Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1919, Volume II
The Chargé in Mexico ( Summerlin ) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 11.]
Sir: With reference to the Embassy’s recent telegrams1 relating to President Carranza’s annual message, read at the opening of the Mexican Congress on the first instant, I have the honor to submit, herewith, the text of the message as published in El Heraldo de Mexico of this city, together with a translation of the portion concerning foreign relations and of Mr. Carranza’s brief summary of the work and present condition of the various Departments of the Government.
I have [etc.]
Message of President Carranza to the National Congress, September 1, 1919
Relations with the United States of America
On December 28, 1918, the Embassy of the United States addressed two notes to the Department of Foreign Affairs, on the petroleum matter.3 The first is an answer to Mexico’s note4 in which was expressed our right to legislate on petroleum in the manner in which we have been doing.
Said reply states that the Government of the United States believes that the Government of Mexico has the best of intentions to arrange this matter, and that this will redound to the benefit of the good relations between the two countries. It adds that it hopes the friendly sentiments of Mexico will be translated into a reconsideration of all the decrees and laws which have been issued on petroleum, [Page 532] and it avails itself of the occasion to state that the United States has never in any manner, by the voice of any of its chief magistrates, especially by that of its present President, obligated itself not to employ diplomatic intervention in favor of its citizens abroad, when such action is justifiable. It does not accept Mexico’s argument that if foreigners were given the right of diplomatic representation, they would be in a more privileged position than nationals in many cases. It suggests that the national has, aside from the ordinary judicial recourse, the final recourse of changing, by means of the vote, the institutions or authorities who may encroach upon their rights; that foreigners do not possess this right, and therefore they would be placed in a position of disadvantage as compared with nationals, were they prohibited from appealing to their governments for protection against wrongs.
The note concludes by saying that if the subsequent proceedings of the Mexican Government and of its administrative or judicial authorities should not respond to the hopes of the Government of the United States, the latter reserves to itself the consideration of the question of interesting itself further on behalf of its citizens in respect to this important matter.
The note also states that the President has drawn a sharp contrast between the policy of armed intervention and that of diplomatic intervention. He has declared on numerous occasions, in effect, that he would not countenance armed intervention in the affairs of another state for the purpose of gratifying selfish interests, and the composite statement presented by the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly comprehends such a situation.
But the President has never stated that he would forego the right of diplomatic intervention in behalf of his fellow citizens, a distinctly friendly method of supporting legitimate national interests in order to avoid injustice. On the contrary, the President had declared for diplomatic interposition nowhere better than in the following paragraph from his address of January 29, 1916:
“The United States has not only to assert her right to her own life within her own borders; she has also to assert her right to equal and just treatment of her citizens wherever they go.”
The Government of the United States asks no more than “equal and just treatment” for its citizens, and therefore cherishes the sincere hope that the Mexican tribunals whose prerogative it may be to pass upon the legal questions involved in the petroleum decree, will, in the proceedings which it is understood have been initiated and which may hereafter be commenced, protect the legitimately acquired rights of citizens of the United States. Thus the controversy may happily be ended. However, should this hope unfortunately be disappointed, [Page 533] the Government of the United States must reserve to itself the consideration of the question of interesting itself further on behalf of its citizens concerned in this grave and important matter.
The second note, of the same date, states that in case the Congress should ratify the laws and decrees on petroleum, the Government of the United States desires to reiterate its former protests.
The Department replied, acknowledging receipt.
The Embassy protested against the Treasury circular relative to the collection of royalties from petroleum companies. The Department made the necessary objections.
On their part, the citizens of the United States who are interested in petroleum properties in Mexico have opened and support with perfect organization, extraordinary vigor and marked persistency, a press campaign in the United States for the purpose of so impressing by all the means at their disposal the public opinion of that country, the general mass of their fellow citizens, and the members of both Houses, as to force the Government to intervene in Mexico, in order that our laws may be in accord with their personal interests. This latter purpose they do not invoke generally, but they present as a reason for intervention the lack of guarantees which they claim prevails in our territory, this being a most effective means of impressing public opinion.
Unfortunately, the Government of Mexico frequently receives representations, more or less energetic, from the Government of the United States, in the cases in which we desire to introduce innovations which injure the interests of some citizens of that country; these representations tend to restrict our liberty of legislation, and invade the right which we possess of self-development in accordance with our own ideas.
