Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Address of the President to Congress December 8, 1914
File No. 812.00/12288.
Secretary Dodge to the Secretary of State.
the United States, near the Mediators,
Niagara Falls, June 16, 1914.
Sir: Referring to previous correspondence, I have the honor to enclose to you herewith a copy of a letter dated the 15th instant addressed by Mr. Justice Lamar to Mr. Rabasa, the senior Huerta Representative, in reply to Mr. Rabasa’s letter of the 12th instant38 stating his objections to the plan submitted by the American Commissioners to the Mediators.
I have [etc.]
The American Delegation to the Mexican Delegation.
Niagara Falls, June 15, 1914.
My Dear Mr. Rabasa: Your note of June 12 is received, with the accompanying memorandum. In it you state at length your objections to the plan submitted by the American Representatives to the Board of Mediators.
That memorandum shows that you entirely misunderstand the motives and objects of the President, for your arguments are based upon the theory that the American Government has a choice as to who should be Provisional President and is proposing to have that choice forced upon the people of Mexico by the presence of an army destroying the country’s electoral liberty. The American Representatives utterly repudiate that suggestion. The President recognizes facts and he sees in the past success of the Constitutionalist Army indisputable evidence of the approval of the Mexican people. But he also sees that the full triumph of that army means an indefinite continuance of the war, with the suffering and bloodshed and death which every war involves. These consequences the President seeks to prevent through mediation. But we greatly [Page 536] fear that the language of your note implies that his efforts may be thwarted because of your unwillingness to have a Constitutionalist as Provisional President, even though that promises the only practicable means by which the horrors of war can be prevented.
We sincerely hope that you will not further oppose the only plan which promises peace, when its rejection means suffering and death to so many. You view the situation with the deepest concern and have evidently written with deep feeling, and no less so do we.
We are convinced that your objections to the plan itself and your fear of the ill consequences that may follow its adoption, are not well founded; and that in attacking the details you lose sight of the large and controlling motive which, from the beginning of this trouble has been in the mind of the President and which has influenced the American Representatives in all that they have said or proposed to the Mediators.
Our Government seeks only to assist in securing the pacification of Mexico. It has no special interest in the method or in the person by which that great end is to be accomplished; and if it presses for any particular methods, or for the selection for a particular type of men, it is only because it believes them to be the only means to the end desired by your country, our country, the mediating countries and the whole civilized world.
So, likewise, our objections to the plan proposed by the Mediators, and approved by you, have been based upon the profound conviction that the adoption of that plan would not stop the progress of the victorious army nor bring that speedy peace which the American Government so sincerely desires.
It would be easy at this Conference to write an agreement which many would consider desirable; but unless the most excellent of plans and the most excellent of men are accepted by the Constitutionalists we would only have a paper plan, perfect in form and just in expression, but wholly ineffective to secure peace in war-worn Mexico. To bring that war to a close, to restore peace and constitutional government, is the aim of the President; and that end can only be attained by consulting the just wishes of the Constitutionalists, who are not only in numerical majority but are now the dominant force in the country.
Most of those in that party will necessarily be long ignorant of the terms agreed on at Niagara Falls; but they do know men and they do know for what men stand. And if the right man is selected for Provisional President they can, and we hope will, accept his appointment as concrete and satisfactory evidence that the Provisional Government is not intended to prevent the adoption of the reforms to secure which the Mexican people have risen in arms.
If those selected by the Mediators to administer the Provisional Government have the confidence of the Constitutionalists, a long step will have been taken towards the pacification of Mexico and at the same time furnish no occasion for alarm to those whom you represent since it is the purpose to offer a general amnesty for all political and related offenses. If the plan is accepted both by General Huerta and General Carranza the cessation of arms follows; a Provisional Government is established to maintain order, to protect life and property and to call an election, at which every qualified voter may cast his ballot for the President of his choice.
On the other hand, if the plan you endorse should be adopted and a neutral should be chosen as Provisional President, we would have secured no practical results, but still be confronted with the insurmountable fact that the Constitutionalists, now almost completely triumphant, would reject the plan, repudiate the man and press forward with renewed zeal to Mexico City with all of the loss of blood and life that may involve.
