On the 17th instant, a communication was addressed to congress by the
minister of foreign relations in the name of the President, asking that
license be conceded for Mr. Mariscal to return to the charge of the
department of justice, and for Mr. José Maria Iglesias, minister of
treasury for a long period prior to the entry of Mr. Romero into that
department, and since a deputy in congress, to take charge of the
department of government, recently vacated by the resignation of Mr.
Vallarta.
On the following day the desired leave was granted in both cases by
congress, without discussion, and on the 19th instant these gentlemen
entered upon the charge of their respective departments.
With the return of Mr. Lerdo de Tejada to the department of foreign
relations, the entrance of Mr. Iglesias into that of government, and the
continuance of Mr. Mariscal in that of justice, the cabinet of President
Juarez is again complete, Mr. Romero remaining as minister of treasury,
General Mejia as minister of war, and Mr. Balcarcel as minister of
fomento.
All of these gentlemen are, old and tried personal friends of President
Juarez, and most of them have been long associated with him, and while
the charge is urged, by the opposition, of partiality and exclusivism in
the selection of ministers, the cabinet will have the great advantage of
a perfect knowledge of late affairs, and entire unity of action.
The administration is also believed to have a large working majority in
congress.
The late proceedings of the supreme court in granting leave to Mr. Lerdo
de Tejada to continue in the cabinet, referred to in my dispatch No.
186, of the 12th instant, having been published in the Diario Oficial on
the 19th instant, I am enabled to transmit a translation of the same
herewith, as a matter of interest from the novelty of this incident as
compared with the practice in the United States.
[From the Diario Oficial, September 19,
1868.—Translation.]
The question of granting leave to the President of the Supreme
Court of Justice to remain in the Cabinet of President Juarez
SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE NATION.
Minutes of the 9th of September,
1868.
Present, the citizens Riva Palacio, who presided; Lafragua, Ordaz,
Cardozo, Guzman (Simon) Velasquez, Zavala, Garcia Ramirez, Attorney
General Altamirano, and Solicitor General Gnzman, (Leon.)
The preceding minntes having been approved, the following
communication from the section of chancelleria of the department of
relations was taken into consideration, which, word for word, is as
follows:
“Peace having been re-established in the republic, the government has
the important duty of consolidating it, and to comply with this
requires the co-operation of the persons who, as ministers of state,
have taken part in the carrying out of its action, which has so far
produced happy results.
“Besides, the government will, in many cases, have to inform the
congress of the Union in its proximate sessions of the antecedents
of public affairs, particularly of those relating to foreign
affairs; and to do this with the promptness and correctness that is
[Page 588]
due, it deems it
desirable that there should serve as its organs the persons who have
assisted as heads of departments during the period of the war
against the foreign intervention.
“In view of the foregoing considerations the citizen President of the
republic has thought proper to determine upon insisting in asking
the leave that is required for the citizen Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada
to separate from the functions of president of the supreme court of
justice, in order to take charge again of the portfolio of foreign
relations.
“In compliance with this determination I have the honor to address
you the present note, begging that you will be pleased to give
account of its contents to the supreme court for the effect
indicated.
“Independence and liberty! Mexico, September 7, 1868.
“MANUEL AZPIROZ, Chief Clerk.
“The Citizen Justice, temporarily presiding, of the Supreme Court of Justice,
present.”
The presiding officer directed that the preceding communication
should be placed in discussion.
The citizen Solicitor General Leon Guzman proposed that the
discussion be suspended until the citizen justices who are not
present at the session of to-day be cited to attend.
This motion being placed in discussion was rejected, there voting in
favor of it the citizens Solicitor General Leon Guzman, Attorney
General Altamirano, Simon Guzman, and Cardozo; and against it the
citizens Garcia Ramirez, Zavola, Velasquez, Ordaz, Lafragua, and
Riva Palacio, the motion therefore being lost.
The vote was then proceeded with upon the question whether the
license should be conceded; and there voted in the affirmative the
citizens Garcia Ramirez, Zavola, Velasquez, Castillo Velasco, who,
not being present, sent his vote in writing, Ordaz, Lafragua, and
Riva Palacio; and in the negative the citizens Solicitor General
Leon Guzman, Attorney General Altamirano, Simon Guzman, and Cardozo;
it therefore being accorded that the license should be conceded.
