File No. 812.51/482

The Ambassador in Mexico ( Fletcher) to the Secretary of State

No. 1665

Sir: With reference to the Department’s instruction No. 687 of September 9, 1918, the contents of which were communicated to the Foreign Office on September 27, 1918, and to previous correspondence, relative to the laws of payments of the Mexican Government partly lifting the moratorium for the payment of money obligations, I have the honor to transmit, herewith, a copy and translation of note No. 3785 of November 7, 1918, from the Mexican Foreign Office, and of the enclosures mentioned therein, giving the reasons of the Mexican Government for issuing the said laws.

I have [etc.]

Henry P. Fletcher
[Enclosure—Translation]

The Mexican Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Pérez) to the American Ambassador ( Fletcher)

No. 3785

Mr. Ambassador: In relation to my former note No. 3419 of the 8th instant [sic], regarding the laws of payments of December 24, 1917, and April 13 of this year, which annul in part the moratorium governing the payment of money obligations, I have the honor to state to your excellency that the Department of the Treasury has forwarded to me, in the nature of a report, a memorandum [Page 660] and chart regarding’ the fluctuations of paper money, to which reference is made in the memorandum, of which I beg to attach a copy.

I avail [etc.]

E. Garza Pérez
[Subenclosure—Translation]

The Mexican Department of the Treasury to the Mexican Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ( Pérez)

MEMORANDUM

The Embassy of the United States of America under date of September 27, this year, addressed a note to the Department for Foreign Affairs,1 in which, in obedience to instructions from the Department of State of the United States, it calls the attention of the said Department to the laws of payments decreed by the Mexican Government on December 24, 1917, and April 13 this year.2 In the opinion of the Department of State, these decrees are open to objection with respect to two classes of obligations therein mentioned, to wit:

I.
Those which by their terms are payable in specie; and
II.
Those which, though payable generally without specifying the class of currency, were contracted in the period of metallic money, or prior to April 1913, and therefore intended to be payable in specie or in paper money equivalent in value. (It should be understood that the said paper can not be other than bank notes in circulation in April 1913, since the American Embassy can not refer to any other, and if it is called paper money, it is because this term in English has not exactly the same meaning as in Spanish.)

The objections which, in the opinion of the Embassy of the United States, should be made to the said laws of payments, with regard to these two classes of obligations, are the following:

  • First. They reduce, on the basis of fixed ratios of equivalence of paper money in national gold, the amount of interest and principal payable, and, therefore, amount to an impairment of the obligations of contracts, thus working an injustice upon creditors.
  • Secondly. They are retroactive in character, and therefore unjust and also violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution, to the detriment of creditors.
  • Thirdly. They deprive creditors of their property without due process of law, thus working by way of confiscation an injustice and also violating the following provisions of said Article 14 of the Constitution:

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, possessions or right without due process of law instituted before a duly created court in which the essential elements of procedure are observed and in accordance with previously existing laws

The Embassy of the United States goes on to say that the criticism contained in the three preceding propositions is applicable to the precepts: contained in Article 3 of the law of April 13, 1918, which article attempts to make null and void express stipulations contained in the evidences of certain obligations to make payment in metallic money; and also to the provisions contained in paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the said law, with respect to the obligations entered into during the period of metallic money, which establishes that interest which accrued thereon from August 1, 1913, to November 30, 1916, shall be considered to have accrued in paper money.

In effect, Article 3 of the law of payments of April 13, 1918, says:

With respect to obligations assumed during the time fiduciary currency was in circulation, or which may have been renewed during such period, the fact that payment in metallic currency was indicated shall not be considered as an express agreement, when the said stipulation is contained in printed skeleton or blank contract forms, and in cases where the debtor may have received paper currency or bills even though the document states that payment shall be made in metallic money. The stipulation that payment shall be effected in currency which may be in circulation shall be considered only as an obligation to pay in money of legal value, [Page 661] but the amount of the debt shall be reduced to metallic currency at the rate of exchange in effect on the date the obligation was assumed, in accordance with the table shown under Article 10, Fraction I, of this law.

On the other hand, paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the said law, reads as follows:

The total amount of interest due from August 1913 to November 30, 1916, inclusive, may be exacted, and shall be considered as due in paper money, payable in national gold at the rate of exchange in accordance with the table given under Article 10, Fraction I of this law, using as a basis the rate in effect corresponding to the month in which the interest became due.

