811.114/1573
The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Secretary of
State
Mexico, June 9,
1923.
[Received June 16.]
No. 7509
Sir: With reference to the Department’s
Circular telegram, dated May 3, 6 P.M.,8 the
substance of which, in regard to the Supreme Court decision,
construing the National Prohibition Act, was communicated informally
to the Foreign Office on May 4th, I have the honor to enclose
herewith a copy in translation of Mr. Pani’s informal note No. 8120
of June 5, 1923, in friendly protest against the Supreme Court
Decision in reference.
I have the honor to enclose also a copy in translation of Mr. Pani’s
informal note No. 8148, of June 6, 1923,9 received today, in acknowledgment of my
informal note No. 840 of the 2nd instant, in which I transmitted to
the Foreign Office the substance of the Department’s Circular
telegram of May 29, 6 PM, regarding the paragraph included in the
Treasury Department’s Regulations, exempting from seizure liquors
for beverage purposes on board foreign vessels which leave foreign
ports for American ports before June 10, 1923.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure—Translation]
The Mexican Secretary of Foreign
Relations (Pani) to the American
Chargé (Summerlin)
Mexico, June 5,
1923.
No. 8120
My Dear Mr. Summerlin: I am pleased to
acknowledge receipt of your courteous communication No. 790,
dated May 4th last, in which you were so kind as to notify this
Department that the Supreme Court of the United States, in a
recent decision, sustained that it is illegal for any vessel,
either national or foreign, to enter the territorial waters of
the United States with intoxicating beverages on board.
[Page 148]
To this proposition, the Government of Mexico permits itself to
make the following friendly representation to the United States
of America:
The decision taken by the Supreme Court of the United States will
certainly react in prejudice to international commerce,
restricting the facilities of Mexican merchant ships in arriving
within the waters or ports of the United States of America. As
in Mexico there exists no law similar to that which prohibits
the use of intoxicating beverages in the territory of the United
States, Mexican vessels commonly carry such beverages for the
convenience of their passengers and crews. It will, then, be
truly difficult for these vessels to discharge their stores of
wines and liquors before arriving within the territorial waters
of the United States, and it will be much more difficult for
them to sail from Mexican ports or from other ports without such
wines or liquors. This which places an obstacle in the way of
commerce should be enough to cause one friendly nation to make
certain exceptions, which deal with customs of another nation,
in favor of the interchange of commerce; but, furthermore, the
procedure contemplated appears to result, as it is especially
intended, that it is prejudicial to the commerce of the United
States in no way. The fact of the Mexican vessels being admitted
into North American waters carrying stores of wines and liquors
could affect the public order of the United States in no way
provided these wines and liquors are not taken off the ship nor
given to any persons on board other than those who pertain to
it. As to the granting of the exemption mentioned, allow me to
call your attention to the practice of nations and the modern
tendency of always giving all classes of facilities to foreign
merchant marine and to the fact that in many cases nations
renounce their jurisdiction over foreign vessels within their
waters. The formation of opinion in this respect has been so
strong that it has given place to the practice, which is almost
general, of exempting merchant ships from criminal jurisdiction,
which is the most strict, when the crimes committed on board do
not affect the tranquility of the port wherein they lie.
In the particular case to which we refer, it might be alleged in
the same order of ideas that even while the introduction and
consumption of intoxicating liquors may be lawless in the United
States of America, if these acts are effected on board a foreign
ship anchored in territorial waters, as they in no way disturb
the tranquility of the port, exemption from territorial
jurisdiction would be justified.
Finally, permit me to invite your attention to the recent case of
the S. S. Harvester10 over
which Mexico claimed jurisdiction because of certain criminal
acts committed on board that ship, and which jurisdiction
[Page 149]
was disputed by the
United States, Mexico finally agreeing not to exercise it in
view of a declaration of reciprocity on the part of the United
States. The declaration the United States made was that it would
not claim jurisdiction over crimes committed on board Mexican
ships anchored in its waters provided that the tranquility of
the port be not disturbed.
Such is the present case and Mexico hopes that the Government of
the United States of America will find a way in order that the
decision of the Supreme Court be not applied to Mexican ships,
which disposition is but a law or municipal disposition without
force, therefore, to annul international principles and
conventions.
I have [etc.]
