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. 297.
Mr. Nelson to Mr. Fish.
Mexico, March 16, 1872. (Received April 12.)
Sir: I here with inclose a copy and translation of an article on the “Free Zone,” published on the 4th instant in the Progreso, by Colonel Carlos de Gagern, of the federal army, but now retired from service.
I am, &c.,
The free zone.
By Carlos de Gagern.
[From the Progreso of January 4, 1872.]
Though the readers of the Progreso may probably remember the words in which President Grant made allusion, in his message of the 4th of December last, to the Free Zone which exists on our northern frontier, they having been published not once, but twice in the columns of this paper, still we consider it convenient to reproduce them again below, because they will serve us as a basis for the observations we are about to make in this article. He said, “The Mexican republic has not yet annulled the highly inconvenient laws by means of which the said Free Zone has been established on the frontier of the United States. It is to be hoped that it will do so, and also that those republicans will take measures to hold within bounds persons who do not respect the laws. I cherish the hope that Mexico, by its own intervention, will free our Government from the difficulties that the aforementioned causes give rise to.” As one can see, the mentioned paragraph not only speaks of the inconveniences that, in Grant’s opinion, result to the American commerce by the continuation of the concession, by virtue of which foreign goods can be introduced into our republic by certain determined ports free from all duties, but also of the Mexican robbers who, as is often said, cross the river Bravo del Norte into the State of Texas, with the object of stealing cattle and committing other misdeeds, known by the name of “border-ruffians.”
We do not wish to occupy ourselves now with this last accusation, and will only observe that the same may be said of the Texan robbers respecting our frontier States, it being probable that the damage felt on account of these robberies by the inhabitants of the left border of the said river may not be greater than that which those of the right border suffer” from the same cause. Of much more importance is the indication contained in the aforesaid paragraph about the necessity of our congress decreeing the abolition of the “Free Zone,” because, leaving alone for the present, whether its existence is or is not founded on justice, and whether from it there result advantages or disadvantages to our commerce and our treasury, that indication involves a sort of meddling in the home affairs of our country on the part of a foreign government which we can never permit or tolerate, for each sovereign and independent country has the indisputable right to fix its own tariff as it pleases, without considering the effects it may have on the prosperity of a neighboring country.
Some weeks before the issuing of Grant’s message the question of the “Free Zone” was discussed at length at a meeting of ministers which took place in Washington, and it is to be supposed that since then it has been tried to influence the minds of President-Juarez and his secretaries of state, to induce them to cede on this point to the demands-of the United States, though, as we believe and hope, without any result, for should our Government declare in favor of the abolition of this system it would do it on account of considering it against our interests, but never ceding to the pressings of the Government of the “White House.”
The “Free Zone” was established by virtue of a decree issued in Ciudad Victoria, by citizen Ramon Guerra, governor interim of the State of Tamaulipas on the 17th of March, 1858.
In the considerations it said that the towns of the northern frontier were in a true state of decadency from want of protective laws for their commerce; that, situated opposite a commercial nation which enjoys a free commerce—which assertion is entirely opposed to truth, for in the United States the protective system prevails—they require equal advantages not to lose their population, and that they desired to put an end to these great evils by franchises, which had so long been asked for by the said commerce principally in the port of Matamoras. The aforesaid decree was composed of nine articles, of which the first and the seventh contain the chief resolutions. The former expresses as follows: Foreign goods which are destined for the consumption of the city of Matamoras and the other towns on the border of the river Bravo, Reynosa, Camargo, Mier, Guerrero, and Monterey Laredo, and for the reciprocal commerce of these towns, shall be free of all duties, with the exception of the municipal ones, and of the duties there are or may be imposed to defray the expenses of the State Thusalso shall be free of duties the goods that may be deposited in the government, or private stores that may be established in the said towns, as long as they are not moved to-other-towns of the’ State or of the republic.”
The seventh article says: “At the time of foreign goods leasing the privileged towns, to be taken to the interior of the republic, is when the duties shall be paid, according, to tariff, and they shall never be introduced without having: paid, in the custom-house-they leave, all duties, the payment of which is ordered to be made in the port, and without observing all the requisitions of the laws in force, so as not to be molested nor stopped on their way.” It is sufficient to read these articles to understand that an [Page 403] odious law has been created, which favors some places and merchants, but which must necessarily cause harm to the rest in the republic, the more so as it is perfectly impossible, and experience has proved it, to prevent the clandestine introduction of foreign goods proceeding from the Free Zone into the interior of the country, thus causing an inequality respecting the price that legitimate commerce, established in other places that do not enjoy the franchises, have to ask for them, having been obliged to pay the customs duties to such an amount as not to be able in the least to compete with those of the Free Zone. This result has been foreseen in the same decree, for the eighth article says: “As the concession granted by this law should not be in detriment to the national revenue, the inhabitants of the frontier should by duty prevent, by all the means in their power, that this benefit granted them should be converted into a shameful traffic of smugglers; consequently, every inhabitant of the frontier should spontaneously convert himself into a sentinel, constantly persecuting contrabands; otherwise the government will find itself obliged to withdraw this privilege by annulling this decree.”
The caution contained in the foregoing article is truly ridiculous. Society has the obligation of compensating the services that some of its members lend to it in benefit of the whole community. Thence proceeds that every public employé has a salary assigned to him. By what right, then, do they wish to transform all the inhabitants-of the “Free Zone” into employés of the counter-guard without any compensation?
