File No. 711.12/106
The Ambassador in Mexico (
Fletcher) to the
Secretary of State
No. 1135
Mexico,
June 19, 1918.
Sir: In continuation of my despatch No. 1123,
of June 12, 1918,1 I have
the honor to forward herewith summaries and translations of the articles
which have appeared in the press of Mexico City in the past week with
reference to President Wilson’s speech to the Mexican newspaper men.
Two days after President Wilson’s speech was published here, the Mexican
Government, in an endeavor to prove its insincerity and to destroy the
good effect which was undoubtedly being made, furnished through Aguirre
Berlanga, the Minister of the Interior, all the newspapers of Mexico
City with a translation of my note of April 2,2 protesting against the petroleum decree of
February 19, and ordered them to print it with display headings. The
Department will see by the clippings herewith that these instructions
were carried out. The Democrata (German) and the
Pueblo (Government) gave the note a scare
head as a threat of intervention on the part of the United States.
I invite particular attention to the editorial in the Pueblo of the 14th (a summary of which was telegraphed to the
Department in my telegram No. 1175, of June 14, 1 p.m.1) The article faithfully
reflects the attitude of President Carranza and his Government. I have
been told that it was written by the Minister of the Interior himself.
Be this as it may—the Pueblo is the mouthpiece of
the Government and the article was inspired by President Carranza.
[Page 585]
Under orders of the Government, apparently, the Universal and the Pueblo have been
running a series of editorials attacking my note. The Pueblo carried all its editorials under the heading,
“President Wilson Threatens Mexico.”
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure 1]
Summary of an editorial from “El Pueblo,” Mexico,
D. F., June 14, 1918
PRESIDENT WILSON THREATENS MEXICO
The Contrasts: President Wilson’s Address and
Ambassador Fletcher’s Note
In this editorial a comparison is made between the address made by
President Wilson to the Mexican newspapermen, and the note addressed
by Ambassador Fletcher to the Mexican Foreign Office on April 2,
1918, regarding the petroleum decree of February 19, 1918.1
The Ambassador’s note is disqualified from a technical point of view;
in it can be seen the carelessness of a diplomacy backed by
force.
The two historical documents should be compared. The first (President
Wilson’s address) is a theatrical, sonorous speech given openly to
the world, to make a show of benevolence, disinterestedness, and
nobility. The second was intended to be secret, covered by
diplomatic discretion, harsh, concise, interested, threatening, and
gives an eloquent indication of what the powerful neighbor is
capable of doing to protect the property of its citizens in Mexico.
Each gives the lie to the other. The speech is, in form, correct and
academic, and at bottom, affectionate, insinuating, and attractive.
The note does not need diplomatic periphrasis in order to say the
most harsh and false things. It contains such phrases as: “So far as
my Government is aware, no provision has been made by your
excellency’s Government for just compensation for such arbitrary
divestment of rights.” This is what our law is called. According to
the note, the decree is a confiscation of private property, an
unjust imposition, the spoliation of American citizens, the
arbitrary divestment of property rights, etc. It says no measure has
been taken to prevent such spoliation, and then, it frankly
announces armed intervention.
Why reason: “I don’t like this; it is not to my interest; I shall
intervene to protect my properties”? This is
the sum total of the spirit and sense of the note. And outside, the
galleries applaud, the pro-Allies, followers, Americanists, a
certain “Committee of Information,” etc., are gaily decorated,
proclaiming friendship and confidence, and trying to fool Mexico
into thinking that there is no cause for fear.
We cry, with a cry of anguish, that all this is a lie, and that that
address of peace and friendship presages great happenings. Every
such word has been followed by an aggression. It was thus before the
Vera Cruz affair; so it was before the punitive expedition. Fresh in
our mind are the repeated assurances of non-intervention, of
disinterestedness, of help and assistance, the truth of which can be
judged by seeing our ports blockaded, our borders closed, our
communications interrupted, our correspondence censored, our
existence in danger, our security doubtful, and our prosperity and
commerce attacked by an enemy more dangerous because of his
mutability.
Heaven has been good to us by giving us good crops; otherwise we
should now be starving if our only source of supply were the United
States, and we had to take what they saw fit to give us.
Comparing the two documents, the conclusion is reached that the
United States is playing a double game with us; it is the same as
that of 70 years ago; its diplomacy with us is, as always, despotic,
lacking in logic, discourteous. It differs from that of 70 years ago
in that it is more complicated, as it brings before the world a show
of friendship which in the end is fragile. What was the object of
the address? Why was it directed at Mexico only? It was to deaden
our lack of confidence and suspicions and secure pardon for the only
too recent affronts of Vera Cruz and the punitive expedition. There
is, however, an instinct in the people not to be deceived by words,
words, words. Certain politicians lauded the address. Let us hear
from them now, a defense of the note of Ambassador Fletcher.
[Page 586]
[Enclosure 2]
Summary of an editorial from “El Pueblo” Mexico,
D. F., June 17, 1918
PRESIDENT WILSON THREATENS MEXICO
Mexico Should not Recognize the Right of the
United States to “Protest” Against Legislative Acts of its
Sovereignty
The editorial is based on the last paragraph of Ambassador Fletcher’s
note in which he states:
Acting under instructions, I have the honor to request your
excellency to be good enough to lay before His Excellency
the President of Mexico, this formal and solemn protest of
the Government of the United States, against the violation
or infringement of legitimately acquired American private
property involved in the enforcement of the said decree.
Diplomatic representations begin with protests, are followed by an
offense, and end by diplomatic or armed intervention. Protest and
intervention—we have shown that the protection announced is
equivalent to intervention—are both contained in Mr. Fletcher’s
note.
A legislative act is an act of sovereignty; that is, it is the
undisputed, absolute, permanent and universal right which each state
possesses as a personal entity under international law. This applies
to the external as well as the internal sovereignty of a nation.
No nation has the right to interfere with another’s tax legislation.
However absurd or onerous it may be, both natives and foreigners
must submit to its provisions. To place diplomatic representation at
the service of private interests is an erroneous conception of the
high functions of diplomacy.
The decree establishes a tax applicable to aliens and natives alike,
so that it can not be considered as confiscatory, as the American
Ambassador erroneously terms it.
We do not know what answer the Government will give to the note, but
Mexico’s sovereignty and the right of the people to govern
themselves is indisputable and must not be questioned. We must state
to the entire Nation that our Foreign Office must not permit any
interference in the country’s affairs by the United States, and the
door must be closed to any precedent which would allow of aggressive
and inconsiderate interferences by the United States or any other
Government.