So evident is the advisability of selecting a Constitutionalist that it seems to be conceded that it is both necessary and proper that the Provisional President should be appointed from that party, though you say that he should be one who, though a member of that party, has been so inactive that he might be classed as a neutral. But it is manifest that in such a contest as that which has been waged in Mexico for years, it is not only fair but necessary to assume that every intelligent man of any prominence is at heart on one side or the other and the country might well question the patriotism of any Mexican who has been colorless in such a contest. And, as the Provisional President must be to some extent identified with one party or the other, it necessarily follows that to meet the requirements of the present situation his sympathies, which really mark the man, must be with the dominant element. The effort, therefore, should be, not to find a neutral, but one whose attitude on the controlling issues would make him [Page 537] acceptable to the Constitutionalists while his character, standing and conduct would make him acceptable to the other party. Such a man, and only such a man, can reasonably be expected to have the confidence and respect of the entire country. The concession that the Provisional President should be a Constitutionalist ought to make it possible to find the proper man, and if those discussed do not possess the requisite qualifications it is only because we have not succeeded in finding what we sought. You can well appreciate how difficult it is for us, under the circumstances, to do more than we have and to further promise diligently and earnestly to continue the search.
In objecting to the composition of the proposed election board, you wholly ignore the fact that in the past all elections in Mexico have been under the supervision of a single cabinet member representing the dominant party. By analogy the next election should be supervised by only one officer representing the dominant Constitutionalist party. The plan proposed by the American Representatives, however, was intended to avoid the just criticism against that method. That plan contemplates that this, the most important election in the history of Mexico, shall be supervised by a board composed of representatives of both political parties. It is wholly incorrect to assume, as you do, that, thus supervised, it will be unfairly conducted; and you may rest assured that all the influence the United States can legitimately use will be exerted to secure an honest election. Indeed it is the earnest desire of our Government that the permanent President shall be chosen in a manner so free from objection that his title to that high office and to the confidence and respect of his people will be strengthened by their knowledge that he represents their free and unfettered choice, at an election held, not by one party as in the past, but by representatives of both factions.
It is true that the American plan proposed that a majority of this Board shall be Constitutionalists, but that is because they now represent the sentiment of the majority of the people of Mexico. That, however, does not mean, nor should it be construed to mean, that thereby the American Government seeks, as you say, “to force an election in favor of the Constitutionalists.” So far from that being true, our experience in this country, with bi-partisan boards, leads us to believe that this is the most efficient method that can be devised to secure a fair election and a true count of the ballots.
You object to those provisions in the plan relating to the withdrawal of the American troops from Vera Cruz and you write as though it was the desire of the American Government that those troops should remain there indefinitely. The fact is that the President is most anxious that the Army and Navy should return to our shores at the earliest moment that can be properly done. But in the uncertainty as to what is the proper time, we have suggested that the question be settled—not by the Mediators—but by the American Government and the Provisional Government—both being alike interested in having the army withdrawn at the earliest date possible. But to the American Representatives it seems that, in the present disturbed condition of Mexico, it would be both unwise and unsafe to attempt to decide now a matter of such vital importance, where the happenings of a day may make it desirable for the army to remain there longer than the date fixed in the Mediators’ plan.
We greatly regret that you made the suggestion that the army is to be detained in Mexico as a means of coercion and depriving Mexico of electoral liberty. There is nothing to which you can point which lends the slightest foundation for such an implication. The overwhelming facts—the conduct of the American Government since the army landed, the repeated assurance that our country desired no war indemnity, no cession of territory and nothing but the peace and prosperity of Mexico—ought to have convinced you to the contrary. But we are happy at the opportunity your note gives us to repeat that the United States wants nothing except the good of her sister Republic. The United States is a party to the mediation in the hope that it might lead to peace and that the peace would lead to prosperity. The plan which the American Representatives propose, and on which we must insist, has been formulated solely with that end in view. Actuated by these motives, we feel that we may appeal to you, and through you to the other Mexican Representatives, to read again our plan in the light of these words, remembering that in proposing it and in writing this reply our good wishes go out to you and your party, as well as to all others in your great country.
With the assurances of my high esteem, I am, [etc.]
- Inclosed with Commissioner Lamar’s No. 14 of June 12.↩