For your information and the confidential files of the Embassy, I also
enclose a copy of General Obregon’s letter to which the enclosed is a
reply, accompanied by a translation made in the Department.
[Enclosure]
President Harding to General Obregon
Washington, July 21,
1921.
Dear General Obregon: Your personal letter
of June the eleventh was handed to me by our common friend, Mr.
Dover, on returning from his visit to Mexico, and I am glad to reply
in the same personal and informal manner. I have read with the
greatest interest and attention the statements in your letter with
reference to your policy in regard to the interests of American
citizens in Mexico. I wish to say in the first place that I entirely
agree with you that the friendship between Mexico and the United
States has not been fundamentally impaired, and that the important
question to be settled is the manner in which we may re-establish
and renew the outward form of its expression.
It would be uncandid not to state that the relations which have
existed between Mexico and the United States during the last decade
have been far from satisfactory. Since the Revolution, hundreds of
Americans, peacefully residing in Mexico, have lost their lives, and
many more of them have been deprived in one way or another of their
properties. When the Constitution of Queretaro was adopted, the
American Government felt uneasy as to its effect upon the rights and
interests of American citizens in Mexico, and inquiries on that
score were made in advance of recognition of Mr. Carranza. Relying
on the faith of the assurances received from the Mexican authorities
then exercising control, the Carranza Government was recognized. In
spite, however, of these assurances the United States Government was
greatly disappointed to find that measures seriously menacing the
private rights of American citizens were adopted, and American lives
and property did not receive the protection and enjoy the security
which had been promised.
After the overthrow of the Carranza Government, the Government of the
United States felt that its duty to its citizens demanded a more
definite understanding as to the intention of the regime which
succeeded it with regard to the protection of the interests of
American citizens in Mexico. It felt that this understanding, if
reached, would have a very beneficial effect on the political and
commercial relations of the two countries, and would obviate the
necessity for diplomatic representations and remonstrances arising
from lack of protection and security.
I have read with interest your public statement of April second, of
which you attach a copy to your letter, and following the lines of
it and desiring to remove all possible causes of friction, and to
pave the way to that neighborly friendship and cooperation which I
hope [Page 421] to see established
between Mexico and the United States, I directed the State
Department to prepare for submission to and discussion with you, the
draft of a treaty31 which
would give to the people of our two countries mutual and reciprocal
advantages in respect to their trade, and would also serve, first,
to clear away, in harmony with your public statements, all doubt as
to the non-retroactive and non-confiscatory effect of the present
Mexican Constitution; second, arrange for a joint mixed claims
commission to settle the claims of American citizens against Mexico,
and of Mexican citizens against the United States; third, to provide
the means of settlement of all pending frontier questions. I
carefully examined and approve[d] the draft of the proposed treaty.
Treaties are nothing more nor less than formal statements of terms
on which two countries maintain their political and commercial
intercourse. They are designed to remove causes of misunderstanding,
and so in this case it seemed to me that by embodying the
understanding of the two governments with reference to questions
raised by the adoption of the new Constitution in Mexico, especially
those relating to the enforcement of its provisions in a
non-retroactive and non-confiscatory manner, the causes of friction
and difficulty which have unfortunately existed in the last few
years would be removed, and the two governments might devote
themselves to mutual help and cooperation, rather than remain
divided and disturbed by continual discord and friction with respect
to points upon which, apparently, we are both now agreed.
You, as I understand it, recognize that some of the questions, at
least, now pending between us should be settled and arranged by
treaty, and have invited, as I am informed, this and other
Governments to enter into conventions providing for the creation of
joint commissions for the settlement of claims arising out of the
Revolution. The proposal of the United States is merely to go a step
farther and to arrange for the settlement of other pending
questions.
In proposing this course of action the United States is not
attempting to interfere with the domestic institutions of Mexico,
nor to dictate in matters of purely internal concern. It fully
recognizes the right of Mexico as a sovereign nation to adopt such
laws as may seem best, providing always (and this applies not only
to Mexico but to every other country) that such laws do not violate
the Law of Nations and the fundamental principles of right and
justice underlying international intercourse.
On the other hand, the question as to whether the United States
Government shall or shall not recognize another government is purely
a domestic one for the United States. The principles upon which it
has heretofore acted in this respect are well known, and need
scarcely [Page 422] be recapitulated.
In entering into this treaty with you recognition would be effected,
ipso facto.
I think I ought to take advantage of this occasion to make clear to
you that the attitude of the United States Government is not
dictated by the interests of any particular group, and that its
position is not affected by what you refer to as “lack of [exact]
information or by reason of an atmosphere created on purpose by
those who wish to gain more the longer the misunderstanding shall be
continued”, but on the contrary has been taken after careful study
of the situation and with a sincere desire to reach an understanding
which will place the relations of the two countries on a firm and
enduring basis of friendly and mutually advantageous
intercourse.
In your letter under acknowledgment you state that you cannot enter
into a treaty because the law does not permit you “any more than it
is permitted to the President of the United States to conclude
treaties contrary to the laws of his country”. It was not my
intention to invite you to conclude a treaty contrary to the laws of
Mexico, but one entirely in conformity with them as interpreted by
your own declarations. If the statements repeatedly made to the
effect that the Constitution and laws of Mexico are not retroactive
and confiscatory are true, I cannot see how the treaty which has
been submitted for your consideration is contrary to them, any more
than a treaty or convention for the adjustment of claims would be so
considered. In other words, the United States Government feels that
the provisions of the proposed treaty cannot be considered to be
violative of the Constitution and laws of Mexico, unless it is the
intention to interpret and apply those laws retroactively, which you
insist it is not the intention to do; therefore, I feel there must
be some misunderstanding which a more careful examination of the
matter will correct.
I have also noted your statement that the non-retroactive and
nonconfiscatory reglementation of Article 27 of the Constitution is
in the political atmosphere of Mexico, and that apart from the
political guarantees which the Constitution gives to these
principles, the agreement of the legislative powers of Mexico with
regard thereto, has already been shown in divers forms and occasions
and that there is no reason for believing that the judicial power
will adopt a different view. I am not advised, however, that the
legislative and judicial authorities of Mexico have acted in the
matter, and I may be permitted to observe that such action
undoubtedly could have a very beneficial effect in removing the
uncertainties of the situation.
It would be wholly pleasing to this Government to send a special
commissioner to Mexico to negotiate the covenant in conformity with
the terms which have already been expressed to you, both formally
[Page 423] and informally, upon
advice from you that such a treaty can be closed up. Arrangement for
such a special envoy will be made with great promptness and in the
hope of a speedy conclusion of the arrangements which are so
essential to the welfare and concord of both governments.
This letter will be handed you by Mr. Summerlin. And it may be well
to say that, in view of the publicity which has attended the
discussion of these questions, and of the natural desire of a number
of persons to appear as your representatives or mine, you will find
the representatives of the State Department more dependable, as they
alone are authorized to speak for this Government.
With assurances [etc.]