The most important case is that of the Richardson Construction Company, in which diplomatic representations were made against the raising of taxes on a great estate,8 notwithstanding that one of the causes of the Revolution was the great disproportion between the values of real estate and the taxes imposed thereon.
There have been other cases of representations, for example: because of tax increases or export restrictions on hides; because of export taxes on cattle; because of production taxes on metals and taxes on mining claims; because of the increase of export taxes on cotton produced in Lower California.
In all these cases, the argument used by the Department of State of the United States in official notes, or by the press when the action has assumed other characteristics, has been that the duties or taxes [Page 534] are “confiscatory,” the word having been given so extensive a meaning that it is thought that by its use every restriction on our liberty of legislation is covered and justified.
The Government of Mexico hopes that the Republic of the North will respect the sovereignty and independence of Mexico, because to violate them on the plea of lack of guarantees for its citizens or of legislation injurious to their interests would constitute an unpardonable transgression of the principles of international law and morality, and would give proof that the greatest misfortune of a people is that of being weak.
Due to our geographical situation in respect to the United States of America, and the numerous commercial ties we have with them, various incidents of different kinds have arisen in the course of our international relations:
Last year, a group of soldiers of the United States crossed the frontier and entered our territory as far as the town of El Mulato, as a result of which shots were exchanged, resulting in the death of a citizen of the United States and in injury to a Mexican fiscal guard. Our Embassy made appropriate representations and the Government of the United States replied that, in truth, its soldiers were to blame for the incident, and that as a result of a court martial two of them had been sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, two others to three years, and one to five years.9
In the same year, a group of soldiers of the United States shot at Mexican farmers who were at work in our territory, in the Municipality of Villa Acuña, Coahuila, and killed the Mexican Angel Rangel. The corresponding representations being made, the Department of State informed our Embassy, through which they were made, that, in truth, three soldiers of the Army of the United States had fired, occasioning the death of Rangel, and that they would be court-martialed. No information has been received that the culprits have been punished.
In April last, our Embassy in Washington received a memorial signed by numerous Mexicans residing at Bartlesville, Oklahoma, complaining of the unjust persecutions of which they are the victims in that region, because on the 16th of April the Mexican David Cantú was assaulted without reason by five or six citizens of the United States. On April 18th various Mexicans who were at a reunion overheard a public official say that in his opinion Cantú should be beaten and hanged to a post, and so it happened that on the 22nd three citizens of the United States went to the place where Cantú worked, and hanged and beat him—all without any reason whatever.[Page 535]
At the same place, a Mexican, José N., who worked in a cafe, was shot in the head by a dentist.
Our Embassy in these cases, as in all others requiring such action, made representations, but to date it is not known that the culprits have been arrested.
In April, this year, at a point known as Vado de Piedra, jurisdiction of Ojinaga, Chihuahua, some soldiers of the United States Army invaded our territory in pursuit of some outlaws, and they entered to about twelve kilometers. They entered a second time through the same point to attack the oulaws, killing five of them. They accidentally injured a young lady and a man. Appropriate representations were made by our Embassy to the Government at Washington, but to date no information has been received that the corresponding sentence has been handed down.
In May last, the Mexican Jesús Aguirre, who worked in a shipyard at Rockport, Texas, was unjustly struck and injured by three citizens of the United States, and the local authorities did not give him justice. And our Consul at Corpus Christi reported that there is a marked hatred at Rockport against the Mexicans, who are not admitted in the hotels, boarding houses, eating places, barber shops and other public places, and their children are placed in a special school where the conditions are very deficient.
In June, this year, the Board of Education of the State of California excluded Mexican children from the public schools of Santa Paula, El Centro, and other towns in California, and sent them to negro schools.
Representations having been made by our Embassy, the Government of the United States has submitted explanations on the case.
On June 15th last, Villa and his followers attacked Ciudad Juárez, which was defended by General Francisco González, and having failed in three successive assaults, Villa sought to provoke an international conflict by firing on territory of the United States and causing several personal injuries. This gave rise to the troops of that country crossing the border to disperse the Villistas, returning the following day to territory of the United States. General González demanded the immediate withdrawal of those forces, acting with energy and prudence.
