Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1934, The American Republics, Volume V

411.12/1761a

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

No. 283

Washington, March 9, 1934.

Sir: Referring to your despatch No. 1094 of February 10, 1934, there is enclosed herewith as a basis for your further negotiations with the Mexican Government, a redraft of the proposed protocol with respect to general claims in which are embodied most of the changes suggested by the Mexican Government. The Department’s position with respect to all these points is fully explained below.

Before proceeding to comment on this protocol, it is desired to emphasize the facts first, that in order to proceed to the appraisals contemplated by the general claims protocol it is necessary first to obtain an appropriation from Congress; second, that, pursuant to general policy, such appropriation can not properly be requested by the President until the agreement has become definite; third, that it is the hope of the President and the Congress that the latter will be able to adjourn at an early date not to meet again until January, 1935; and, fourth, that consequently, unless the protocol can be signed within the next few weeks, it will probably be impossible to take advantage of its provisions until the middle or latter part of next year, which would be very regrettable. It is desired, therefore, that if any further exchanges of views with respect to the terms of this protocol are necessary before the signature thereof, the cable be used in that connection rather than the mails.

With the urgency of the situation in mind, the protocol was originally drafted with the object of including nothing therein to which the Mexican Government could reasonably object, while at the same time complying substantially with every reasonable desire of that Government, as expressed in the past, for a rapid, simple, inexpensive disposition of the general claims. The protocol has now been rewritten mainly as suggested by the Mexican Government. The changes from the Mexican Government’s redrafted copy are shown on enclosure one herewith as follows: Those portions of the Mexican draft which it is desired to omit are included in brackets, and those portions which it is desired to substitute therefor or to add are included in parentheses. Enclosure two⁴⁸ is a redraft of the protocol in final form with these changes made. The following additional comments may prove helpful in making the necessary explanations to the Mexican Foreign Office as to the reasons for these changes:

Preamble

Third paragraph. Omit the following words: “even in the case that the other claims may at some time be subject to formal arbitration”. These words appear to be unnecessary inasmuch as by the preceding words, which were added by the Mexican Government, the agrarian claims are left in the identical status determined by the General Claims protocol of July 18, 1932, and the Mexican Government’s position on that matter is made absolutely clear. These additional and somewhat ambiguous words might prove troublesome in connection with those future negotiations regarding the agrarian claims which are contemplated by the protocol of June 18, 1932. If, therefore, these words were added for the purpose of clarity, they are unnecessary. If, on the other hand, they were added for the purpose of amplifying the reservation with respect to agrarian claims, it would be necessary to object to them because it is believed that all reasonable concessions have already been made on that point. The paragraph has otherwise been rewritten as suggested by the Mexican Government.

Protocol proper

Section “first”, 1st paragraph. This paragraph remains as rewritten by the Mexican Government except that the words “as provided by the General Claims protocol of June 18, 1932”, are inserted in order to make perfectly clear that the reservation made with respect to agrarian claims is exactly that provided by the protocol in question.

Section “first”, 2d paragraph. The only change made in this paragraph is a typographical correction in the interest of clarity of expression—the word “as” having been substituted for “which is”.

Section “second”. This section has been rewritten exactly as desired by the Mexican Government with the exception of the omission of the words “such of”, which are stricken out in order to make the text correspond to the Mexican Government’s elimination of the last clause of the original proposal.

Section “third”. This has been left entirely as approved by the Mexican Government.

Section “fourth”. This has been left entirely as approved by the Mexican Government.

Section “fifth”. The Department concurs in the view of the Mexican Government that a limitation of time should be put upon the Umpire for the completion of his work and, therefore, agrees in principle to the change proposed by the Mexican Government. Inasmuch, however, as only the most difficult cases would be referred to the Umpire, and it is impossible to know in advance what number of cases it might be necessary to refer to him, it is thought possible that a provision allowing two years for his work might lead to undue delay if the number of cases referred to him were small, whereas, if the number so referred were large a definite fixation of the period in advance might bring about the necessity for further extension conventions with all the difficulty entailed in such procedure. Moreover, it is believed that if the Umpire were to be required formally to assume in advance an obligation to act with reasonable expedition, the result, both practical and psychological, would be much better. The following substitution is, therefore, strongly recommended:

“The Umpire shall be required to assume the obligation to decide the cases referred to him at the rate of not less than one each week and to suspend his work not more than four weeks in any one calendar year.”

