817.00 H 35/16

Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State (Olds) of a Conversation with the Mexican Ambassador (Téllez), December 12, 1927

  • Present: Mr. Olds and Mr. Castle.

The Ambassador called at my request. I opened the conversation by stating that since his last call we had been considering carefully the situation which had been created by the Senate investigation, and that in particular we were examining the legal questions arising in connection with the subpoena which had been served by the Senate Committee upon the Mexican Consul General at New York.75 We were anxious to consult with the Ambassador with a view to finding a way of eliminating any difficulties and embarrassments inherent in this situation. I went on to state that so far as we had investigated the matter ourselves, we were of the opinion that a consul, in the absence of treaty provisions to the contrary, did not enjoy the usual diplomatic immunities, and that he could be summoned as a witness to testify as to unofficial matters within his knowledge. I proceeded to say we were satisfied that a consul could not be required in any proceeding to produce official papers which were the property of his Government, or testify as to their contents, or testify as to official business transacted by him as consul. I inquired whether, if we should be asked by the Senate Committee for any opinion on this subject, he would think it would be helpful for us to give an opinion along these lines. The Ambassador said that it appeared his Government took a different view from ours. He did not think that a consul could be called at all as a witness in a proceeding such as that now pending in the Senate. He had advised the Consul General not to appear unless he was ordered to do so direct from Mexico. He did not think the Consul General would get any instructions to appear. I then said that of course the Senate proceeding was nothing that we had anything to do with. We could not control it in any way. We should have to assume that the Senate thought it had power to subpoena the Consul General; otherwise the subpoena would not have been issued. If the Senate insisted upon its position and proceeded as in other cases, it might go ahead and arrest the Consul General if he failed [Page 249] to appear. We thought this would be highly unfortunate and that the possibility of such action ought to be obviated at all events. There was some further conversation, in the course of which the Ambassador emphasized two or three times the fact that the Consul General is the brother of the President of Mexico. He also said that he was worrying a great deal about what he should have to do if the President of Mexico was insulted on the floor of the Senate. Mr. Castle and I had the impression that he was considering resigning and going home in that eventuality.

The upshot of the whole interview was this: The Ambassador states flatly that the dignity of Mexico absolutely requires that its Consul General be accorded immunity from subpoena in this case. He will not appear. What will happen if the Consul General is arrested for disobedience to the subpoena was not gone into although we gave the Ambassador full opportunity to deal with that phase of the subject. The Ambassador himself suggested two alternatives—

1.
—That he write an official note to the Secretary of State calling attention to the facts of the present situation, and giving the reasons why the Consul General cannot and will not appear. In this note he will state that if the Consul General did appear, he could do nothing more than deny the authenticity of the documents.
2.
—That the Senate Committee frame the questions which it wishes to ask the Consul General and submit them through the Ambassador, who will undertake thereupon to get the Consul General’s answers and transmit them.

The Ambassador also said that he would issue another public statement if it would do any good. We told him that the note which he had suggested might prove useful, and he is going to send such a note to us the first thing in the morning.

Mr. Castle and I at several points in the conversation endeavored to make the Ambassador see the advantages which might accrue from a voluntary appearance by the Consul General. Mr. Castle spoke of his own appearance before the Committee, and of their apparently fair and reasonable attitude. The Ambassador, however, was steadfast in holding that the Consul General could not appear in response to a subpoena if the dignity of his Government is to be preserved. It was evidently not possible to get the Ambassador to appreciate the distinction between a voluntary appearance with reservations spread on the record so far as the subpoena was concerned, and a compulsory appearance under the subpoena. The only thing that would satisfy the Ambassador would be a withdrawal of the subpoena.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

R[obert] E. O[lds]
  1. See Investigation of Alleged Payments by the Mexican Government to United States Senators; Hearings Before a Special Committee … Pursuant to S. Res. 7, … Dec. 15, 16, 17, 20, and 27, 1927, and Jan. 4 and 7, 1928 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1928).