Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918
File Nos. 812.032/33 and 812.032/35
The Ambassador in Mexico ( Fletcher) to the Secretary of State
Sir: I have the honor to confirm my plain telegram No. 1472 of September 2, noon,2 in which I briefly summarized the references to foreign affairs in the President’s annual message to Congress, and to enclose, herewith, the full Spanish text of this document, together with a translation of that portion of the message which deals with [Page 633] the foreign relations of Mexico and summaries of other portions relating to the petroleum and paper decrees and other matters of interest to the United States. I have not had time to make translation of the message in full, but shall later cover by translation to the Department the more important items of this document.
The Department will note that the larger part of the message in regard to foreign affairs deals in none too friendly a spirit with difficulties with the United States. There is also an aggrieved reference to the attitude of the British Government in connection with their reply as to the acceptability of a Mexican Minister to London.
I have [etc.]
Extracts from the Message of President Venustiano Carranza to the Mexican Congress 1
The Republic continues neutral in the midst of the European conflict which daily involves other countries, experience having shown that the Government in my charge has done rightly in proclaiming and maintaining neutrality, this policy having been unanimously approved by public opinion. The Executive congratulates himself upon having obtained, through the maintenance of neutrality, the welfare of the people.
In order to comply fully with the duties imposed by neutrality, the Department for Foreign Affairs issued opportunely and distributed profusely, a circular containing the principles of international law and of the Hague conventions applicable thereto. However, notwithstanding the fact that all the authorities in their respective spheres of action have followed the indications of the Executive in maintaining a loyal and strict neutrality, Mexico has been obliged on repeated occasions to enforce respect therefor; some delicate and difficult cases having arisen which authorize the Executive to state that the maintenance of neutrality has demanded a real and constant effort on the part of the Government.
The Government of the United States of America, in order to take care of its own requirements and satisfy the needs of its allies, has made effective a series of rulings restricting its imports and exports, as well as the traffic of persons across our boundary line. The Mexican Government tried, to enter into an agreement for trade intercourse, in order to obtain, in exchange for articles produced in Mexico and which the United States requires, certain quantities of cereals and other supplies. The commissions drew up and approved a draft of an agreement, which the Executive refused to ratify as he did not feel that it filled the necessities of the moment, and because it contained certain clauses contrary to public right. For a long time the country has lived on its own resources without suffering privation of any sort, thanks to its admirable vitality and rich soil. Lately, the President of the United States, desirous of giving a proof of true friendship toward Mexico, has declared that he would permit the purchase and sale of articles of prime necessity and others, and by virtue of this concession, some rather large importations have been made.
In commercial matters, the Government has had to solve other questions relating also to its neutrality. The so-called “black lists” are no more than mere restrictions to the commerce of a neutral country, imposed by the belligerents to prevent all transactions with the subjects of an enemy country. Mexico has not recognized such lists and within its territory they have not the force of law, various cases having arisen in which the Mexican authorities have had to intervene in an energetic manner in order to oblige captains of boats to deliver merchandise consigned to persons or companies included in the “black lists”, the delivery of which was denied for the reason stated. I shall relate the following case: The captain of the steamer San Pedro refused to make delivery of merchandise carried by him, consigned to a Mexican firm and to a German firm in Guaymas. The Consul of the United States agreed that it should be delivered. Not so with the British Consul, who permitted only the goods for the Mexican house to be unloaded. A heavy bond was exacted of the captain. The corresponding representation was made to the Government of [Page 634] the United States, and it was told that the Mexican Government would find it necessary to withdraw the exequaturs of American Consuls who should repeat the procedure of the Guaymas Consul, and as the British Consul showed himself to be hostile to a marked degree, it being he who determined the captain’s conduct, his exequatur was withdrawn.