This substitution embodies the principles of the Mexican Government’s proposed amendment, but, it is believed, in a more practical and more effective manner. Probably not more than one hundred cases would be referred to the Umpire for decision, in which event his whole work would be completed within about the two year period contemplated by the Mexican Government’s suggested amendment.

Section “fifth”, last sentence. The Department notes the substitution suggested by the Mexican Government, but considers that, under the present circumstances, it would be more advisable to eliminate this provision entirely from the protocol. It involves a question which the Department would desire to consider with more deliberation than present circumstances will permit if the protocol is to become effective this year and, since the protocol contemplates a possible en bloc settlement, after the work of the two Commissioners shall have been completed, the question as to the proper procedure for the selection of an Umpire is one which may be avoided entirely by such an en bloc settlement. Should such settlement then prove impossible, however, the two Governments would, at that time, be able to consider the matter in the light of much more definite information concerning the agencies which would be agreed upon to make the selection of the Umpire than at present, since, in the intervening period, there would be the possibility of a complete change of personnel in the agencies heretofore mentioned in this connection.

In other words, the present protocol requires the conclusion of a Convention after the work of the Commissioners provided for therein shall have been completed. If that Convention takes the form contemplated by the first alternative mentioned in the first paragraph of section “Fifth” of the protocol, namely, of an en bloc settlement, this question will not arise. If, on the other hand, that Convention takes the form contemplated by the second alternative mentioned in the same paragraph, the proper procedure for selecting the Umpire could be considered more appropriately and more deliberately at that time.

Section “sixth”, subparagraph (a). There is added at the end of this subparagraph the following words: “which shall not be later than November 1, 1934”. Unless this provision is added, the signature of the protocol will still leave the date of its coming into effect entirely indefinite, as a consequence of which fact it would, in any event, be impossible for the agencies to proceed to the organization of their work with any definite schedule of accomplishment in mind. It is believed, therefore, that the Mexican Government will readily agree that this provision should be added. For your confidential information, it may be stated that this provision is considered necessary to give the protocol a sufficient degree of definiteness, after signature, to warrant a request to Congress for an appropriation with which to initiate the necessary preliminary work on the general claims to make possible a compliance with the protocol within two years after it becomes effective. It is probably inadvisable to explain this latter point to the Mexican Government. It is desired, however, that you insist upon the inclusion of this provision.

Section “sixth”, subparagraphs (b) and (c) remain as left by the Mexican Government.

Section “sixth”, subparagraph (d). The following substitute has been included as subparagraph (d):

“With the Memorial the claimant Government shall file all the evidence on which it intends to rely. With the Answer the respondent Government shall file all the evidence on which it intends to rely. No further evidence shall be filed by either side except such evidence, with the Brief, as rebuts evidence filed with the Answer. Such evidence shall be strictly limited to evidence in rebuttal and there shall be explained at the beginning of the Brief the alleged justification for the filing thereof. If the other side desires to object to such filing, its views may be set forth in the beginning of the Reply Brief, and the Commissioners, or the Umpire, as the case may require, shall decide the point, and if it is decided that the evidence is not in rebuttal to evidence filed with the Answer, the additional evidence shall be entirely disregarded in considering the merits of the claim.

“The two Commissioners, or the Umpire, may at any time order the production of further evidence.”

It is noted that the Mexican Government has suggested the elimination of a provision for the filing of rebuttal evidence with the Brief of the claimant Government on the ground that this provision makes possible the presentation of evidence over an “indefinite period”. The draft protocol submitted by the United States contemplated a reduction in the number of pleadings by eliminating the presentation of Replies and providing for the filing, with the claimant’s next succeeding document, rebuttal evidence which has ordinarily accompanied Replies. This procedure was followed with satisfactory results in the recent arbitration between the United States and Panama, was not found objectionable by either side, and tended to expedite the completion of cases for hearing.

