411.12/1749
The Ambassador in Mexico (Daniels) to
the Secretary of State
No. 1094
Mexico, February 10, 1934.
[Received
February 13.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Embassy’s
telegram number 10 of February 10, 3 p.m., 1934,30 informing the Department of
the receipt from the Foreign Office of a communication regarding en bloc
and the protocol for the evaluation of General Claims, heretofore
suggested by the Department.
The communication in question comprises three memoranda:
Memorandum A which gives the views of the Mexican Government
regarding en bloc. It concludes with the statement that in
suggesting changes to the Protocol, which is accepted
simultaneously with the en bloc settlement, the Government of
Mexico is always ready to undertake en bloc negotiations of both
Commissions along the general principles heretofore discussed,
and would receive any reasonable and equitable proposal from the
Government of the United States for an en bloc settlement of all
claims.
Memorandum B which is a proposal for the en bloc settlement of
Special Claims on the basis of 2.60%; payments, without
interest, to be extended over a period of 15 years.
Memorandum C31
which contains suggested amendments to the Department’s protocol
for the evaluation of General Claims.
The principal change suggested in the protocol is the
incorporation of the provisions of the protocol attached to the
General Claims Convention signed June 18, 1932, for the handling
of agrarian claims through diplomatic discussions. This change
appears as Article First. The remaining Articles are re-numbered
accordingly.
Under new Article Fifth (formerly Fourth), provisions are made
for the umpire to render his decisions within two years; the
President of the High Court of Justice of Uruguay is substituted
for the President of the Supreme Court of the Federation of
Switzerland.
Under new Article Sixth (formerly Fifth), sub-paragraph “d”, the following words are omitted:
“Such evidence with the brief, as rebuts evidence filed with the
Answer”; under sub-paragraph “e” the last
sentence, reading as follows, is omitted:
“In cases in which Answers already filed or hereafter
filed do not sufficiently meet this provision so as to
afford the plaintiff Government an adequate basis for
preparing its legal Brief with full general knowledge of
the factual and legal defenses of the defendant
Government, it shall have the right to file a Counter
Brief within thirty days following the date of filing
the Reply Brief.”
[Page 409]
However at a conference held this morning it was
agreed that the above paragraph should stand as in the original
proposal of the Department.
Sub-paragraph “f”. Add at the end the
words: “except in those cases specifically modified by this
Protocol”.
Sub-paragraph “m” omitted.
Sub-paragraph “n” becomes “m”. Omits second sentence reading as
follows:
“The complete original of any document filed, either in
whole or in part, shall be retained in the Agency filing
the document and shall be made available for inspection
by any authorized representative of the Agent of the
other side and, at the request and expense of the
latter, a photostat copy of such document shall be
provided for use in connection with the next pleadings
in the particular case, but not otherwise.”
Substitutes therefor the following sentence:
“Where the original of any document or other proof is
filed at any Government office on either side, and can
not be conveniently withdrawn, and no copy of such
document is in the possession of the agent of the
Government desiring to present the same to the
Commissioners in support of the allegations set out in
his pleadings, he shall notify the agent of the other
Government in writing of his desire to inspect such
document. Should such inspection be refused, then the
action taken in response to the request to inspect,
together with such reasons as may be assigned for the
action taken, shall be reported to the Commissioners,
and in turn to the Umpire mentioned in article 5 of this
Protocol, so that due notice thereof may be taken.”
I saw Dr. Puig this morning and I brought up the point that the period of
fifteen years for the payment of Special Claims might be considered too
long, calling his attention to the fact that when we had talked about
this matter some weeks ago, he had stated that he hoped an en bloc
settlement could be reached on both General and Special Claims and that
he hoped the Government could pay the total amount at the rate of a
million dollars a year. Dr. Puig replied that if we settle only the
Special Claims, the Mexican Government could not pay so much a year, in
view of other obligations and the fact that in the future they would
have to arrange for whatever was awarded in the General Claims. He said
that when he had said a million dollars a year it would have been a
great strain on the resources of the Treasury. Also he said that if an
en bloc settlement is reached for Special Claims on the same basis that
Mexico will pay Spain, France, England and other European countries,
Mexico would have to meet the obligations due those countries at the
same time that it paid the United States on Special Claims.
I hope the Department will find it practicable to agree to the proposal
of Dr. Puig. It is not likely that our nationals who have filed
[Page 410]
Special Claims will ever
receive a larger amount than is now proposed. Inasmuch as the average
settlement of the European claims is 2.6%, claims that are practically
identical with those of Americans, I do not see how we could insist upon
a larger percentage of recovery.
The en bloc settlement of Special Claims will put an end to international
controversies growing out of the revolutionary period 1910–1920, during
part of which time many revolutionary factions attempted to carry on the
functions of government. The details connected with the final figures to
be used in the en bloc settlement of Special Claims and the points to be
covered in a convention will be submitted later to the Department, after
I have had further exchanges of views with the Foreign Office and in the
light of any instructions deemed desirable.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure 1—Translation]
The Mexican Ministry for
Foreign Affairs to the American
Embassy
Memorandum A
Subject: Observations on an En Bloc Agreement,
General and Special Claims Commissions.
On his return from Montevideo, and on inquiring about various matters
pending with the Government of the United States, Puig has learned
with real regret that the question of an en bloc settlement of
claims could not, as he had hoped, be decided during his
absence.
