I also enclose the English summary of President Calles’ statement from
the English page of the newspaper Excelsior of
today’s date,41 together
with a full translation of the questionnaire and the replies thereto,
made from the Spanish text of the questionnaire and answers as handed to
the press, a copy of which has been supplied me by an American
correspondent.
It will be observed that President Calles, as is natural, emphasizes the
conciliatory tone of President Coolidge’s remarks, and also interprets
in a sense favorable to Mexican contentions the principal statements
made by President Coolidge.
It need only be added that whatever formal expression of satisfaction
with or approval of the statements of policy made by the President of
the United States is advanced by President Calles, the latter’s
expressions have but little relation to the practical attitude of the
Mexican authorities towards American interests in this country. These
continue, as for a long time past, to be subjected to arbitrary and
illegal action on the part of the Mexican Government, with no practical
redress on the part of the American citizens and interests affected.
[Enclosure—Translation42]
Questionnaire Submitted by Mexican Press
Representatives to President Calles, April 26, 1927, and His
Comments, With Regard to the Address Delivered by President
Coolidge, April 25, at New York at the Dinner of the United
Press Association43
Question: What is your general impression
regarding what President Coolidge said on the subject of Mexico at
the banquet of the United Press Association?
[Page 222]
Answer: Satisfactory. The attitude of
President Coolidge reflected in his words at that banquet, as made
known to me through the newspaper report of this morning, seems to
me to be serene and cordial, and I consider its tone conciliatory. I
believe, as President Coolidge does, that if there exists, as there
does, a lively desire to maintain cordial relations, it will not
only be possible, but surely easy, to reach a friendly agreement
and, using the same words as were attributed to him by the press, I
think that “our two peoples ought so to conduct themselves that
there will never be any interference with our [ancient] ties of
friendship.”
Question: President Coolidge spoke of the
origins of the difficulties with Mexico, and especially “of the
confiscations.” Will you say something in this respect?
Answer: From the version of President
Coolidge’s speech which I know, he spoke of the claim running over a
long series of years for damages to life and property of American
citizens, matters which, due principally to revolutionary acts, have
been and will continue to be settled by the General and Special
Claims Commissions44 now functioning and which had their origin in
the “Bucareli conversations “45 held during the Government of General
Obregón.
In accordance with the same newspaper version of the speech referred
to, President Coolidge gives as the origin of the intensification of
the difficulties between Mexico and the United States the
promulgation by the Mexican Government of laws which that
administration considered practically threatened with confiscation
the property of American citizens.
Fortunately for the good understanding and exact comprehension of our
purposes and of the meaning of those laws, in the same speech
President Coolidge shows himself informed and, we hope, convinced
that Mexico never intended and does not intend to confiscate that
property.
As I have taken care to express clearly at every opportunity, the
revolutionary policy and its expression in laws has not had a
confiscatory spirit or purpose.
There may have been, and there may continue to be, differences or
interpretations of a philosophical or technical nature following a
study of these laws, not so much with regard to the results of a
practical order produced by the laws as in the theoretical
conception which gave rise to them. That is to say: In accordance
with standards established in different conceptions of the history
of law, or of the present law, or because of an effort to reduce the
legal standards to rigid and abstract principles, the new standards
which Mexico through
[Page 223]
its
constitutional organs has sought to apply as a basis for legal
rights in matters of petroleum property, for example, may have been
suspicious, although the application of those laws in fact has not
resulted, nor do we intend that it should result, in a material
injury of the principles invoked.
We think exactly like President Coolidge, using his own words as
transmitted by cable, that “stripped of the [all] technicalities and involved legal discussion, this
(the supposed threat of confiscation) is the main difference which
our Government has” with that of the United States, and on this main
difference I think I have been absolutely clear.
As regards expropriations effected on agricultural lands, the Mexican
Government has never refused compensation, naturally to the extent
of the means which the economic situation of the Government
permitted, and it is very satisfactory to me to take note that
President Coolidge recalled that the American Government agreed to
accept the bonds issued by the Mexican Government for the payment of
the damages which might be recognized by the respective commission
in the cases where lands may have been expropriated in order to
distribute them.
Question: President Coolidge does not seem
very much disposed toward a special arbitration of the existing
difficulties. What do you think of this?