It would seem fundamental that the issues of fact should be clarified as much as possible in order that the Commissioners, or the Umpire, may find it possible to reach a just appraisement of the rights of both Governments. The Department is impressed by the fact that, in the arbitral proceedings thus far conducted, both Governments have found it imperative, in certain cases, to submit evidence after all pleadings and briefs had been completed. And despite the liberality of the practice heretofore followed in this regard, it is significant that the Commission frequently found it necessary to order the production of still further evidence to clarify important questions of fact in dispute between the parties.

Aside from the fact that the procedure suggested by the United States does not, as alleged by Mexico, provide an indefinite period for the filing of evidence, it is believed that the inclusion of a provision for the filing of rebuttal evidence is necessary to safeguard the rights of both Governments. As a practical example of the necessity for such a provision, attention may be invited to a case which arose in a recent arbitration to which the United States was a party. The point at issue was that as to whether the claimant had been permitted to withdraw funds on deposit to his credit in a banking institution. The respondent Government submitted in evidence a document, duly executed by the appropriate officials of the bank in question, certifying that the claimant had withdrawn the funds in the year 1922. The claimant was able to submit, in rebuttal, evidence in the nature of monthly statements of account issued to him by the same bank over a period of years after 1922, showing that the funds in question had not been paid to him but had, according to the bank’s records, remained in his account. It was clear that the bank had simply made an error. The provision for the filing of rebuttal evidence in that case prevented the perpetration of a gross injustice as the result of that error. In the present arbitration either government might present a claim, for example, on behalf of one Jorge González, as a citizen, and the respondent Government might submit with its answer a certificate showing that one Jorge González had long since been naturalized as a citizen of the respondent Government. Under the procedure suggested by Mexico, the claim must be disallowed on jurisdictional grounds even though the claimant Government may possess conclusive evidence that Jorge González, the claimant, and the Jorge González who was naturalized, are entirely different persons.

The United States proposed that no evidence be submitted with the Brief except evidence strictly in rebuttal to evidence filed with the Answer, and, with a view to assuring compliance with this limitation, the original draft has been amended to provide for the rejection by the Commissioners, or the Umpire, of any evidence not so strictly limited in character. It may be observed that in the practice heretofore followed cases were frequently briefed and submitted for hearing in which the right granted by the rules to file evidence with the Reply was not exercised. The United States does not anticipate that the limited right herein proposed shall be exercised with frequency in the future, especially in the cases in which Memorials and Answers are prepared and submitted under the procedure provided for in the proposed protocol. However, it regards the maintenance of the right, in appropriate cases, a matter of importance, not only to the United States but to Mexico as well.

It will be noted that there has been added an additional provision authorizing the two Commissioners, or the Umpire, to order the production of additional evidence at any time. It is not anticipated that the Mexican Government will interpose any serious objection to the addition of this proposal which is designed to assist the Commissioners, or Umpire, in reaching a just appraisement of the claims.

Section “sixth”. Subparagraph (e) remains as left by the Mexican Government.

Section “sixth”, subparagraph (f). The Department agrees in principle to the addition made by the Mexican Government. It is believed, however, that, in order to remove any possibility of a criticism to the effect that the substance of the general claims convention has been changed by the protocol, it is preferable to express the desired addition of the Mexican Government in the following language: “except in so far as concerns the matter of procedure, which shall be that provided for herein”. It is to be observed in this connection that the comments of the Mexican Government on this change indicate clearly that what was in contemplation in making the change was the procedure provided for by the protocol. This substitution of language to express the wishes of the Mexican Government will, therefore, doubtless be found acceptable.

Section “sixth”, subparagraph (g) left in the form accepted by the Mexican Government.