Our Government protested against the invasion and made appropriate representations to the Government at Washington, the reply to our Embassy being that the crossing of those troops was simply a protective measure and had for its purpose only the repelling of the Villista attack.10[Page 536]
In July last, three masked men assaulted the Mexican paymaster M. Palma, at Marfa, Texas, and took from him the money he was carrying for our troops at Ojinaga, Chihuahua. The President of the Grand Jury of Presidio, Texas, informed our Consul that after a careful investigation the conclusion had been reached that, although the robbery had in truth taken place, no responsibility can be placed as yet, and that the paymaster, while innocent, was to be censured for leaving Marfa so early in the morning. The culprits have not yet been arrested.
In the same month of July, the Mexican Anacleto Salazar was killed by a policeman who was drunk, at Eureka, Utah. The policeman was absolved because it was claimed that he acted in self-defense.
In the same month, the Mexican Francisco Rosales was assaulted and robbed during the riots between blacks and whites in the city of Washington. Our Embassy made proper representations. The culprits have not yet been arrested.
In July,11 this year, a patrol of United States soldiers at Los Adobes, State of Texas, presuming that certain Mexican workmen were deserters, fired on them, killing the Mexican Julio Carrazco. Our Embassy made appropriate representations. A bill was submitted for the approval of the Congress of the United States to indemnify the family left by Carrazco.
In August last, the Mexicans José Blanco and Elizondo González were attacked by a mob in the city of Chicago, and Blanco, fighting in self-defense, wounded his aggressors with a dagger, for which he was imprisoned. González was gravely injured and placed in the hospital. The culprits have not yet been apprehended. Our Embassy made appropriate representations to the Washington Government.
In August, this year, three soldiers of the United States crossed the border, going as far as San Juan, Chihuahua. Our troops endeavored to capture the invaders, who defended themselves by firing, and escaped, first killing a Mexican soldier. Our Embassy has made the necessary representations to the Washington Government, but it is not known that the culprits have been punished.
Various Mexicans have endeavored at times to cross the Bravo River12 without obeying the laws and regulations established for the purpose, from which unfortunate incidents have occurred, since the guards of the United States fire upon these travelers, injuring or killing them. Such is the case, among others, of Feliciano Hernández and Reyes Payanes, who were killed in the jurisdiction of San Antonio, Chihuahua.[Page 537]
The Government of Mexico has made appropriate representations.
On several occasions aeroplanes of the United States Army have crossed the frontier, flying over our territory, and in all those cases our Embassy, by direction of the Department of Foreign Affairs, has made the necessary representations and protests, notwithstanding which the incursions have been repeated.
In August last, an aeroplane of the United States Army entered our territory, having landed at a point near Falomir Station of the Chihuahua-to-Presidio Railway, about 112 kilometers from the frontier. Before advice was had as to the whereabouts of said aviator [sic], the authorities of the United States requested permission for an aeroplane to cross over to our territory in order to search for the lost officer, which authorization was granted on the 11th of that month, but was not used. A band of twenty Villistas captured the aviators, taking them northward, and demanding ransom. This gave rise to the invasion of the national territory by forces of the United States Army for the purpose of giving battle to the captors of their fellow citizens. The Government of Mexico asked that of Washington to withdraw the invading troops immediately, and protested against the action which constitutes a violation of our rights, a violation which was grave and uncalled for and which has wounded profoundly the patriotic sentiments of the Mexicans.13
On August 27 last, the invading forces quitted the national territory, reentering the United States.
Unfortunately, in the history of our relations with the United States of America, this is not the only example of offenses of this kind. Whenever the authorities of that country have deemed it necessary or expedient to invade our territory, they have done so, thus violating the rights of a friendly people. It is not true that only at this time, due to the abnormal circumstances through which the Republic has been passing after its civil war, has the said Government adopted measures of this nature. Neither is it true, as it has been asserted, that the attitude of the Mexican Government during the World War is the cause of these frictions and the setting aside of our rights; it is sufficient to cite a few cases to be convinced that happenings such as we deplore to-day have occurred also in former times.
. . . . . . .
On August 14 of the present year,14 various United States soldiers, from five o’clock in the afternoon, fired upon the peaceful inhabitants [Page 538] of a place called “Las Pompas,” Municipality of Zaragoza, State of Chihuahua, the said inhabitants having had to abandon their homes and seek refuge outside of town.
On August 19, this year, at a town called Barrancos de Guadalupe, Jurisdiction of Ojinaga, Chihuahua, three United States soldiers entered our territory and fired without justification upon some Mexican peons who were laboring in the field, wounding Juan Rey.