Answer: We now have two commissions of
arbitration with the United States, and it is clear that in general
the Mexican Government has always been and always will be an
advocate of these means, though this does not signify our special
desire that any particular difficulty be solved by this procedure,
it being perfectly satisfactory to us that the arrangement take
place through negotiations, which would have the immediate advantage
that, as the drawing-up of a constitution and the promulgation of
laws is a special privilege of sovereignty, that sovereignty would
not suffer moral injury by subjecting to arbitration difficulties
which originate in our constitution or our laws.
Question: With regard to the governments of
countries which have been recognized by the White House north of the
Panama Canal, President Coolidge stated that the United States feel
a moral responsibility and that he wishes that those countries
(Mexico among them) would be persuaded “that they can count upon the
lawful and all possible support on the part of the United
States”46 when they are beset with difficulties,
adding: “We have proposed to hinder revolutions in those
countries”.47 What do you think of this?
Answer: I think that the attitude of
President Coolidge in expressing the purpose of not fomenting
revolutions is in accord with strict
[Page 224]
moral rectitude. It would, indeed, be perfect
immorality, and the manifestation of an absolute lack of
governmental honesty, to incite revolutions or to stimulate them
against recognized governments.
Question: President Coolidge really
condemned large Mexican land holdings in his speech and says that he
looks with sympathy upon the efforts of Mexico to secure the
division of the large estates in order that a greater number of
inhabitants may become land owners. Do you think Mexico can take
advantage of the suggestions for the settlement of this problem made
by President Coolidge?
Answer: It is a true satisfaction for the
Mexican revolution and a source of sincere appreciation by this
Government to see the manifestation of sympathy of President
Coolidge with our efforts to secure a division of the great estates
for the benefit of the masses of people of Mexico. Naturally, we
reserve the right to judge of the practical methods for the
execution or realization of this desire to increase the number of
small land owners in Mexico, methods which the revolution has not
worked out at Cabinet meetings, but which are imposed upon us by the
very special realities of our national life, so different from the
conditions of the rural population in the United States, but the
application of which, we repeat again, must be carried out with due
respect to principles of international order, and with respect to
the interests of our own people or of foreigners, solely to seek the
collective welfare, and without denying the compensation established
by our laws, a compensation offered in the best form permitted by
the economic situation of the country.
Question: What do you think, finally, Mr.
President, of what President Coolidge states regarding the rights of
Americans and the efforts of their Government to defend them when
they are menaced or in danger in foreign countries?
Answer: The thesis of President Coolidge
seems to me to be above reproach.
As a matter of fact, when citizens of one country go to a foreign
country they must do so upon the understanding that they will submit
to the laws of that country, though such submission does not imply
that they have lost all the benefits established by international
law.
That is to say, we think, indeed, that besides the concrete
principles established by the laws of a country, there can be and
there are rights derived from principles definitely and expressly
consecrated by international law and that, from this point of view,
the protection of the government of a country, whether strong or
weak, for its citizens situated in another country, is just.
But I want to make some explanations with regard to these principles.
It is true, and has a clear explanation in human nature, that
[Page 225]
citizens or subjects of a
strong country when they enter and obtain property in a weak
country, resort to their governments because of real or supposed
violations of rights before exhausting the remedies indicated by the
laws of the country in which they live, and this unquestionably
produces, when undue attention is paid to such demands by the
foreign offices of strong countries with too much generosity or
without sufficient study of each concrete case, it produces, I say,
painful situations for the weak country as well as undue and
intolerable disdain on the part of the nationals of strong countries
which find the protection of the foreign office of their country
more convenient and opportune than the legal remedies of the country
in which they live, thereby contributing sooner or later to creating
painful situations between peoples who might have a perfect
community of feeling and purpose.
But these difficulties are not really anything but details without
importance in the friendly life of peoples when in the governments,
weak or strong, there is a consciousness of responsibility on the
part of the rulers and the firm purpose of not injuring just rights
of anyone.
And, now, referring to the concrete case of Mexico and of the United
States, as this consciousness of responsibility and this purpose of
governmental honesty exist among us, and as the spiritual and
commercial approach of our peoples is becoming ever more frank, and
since at the bottom of all the difficulties there is only lack of
comprehension or differences of view in the appreciation of matters
of a legal, theoretical or technical character, which do not really
affect the facts and will not affect legitimate interests; and since
they have not injured the feelings of the countries nor,
fortunately, in recent times, brought any injury to our dignity, I
am sure that the road is open for an easier and better understanding
which may definitely assure the satisfactory settlement of all our
difficulties.