Section “sixth”, subparagraph (h). It is noted that the Mexican Government desires to eliminate the ten percent flexibility in the matter of filing claims on the basis of the Agents’ advance notice with respect to the claims to be filed by them. It is not believed desirable, however, to make this change. While it should not occasion either Agency any difficulty, six months after the initiation of the pleading work to indicate rather definitely the total number of claims to be filed by its Government, it is almost inevitable that unforeseen contingencies will arise to make impossible an absolutely accurate statement on this point one year or more before the expiration of the period for filing memorials. Unless, therefore, some relaxation is made from this provision to cover such contingencies, it is not improbable that the Agents might undertake to provide against such contingency by notifying more claims than they really intend to plead which would destroy the real purpose intended to be served by this provision. The only other alternative would probably be a further international agreement, the necessity for which it is desirable to avoid, if possible. The very contemplation by the protocol of such a possible future agreement might lead to laxity on the part of the Agencies in the matter of giving advance notification. It is upon the relative accuracy of such advance notifications that the systematic and successful operation of the present plan largely depends.

Section “sixth”, subparagraphs (i), (j), (k) and (l) left as changed by the Mexican Government.

Section “sixth”, original subparagraph (m). The Department feels that the Mexican Government may have made a fundamental change in this respect without due reflection as to the possibilities to result therefrom. It is the almost uniform experience of this Government that, in the general working of agencies in connection with the pleading of large numbers of cases, there is an inclination somewhat to disregard prescribed periods for the filing of pleadings. It is believed that it is reasonable to expect that, in the stress of the work which will necessarily attend the pleading of all the remaining general claims within a period of two years, it will be found difficult, in many cases, strictly to comply, within a few days, with the periods prescribed in the protocol as originally drafted, namely, seventy days in each case. It would be most unfortunate to permit the filing periods prescribed by the protocol to remain absolutely rigid without any provision to care for emergencies and yet, at the same time, to provide sufficient sanctions to impel the Agents to advance the work in a systematic and orderly fashion. It is to be borne in mind that there is to be no Commission to issue orders or enforce the terms of the protocol and that, therefore, in the absence of such sanctions in the protocol, the inevitable result of inability or refusal to comply with the protocol by filing pleadings within the periods prescribed would be just that kind of friction and paralysis of the work which obtained in the past and which it is the whole purpose of this protocol to make impossible in future. It is, therefore, desired to insert as paragraph “m” of the protocol, the following provision to which, it is strongly felt, the Mexican Government cannot, with good reason, object:

“(m). In view of the herein prescribed limitations upon the time allowed for the completion of the work of the Agencies and the Commissioners, it is recognized that the success of this simplified plan of procedure depends fundamentally upon the prompt and regular filing of pleadings in accordance with the provisions of this section. It is agreed, therefore, that any pleading which shall be filed more than thirty days after the due date for the filing thereof, shall be disregarded by the Commissioners and the Umpire and that the respective case shall be considered by them upon the pleadings preceding the tardy pleading unless, by agreement of the two Governments, the continued pleading of the respective case shall be resumed.”

It is believed that you will have no difficulty in explaining to the Mexican Government that the clear purpose of this provision is, not to prescribe any unreasonable requirement, or any requirement differing in principle from those found in the rules under which most of the municipal courts of the world operate, but to place upon the respective Agents only a sufficient degree of responsibility for efficiently progressing the work as to insure compliance with the provisions of the protocol, which appears to be the only possible method by which a continuation of the friction and fruitless efforts of the past can be avoided.

Section “sixth”, original subparagraph (n). The following is a proposed substitute to reconcile the wishes of both sides:

“It shall not be necessary to attach original evidence to the pleadings but all documents hereafter submitted as evidence shall be certified as true and complete copies of the original, if they be such. In the event that any particular document filed is not a true and complete copy of the original that fact shall be so stated in the certificate. The complete original of any document filed, either in whole or in part, shall be retained in the Agency filing the document and shall be made available for inspection by any authorized representative of the Agent of the other side.

