711.12/1056

The Ambassador in Mexico (Sheffield) to the Secretary of State

No. 4031

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith for the Department’s information, and with reference to my telegram No. 178 of today’s date,41 clippings from the newspaper El Universal of today’s date, giving the written replies of President Calles to a questionnaire submitted to him by representatives of that newspaper and of the newspaper Excelsior on the subject of the speech of the President of the United States at the dinner of the United Press Association in New York on April 25th last.

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.

I have [etc.]

James R. Sheffield
[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.

  1. Not printed.
  2. Not printed.
  3. File translation revised.
  4. As printed in El Universal, México, D. F., April 27, 1927.
  5. See Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, pp. 555 and 560.
  6. See ibid., 1923, vol. ii, pp. 522 ff.; also Proceedings of the United States-Mexican Commission Convened in Mexico City, May 14, 1923.
  7. The President’s exact words were “that they can count on such support as we can lawfully give them when they are beset with difficulties.”
  8. His exact words were “We have undertaken to discourage revolutions within that area.”