Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, The American Republics, Volume VII

811.604 Mexico/364

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. William G. MacLean of the Division of Mexican Affairs

[Washington,] February 25, 1944.

Participants:	Mr. Gurley, Santa Fe Railroad
	Mr. Woods, Santa Fe Railroad
	Mr. Blair, Santa Fe Railroad
	Mr. Durbrow, Southern Pacific
	Mr. Muckley, Southern Pacific
	Mr. Buford, Association of American Railroads72
	Mr. Wilson, Western Association of Railway Executives
	Mr. Padilla Nervo73
	Mr. Aguilar74
	Mr. Clark75
	Mr. MacLean

Mr. Padilla Nervo having expressed a willingness to present the viewpoint of the Mexican Government to the railroad officials listed above, he was invited to do so through the American members of the commission.⁷⁶ In arranging for the meeting the railroad representatives were given to understand that the meeting would not be for the consideration of individual cases but would be strictly limited to an exposition of the viewpoint of the Mexican Government as to the interpretation of the international agreement of April 29, 1943 and to a statement of the reasons why the Mexican Government considered that there had been a violation of that agreement.

Mr. Padilla Nervo stated that his Government had entered into the agreement with the understanding that Mexican workers were to receive the same salaries as those received by domestic workers at the place of employment. He said that the Mexican Government had in mind that the place of employment was the whole United States or any region thereof where Mexican workers were employed. He said that the attention of the Mexican Government had subsequently been invited to the fact that contractors were employed by the railroads and that the contractors paid their employees doing similar work to that done by the Mexican workers some thirty cents an hour more than was paid to the Mexican workers. He said that this was considered to be a clear violation of the international contract. He stated that the policy of the Mexican administration in lending workers to the United States was not approved in all circles, but that the Government had nevertheless gone ahead with this project as an effective means by which it could cooperate in the war effort. He said that the Administration, however, had to proceed in such a manner that it would not give grounds for attack to those who were opposed to the program. He said that the carrying out of the terms of the international agreement would, he believed, disarm the critics of the program, and that the Administration, therefore considered it extremely necessary to insist upon an adjustment of the past, to which some publicity had been given in Mexico. In other words, he made it very clear that it was a matter of political expediency for the Mexican Government to come out of these negotiations with a reasonable adjustment of the past. He said that he believed the definition of “place of employment” as reached by the commission would eliminate differences in the future since this Government and the railroads would definitely know, under the definition, the limitations on the use of Mexican workers under collective bargaining wage rates in the railroad industry.

Mr. Gurley thanked Mr. Padilla for his clear and helpful exposition, and said that the definition should be helpful in facing the future but that it presented one or two problems because at several points collective bargaining wage rates changed within a given roadmaster’s district. He said that the changes were based on historic differentials which probably no longer had a reason for existing but were nevertheless fixed under our collective bargaining of railway labor rates. Mr. Padilla Nervo made an extensive reply to the suggestion which was evidently in Mr. Gurley’s mind that some modification of the definition be accepted. The trend of the reply was that the definition already represented practically a surrender of the Mexican viewpoint in regard to the place of employment. However, he neither closed the door to a modification nor indicated that he would accept such a modification. Mr. Buford, of the Association of American Railroads, made a statement of the difficulties which any wage adjustment would no doubt bring about with domestic workers in the same craft. Mr. Padilla Nervo said that the claims of the Mexican Government were against this Government and not against any particular railroad since the railroads entered into this matter through a contractual relation with the War Manpower Commission and not with the Mexican Government. I said in regard to the same point that this commission was present at the meeting entirely informally, that we had no request to make of the railroads, and that we were present upon invitation merely to present certain facts which would help them understand the problem which had arisen. Referring to a statement made by Mr. Buford regarding the wage-fixing regulations governing the railroad industry, I said that this commission was making no request of the railroads and realized that it had no competence in the field of railroad wage rates.

Mr. Woods then began to hint rather baldly that the Mexican Government should withdraw its claim in exchange for other benefits which he apparently thought he could secure. It became apparent that what he had in mind was to have the commission seek to secure for Mexico allocations of tools and machinery to the amount of the savings funds and back pay adjustment accruing to Mexican railroad and agricultural workers. It was in return for this assistance that the Mexicans were supposed to forget their grievances against the railroads. Mr. Padilla said that the Mexican Government was of course interested in securing tools and machinery and, as is well known, had sought to have the savings funds paid in the form of such shipments, but that those articles had not been available and that payments had consequently been made in cash. He added that any reopening of this question would be a matter for the two Governments to consider and to take up formally after such consideration. I seconded his remarks.

Mr. Woods was apparently slightly piqued at the reply, and said that he thought it was very foolish for the Mexican Government to prefer $200,000 in a cash settlement to securing assistance in getting allocations of $10,000,000 worth of much needed machinery and tools. It is interesting to note that this is the first time $200,000 has ever been mentioned as a possible basis of settlement, and I noted that Messrs. Padilla and Aguilar exchanged knowing looks when the sum was mentioned.

The meeting then adjourned.

72. C. H. Buford was vice president of the Association.
73. Luis Padilla Nervo, Oficial Mayor of the Mexican Ministry of Labor.
74. Manuel Aguilar, Mexican consular officer assigned to the Consulate General at Los Angeles.
75. Robert L. Clark, Acting Chief of the Employment Office Service Division of the War Manpower Commission.
76. A four-man joint commission established in December 1943 to investigate alleged violations of the terms of the agreement of April 29, 1943, regarding non-agricultural workers. The American members were Messrs. Clark and MacLean. For correspondence on the establishment of this commission, see Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. vi, pp. 573–574 and 581–585 passim.