“Where the original of any document or other proof is filed at any Government office on either side, and cannot be conveniently withdrawn, and no copy of such document is in the possession of the Agent of the Government desiring to present the same to the Commissioners in support of the allegations set out in his pleadings, he shall notify the Agent of the other Government in writing of his desire to inspect such document. Should such inspection be refused, then the action taken in response to the request to inspect, together with such reasons as may be assigned for the action taken, shall be reported to the Commissioners and, in turn, to the Umpire mentioned in article 5 of this Protocol, so that due notice thereof may be taken.”

The first sentence of the above has been amended to meet the objection interposed by the Mexican Government. The last paragraph above, as proposed by Mexico, does not appear to cover the situation contemplated by the second sentence of this section as contained in the original draft. That original proposal was designed to provide for the inspection by one party of the originals of documents submitted, in whole or in part, by the other party, while the proposal submitted by Mexico appears to relate to a situation in which one party desires to present in evidence documents in the possession of the other party, but not introduced into evidence.

The addition proposed by Mexico appears unobjectionable and has been incorporated in toto in the above provision. However, the original proposal of the United States, covering a different situation, has been reincorporated in an amended form but omitting provision for the making of photostat copies, in order to comply with the apparent wishes of the Mexican Government. Since, the Department understands, the procedure contemplated by this proposal has, to a certain extent, been heretofore observed by both agencies, it is not believed that the Mexican Government will object to its inclusion.

The above suggestions and changes in the protocol represent a most liberal attitude on the part of this Government in order to meet the wishes of the Mexican Government in every reasonable respect so that the protocol may be promptly signed and put into effect. It is to be understood, and should be so explained to the Mexican Government, that in the event that that Government shall not promptly agree to the protocol in its present form, or to such minor changes as can promptly be arranged by cable, and a consequent delay results which makes it impossible to obtain from Congress, during the present session, the necessary appropriation with which to initiate the work on general claims this year, the Department reserves the right to reconsider the protocol in its entirety in a more detailed and more deliberate manner or to proceed to the adjudication of the claims under the existing Convention extending the duration of the General Claims Convention. It is felt that altogether too much valuable time has already elapsed without sufficiently substantial accomplishments in this matter and that, consequently, the present situation is one which requires the prompt subordination of unessential details to the essential conclusion of the work.

There is being transmitted to you under separate cover a draft of a convention for a lump sum settlement of special claims,⁴⁹ as proposed by the Mexican Government. You may advise the Foreign Office that the Department agrees in principle to the conclusion of such a Convention, providing for the settlement of American special claims by the payment by Mexico of a percentage of American claims equal to the average percentage found to be due by Mexico on the special claims presented by the six European Governments. It may, however, require several exchanges of views, by mail, to arrive at complete understanding with respect to the terms of such a convention. Meanwhile, it is desired to sign the general claims protocol in order that the necessary appropriation to permit initiation of the general claims work may be promptly requested from Congress. The Department desires, therefore, that you exert every effort possible to insure the signature of the general claims protocol at once and without waiting the signature of the special claims convention.

Very truly yours,

For the Secretary of State:

R. Walton Moore

[Enclosure]

Redraft of Proposed Protocol With Respect to General Claims

Josephus Daniels, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Government of Mexico, and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Mexico, having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on behalf of their two Governments to conclude the following protocol:

Whereas, It is the desire of the two Governments to settle and liquidate as promptly as possible those claims of each Government against the other which are comprehended by, and which have been filed in pursuance of, the General Claims Convention between the two Governments, concluded on September 8, 1923;

Whereas, It is not considered expedient to proceed, at the present time, to the formal arbitration of the said claims in the manner provided in that Convention;

Whereas, It is considered to be conducive to the best interests of the two Governments, to preserve the status quo of the General Claims Convention above mentioned and the Convention extending the duration thereof, which latter was concluded on June 18, 1932, as well as the agreement relating to agrarian claims under Article I of the additional Protocol of June 18, 1932, [even in the case that the other claims may, at some time, be subject to formal arbitration];

Whereas, It is advisable to endeavor to effect a more expeditious and more economical disposition of the claims, either by means of an en bloc settlement or a more simplified method of adjudication, and

