812.203/6
The Ambassador in Mexico (Clark) to
the Secretary of State
Mexico, April 30, 1931.
[Received May
12.]
No. 389Sir: With reference to the Department’s
instruction number 79 of January 27, 1931 (file number 812.203/4 [812.203/5]), and to previous correspondence
concerning the action of the Military Prosecutor at Guaymas, Sonora, in
ordering the American Vice Consul at that place, Mr. A. F. Yepis, to
give testimony in a hearing conducted by the Prosecutor at Guaymas on
November 5, 1930, I have the honor to transmit herewith, for the
Department’s information, a copy and translation of note number 5571
dated April 18, 1931, which has been received from the Foreign Office in
reply to the Embassy’s note number 179 of February 2, 1931, giving
textually the representations contained in the Department’s instruction
under reference.
The Department will note from the enclosures to this despatch that the
Mexican Foreign Office expresses the view, with reference to the
Prosecutor’s order to Vice Consul Yepis to testify in this case, that
compliance with a request of this nature is optional.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure—Translation]
The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Estrada) to the American
Ambassador (Clark)
Mexico, April 18, 1931.
No. 5571Mr. Ambassador: There was received in this
Ministry Your Excellency’s courteous note number 179, dated February
2nd last, regarding
[Page 707]
the
case of the Vice Consul in chargé of the American Consulate at
Guaymas, Sonora, who was summoned to appear before the Agent of the
Military Department of Justice in connection with the investigation
launched with respect to the revolutionary events which took place
in 1929. Your Excellency states that the abovementioned Vice Consul
appeared before the authority who notified him and made certain
statements based on official data existing in the archives of the
Consulate; Your Excellency adds that, since it was a matter in which
Mexican political affairs and the disclosure of official reports of
the Consulate were involved, you have received instructions to
advise me that the American Government is of the opinion that, in
accordance with the prevailing practice, the Agent of the Department
of Justice should have invited the Vice Consul in writing to
testify, informing him as to the purpose of the investigation and
fixing a date for the giving of his testimony which would have
permitted the Vice Consul to consult his Government in the
matter.
It is also stated in the said note that Your Excellency’s Government
would in this case have authorized the Vice Consul to testify.
Lastly, it is recognized, in the note to which I am making reply,
that this action emanates from a subordinate military authority, but
it is considered pertinent to call my Government’s attention to the
matter.
In reply, I should inform Your Excellency that my Government
expressed its point of view in the premises when it signed—as did
the Government of the United States at the Sixth Pan American
Conference—the Convention relating to Consular Agents,9 based on the principles universally
accepted in this respect and stipulating that in criminal trials the
prosecution (Sp., la acusación) may request
the presence of Consular Agents as witnesses, which request should
be made with (all) possible respect for consular dignity and for the
duties of that office, and shall be complied with by the consular
Officer. Although not establishing any exact rule, it is evident
that the recommendation to proceed in a manner compatible with
consular dignity may be interpreted in the sense that the request
should be in writing.
As for the obligation to testify regarding acts or facts (Sp., hechos) which have come to the knowledge of
the Consular Agent by reason of his official character or which may
be found in the archives, my Government fully concurs with (Sp., abunda en: literally, abounds in) the idea of
Your Excellency’s Government that compliance with a request of this
nature is optional.
Your Excellency’s Government justly recognizes that this is a case
involving authorities whose familiarity with international
courtesies is not probable; on the other hand, the American Consular
Agent, by virtue of his office, could more easily point out to these
authorities
[Page 708]
that in his
opinion (such procedure) constituted a possible violation of the
usual rules governing such cases.
I avail myself [etc.]
