File No. 312.112W892/30.
[Inclosure—Translation.]
Private Correspondence of the Official in
Charge of Foreign Relations and Justice.
Chihuahua,
March 27, 1915.
Mr. George Carothers,
Confidential Agent of the American
Government.
Very dear Sir and Friend:
Referring to the conversation which we had this afternoon in regard
to the difficulties which may arise in connection with the
occupation of frontier towns bordering on the United States by
belligerent forces of the factions now disputing with one another
the supremacy, and realizing the just reasons which the White House
Government has for trying to prevent fighting between these forces
on the boundary line and especially in the vicinity of American
cities, I have thought it suitable to submit to the consideration of
your Government, through your worthy agency, the following
propositions which I will undertake briefly to justify.
I repeat that I find your Government’s attitude explainable, owing to
the injuries and losses of lives that have already been caused on
various occasions on the American side as a result of the attacks on
Mexican towns made by some of the contending leaders. But at the
same time your Government will surely take into account that the
belligerent force cannot permit the troops of the enemy to remain
undisturbed and indefinitely in possession of a frontier town which
they may and actually do use in most cases as a base of military
supplies.
If this practice were permitted unconditionally, the opposing
factions would find themselves prevented from weakening their enemy,
who could easily continue in possession of a customhouse without
owing obedience to the Federal Government or to the local government
of the State to which the customhouse belonged, which would of
course make it impossible to pacify and regularize the commercial
traffic between the United States and Mexico.
The right of any of the political parties in a civil war to reduce
the adversary to impotence, to dislodge him from points which he may
occupy (especially his base of military operations) and to deprive
him of any source of supply is incontestable in theory; and only in
special cases, such as that with which we are dealing, does the
desire to avoid international complications counsel refraining from
an armed attack on the frontier cities.
But this does not mean that the contending parties lack other
permissible means from the standpoint of the law of war for
attaining the ends referred to in the foregoing paragraph, these
being means which the bordering countries cannot consider as
infringing upon their rights.
Among other means, there is that of establishing a genuine blockade
on the national territory in order to prevent the arrival of
reinforcements, pecuniary aid, provisions, etc., of any kind.
Such an operation would, however, prove useless if the American
frontier port continued nevertheless to remain open unconditionally
so that the blockaded
[Page 796]
forces might supply themselves freely with provisions, arms and
ammunition.
And I not only consider that any effort on the part of the besieging
belligerents would prove useless, but that it might even perhaps be
regarded as a violation of neutrality on the part of the American
Government if it failed to order the closure of the frontier port,
for it would practically be rendering at that point material aid to
one of the parties as against the other.
At the same time there would appear to be a lack of international
reciprocity, for if an attack on these places is not carried out
owing to the possible risk to the lives and property of the
residents on the American side, it seems natural that the Government
of that country ought in turn to abstain from acts which would favor
the besieged to the detriment of the besiegers.
Under these circumstances I believe it is possible to apply to the
case of a blockade by land of frontier ports or places, principles
in some respects similar to those of maritime blockade. And thus, as
a supplement to the agreement concluded by General Scott, it might
be arranged that whenever either of the belligerents effectively
blockaded an American frontier port—that is, with sufficient forces
to prevent any access thereto of persons, pecuniary aid, arms,
ammunition, etc.—the President of the United States should
temporarily decree the closure of the port in question, in order
that the Government might preserve strict neutrality in the
case.
If this action were taken, the blockaded forces would be obliged to
give battle outside the city and away from the boundary line in
order to break the siege, or else they would have to surrender or
intern themselves in the United States, where they would be disarmed
if they were permitted to enter.
Of course, just as in a sea blockade, the necessary notice would
first have to be given and the blockade would have to be
effective.
I beg of you, Mr. Carothers, to do me the favor of submitting these
reflections to the consideration of your Government, which I hope
will find them just and equitable, inasmuch as their provisions
would be applicable to any of the political parties who might happen
to be in the situation contemplated.
I remain [etc.]