In conclusion, the Embassy of the United States informs the Department for Foreign Affairs that it has received instructions from its Government in the sense that it state to the Mexican Government, that it can not be expected that that of the United States will recognize the right of the Mexican Government to apply the objectionable terms of the said decree to citizens of the United States; and that it will so advise those American citizens who seek its advice.

The Department for Foreign Affairs, in transcribing the foregoing note to the Department of the Treasury, requests its opinion on the subject.

Before examining the criticism of the laws of payments made by the Embassy of the United States, and before stating the reasons for the issuance in concrete of the articles to which special objection is expressed by the said diplomatic mission, it is expedient, in order that the Department for Foreign Affairs may have a clear idea on the subject, that an outline be given of the general bases upon which the said laws of payments were issued, as well as of the social necessity and justice which warrant them.

The phenomenon of the circulation of paper money assumed among us an extraordinary character, distinct from that arising at other times and in other countries.

It would not be superfluous to give a brief synopsis of the ordinary process governing the circulation of paper money, with a view to noting the peculiar features of that phenomenon experienced by us, which will explain the necessity and justice of our laws of payments, considered from a general point of view.

The very essence of paper money is that all obligations existing prior to its issuance may be paid in the currency emitted by the Government as of forced acceptance. Moreover, the laws creating paper money have everywhere and at all times been retroactive in their effects, in the sense of declaring null and non-obligatory the evidences of private contracts whereby it is agreed beforehand that the said paper will not be used, and the obligation is assumed of paying exclusively in gold or silver coins. Numerous examples could be cited in support of this statement; but it is unnecessary to do so, as it is obvious that if paper money did not serve for the payment of contract obligations previously entered into, it would then not be of forced acceptance, and would fail in its fundamental object, which is that of forcing a sort of involuntary loan upon society, since it is compelled to accept the paper, not by reason of the credit enjoyed by the State, but by reason of its ability to force its acceptance. A paper money which would not serve to comply with preexisting obligations, could not be denned as such paper money. The retroactive nature of the laws establishing the same has at all times been based on the belief that they contain precepts applicable to the public at large.

The depreciation of paper money which almost always takes place is, as a general rule, gradual, extending over long periods of years; and even though in the process brusque downward movements are frequently noticeable, there are also upward movements, and the tendency to depreciation can not be said to be continuous and marked, and there are cases, even, when after heavy depreciations, the paper has gradually regained more or less its value.

In that manner, the decrease and increase in value of paper money, extended over long periods of time, take place in a manner almost imperceptible among the different members of society, which means that commercial and industrial conditions and obligations in general adapt themselves little by little to the new conditions created by fiduciary currency.

Within this law of gradual normal depreciation, so to call it, the obligation to pay, which, as has been seen, can be fulfilled under legal ruling by means of paper money, presupposes the delivery of a value which on the average does not vary considerably from the real value received by the debtor, especially [Page 662] with regard to short-term transactions. And this is more clearly seen once the great crisis, which is always brought about by the first depreciations of paper, has passed. The obligations subsequently assumed, in paper, are payable also in paper, and even when between the time the agreement is made and the time for the compliance thereof, certain differences may exist in the value of the circulating medium, these differences are not very great and they compensate each other.

Under the shadow of paper money, powerful business interested in its conservation arises; or, at least, interested in not having it disappear suddenly; and thus, the disappearance of the paper is brought about through a gradual rise in value, similar to its initial depreciation, either by means of special institutions of conversion, or because the measures of the Government looking to the future redemption of the paper, create the confidence essential to a rise in value.

In our case, the process with regard to paper varied distinctly from the normal process in other countries, having more the appearance of the French assignats issued during the Revolution; and yet, great differences are apparent between the assignats and our paper with respect to the duration of the process, a detail which is of the greatest importance, as upon it depends the adaptations before mentioned. The exceptional phenomena of our paper can be synthesized as follows:

1. The paper remained in circulation a very short time. Of all the cases of paper money recorded in the history of finance, Mexico’s is perhaps of the shortest duration; having appeared in July 1913, the paper disappeared in November 1916; that is to say, it lasted only three years and five months, an insignificant length of time.