Believing it his duty to state sincerely, as he has done ever since
the announcement of the appointment of Ambassador Daniels, that the
lack of an agreement in this matter is the greatest obstacle toward
the best development of the excellent relations of friendship and of
the marked spirit of cooperation which exist between the Governments
and peoples of the United States and Mexico; and making bold to
point out the inconveniences and risks of friction which the Claims
Commissions have meant for Mexico and the United States,
circumstances carefully analyzed in Puig’s memorandum to Ambassador
Daniels32
(submitted) even before the presentation of the latter’s
credentials; and in the fullest spirit of cooperation and
cordiality, it is agreed to consider the new plan formulated by
Ambassador Daniels, which may be stated as follows:
[Page 411]
- a)
- The signing of a Protocol which, (while) preserving the
status quo of the General Claims
Convention of 1923, and that established in the Extension
Convention of 1932 and in the additional Protocol of the
same date covering General Claims, shall set a procedure
which is deemed more simple and effective than the former
one.
- b)
- Once such a protocol is signed, to proceed to an immediate
en bloc settlement of the claims included under the Special
Convention, and
- c)
- To leave the door open for the possible en bloc
settlement, at a later date, of the cases covered by the
General Convention.
It is a source of satisfaction to the Government of Mexico that, if
only as regards the Special Commission, there now appears to be an
agreement of opinion which, although not yet stipulated, may
nevertheless be perceived in the conversations and negotiations
carried on; and it is also a source of satisfaction that there
appears to exist an intention to reach a similar agreement with
respect to General Claims,—seeking by the new proposed Protocol, and
in view of the lack of lump sum totals (coincidencias totales), solely the means which would
permit a mutually satisfactory en bloc agreement in the future.
The Government of Mexico can not, however, fail to stress the
fundamental importance which a speedy settlement of claims matters
has for the desired degree of friendship and closely-knit
interests.
The constant state of controversy carries dangerous seed, and at the
outset presents obstacles to the nobly ambitious policy of
perfecting our international ties, in which (aim) the peoples, the
Presidents, and the Secretaries of State of both countries
especially concur.
Wherefore, it is desired even at this moment to invoke anew the
spirit of conciliation, concord, and active cooperation which
animates President Roosevelt, Secretary Hull, and Ambassador
Daniels, in order, if possible, and over and above the positions
invariably maintained by the experts, that this matter may be
considered from the broad view of statesmen, and that its definitive
influence on the relations of our peoples and governments may be
weighed, in a new attempt to renew conversations in regard to an en
bloc settlement of both Claims Commissions.
To the consideration—which, according to the verbal statement of
Ambassador Daniels, appears to be paramount in the mind of the
Department of State—that all the General Claims should be decided
judicially, or the parties given a hearing, which view has led to
the presentation of a new Protocol, there could be opposed the
indisputable fact that the practice of extending or transforming the
Commissions, leaving the judicial system operative, is now condemned
by
[Page 412]
experience, which has
shown the inexpediency of a procedure which invokes the perils of
discussion, the prolonged life of the Commissions, and the useless
disbursement of considerable sums.
The observation—very reasonable from the point of view of the
convenience and domestic political exigencies of the United
States—(that it would be well) to retain for the General Claims the
possibility, though not immediate, of arbitration, because the
Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate appears to believe that a
judicial trial of the pending claims is necessary—might be countered
on the ground that perhaps there is no reason for making such a
distinction between the two Commissions, because what occurs in the
General takes place in the Special.
The explanation of the Ambassador that the main reason for his
desire, accepted in principle by the Department of State, to
liquidate the Special Claims en bloc was that he believed that it
behooved the two Governments to avoid political discussions such as
those revolving around the Huerta Government, might apply with the
same validity to the General Claims, which touch on constitutional
matters in some cases and on serious political questions in others,
some, like the agrarian claims, being of a nature both political and
constitutional; all of which seems to counsel an attempt at a
complete en bloc settlement (of all claims).
Having stated the foregoing, the Government of Mexico, prior to
indicating, as it will do in Memorandum “B” of even date, the
conditions which have now appeared to be acceptable in general to
the American Government for the en bloc settlement of the Special
Claims, and prior to setting forth, in Memorandum “C”, its
counter-proposal of Protocol, which it is agreed will be
simultaneous with the en bloc agreement, wishes to state that it is
willing at any time to negotiate for an en bloc agreement covering
both Commissions on the general bases of the Memorandum of September
21, 1933, signed by Puig, and of the memorandum presented by the
Oficial Mayor, Jimenez Dominguez, dated October 17, 1933,33 with the
amendments and new positions which may have ensued in the
negotiations from September to date; and that the Mexican Government
will not refuse to consider any reasonable or equitable suggestion
(solicitud) of the Government of the
United States in the matter of a complete en bloc settlement.
[Page 413]
[Enclosure 2—Translation]
The Mexican Ministry for
Foreign Affairs to the American
Embassy
Memorandum B
Subject: Bases for an En Bloc Settlement of Claims
Covered by the Special Convention of 1923.
To be deducted from the amount recorded:
- 1.
- —
- a)
- Claims duplicated in the same Commission.
- b)
- Claims withdrawn and claims decided.
- c)
- 50% of the claims filed with (duplicados en) both Commissions.
- 2.
- —
- Calculate 2.60% of the net result.
The term of payment to be fifteen years, without interest.