Whereas, In the present state of development of the numerous claims the available information is not such as to permit the two Governments to appraise their true value with sufficient accuracy to permit of the successful negotiation of an en bloc settlement thereof at the present time;

Therefore, It is agreed that:

First—the two governments will proceed to an informal discussion of the agrarian claims now pending before the General Claims Commission, with a view to making an adjustment thereof that shall be consistent with the rights and equities of the claimants and the rights and obligations of the Mexican Government, (as provided by the general claims protocol of June 18, 1932). Pending such discussion no agrarian claims will be presented to the Commissioners referred to in article 3 nor, in turn, to the Umpire referred to in article 5 of this Protocol; but memorials of cases not yet memorialized may be filed in order to regularize the awards made upon the agreed adjustments.

Consequently, the subsequent provisions of this Protocol shall apply to agrarian claims only insofar as they do not conflict with the status thereof, [which is] (as) exclusively fixed by the terms of the agreed article of the additional protocol to the extension of the General Claims Convention, signed in 1932.

Second, the two Governments shall proceed, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph “Sixth” below, promptly to complete the written pleadings in [such of] the remaining unpleaded and incompletely pleaded cases.

Third, each Government shall promptly designate, from among its own nationals, a Commissioner, who shall be an outstanding jurist and whose function it shall be to appraise, on their merits, as rapidly as possible, the claims of both Governments which have already been fully pleaded and those in which the pleadings shall be completed in accordance herewith.

Fourth, six months before the termination of the period herein agreed upon for the completion of the pleadings referred to in Article six or at an earlier time should they so agree, the said Commissioners shall meet, at a place to be agreed upon by them, for the purpose of reconciling their appraisals. They shall, as soon as possible, and not later than six months from the date of the completion of the pleadings, submit to the two Governments a joint report of the results of their conferences, indicating those cases in which agreement has been reached by them with respect to the merits and the amount of liability, if any, in the individual cases and also those cases in which they shall have been unable to agree with respect to the merits or the amount of liability, or both.

Fifth, the two Governments shall, upon the basis of such joint report, and with the least possible delay, conclude a convention for the final disposition of the claims, which convention shall take one or the other of the two following forms, namely, first, an agreement for an en bloc settlement of the claims wherein there shall be stipulated the net amount to be paid by either Government and the terms upon which payment shall be made; or, second, an agreement for the disposition of the claims upon their individual merits. In this latter event, the two above-mentioned Commissioners shall be required to record their agreements with respect to individual claims and the bases upon which their conclusions shall have been reached, in the respective cases.

The report shall be accepted, by the convention to be concluded by the two Governments, as final and conclusive dispositions of those cases. With respect to those cases in which the Commissioners shall not have been able to reach agreements, the two Governments shall, by the said convention, agree that the pleadings in such cases, together with the written views of the two Commissioners concerning the merits of the respective claims, be referred to an Umpire, [whose written decisions thereon shall be rendered within two years from the date they are submitted]. (The Umpire shall be required to assume the obligation to decide the cases referred to him at the rate of not less than one each week and to suspend his work not more than four weeks in any one calendar year.) These decisions shall also be accepted by the two Governments as final and binding. [The Umpire shall be chosen by joint action of the President of the Permanent Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, the President of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the President of the High Court of Justice of Uruguay.]

Sixth, the procedure to be followed in the development of the pleadings, which procedure shall be scrupulously observed by the Agents of the two Governments, shall be the following:

(a) The time allowed for the completion of the pleadings shall be two years counting from a date hereafter to be agreed upon by the two Governments by an exchange of notes, (which shall not be later than November 1, 1934).

(b) The pleadings of each Government shall be filed at the Embassy of the other Government.

(c) The pleadings to be filed shall be limited in number to four, namely, Memorial, Answer, Brief and Reply Brief. Only three copies of each need be presented to the other Agent, but four additional copies shall be retained by the filing Agency for possible use in future adjudication. Each copy of Memorial, Answer and Brief shall be accompanied by a copy of all evidence filed with the original thereof. The pleadings, which may be in either language at the option of the filing Government, shall be signed by the respective Agents or properly designated substitutes.