In concluding that part of this report relating to the restrictions which Mexico has suffered in its maritime commerce I must report to the Congress that the Government of the United States of America has put into effect severe rulings relative to the supplies of coal and foodstuffs for the use of ships sailing from its ports, inasmuch as fuel is not furnished them unless the captain or the owner obligates himself to return to an American port once the boat has discharged its cargo at destination. As this ruling injures our commerce, an endeavor has been made to obtain an exception in favor of our vessels.
It is necessary to record certain cases of violation of our neutrality.
A number of units of the United States Navy have arrived at our territorial waters on both coasts, and, generally speaking, they have governed themselves by the principles of international law, relative to the length of time they may remain at ports, the taking on of supplies, rights of visit, etc. I say in general, because there have been some exceptions consisting in that such vessels, instead of remaining 24 hours, remain a few hours longer, appropriate diplomatic representations being made in such cases.
In January, last, an incident occurred at the port of Ensenada, Lower Calif., caused by the commandant of the United States warship Iroquois, who sent some of his Marines on board the United States merchant vessel North Folk [North Fork] in order to oblige it to sail for San Diego, Calif., without reporting to the customhouse nor to the Mexican authorities, his reason being that the said merchant ship had violated the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. Energetic representations having been made to the Washington Government by our Ambassador, a full apology was made, and we were informed that the commandant of the Iroquois had been relieved of his command as punishment for the fault committed.
In April, this year, various Marines who had gone ashore at Tampico from several war units of the United States, caused a scandal and killed a Mexican police officer who went to the scene of the disturbances; the result was a general fight in which 2 Mexicans and 2 American Marines were killed, and the remaining 11 Marines were arrested, who, after 16 hours of imprisonment, were set free, it having been proven that the guilty were those who had died.
The Department for Foreign Affairs received a report that the gunboat Brutus, belonging to the United States Navy, at Mazatlán, had committed and offense against the sovereignty of Mexico. The said ship remained in our territorial waters more than the 24 hours provided for by the Hague conventions, and these being the circumstances, the British Vice Consul at Mazatlán requested permission of our authorities for the Brutus to tow a British merchant ship which was in Mazatlan. Our authorities refused to grant the permission, and as a precautionary measure against any act which might be-attempted, an endeavor was made to change the anchorage of the Violet. The submarine chaser 302 made an attempt to prevent this being done, and warned our authorities, within Mexican territorial waters, to suspend the maneuver ordered, or it would open fire; and, in effect, it placed itself in position for battle, loaded its gun, made ready its machine guns, and armed the crew with rifles and pistols. Finally, it took position to permit its crew to cut the towcable, which they were unable to do, notwithstanding their efforts. Opportune instructions were given to our Ambassador to protest against the offense.
The Department was informed that the United States warship Marblehead had detained close to our Pacific coast a merchant vessel of the same nationality, and had taken therefrom as a prisoner, the purser, Juan R. Ramirez, a Mexican citizen, accused of having violated certain, laws of the United States relating to the war. Our authorities are making the necessary investigations and securing all pertinent details, in order that appropriate action may be taken.
The captain of port of Magdalena Bay, Lower Calif., has reported that United States vessels of war frequently enter the bay and practice therein, the crews going ashore to execute land maneuvers, without even having the courtesy of informing our authorities, and remaining a longer time than that permitted by international law. Our Ambassador has been given instructions to make the appropriate reclamations.
[Page 635]In Tampico the United States warships Ozark and Annapolis have been anchored for a long time, thereby violating the same principles, and interrupting with the activity of their wireless apparatus the transmission of messages by our Government. The using of the said wireless apparatus constitutes a new violation of the Hague conventions. Representations in the matter are being made, inasmuch as the Mexican Government sustains that the neutrality of Mexican territorial waters should be strictly respected, and that in no case and for no reason may the violation thereof be justified.
The authorities of the United States, because of the war, continue to commit acts in violation of the rights of Mexicans living there. In passing through San Francisco, Calif., the baggage of our naval attaché to our Legation in Japan, was opened with false keys by the San Francisco port authorities and three customhouse inspectors. Instructions were given opportunely to our Ambassador to make appropriate representations.
