702.1211 Laredo/37: Telegram
The Chargé in Mexico (Johnson) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received 6:39 p.m.]
5. Personal for Cotton, from Clark. Saw Estrada by appointment 5 p.m. Tuesday evening, spent more than an hour with him covering case including my talk with Calles on Monday and setting out Department’s proposal given in your No. 2, January 4, 1 p.m. I pointed out during interview that situation at Laredo and elsewhere along the border was due in great measure to the presence there of large numbers of Mexican political émigrés who lent support to situations such as existed at Laredo. Estrada replied that Calles was in no way connected [Page 527] with the Mexican Government’s move save that his last experience was the drop of water that made the cup overflow down the sides, the culmination of a long series of indignities suffered by Mexican citizens at Laredo; that he, Estrada, had on four occasions called Ambassador Morrow’s attention to the fact that little matters sometimes led to unfortunate complications referring, as I understand him, to the situation existing at Laredo; that the Mexican Government’s action in closing the Laredo Consulate was in part calculated to avoid the happening of some incident there which might prove serious to the two Governments; that Valls personally was no issue in the case; that while the United States had pleaded inability to control local officers he would not take word of Valls or Governor Moody or any one other than American Government as to the future conditions of Laredo; that the action of the Mexican Government had been carefully considered for considerable time past and had been taken with a full view of the possible eventualities; that the course taken by Mexico was the mildest action it could take for avoiding a continuance of the indignities suffered by Mexican citizens and that it conformed to international custom and finally that the press publicity currently emanating from Texan sources increased the difficulties of the present situation.
To my observation that the continued interference with normal trade relations between the two Laredos would probably result in ruining both towns, he replied that they had taken that into consideration before closing the Consulate and they were prepared to ruin their own town, upon which I commented that such a course was magnificent but hardly wisdom. I stated this was not the first time that the two Governments had been involved in the questions arising here and instanced the Cutting case38 where the shoe was on the other foot. He said he remembered the Cutting case.
He stated further that the proposed security of persons traveling with diplomatic passports was not a sufficient guarantee; that they were entitled to that under international law. (I did not then challenge his statement as to passports given with reference to persons accredited to other countries but will do so unless otherwise instructed should it seem wise so to do in the course of further negotiations.)
He then said Mexico had three possible courses open:
- First, abolish permanently the Consulate at Laredo.
- Second, close the Consulate for an indefinite time, that is, maintain the status quo.
- Third, open the Consulate upon an assurance from the American Government that all Mexicans would be permitted to pass through Laredo unmolested.
I suggested that we ought to face the problem in a practical manner and therefore try for something along his third course. I pointed out that his suggestion three went too far, as it would cover and protect all law breakers. He admitted this and said he meant unmolested subject to the enforcement of the laws. I pointed out that the phrasing of such a clause would be difficult since Valls was insisting that all he was doing was enforcing the law; that it would take a decision of our Supreme Court to tell whether he was right or wrong in his contention, and that neither of us wished to take General Calles to the Supreme Court.
I then suggested that he frame a statement such as he had in mind and then that we discuss it together. He agreed but said he must show it to the President first. I then suggested that since we were dealing entirely informally and unofficially, I having no official status, we discuss the matter before he submitted his draft to the President since a Presidential approval would more or less stereotype the form. He agreed to this and promised to make a draft and take it up with me today.
It is possible that in attempting to draft what he wants he will become aware of the unpracticability of his idea as he first stated it, and that we may come near to the suggestion you have made, though I think you must be prepared to consider some such phrase as “unmolested save for prosecutions for actual violations of the laws of the United States committed within the jurisdiction of the United States,” though this is a mere guess on my part. I shall suggest the inclusion of a clause covering diplomatic passports as I believe this would be the only really effective and concrete part of such a statement. I will also suggest that the clause be made mutual which may be an aid to tractability in view of their practice under article 33 of the Constitution.
Obviously it will be for you to determine how far you will wish to go in giving a Federal guarantee based upon statements by shorttenured State officials against the enforcement of criminal law particularly under the conditions existing at Laredo. Conceivably the Laredo community may be faced with the alternative—no Valls or no Laredo, this on the assumption that we shall not adopt in this situation the usually ruinous policy of retaliation or possibly reprisal. I will of course do the best I can but it should not be overlooked that not always does the practical side of a problem determine its solution here in Mexico and that the present complaint relates to matters particularly obnoxious to them. [Clark.]
- See John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law, vol. ii, p. 228.↩