File No. 812.00/12314.
No. 22.]
Special Commission of the President of
the United States, Near the Mediators,
Niagara Falls, N. Y.,
June 20, 1914.
I have. [etc.]
[Inclosure—Translation.]
Señor Rabasa to
Mr. Justice Lamar.
Niagara Falls,
Canada,
June 17, 1914.
My Dear Mr. Lamar: I ought to limit this
letter to an acknowledgment of the receipt of the one which you were
good enough to address to me under date of the 15th, which I
received during the evening; but I see myself obliged to correct the
principal ideas in it since they offer entirely the contents of the
memorandum of the Mexican Delegation, and concern themselves in
contesting what the memorandum has not stated. If, as I sincerely
request, you will read this document again, you will recognize the
following mistakes into which your letter has fallen:
First, the letter says that the memorandum is 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.” We do not say this in the memorandum
nor could we have said so since, as the Provisional President would
be the result of an agreement of the opposing parties, the liberty
of the Mexican people has nothing to do with his nomination since it
is not going to elect him, and the American army has as little to do
with it since it could exert no pressure upon the agreements which
are made in the conferences.
Second, your letter says: “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.” Neither this phrase nor the idea
which it expresses are to be found in any part of the
memorandum.
Third, your letter says: “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.” The memorandum
does not say this. Here are the lines whose sense you change
completely and which refer to the continuance of the American forces
until the period of the election: “The elections of Mexico neither
can nor ought to take place under a display of material pressure
upon its people.” This phrase says clearly, not that the American
forces are to exercise pressure nor that they are there for the
purpose of exercising pressure during the electoral process, but
that their presence would be a display of material power wholly
inconsistent and inopportune at the moment of an election.
The first point to which I invite your attention is the basis of the
entire letter which you were good enough to address to me; this has
resulted in leaving without a reply everything the memorandum really
states.
To what I have said I will add only two observations which refer to
the fundamental elements of your reasoning:
- 1.
- You say “that end (to restore peace) 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.” I allow
myself to recall a point which is in the memorandum: The
States which are under the control of the rebels contain
about 5,000,000 inhabitants, while the remainder contain
more than 10,000,000. The numerical majority is not,
therefore, declared in favor of the revolution.
- 2.
- You allege the same reason, which arithmetic does not
admit, in favor of an “electoral board “composed of two
Constitutionalists and one who is not a Constitutionalist,
and you add that I am unaware that past elections have been
held in Mexico under the control of a member of the cabinet
representing the dominant party. I am not unaware of this;
and I have never praised this system, nor applauded such
elections, nor do I desire that they shall so continue. You
assure me that the experience of the United States shows
that the system which you propose is good; but I suppose
that in the United States an electoral board is not composed
of twice the number of members of one party with respect to
the other.
I have desired to make these corrections, because it has greatly
pained the Mexican Delegation that, you should misjudge it through
error in your appreciation of the sense of its words and because I
believe that as well on your side as upon that of your honorable
colleague there is the greatest solicitude that the conference shall
come to a happy termination.
[Page 544]
I beg you to pardon me for troubling you with this letter since I
well understand that we ought not to hold a discussion in this form.
The object of the memorandum was only to bring to the American
Delegation the basis upon which the Mexican Delegation rested, in
order that it might be able to consider them with attention.
I am [etc]
Mr. Justice Lamar
to Señor Rabasa.
Niagara Falls, N. Y.,
June 18, 1914.
Dear Mr. Rabasa: I have your letter June
17th in reply to my letter of June 15th answering your objections to
the American plan.
I agree with you that it is not advisable for us in this manner to
continue the discussion of subjects which are before the Mediators.
I, however, avail myself of this opportunity to say that the words
“Provisional President” in the first paragraph of my letter were
obviously a clerical error—not only the immediate context but the
whole letter showing that the reference was to a “Permanent
President” to be elected by the people of Mexico and not to a
“Provisional President” selected through mediation.
With renewed assurances of respect [etc.]
