[Enclosure—Translation]
The Mexican Acting Minister for Foreign
Affairs (Estrada) to the American
Ambassador (Morrow)
First:
The internal legislation of Mexico (article 6 of the General Customs
Regulations) authorizes the Government of the Nation to close
temporarily the customs established at their ports of entry.
This disposition of the Mexican laws is based upon the principles of
Public Law, according to which a sovereign Nation can impose duties
on merchandise entering or leaving its territory, which implies the
right to indicate the points through which the said entrance or exit
shall lawfully be effected.
Second:
This power had by the Government of a Sovereign State to designate in
time of peace the points through which international traffic
[Page 350]
can be effected, implies
the power of the same Government both to establish and to close
ports and consequently also to close ports of entry when the latter
are not under Government control, with the principal object of
preventing prejudice to the National Treasury which orders the
closure or to prevent also the development of unfortunate
situations.
Third:
It is said that this power of the Government is merely an internal
question, which International Law respects provided a reasonable use
is made thereof and opportune notice is given neutrals of the
closure of the port in order that they may suffer no unnecessary
prejudice. Such is the opinion maintained by E. N. Politis, in his
Course of 1925, at the Paris Academy of International Law.
Fourth:
In support of this thesis there can be advanced the example of the
United States during the war of “secession” when they declared the
Confederate ports closed.
Fifth:
There can likewise be cited the so-called “Coast of Portendiek”
cases, between France and England, decided in 1843 by the King of
Prussia, and that of the closure of the port of Buenos Aires,
between Great Britain and the Argentine Republic, decided by the
President of the Republic of Chile, in which the thesis was adopted
that the closure of a port to international commerce in case of
civil war is lawful.
Sixth:
In the case of the “Oriental Navigation Company”, between the United
States and Mexico, decided October 3, 1928, it was likewise
maintained that the authorities of a country are not obliged to
permit the unloading and subsequent loading of a neutral vessel
engaged in traffic with a port in control of insurgents without the
customs documents required by the internal laws, thus implicitly
confirming the power which a State has to close its ports to
international traffic.
Seventh:
The closure of ports controlled by rebel factions cannot be likened
to a blockade in time of war. In the first place, a blockade is
established for the purpose of destroying the commerce of the one
against whom the blockade is effected, while the closure of a port
controlled by rebels is decreed principally to prevent prejudice to
the Treasury. In this sense, a blockade constitutes an act of an
international nature, while the closure of a port is merely an
internal question.
[Page 351]
Eighth:
Moreover, it is essential to make a blockade in time of war
effective, for since the States not engaged in the conflict should
remain neutral, they could not heed the indication of one of the
belligerents not to do business with the other without the latter
considering such abstention an act of hostility. In the case of the
closure of ports occupied by rebels who have not been recognized by
the belligerents, nations on friendly terms with the lawful
Government should heed the latter’s indications without regard for
the opinion of the factions.
Ninth:
While the third nations are obliged and have the right to protect
their own commerce, this is true only in case said commerce is
lawful and conducted in accordance with the laws of the country with
which said business is done.
It is undoubtedly contrary to the peace of the world to disregard the
losses and damages caused a nation in a civil conflict to favor the
business interests of a few foreigners in the territory controlled
by rebels.