The flights of American Army airplanes have continued over our territory, notwithstanding the promises to put a stop to same made by the authorities of that country, and the representations we have made.
Recently it was ascertained that an American submarine chaser, No. 279, had been anchored for several days at one of our coast ports near Santa Rosalia, Lower Calif.; upon the commander being questioned by our authorities, he stated that he was there by orders of his Government and that without them he would not leave. Later another ship of the same nationality arrived and it put out to sea, visiting shortly afterwards a Mexican merchant ship which was sailing in those waters. In this case, as in all, the Department has taken the appropriate steps.
The 27th of August, as a Mexican citizen was passing from Nogales, Ariz., to Nogales, Son. (towns which are separated by a street in the center of which runs the boundary line between the two countries), he was challenged by American soldiers whom he did not heed; when he had passed into Mexican territory, they fired upon him, killing him. The firing was answered by Mexican guards who were on duty. This caused the firing to become general and the citizens on both sides of the line made use of their firearms. Our small garrison, of not over 50 men, also took a part. The American soldiers who on the east side invaded the territory of the Republic, were repulsed. The affair lasted three hours and firing ceased by virtue of an arrangement between the Mexican and American military authorities through our Consul in Nogales, Ariz. There were 13 killed and 15 wounded of the Mexicans, among the former being the municipal president of Nogales, Son., Mr. Felix B. Peñaloza. The majority of the killed and wounded were of the civil population, as only one soldier and two customs guards were included in the casualties. The American press has published 33 casualties, including killed and wounded, belonging, with one exception, to the military element of that country. Gen. Plutarco Calles, Governor of Sonora, conferred with the American General Capell, it being agreed that the judicial authorities of both countries would make the necessary investigations as to the origin of the conflict, reporting to their respective Governments. It was also agreed that reciprocal measures would be taken to avoid a repetition of the incident, which was considered merely as a local affair, since the people of both countries were on friendly terms, and that neither Government had had anything to do with the matter. Commercial traffic was renewed at once. The Mexican Government will take the necessary steps to reach a decision regarding this painful incident within the terms of strict justice.
Mexico has suffered from the nations at war the violation of its correspondence, hot only ordinary mail, but in some cases diplomatic and official; but whenever it has been appropriate to do so, corresponding representations have been made based on the principles of international law.
By reason of the entry by the United States into the European War, President Wilson issued a proclamation on May 18, 1917, ordering that all male residents of the United States within the ages of 21 to 31, should register for Army service. Once registered, each one could allege the exceptions in his favor to avoid service, such as foreign nationality, etc. An immense number of our compatriots living in that country belong to the laboring class, or are simply workmen or masons. Due to their ignorance, they either did not register, or, having registered, did not take steps to secure exemption, and for this reason many of them were forced to enter the ranks and others were sent to the battle line.
[Page 636]In all cases where our Ambassador and our consular agents learned of such incidents, they took such action as they were able, to secure exemption for our compatriots and have them return to their usual avocations. For this purpose, they stumbled against the grave difficulty of submitting satisfactory proofs of nationality, inasmuch as the major part of these Mexicans had no documents to prove their Mexican origin. However, in such cases as our Ambassador or our consuls had sufficient evidence, they secured exemption for the Mexicans enlisted in the Army.
In this respect, another grave difficulty arose. An immense number of Mexicans had endeavored to secure United States citizenship, having filed for that purpose what is called there “a declaration of intention,” this being a preliminary procedure, from the date of which a certain period of time is indispensable in order to repeat the request and obtain the nationality. Those who had made this “declaration of intention” were considered by the United States authorities as obligated for Army service; but our Government considering that the “declaration of intention” does not, either under our laws or under the laws of the United States, imply a change of nationality, has insisted firmly that such Mexicans should be exempt from service, inasmuch as they are not citizens of the United States. On the other hand, the said Government declared that the law governing the matter obligated for military service even those individuals who should have made their “declaration of intention”; but that the President of the Republic, in order to show his good will toward neutral countries, such as Mexico, would consider the petition of any Mexican who should be in such a position as that stated, in case our Government should make the request, supported by proofs of the Mexican nationality of the interested party.