The citizen Leon Guzman, in giving his vote, stated that he desired
that the reasons should appear upon which he based it, and he
expressed the same in the following terms:
“The leave that is solicited, asked by the citizen President of the
republic, it would, perhaps, be necessary to concede, as it is asked
by a very elevated source, and the person whose license is solicited
is to dedicate himself to the public service; but it should also be
considered that if it is the will of the citizen President that Mr.
Lerdo should aid his government in one of the departments, the will
of the people and that of the national congress has been that Mr.
Lerdo should act as president of the court. As between these two
desires that of the people has the preference, my vote is that leave
be not granted to Mr. Lerdo de Tejada.”
In the order when the vote of the citizen Castillo Velasco was to be
accorded, who, not attending, in person, sent his vote in writing,
the same was read, and it having been accorded that it should appear
upon the record, it is here inserted, as follows:
“When some time since I refused, for my part, the leave to Mr. Lerdo,
which was solicited by the executive, that he might separate from
the supreme court of justice, and take charge of the department of
foreign relations, I was led to vote in this sense by the idea that
the separation of Mr. Lerdo from the government being effected a
change of cabinet would take place, and with it a change in the
policy of the government, which, according to my humble opinion,
being based in exclusivism and in the idea of the infallibility of
power, enervated the progress of the country, and impeded its
advancement.
“But neither a change in the cabinet nor in policy occurred, and,
under these circumstances, I believe that, to insist upon my refusal
of the license which is again solicited by the government would not
now have any other significance than a repulse merely personal to
Mr. Lerdo, and it does not enter into my thoughts to attack
individuals, but only principles.
“I have followed and shall continue to follow those of the
opposition, because I do not agree with their practical application
made by those politicians who proclaim equally the government, and
those that in practice dissent from its mode of judgment; but I
understand that in the exercise of the functions of the magistracy
there are not the necessary means to obtain from the executive the
modifications that public opinion, with which I accord, believes to
be just, and that this belongs to the congress of the Union;
because, in truth, to refuse leave to a magistrate when it is seen
that such refusal produces no practical result, and cannot influence
in the formation of the cabinet, as can be done by congress, is to
accept the disagreeable part of the affair without benefit to the
republic.
“It is for these reasons that, deploring as I do deplore the
continuance of a policy with wilich I disagree, I have desired to
emit this vote in writing in order that it should be manifested with
the disinterestedness and loyalty which no one can deny to me,
because I have never been wanting to those qualities.
[Page 589]
“The vote in favor of leave to Mr. Lerdo is interpreted as a
separation from the opposition, in which I am so long as I consider
it just, and this is absurd; or as the result of a bribery which
only can be believed by those who are capable of receiving it, and
with respect to myself, those who do not know the pride of my
poverty and the immovable firmness of my political beliefs, of which
I have given proofs.
“The vote against the license is interpreted either as the expression
of personal ill will, which in no case do I desire should be
attributed to me, or as the inert expression of a despite I do not
feel, for with respect to myself personally, it is indifferent
whether one citizen or another governs, as I always hold myself
aloof even from the residences of those in power.
“Under these circumstances, and assuming that the policy has not been
changed on account of Mr. Lerdo having left the department of
relations, that the court has no determined legal influence to
obtain a change of cabinet; and that the only recourse that it might
exercise has much that is offensive and nothing of efficacy for the
desired object of a change of policy; I have no difficulty in
conceding the leave that is solicited by the government, and I vote
in this sense.
“Mexico, September
9, 1868.
“J. M. DEL CASTILLO VELASCO.”
On the motion of the citizen solicitor general, it was accorded that
it should appear in the minutes that the citizen Ogazon gave notice
to the secretary, in order that it might be transmitted to the
tribunal, that he could not be present at the session.
On motion of the citizen Riva Palacio, it was resolved that it should
appear in these minutes that the citizen justices who have not been
present at the session of to-day, had knowledge that in this session
the question was to be treated of conceding or not the license asked
by the executive of the union for the citizen Lerdo de Tejada to
return to the charge of the department of foreign affairs.
In consequence of the vote with reference to the conceding of the
license, it was accorded with reference to the communication
remitted by the section of chancellaria of the department of
relations, in the following terms:
“Let it be answered that the license is conceded.”
Mexico, September 10, 1868.
A true copy, which I certify.
LUIS MARIA AGUILAR, Secretary.