On the 23d of the same month, some forces of the United States entered our territory through the town of Guadalupe, State of Chihuahua, for the purpose of pursuing some bandits, and they cut the telegraph line. On the same day, their Government issued orders to these forces to return to the United States.
On the same date, other forces entered the town of San Ignacio, State of Chihuahua, and took with them by force to the United States several peaceful citizens.
The Government of Mexico, in these cases, as in all those involving a violation of our territory or an attack on our sovereignty, has presented energetic protests and adequate representations.
The major part of the Mexicans who, due to the World War, had been recruited in the United States, have been discharged, although information is lacking regarding many of them. Of those sent to the field of battle, it is positively known that five died in the fighting or by drowning, two from accidents in the service, and one from sickness.
Our Embassy in all these cases has made appropriate representations.
Since the recognition of our Government by that of the United States,15 the latter had not acceded to the handling of extradition papers from Mexico, in accordance with the Treaty.16 In May, this year, the Department of State informed our Embassy in Washington that it was disposed to handle extradition requests presented by the Mexican Government,17 and it has so done.
The Government of the United States, on its part, has requested various extraditions of our Government.
The Embassy of the United States has presented to the Department of Foreign Affairs various notes, asking for the apprehension and punishment of those responsible for various crimes perpetrated against citizens of the United States in our territory, and has constantly requested that greater protection be afforded. A few concrete [Page 539] cases may be cited:18 Toward the end of November, last year, the Embassy of the United States stated that a fellow citizen, man-’ ager of the “La Espada” mines in the State of Jalisco, had been kidnapped. The culprits were pursued by our troops, and he was set at liberty in the beginning of January.
In February, the Embassy complained that Messrs. William J. Devitt, Roy A. Mathewson, and William H. Holmes had been kidnapped at Santa Eulalia by a group of Villistas. The local authorities reported that on the very day of the kidnapping the men were freed.
In March, the Embassy stated that the citizen Oscar Wallace had been kidnapped from the Hacienda de Encinas, State of Coahuila. Notwithstanding the activities of our authorities, they found only the corpse of the kidnapped man; the culprits were captured and are in the hands of the courts.
In June last, the Embassy stated that W. Tevote, citizen of the United States, had been kidnapped by a party of Yaquis at La Colorada, Sonora. Our authorities, as soon as they were informed of the case, sent out forces in pursuit of the culprits, killing three of them.
In July last, a launch of the war vessel of the United States named Cheyenne, manned by several sailors, entered the Tamesí River without the proper precautions, and it was held up at an uninhabited spot by an armed band, which stole several articles of personal use and a small sum of money. Our authorities, as soon as they learned of the affair, endeavored to ascertain who were the culprits, and these have lately been arrested and are in the hands of justice, which will surely impose on them the punishment they deserve.
In July last, the Embassy of the United States complained that their fellow citizen Hiram Hughes had been arrested by the Tampico police and that he died from a wound. From the investigations made it was found that Hughes, in a state of intoxication, had wounded himself with his own pistol, according to a declaration signed by him during the investigation.
In July last, the Embassy presented a complaint respecting the assassination of Mr. John W. Correll, perpetrated in the State of Tamaulipas. Our authorities, as soon as they knew of the case, sent out forces in pursuit of the culprits, and having reached their center of operations, killed four of them and captured a number of animals stolen by them, which were returned to their owners. The other murderers of Correll have just been arrested and are in the hands of justice, which will impose upon them the merited punishment.[Page 540]
In July last, the Embassy reported that Mr. Lawrence L. Shipley had been kidnapped by outlaws in the State of Zacatecas. Our authorities immediately issued the necessary orders, and Shipley was placed at liberty, safe and sound, five days later.
In the same month of July, the Embassy complained that the young boy, Philip E. Thompson, had been kidnapped at the Miraflores Hacienda, District of Chalco, State of Mexico, and that a ransom of 1500 pesos was demanded.
The Department of Foreign Affairs stated to the Embassy that the Mexican Government, desirous of doing everything possible to avoid international difficulties, offered in the name of our Government to reimburse the 1500 pesos ransom to save the life of the Thompson boy, though the necessary forces would pursue the culprits. Without the necessity of paying ransom, the Thompson boy recovered his freedom, uninjured. The appropriate authorities reported that they had given due warning to the Thompson boy of the danger to which he would be exposed if he traveled in the region where he was captured.