Another difficulty arose regarding the enlistment: The laws of the United States, inspired in the principle of jus soli, provide that any person born in its territory takes that nationality (Amendment 14, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution of the United States), while our laws (Article 30 of the Constitution) declare to be Mexicans those who are born abroad of Mexican parents. This conflict of laws is one for which there is no satisfactory solution, international law advising that the law of the country of residence should be applied, so that, in this case our Government can do nothing in favor of our co-nationals born on the other side of the Bravo, unless the conflict should be brought to a close by means of a treaty.
As a result of the various representations made by our Ambassador on the subject, the Department of State has offered to take under advisement the requests for exemption presented by the Mexican Government and to adopt a plan by which persons enlisted who present sufficient data to establish a rational presumption of Mexican citizenship, shall remain in the United States until a definite decision can be reached regarding them. Notwithstanding this, there continue to be cases of Mexicans who are sent to the battle front, thus giving rise to energetic representations on the part of our Embassy, which, takes the stand that in the majority of cases of enlisted Mexicans—practically all laborers—they have not complied with the complicated formalities exacted for their registration, exemption, etc., because of ignorance, since many do not know how to read or write, and they are therefore acting in good faith, and that, for this reason, they are included under the provisions of Section 139 of the military selective service law of the United States, which stipulates that exemption shall be granted when Army service is too severe a punishment for persons whose delinquency is not wilful.
The fact is that some Mexicans enrolled against their will, have perished at the front, others have not as yet obtained their liberty, and others are yet fighting.
It is proper to note the case of Martin Sánchez Guerrero, whose nationality has been fully proven, notwithstanding which our Ambassador has not had a favorable decision regarding his exemption. Our Ambassador, referring to this matter, mentions others in the following terms: “For a long time they have not conceded the discharge of any of the Mexican citizens recruited, and there are cases which have been treated for six or eight months without result.”
This, situation threatens to become more grave with the current of Mexican laborers to the United States, requested for agriculture in that country, and where, notwithstanding the fact that they are urgently needed, certain formalities and declarations are exacted of them, and even the renunciation of nationality. The Mexican Government can not, legally, impede the emigration of the laborer, but an endeavor has been made to make clear to him the [Page 637] contingencies to which he is exposed, and the Embassy has drawn up a form of laborer’s contract to guarantee the interested party fully as regards the full payment of his salary, the treatment he is to receive, and his return. It is the intention of the Executive not to overlook either this question or that of enrollment and he shall endeavor to arrive at a satisfactory solution of both. …
The Mexican Government, desirous of completing its diplomatic representation in Europe, consulted the British Government as to whether Mr. Alfonso M. Siller would be persona grata as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. The British Foreign Office replied that it was not disposed to consider the matter unless Mexico should give assurances that it would observe a neutral attitude in the war and protect the interests of British subjects. As the Government has complied strictly with its duties as a neutral, and has always endeavored to afford guarantees to foreign and national interests, it so stated to England, and has no longer insisted upon naming a minister, inasmuch as the Executive in my charge believes it to be preferable, for the dignity and tranquillity of the country, that it should not maintain diplomatic relations excepting with such nations as treat it with respect and equality such as it is entitled to receive.
It also consulted the Government of the French Republic as to whether Mr. Rafael Nieto would be persona grata as Minister of Mexico. To date no reply has been received. …
The stamp tax revenues on crude oil have steadily increased with the rise in the price of this article in foreign markets. The rate of 10 per cent ad valorem has not been modified; however, due to the increase in the price of this fuel, the revenues to be obtained from same will probably increase 50 per cent this two months.
It is well to note that the stamp tax on petroleum products (refined) within the country, has been reduced to 50 per cent, for the purpose of stimulating the national industry which has an enviable future.