2. The depreciation of our paper was extremely brusque, and rapid in the extreme, with hardly any fluctuations. It may be said that, generally, the curve of depreciation is constant and is notable month to month. While in other countries depreciation has been gradual and in many cases compensated by rises in value, amongst us the said depreciation was constant, marked, and very brusque, without the depreciations counteracting, excepting on very rare occasions, the effects thereof.

A chart accompanies this memorandum showing the depreciation of our paper money.1 An examination of this chart will prove the truth of the statement made in this paragraph.

3. Our paper did not, as in many other parts, end by conversion, nor by an Increase in value, nor because the Government withdrew it from circulation in exchange for some other fiscal value.

Our paper lost value with a rapidity never seen elsewhere; in a short time it lost almost its entire value, and at last was demonetized; therefore, it represents a loss distributed proportionately throughout society. The Mexican paper thus disappeared from circulation by virtue of the loss of its purchasing power, and was brusquely substituted by gold money.

4. The country’s political conditions prevented business from adapting itself to the monetary conditions created by the paper. During so intense a revolutionary period as ours, it was not possible that great business be established and developed; and it was natural that very few interests should have been created in the paper period.

5. The very rapidity of the paper phenomenon, its brusque and almost uninterrupted fall, and its final disappearance, likewise prevented the formation of great interests in its behalf.

As may be seen, the difference in the situation of our country upon its emerging from the paper period, as compared with other countries may be established by stating that, while in other countries paper money has on occasions become a fixture, so to speak, in ours it passed like a flash, without having incorporated itself in the economic constitution of the country, and without seriously affecting business.

In view of the preceding circumstances, various problems arose:

(a)
Would it be just that obligations assumed in a currency representing, say, less than one one-hundredth of its face value, should be made payable at par in gold money?
(b)
Would it be just that obligations at different times during that violent depreciation should all be made payable at the same rate and at the same equivalents?
(c)
Would it be just that obligations which by reason of the law ought at maturity to have been paid in paper more or less depreciated in value, should be made convertible into gold at par, for the mere reason that the same were not paid at maturity?
(d)
Could a series of obligations assumed or perfected in times of terrible political and monetary confusion, whose characteristics could not have been foreseen by civil legislation, be allowed to remain in a chaotic state, so to say, without clear and precise legislation?

The simple mention of these questions, together with the historical résumé given, demonstrate the urgent necessity which existed of enacting some sort of civil legislation which would bring order out of such confusion, and of establishing a solution of the thousand different cases which might arise. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to issue laws of payments, as they have been called; and whatever errors may be contained in these laws, their expediency is realized when it is considered that any method whatsoever which will do away with a chaotic situation, enable a multitude of extremely complicated points to be decided, and assist in establishing order and a clear understanding in the relations of men, is a highly recommendable and beneficial policy.

The dominant ideas in the laws of payments referred to in this study, may be summed up as follows:

  • First. The paper money régime, which ended in November 1916, must necessarily be recognized in all its legal, economic, and natural consequences. While the rapidity with which the régime disappeared had prevented, as has already been said, the national economic system from remodeling itself upon a paper-money basis, there is no doubt that a multitude of obligations had originated or been perfected during the period of that régime; and it would have been an injustice to have ignored the existence thereof in issuing laws regarding the manner of adjusting such obligations. The paper money constituted a fact which civil legislation could not ignore in future, especially so since that fact was the result of the express will of the legislator, who sanctioned it on many occasions. The law, therefore, could not, without committing a grave injustice and without giving proof of gross ignorance, forget that during three and a half years paper money had been the monetary system of the Republic.
  • Secondly. In view of the extremely pronounced variation in the value of paper money during the short period of its existence, it may be said that Mexico did not have in these three long years a true monetary standard, but that the unit was constantly changing; consequently, it would not be venturesome to assert that during the paper régime we had from 30 to 40, or more, monetary standards. It would, therefore, have been most unjust and contrary to reality to consider the paper as a homogeneous unit; it was thus essential to make up equivalence tables which, interpreting actual facts as closely as possible, would, as regards contract obligations, permit of arriving at the true monetary standard applicable to each individual month during the paper period.
  • Thirdly. During a period of such extreme monetary instability, money loses in great part one of its principal functions, which is that of serving as an instrument of comparison. A peso in January 1914, for example, was entirely different from a peso in November 1916. Obligations, therefore, represented very distinct values depending upon the moment of their birth or modification; and the laws of payments had for their purpose arriving at a means for future compliance with such obligations, not according to the face value thereof, which has no connection with the value of our gold money, but according to the real value they represent, or at least, the said real value as closely as it can be estimated.