In the same month of July, the Embassy complained that United States citizen T. J. Costello had been robbed of a large number of cattle. Our forces at once began a pursuit of the culprits and gave them battle, taking from them nearly all the cattle they had stolen.
In May, last year, the citizen of the United States, Whiteford, was murdered by some bandits in the State of Nayarit. Those guilty of the murder have been killed by our forces.
The 14th of August last, the Embassy of the United States complained that the offices of the Penn-Mex Fuel Company at Tuxpam had been robbed. In a second communication, five days after the robbery, it insisted that protection be given, and expressed itself in a manner not at all kindly. On the same date, our authorities had already discovered that the robbers were four employees of the same company, two of whom were shot, and a part of the money was recovered and returned to the owner.
The narration of all the cases mentioned suffices to demonstrate that the imputations made to the Mexican Government that it has not the will or the force to punish crimes, are unjust.
On July 22, the Embassy of the United States sent a note with regard to the assassination of Peter Catron,19 asking that the culprits be punished, and adequate measures be taken to prevent further murders of citizens of the United States. The Embassy added that it had instructions from its Government to state to the Government [Page 541] of Mexico that if, through a lack of will or ability on its part, the lives of those citizens continued to be menaced, the United States would be forced to adopt a radical change in its policy toward Mexico.
The Mexican Foreign Office replied, in respect to this particular case,20 that the steps necessary had already been taken to punish the culprits guilty of the murder of Mr. Catron, and, as regards the final part of the note, that Mexico has always showed its good will to protect all foreigners resident in its territory, demonstrating this with positive facts; that the protection which Mexico gives to foreigners cannot be absolute, as such does not exist anywhere; that our Government has always pursued and punished severely those guilty of crimes; that the Mexican Government has interested itself constantly in pacifying the Republic, obtaining repeated successes, as is proved by the deaths of Zapata, Blanquet, Inés Dávila, and many others of minor importance; that, desiring to spare citizens of the United States the assaults to which they may be exposed, the Government suggests the expediency of their remaining in populous districts where complete protection can be accorded them, and that they request escorts when they find it necessary to travel or remain in dangerous zones; and lastly, that a palpable proof of Mexico’s good will in protecting the lives and interests of citizens of the United States is the offer made of escorts for paymasters of petroleum companies, which offer has been rejected; the Government has also promised to reimburse the sums of money which may be taken from the paymasters, notwithstanding that they are accompanied by escorts; and that, in view of all the foregoing, the Government of Mexico was surprised at the menace contained in the last part of the note.
Recently our authorities arrested in the region of Tampico a citizen of the United States called Samuel Tolley, who has confessed to the commission of assaults in that district, and gave up a pistol and a rifle, giving information regarding another citizen of the United States who took part in another robbery. He also gave important information regarding the bands which have been assaulting petroleum launches.
On various occasions our Government has made representations to that of the United States, through our Embassy, for the return of the customs duties collected at the port of Vera Cruz by foreign forces, which funds belong to the Mexican Republic, but to date no satisfactory result has been obtained, nor even a final reply.[Page 542]
Neutrality of Mexico During the World War
With the conclusion of the European war, the various difficulties experienced by Mexico by reason thereof, as reported upon in the Executive’s last message to the Congress of the Union, have ceased.
As is well known, the Mexican Republic observed a conduct of absolute neutrality; for while it is true that enemies of the Government and persons interested in it, have on various occasions expressed the opinion that the Mexican Government was not strictly neutral, it may be stated that no act or omission of the Mexican Government can be pointed out as implying the slightest violation of neutrality, based upon the strictest principles of international law, of existing treaties, and of universally established practices.
Unfortunately, on the other hand, the rights of Mexico as a neutral were not always duly respected, inasmuch as some units of the United States Navy remained in exceptional cases for periods of over 24 hours in our waters, and there have constantly been and continue to be warships anchored at Tampico, under the pretext of protecting their nationals.
Mexico and the League of Nations
Upon the conclusion of the conflict, the Governments of the Allied nations came together to constitute the League of Nations, to which it was stated nearly all states could belong under certain conditions, and an invitation was extended to them, excepting Mexico and some others. The Mexican Government on its part has not made nor will it make any effort to enter that international society, inasmuch as the bases upon which it is founded do not establish, as regards either its organization or its operation, a perfect equality for all nations and races, and the Mexican Government has proclaimed as fundamental principles of its international policy, that all the states of the globe should have the same rights and the same obligations, and that no person within a state may invoke a privileged situation or protection by reason of foreign citizenship or for any other reason.
