Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress with the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1872, Part I
No. 282.
Mr. Nelson to Mr. Fish.
Mexico, January 27, 1872. (Received February 16.)
Sir: I have the honor to send herewith a copy and synopsis (A and B) of a notable article upon “Cattle-stealing on the Frontier,” written by Don Emilio Velasco, and published on the 4th instant in the Siglo XIX, of which paper he is one of the editors. The author was a prominent member of the last congress, representing the northern district of Tamaulipas, which is that of the Texan frontier, and he was formerly secretary of the government of that State. He belongs to the Lerdista party, and consequently his opinions and suggestions regarding the conduct of the Mexican government in this matter are entitled to considerable weight.
I am, &c.,
Cattle-stealing on the frontier.
By Don Emilio Velasco,
Summary of article in Siglo XIX, of January 4, 1872.
After quoting the paragraphs of President Grant’s late message which relate to Mexico, Mr. Velasco observes that the allusion to “lawless persons on the frontier has a very plain, meaning.
For three years past the owners of cattle-farms in Texas have complained of robberies by parties of Mexicans, and particularly since General Cortina was sent to command a part of the frontier garrison. From that time it was charged that such robberies were connived at by General Cortina, and that some of his subordinates even participated in them. Without presenting any specific case in which General Cortina figures as an accomplice, it was alleged that neither the State nor the federal authorities on the frontier of Tamaulipas were able to resist any demand of General Cortina, who often ordered the liberation of persons accused of very grave crimes, and that many of the cattle-robbers were on intimate terms with him. From these facts it was inferred that the condition of the Mexican frontier afforded no guarantees of good order, and that the inhabitants of the American border were liable to still further depredations by organized Mexican banditti, protected by the frontier authorities.
In examining these complaints, we shall endeavor to separate what appears to us exaggerated from that part in which we think the American government entirely in the right.
There are many persons on both sides of the frontier who live by crime, especially by smuggling and by cattle-robbery. There is nothing strange in this, for we have noticed that the same thing happens upon nearly all frontiers. Such persons take refuge alternately on both sides of the line, and generally succeed in eluding the action of the laws and of the authorities of both countries. In the years immediately following the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the raising of cattle in Texas had not yet acquired its present importance, while the haciendas of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon possessed great numbers of cattle. As that time our frontier States suffered from the same evil of which the Texan proprietors now complain.
It should be noted that the Texan authorities of the interior then pursued a conduct different from that of the authorities along the Rio Bravo. The former comprehended the evil of tolerating such deeds, and saw that it was probable that the same malefactors who then committed robberies in Mexico would ultimately perpetrate similar crimes within the American lines. Their foresight was so clear that there was presented, and we think passed, in the Texas legislature, a law giving the Texas courts jurisdiction over cases of cattle-robbery committed in Mexico, if the stolen cattle were sold in Texas.
It may be asserted that, as a general thing, the Texan authorities in the interior were guided by principles of complete equity, and that they restrained the commission of such crime to a very considerable extent, though not entirely. The Texan authorities of the frontier observed a different conduct. If they did not protect the stealing of cattle from our country, they were at least indifferent, and sometimes refused to entertain complaints made before them. All this is explained by the natural rivalry between the two banks of the river, which will also account for something-more than passive acquiescence on the part of our neighbors when, in 1851 and 1861, Matamoras was attacked and partially burned in our partisan wars.
For many years the cattle-stealing on the frontier was almost exclusively committed by Texans in Mexican territory. Of late, the conditions have changed. The herds of cattle are now more numerous in Texas than in Mexico, so that it is at once easier and more profitable for the same bandits who have so long practiced this industry in Mexico, to transfer the scene of their depredations into Texas. Hence the present outcry against Mexican incursions across the frontier.
We are not of those who delight in reprisals and who take pleasure in knowing that the Texans are now robbed instead of ourselves. For us a crime is always the same, wherever or by whomsoever committed. The proprietors on the Mexican frontier are of the same opinion, for they know that the cattle-thieves care nothing for nationality, and that as soon as the cattle-farms of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon recover from their present prostration, they will again suffer the same plague. Finally, there are innumerable Mexican families whose possessions lie in Texas, where they suffer the same depredations as the American citizens. There is, then, an especial interest for both frontiers in putting down these robberies, and the more so, since the robbers are generally smugglers as well, and ready to commit any crime.
It is, therefore, an error to suppose, as some American papers have done, that the mass of the Mexican population along the line of the Rio Bravo sympathizes with the robbery-of cattle from Texas.
[Page 379]The action of the authorities of both frontiers might profitably be combined to the advantage of both countries. It might be arranged that the authorities of the places where stolen cattle are sold should proceed against the robbers or their accomplices, reputing in the latter capacity those who buy cattle without the sale-mark of the first owner. It might also be arranged that such cattle be returned to the claimant, upon the simple evidence of their bearing his mark, uncanceled by the sale-mark. These measures would be partly a subject for a treaty, and partly for State legislation: but when once the two federal governments shall have come to an understanding, it will behoove them to recommend to the governments of their respective frontier States the adoption of such legislation as shall be deemed most appropriate; and we do not doubt that such recommendations, being in the interest of the settlers on both frontiers, would be favorably received.
Nevertheless, we should not delude ourselves into the belief that any such beneficent measures could entirely extirpate the evil in question. Both frontiers are too sparsely populated, and the facility of crossing the Rio Bravo at all points is too great to make this possible.
The principal difficulty, therefore, consists in the lack of population, and this cannot be promptly removed by either government; consequently, such robberies will continue to take place upon a greater or a smaller scale, according to the wisdom of the preventive measures.
We think that the American Government is aware of these facts, and that its principal complaints arise from the presence of General Cortina on the Mexican frontier.
We do not know whether the actual complaints against the conduct of this officer are well or ill founded, but assuredly the dictates of a sound policy should have prevented his being there employed in a public capacity.
In 1859, Cortina was an inhabitant of Texas, where he had a small estate. He had some personal difficulties with the authorities of Brownsville; he proclaimed war upon the Americans, and, having raised a party of four or five hundred men, he entered Brownsville. Being afterward defeated, he had to take refuge on the Mexican frontier. From that time he began to figure in our civil wars, in which he rose to the grade of general. His conduct in Texas was not calculated to leave pleasant memories, and his mere name inspires aversion to all the Texans of the frontier. His late arrival on the Rio Bravo coincided with the increase of cattle-stealing in Texas; and though the two occurrences have no necessary connection, our neighbors have inferred from his antecedents that General Cortina protects the criminals. The American Government undoubtedly considered the sending of General Cortina to the frontier as an inconsiderate or even an unfriendly step on the part of our government. We are satisfied that the Mexican government, in so doing, was actuated exclusively by considerations of internal policy, but, nevertheless, it ought to have reflected well before taking that step. Perhaps it would not be prudent for our government, at this crisis, to withdraw General Cortina,-but our rulers should remember that difficulties with the American Government arise with the greatest ease on the frontier, and that, therefore, they should send thither persons of recognized tact and ability.