412.00/85
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin)
Sir: In reply to your Embassy’s despatch, No. 1656, of December 11, 1918,21 with which was forwarded a copy and translation of a note received from the Foreign Office, under date of November 29, 1918, in reply to your Embassy’s note, No. 288, of March 29, 1918,22 on the subject of the Claims Commission constituted by the Mexican Government by the decree of November 24, 1917, you are directed to address the Foreign Office substantially as follows:
In the Embassy’s note, No. 288, of March 29, 1918, referring to the language of Article V of the decree of November 24, 1917, providing for the appointment of a Commission to pass upon claims for damages to persons and property growing out of the Mexican revolutions, it was pointed out that such language seemed possibly susceptible of the construction that it was intended to cover only damages caused by “revolutionary forces” operating against the authorities which are regarded by the present Mexican Government as usurpers, and, therefore, as excluding claims for damages caused by those forces revolting against authorities regarded by the present Government of Mexico as legitimate. It was added that this apparently possible construction is not believed to have been contemplated by the Mexican Government, especially as it is alleged by certain American claimants that damages were inflicted upon them by unsuccessful revolutionists, which damages the existing authorities failed to avert, although having the power to do so.
To this statement, the Foreign Office in its reply of November 29, 1918 to the Embassy’s said note failed to advert. It is therefore requested that an early indication be given of the views of the Mexican Government on this point.
In its note, the Foreign Office states that Article V of the decree is restrictive, and, therefore, the Claims Commission created thereby could not consider or decide the claims for damages caused by bandits, but that such claims may be taken up through diplomatic channels.
Respecting this statement, it may be observed that the Government of the United States, animated by a desire to assist the Mexican Government in adjusting the troublesome question presented by the claims against it, regrets that the decree, as interpreted by the Foreign Office, should have been made so restrictive in form, and inquires whether it would not be possible to enact legislation so enlarging the scope of the decree as to enable the Commission to make a complete and sweeping disposition of the claims in question. [Page 638] It would seem unnecessary to adduce arguments to show that it is highly desirable to provide for such a disposition rather than to leave for diplomatic discussion a large proportion of the claims.
With regard to the provision of Article XIV of the decree respecting the appointment of a third arbitrator in case of a failure upon the part of the two arbitrators first selected to agree upon a third, the Foreign Office points out that the President of the Republic would be unable to modify this provision, since it forms part of a law which only the Congress of the Union can amend. Such being the case, the Embassy ventures to inquire, under instructions from its Government, whether the President of the Republic would not be disposed to urge that Congress take such action. In this connection, the Embassy desires to point out that this provision is regarded by the Government of the United States as of great importance. Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that the retention of a provision, whereby the possibility exists of the appointment by the Mexican Government of two out of the three members of the Arbitration Board, would be likely to arouse such criticism on the part of claimants as greatly to hamper the Department of State in its desire to render assistance to the Mexican Government in the prompt disposition of the claims.
In the note of the Foreign Office, it is stated that the President of Mexico concurs with the Department of State in believing that the period of ten days, prescribed in Article XX of the regulations set forth by the decree of December 24, 1917 for the making of a written statement by the claimant, is too short, and that he is disposed to increase this period to sixty days. The Embassy, therefore, requests to be advised whether such extension has, in fact, been made.
Finally, I am instructed by my Government to say that because of the delay which has occurred in effective dealing by the Mexican Government with the claims of foreigners, there has arisen in this country a feeling that the Government of Mexico is not earnestly endeavoring to bring about a satisfactory adjustment of the matter. In view of this feeling, which my Government is bound to say seems not to be without some justification, it, as at present advised, finds itself unable to recommend to American citizens that they submit their claims to the Commission and Board of Arbitration provided for in the Decrees mentioned, and must point out the desirability of the establishment of an arbitral tribunal of undoubted international standing to deal with such claims.
I am [etc.]