The Monroe Doctrine and the Attitude of the Government 21
Inasmuch as at the Peace Conference at Paris, consideration was given to the acceptance of the Monroe Doctrine, the Government of Mexico believed it to be necessary that it state publicly, and notify friendly Governments officially, that Mexico had not recognized nor did it recognize that doctrine, inasmuch as it establishes, against the will of all the peoples of America, a rule and a situation [Page 543] upon which they have not been consulted; and, therefore, that doctrine attacks the sovereignty and independence of Mexico, and would create a forced tutelage over all the nations of America.
. . . . . . .
Indemnification for Damages Caused During the Revolution 22
The Government of Mexico established some time ago the form in which indemnification is to be made for damages caused during the Revolution, thus giving proof of a more liberal spirit than that of other governments in analogous situations. In effect, it was established that foreigners as well as nationals could apply to the Consultative Claims Commission in defense of their rights, and in case foreigners are dissatisfied with the decision reached, the question could be submitted to a mixed committee, composed of a representative of the Mexican Government, one appointed by the diplomatic agent of the country to which the claimant belonged, and a third to be selected by mutual agreement. The following foreigners have applied to the Consultative Commission, covering claims to the amounts stated:
|33 Claims by Spaniards||Pesos 8,602,882.79|
|19 Claims by Turks||3,434,196.66|
|2 Claims by Germans||657,362.54|
|2 Claims by Frenchmen||282,841.32|
|2 Claims by Italians||272,497.50|
|9 Claims by citizens of the United States||139,914.79|
|2 Claims by Chinese||38,662.38|
|1 Claim by Guatemalans||20,000.00|
|1 Claim by British subjects||9,907.25|
|1 Claim by Hollanders||7,700.00|
|1 Claim by Austrians||3,225.38|
|86 Claims23||Pesos 13,469,190.61|
No foreign government has expressed open objection to Mexico’s intentions for the payment of indemnities. However, there is a contrast between the insignificant number of claims presented by some, among them, British subjects and citizens of the United States, and the statements generally made regarding the amount of damages they have suffered; but the Mexican Government has reason to believe that all claims will be presented to the said Commission, especially if account is taken of the recent reforms made in the law, to meet certain objections of a secondary nature for the presentation of claims against the Government of Mexico for damages caused [Page 544] during the civil war, and inasmuch as the Government has shown not only a spirit of justice in this matter, but of equity and conciliation.
On the other hand, the Congress of the Union will at the proper time take up appropriation of the amounts necessary to pay the sums granted as indemnities.
. . . . . . .
Boundaries with the United States
The International Boundary Commission with the United States has continued in operation, and has drawn up a proposal for a new treaty on the distribution of the waters of the Bravo and Colorado Rivers. The same Commission has in hand matters relating to the elimination of various bars in the lower Bravo River.
- Not printed.↩
- Substituted for file translation.↩
- See instructions of Dec. 13, 1918, to the Ambassador in Mexico, Foreign Relations, 1918, p. 784, and note of Dec. 28, 1918, to the Mexican Acting Secretary of State, ibid., p. 792.↩
- Note of Aug. 17. 1918. ibid., p. 767.↩
- See p. 624.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1918, pp. 572–573.↩
- See pp. 557 ff.↩
- This incident occurred on Jan. 18.↩
- Rio Grande.↩
- See note of Aug. 26 to the Mexican Ambassador, p. 560.↩
- According to a letter of Oct. 16, 1919, from the War Department, an investigation of the firing on Pompas alleged to have taken place on Aug. 21 revealed no such incident, but on Aug. 11 an American patrol was fired on from Pompas and returned the shots. (File No. 812.0144/191.)↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1915, p. 771.↩
- For text of extradition treaty of Feb. 22, 1899, and supplementary extradition convention of June 25, 1902, see William M. Malloy (ed.), Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, vol. i, pp. 1184–1190 and 1193–1194, respectively.↩
- See pp. 544 ff.; the notification was dated Apr. 21.↩
- See also p. 576.↩
- See telegram of July 21 to the Chargé in Mexico, p. 572.↩
- See telegram of July 30 from the Chargé in Mexico, p. 573.↩
- See pp. 545 ff.↩
- See pp. 632 ff.↩
- If the other figures are correct, the total number of claims should be 73.↩