The foregoing explanations, while succinct, demonstrate the theoretical justice of the law of payments, the provisions of which had for their purpose the avoiding of the injurious effects brought about by the establishment of a paper régime, from being repeated as a result of its disappearance. Inasmuch as, to define, no system of paper money can prevent the commission of certain injustices, since the existence of the paper is, clearly, a social evil, and creates as a consequence, social suffering, the State should, on the other hand, endeavor to avoid a repetition thereof as a consequence of the exit of the paper, and this is what the laws of payments have done. It seems unnecessary to emphasize the importance of these laws from the social point of view, which is fully realized simply by bearing in mind that they have come to put a stop to a state of confusion, in regard to which none of our principles of legislation previously existing served as a guide to govern legal justice.

[Page 664]

The foregoing considerations illustrate the purposes and justification of the laws of payments; and will assuredly facilitate the explanation of the concrete points objected to by the Embassy of the United States. The first objection refers to Article 3 of the law of payments of April 13, 1918, transcribed at the beginning of this memorandum. This article may be divided into two propositions:

I.
Agreements to pay in metallic currency, incorporated in skeleton forms or printed documents, called de cájon, have no value, with respect to obligations assumed during the period of fiduciary money circulation, when the debtor may have received paper or bills, even though the document should specify payment in metallic currency.
II.
The agreements entered into during the period of fiduciary circulation stipulating only that payment would be made in the money circulating at the termination thereof, are considered by the law as simply productive of the effect of payment in money of legal value, reduced to metallic currency at the rate existing at the time the transaction was closed, in accordance with the equivalence tables established by law.

Before entering upon a defense of these two points, it is expedient to explain the reasons for the law, in order that it may not appear that such important rulings in civil law as those mentioned have been inspired by caprice.

It is known that, with respect to certain contracts, the custom among us is to utilize printed standardized forms or skeleton blanks, which are commonly on sale at small notions stores, and which generally are signed, without being read, by those interested. These standardized forms, based upon wording adopted long before the establishment of the paper money régime, contain, among many other stock clauses, the renouncement of the right to pay in paper money, and contain the obligation to make payments in gold or silver specie.

During the paper money period, people could not suppose, and much less foresee, that the fiduciary specie would disappear brusquely and be substituted by gold and silver; and as the laws governing the issuance of paper granted to debtors the right to pay their obligations in this money, even though the agreement may have been gold or silver, and as, furthermore, paper money was of forced acceptance, without discount, for all classes of payments, it can be readily seen that the parties interested, in case they noticed the said clauses, gave them no importance, as they could not imagine the brusque and incredible change which was to take place as regards the circulating medium.

The change took place, and then, obligations initially assumed in paper and deriving their being from the said paper (but made payable in gold and silver by virtue of a clause to which the debtor gave no attention, and the possibility of which did not enter his mind), were suddenly increased to a sum immensely greater than the value thereof. Nothing could be more unjust.

In view of such injustice, the law purposed to interpret the intention of creditors as well as debtors; and in so doing established that, when the debtor actually received paper money, it should not be considered that he obligated himself to pay in something different from that which he received, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary consisting of the fact that he signed a standardized form, for the reason that the facts, the practice, and the customs of the place all agree in that the said forms are generally signed without being seen, read, and even without a superficial knowledge of their contents. The law, therefore, sought justice, ignoring formulae. If a person delivered bills at a given time, the law does not injure him, as it commands that he be given in return an amount in gold equal in value to what he delivered.

The explanation of the second part of Article 3 consists in the necessity of interpreting those clauses in which the interested parties stipulated that in complying with the obligation payment would be made in the money in circulation at a future date. As the interested parties could not foresee the brusque and unexpected disappearance of paper money, it is clear that the employment of the phrase circulating medium must refer to the paper which might be in circulation at the time the obligation was to be paid; and the law, interpreting the purposes the parties had in view, has formulated this definition with a view to avoiding the injustice which would result were he who received paper with a value of one centavo national gold on the peso be forced to repay the same on the basis of one hundred centavos national gold on the peso; that is to say, ten thousand per cent more than he received.