The revenues from stamp taxes on crude petroleum and its products are estimated for this year at a little over twelve million pesos.
A tax has been established on oil lands and oil contracts, based on the provisions of Article 27 of the Constitution.
The Constitution of 1917 destroyed the legal system derived from the mining code of 1884, which excepted petroleum claims from the payment of the pertenencia tax, and from the requirements established by the mining laws for the constitution or claims; the right to explore the subsoil was yielded to surface owners by the said code, and the said owners could exercise that right or transfer it to others at will. Our Constitution declared that the dominion of the nation over oil claims was inalienable and imprescriptible, and, therefore, put the bases of property with reference to oil deposits on the same footing as those governing mining property.
The rights of the nation to petroleum deposits having been redeemed, the Executive, in the exercise of this right, and by virtue of the extraordinary powers in the Treasury conferred upon him, issued the tax law on oil claims dated February 19, this year. This law establishes a tax on lands used for oil exploration and exploitation, and on contracts entered into for the cession of the privileges established by the code of 1884. It established, until such time as the regulations of Article 27 are issued, an annual rental of 5 pesos per hectare and a royalty equivalent to 5 per cent of production, which tax represents the value of the usufructs to be granted.
In general, the rental is lower than the average rentals stipulated in oil contracts registered in Tuxpan during the years 1913 to 1916, and the royalty is equivalent to half of the royalty which on an average is stipulated under oil contracts in the State of Vera Cruz. Again, this rental is proportional and at the same time lower than the minimum rental collected on mining claims, and the stamp tax on titles of oil claims is much lower than that exacted of miners, these differences having been established because the oil industry requires larger areas of land to guarantee the success of the enterprise.
As was to be expected, this law met with great resistance on the part of the interests involved, and in view of the reasons set forth by private persons and by 40 American companies who considered that their interests would be injured, and which sent their representatives to the Executive to consider the matter, the said law was modified to an extent which was considered equitable, and to this effect, the decrees of July 31, and August 8 and 13, this year, were issued; and it should be noted that in principle the provisions of the decree of [Page 638] February 19, 1918, continue in effect, since the modifications made refer only to form and details. …
In order to adapt the mining law to the precepts of Article 27 of the Constitution, a study is being made of a new mining law which will shortly be submitted to the consideration of the two legislative houses. The reorganization having been begun of mining agencies, the service rendered by them is improving, so that by 1919 the number thereof will have been reduced to one-half of those now existing. In order that this improvement may not, if rushed, cause difficulties, it will be put into effect gradually, for which reason it will not be concluded until the latter part of the year stated.
The country’s petroleum wealth, the national ownership of which was recovered by the present Constitution, has been the subject of especial attention on the part of the Executive, notwithstanding the resistance shown by interests which created the rulings which formerly deprived the nation of property belonging to it. Owners of lands in the subsoil of which there are deposits of oil have tried to make it be believed that with the return to the dominion of the nation of the hydrocarbides of that subsoil, the oil industry would suffer heavily, when, on the contrary, the opportunity which can now be given to as many as wish to invest their capital in the utilization of such wealth, may have an ample development once there have been removed those difficulties which have been placed in the way by the excessive thirst for gain so characteristic of owners, lessees, and sublessees of lands in which oil may be found. This is proven by statistics which show that various landowners have derived, without any effort, large profits from the work of others, and that, on the other hand, many companies, formed to exploit mineral oil, have succumbed, exhausted by the rentals for the lands upon which they contemplated drilling. Naturally, the Executive in my charge, has not hesitated to use every effort to reach satisfactory solutions; and maintaining the principle of justice which obligates him to defend as national property the deposits of oil, he has issued, within the bounds of his administrative powers, such dispositions as tend to facilitate the transition from the system of individual property of the said deposits to that by which the dominion of the same is returned to the nation. The bill whereby this feature of Article 27 will be regulated, will be presented shortly to the Congress…