It is even against common sense to tell them that they ought spontaneously to constitute themselves into persecutors of contraband.
They have full reason for answering, What does it matter to us that the treasury should suffer by contraband? We have our own private business to attend to. If the State wishes us to exercise a constant vigilance, they must pay us; otherwise we will not do it. And the threat of withdrawing the privilege granted to them has never been carried out, notwithstanding that there have been plenty of motives for doing so.
Justice requires that the taxes that are imposed on the people should be equal all over the country. If they wanted to make exceptions to this rule in favor of a few, considering them under peculiar circumstances, we should end in the impossibility of giving out general laws. Everybody would invoke for himself some exceptional circumstance or other, with the object of escaping from compliance, and we do not deny that in many cases these pretensions would not lack basis; but carrying this principle of concession and exemptions to its greatest extent would necessarily occasion the total dissolution of society, as it could not subsist under a republican form without complete equality before the law with regard to all its members.
The decree of citizen Ramon Guerra was carried out, as soon as it was published in the protected towns, in conformity with the ninth article of the same, and as it said in it that it would remain subject to the examination and approbation of the congress of the State in their next meeting in ordinary sessions, and to that of the general congress when constitutional order should be again established, more than three years passed before the latter ratified it, and then did so, obliged by circumstances which it is not necessary to mention now; issuing on the 30th of July, 1881, the corresponding decree, which President Juarez ordered to be published through his minister of finance, Citizen Higinio Nunez.
We should also ball attention to the fact that in that of Guerra the words “favor” and “favored” are constantly used. It is well known that where there is favor there is not justice. The two words contradict each other. Still further, a favor granted to a portion of the citizens, easily and, in the present case, necessarily involves an injustice for the rest, and every society, to deserve the name of being well organized, should treat its members with perfect impartiality.
In November, 1870, Minister Romero presented himself before congress recommending the abolition of the “Free Zone.” His efforts were useless. The majority of the deputies confirmed said privilege, and, not content with that, they gave it greater extension, including in it the places situated on the frontiers of the States of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila. This resolution was undoubtedly owing to the patriotic sentiment of the representatives of the nation, who did not wish to appear to submit to the exactions of the Government of Washington, presented in a very rude manner by the American minister in Mexico, Mr. Nelson. We are far from wishing to blame such a sentiment; but we think that in this case it took the wrong direction.
Let us suppose that an enemy gives us interested advice, worded in imperative manner, but at the same time in conformity to our own interest, to justice, and to reason; what should we have to do then? Reject it, only because it came from such a source? By no means. We ought to say to the enemy: I take no notice of what you propose to me. I do not recognize your right to give me advice, and much less to give it in an offensive manner; notwithstanding, I will act according to it, not because you wish it, but in spite of your wishes; only because I cannot and do not wish to act contrary to the principles of justice, nor to withhold from doing what it is my interest to do.
This is more or less he situation we are placed in with regard to the “Free Zone.” [Page 404] The Americans cry out against it. They declare it injurious to their treasury and to the inhabitants of the State of Texas. They even dare to insist on its abolition, using threats, and making of the question a casus belli. Our duty is to answer them that they have nothing to do in this affair, and they have no right to demand the modification of our customs legislation, in the same manner as we should not have it to make observations if they suddenly chose to pass from the protective system to that of perfectly free trade, suppressing all their custom-houses and decreeing the introduction of foreign goods free from all payment, however much our national rents might suffer by such a measure on account of the facility of contraband. But, after thus saving our honor and dignity, we should study the question under the only true light of our own interest, and whether it is against the existence of the “Free Zone,” as has been proved by an experience of fourteen years; if, also, respect to justice obliges us, as it does, to annul a decree that on every side is unjust and prejudicial to the majority of the Mexicans, principally for the commerce of Tampico and Vera Cruz, we ought not for a moment to waive in decreeing said abolition. The “Free Zone” should disappear. It constitutes an anomaly and an injustice, and we hope the question will be thus settled by our congress, as soon as it is submitted to it again, not taking into consideration the state of revolution in which the frontier States are. We being a weak nation compared with the United States, have the more reason for being susceptible with regard to any attempt on their part to intervene in our interior administration and management. We ought to reject it with the greatest energy, and very decisively. For this reason our government ought not even to enter into long explanations with that of the neighboring republic about the message of Grant, which has made us write these lines, but should say to it, with due politeness, look after your own affairs and let me arrange mine according to my own judgment. Much less ought it to appear instigated by it to submit this affair to the deliberation of the national representation, and the latter, in their discussions, should completely overlook the exactions prescribed by Grant and his cabinet, considering them never to have existed. But our susceptibility should not reach the extreme of preserving an evil for the sole reason that it was also pointed out to us by a foreign nation. This evil exists; it is impossible to deny it. To work, then, to stop it as soon as possible, and if there result simultaneously from it more friendly relations with the Union, if in consequence of the abolition of the “Free Zone” there should spring up a more perfect harmony between the two people, so much the better, because it is always an advantage to live on good terms with a strong neighbor. But this consideration must not influence our resolutions. The measure we recommend should be taken freely. Only our own interest, properly understood, and justice, should be the motives that make us act in this case, as in others of the same nature. Down with the “Free Zone,” and long live the national dignity!