The foregoing explanations make manifest the reasons for the existence of the law, its purposes, and its justification; they prove that the charge made by [Page 665] the Embassy of the United States that Article 3 of the law of 1918 is unjust is absolutely untenable.

Justice, as regards transactions in which in one form or another money is involved, consists in that the value received by the debtor be equal to the value returned by him to the creditor. This is what the law of payments seeks. The contrary would, precisely, be injustice; as there is no doubt that no honest opinion would sustain that justice consists in that, for example, if a debtor received in specie equivalent to say seventy-five ten-thousandths of a gram of pure gold, he should be obligated to pay a hundred fold; that is, seventy-five one-hundredths of a gram of the same metal.

The second charge made by the Embassy of the United States against the legal precepts stated, has reference to the retroactive nature thereof.

Referring to the first part of the precept; that is, to the nullification of the stock clause contained in printed blanks relative to payment in gold or silver of obligations assumed in paper, the charge is, to say the least, surprising, that the legislator of 1918 is guilty of establishing the retroactive principle, in view of the fact that the law of payments, in its Article 3, does not establish any new precept, but simply reproduces and confirms precepts already existing, decreed a long time previously.

In effect, the decree issued at Hermosillo on December 28, 1913, by the First Chief of the Constitutional Army, by virtue of which the interior debt created by decree of April 16, 1913, was increased, states in Articles 3 and 4:

  • Art. 3. The bills shall be of forced acceptance for the value they represent; therefore, the public offices of the Federation and those of the States, as well as all establishments, companies, and persons, shall be obliged to accept them in payment of amounts owed to them, without any limitation whatever.
  • Art. 4. The provision of the foregoing article is not subject to renouncement. Consequently, any stipulation to the contrary shall be absolutely null and void, and therefore, Articles 1453 and 2690 of the civil code of the Federal District are annulled.

It is easy to see that Article 4 of the said decree of December 28, 1913, proposed to govern future transactions and declared the nullity of all stipulations in agreements renouncing the right to pay an obligation with paper money and freeing the creditor of the obligation of receiving the same.

In effect, there is no doubt that Article 4 refers to the future, for the reason that in stating that the provisions of the law are not subject to renouncement, it is clear that its intention is to govern transactions to be entered into at a future time, since no law can be renounced prior to its becoming effective.

Then, again, Article 4 annuls agreements wherein a debtor and a creditor might agree to liquidate an obligation contracted during the paper period by means of any tender other than paper, such as an obligation to make payment in gold or silver to the exclusion of paper.

The agreements referred to in Article 3 of the law of payments of 1918 are the same ones declared to be null and void by the decree of December 28, 1913. The law of payments refers to those express agreements to pay in metallic currency and not in paper which appear in printed documents, entered into with reference to obligations assumed during the period of fiduciary circulation. On its part, the law of 1913 refers to express agreements to pay in metallic currency to the exclusion of paper, contained in all classes of documents, and entered into with reference to obligations contracted during the period of fiduciary circulation. As may be seen, the identity is complete between these two laws, but that of 1913 is even more ample than that of 1918, because whereas the former declares the nullity of all classes of agreements, the latter refers only to those entered into by the use of printed blanks or standardized forms. With respect to the charge that the law of 1918 is retroactive in its effects, no further argument is necessary than that, in conformity with the law of 1913, such agreements were already absolutely null and void, so that it is not the law of 1918 which has deprived them of their value. Such agreements were valueless from the moment they were entered into, and the law of 1918 is limited to recognizing a juridical fact consummated in conformity with previous laws.

In order for the law of 1918 to be retroactive, it would be necessary that it refer to agreements valid from the moment they were entered into; but as can clearly be seen, it refers to agreements which from that moment were absolutely [Page 666] null and void. The charge, therefore, can only be explained by the circumstance that the Embassy of the United States did not have before it the decree of December 28, 1913.

As regards the second question, relative to obligations which it was agreed would be paid in the currency which might be in circulation, the law is also not retroactive, since such agreements could not, closely analyzed, have for their object payment in any money other than paper, since neither the debtor nor the creditor could renounce the right to liquidate the obligation in such currency, by virtue of the prohibition to make such renouncement contained in the law of 1913 to which I have referred. Circulating money could not at that time refer to anything excepting paper money, since any other definition of the precept would amount to an agreement of renouncement, which would be absolutely null and void.

