Felipe Riveros, respectively constitutional Governors of Sonora and Sinaloa, the only reason assigned being that they would not unconditionally obey his orders.
Many more accusations could be made against the régime of Mr. Carranza, demonstrating his absolute lack of ability to restore peace as well as law and order, but I prefer to confine myself only to a criticism of the points which he has officially raised in his note.