There is another reason why this second part of Article 3 can not be attacked as retroactive. The purpose of the law is, in effect, simply that of interpretation, and it is well known that laws of this nature are retroactive always without prejudice to anyone, since they do not alter existing juridical conditions: they simply make them clear.

If, therefore, the provisions of Article 3 of the law of payments of April 13, 1918, are obviously just and without retroactive effect, since they do no more than confirm the provisions of previously issued laws, the third charge against the said precept made by the Embassy of the United States is without force, since it can not be said that the law of 1918 deprives creditors of a right which the said creditors have never had.

Let us now examine the arguments of the Embassy of the United States with regard to the second paragraph of Article 9 of the said law of payments of 1918, according to which, as regards obligations assumed prior to April 15, 1913, that is, during the period of metallic circulation, interest which accrued thereon from the month of August, 1913, inclusive, to November 30, 1916, shall be considered as having accrued in paper money and shall be subject to payment in national gold at the equivalent fixed by the respective tables contained in the law.

Following the method employed in the preceding article, it is expedient that this precept be examined in the light of the three concrete arguments brought forward by the Embassy of the United States.

During the existence of the laws relating to paper money, it happened that in cases where the debtor made payment of interests accrued on his indebtedness at the precise moment they became due, the said debtor fulfilled his obligation by making payment of paper money in circulation at par with respect to its face value. If the said debtor for any reason, failed to make payment and the creditor did not wish or could not make collection, there is no reason why, simply because a period of time has transpired, the obligation which, had it been fulfilled at the proper time, would have represented a certain specified value in gold, should represent now, without any further reason than that of delay, a value which might be a hundred times greater. Simple delay is not a reason strong enough to alter profoundly the nature of the obligation and the manner of its fulfilment; and justice dictates that the true value of obligations should be computed on the basis of the exact moment of their assumption and not on the basis of the moment they chance to be fulfilled. Now, the payment of interest charges can not be exacted juridically, and, therefore, the obligation to pay does not exist until the date fixed for interest to become due has expired. Even when an agreement, governing interest is made at the same time as the obligation covering the principal, the same does not become due at that same moment, but accrues gradually in proportion as the periods set for the payment thereof expire. Interest accrues, therefore, during the monetary régime existing at the moment the same becomes due; and thus it is that those which became due during the time of paper money are payable in that currency. It is not just, therefore, that payments be made in specie having a value very much greater than that in which they became due.

The charge that the precept in question is retroactive, likewise does not apply. It has been said already that the very essence of paper money is that it is retroactive in character, and that it has been so considered everywhere. In effect: the law of December 28, 1913, imitating in this all the laws given out in all parts of the globe with respect to paper money, and reproducing the precept of the law of April 26, 1913, establishes that the bills are of forced circulation at their nominal value, and that everyone is obligated to receive [Page 667] them in payment of debts. This principle governed throughout the period of paper money, and the law of payments could not ignore it, nor could it prevent the natural results thereof. The law of payments can not be accused of being retroactive, since it does no more than recognize the existence of a juridical situation created by previous laws establishing paper money. Should any retroactive effects exist, they are to be found in previous laws: That of April 26, 1913, and the one of December 28 of the same year, but not in the law of payments which found a situation already created, and which limited itself to recognizing the same.

As regards the retroactive effects of the laws of 1913, this does not appear to be an appropriate time to discuss the same, since the said laws have never been objected to; but should occasion offer, the true doctrine in their regard could be established.

The foregoing considerations demonstrate that the objections made to the laws of payments have been formulated without a perfect knowledge of the question, which is justifiable due to the fact that they come from a source that, being foreign, could naturally not be expected to have a thorough knowledge of our legislation; nor, perhaps, could it be expected that it should make a profound study of Mexican law. This memorandum has demonstrated, not only the reasons of a public order which the Executive of the Union had in view in issuing the laws of payments, but also the innocence of the said laws with respect to the charges made against them. The precepts of those laws are essentially just, they are not retroactive in their effects, and, therefore, they do not take from anyone that which of right belongs to him.

The foregoing ideas may serve as a basis for the report to be submitted to the Department of Foreign Affairs, as requested.

  1. Not printed.
  2. For translations of these laws see ante, pp. 638 and 646.
  3. Not printed.