(d) With the Memorial the claimant Government shall file all the evidence on which it intends to rely. With the Answer the respondent Government shall file all the evidence upon which it intends to rely. No further evidence shall be filed by either side (except such evidence, with the Brief, as rebuts evidence filed with the Answer. Such evidence shall be strictly limited to evidence in rebuttal and there shall be explained at the beginning of the Brief the alleged justification for the filing thereof. If the other side desires to object to such filing, its views may be set forth in the beginning of the Reply Brief, and the Commissioners, or the Umpire, as the case may require, shall decide the point, and if it is decided that the evidence is not in rebuttal to evidence filed with the Answer, the additional evidence shall be entirely disregarded in considering the merits of the claim.)

(The two Commissioners, or Umpire, may at any time order the production of further evidence.)

(e) In view of the desire to reduce the number of pleadings to a minimum in the interest of economy of time and expense, it shall be the obligation of both Agents fully and clearly to state in their Memorials the contention of the claimant Government with respect to both the factual bases of the claims in question and the legal principles upon which the claims are predicated and, in the Answer, the contentions of the respondent Government with regard to the existence and significance of the facts which it considers to be established by the evidence and the principles of law upon which the defense of the case rests. In cases in which Answers already filed or hereafter filed do not sufficiently meet this provision so as to afford the claimant Government an adequate basis for preparing its legal Brief with full general knowledge of the factual and legal defenses of the respondent Government, it shall have the right to file a Counter Brief within thirty days following the date of filing the Reply Brief.

(f) For the purposes of the above pleadings, as well as the appraisals and decisions of the two Commissioners and the decisions of the Umpire, above mentioned, the provisions of the General Claims Convention of September 8, 1923, shall be considered as fully effective and binding upon the two Governments, [except in those cases specifically modified by this protocol.] (except insofar as concerns the matter of procedure, which shall be that provided for herein.)

(g) Whenever practicable, cases of a particular class shall be grouped for memorializing and/or for briefing.

(h) In order that the two Agents may organize their work in the most advantageous manner possible and in order that the two-year period allowed for pleadings may be utilized in a manner which shall be most equitable to both sides, each Agent shall, within thirty days from the beginning of the two-year pleading period, submit to the other Agent a tentative statement showing the total number of Memorials and Briefs such Agent intends to file. Six months after the beginning of the two-year pleading period, the two Agents shall respectively submit in the same manner statements setting out definitely by name and docket number the claims in which it is proposed to complete the pleadings, indicating those in which they intend to combine cases in the manner indicated in paragraph (g) above. The number of pleadings so indicated shall not, except by later agreement between the two Governments, be exceeded by more than ten percent.

(i) In order to enable the Agencies to distribute their work equally over the two-year pleading period, each Agency shall be under the obligation to file its Memorials at approximately equal intervals during the first seventeen months of the two-year period, thus allowing the remaining seven months of the period for the completion of the pleadings in the last case memorialized.

The same obligation shall attach with respect to the filing of the pleadings referred to in paragraph (k) below.

(j) The time to be allowed for filing Answers shall be seventy days from the date of filing Memorials. The time to be allowed for filing Briefs shall be seventy days from the date of filing the Answers. The time to be allowed for filing Reply Briefs shall be seventy days from the date of filing the Briefs.

(k) In those cases in which some pleadings were filed with the General Claims Commission before the date of signature hereof, the Agency which has the right to file the next pleading shall be allowed to determine when that pleading shall be filed, taking into consideration the necessity of complying with the provisions of paragraph (i) above.

(l) In counting the seventy-day periods mentioned in paragraph (j) above, no deductions shall be made for either Sundays or holidays. The date of filing the above described pleadings shall be considered to be the date upon which they shall be delivered at the Embassy of the other Government. If the due date shall fall on Sunday or a legal holiday, the pleading shall be filed upon the next succeeding business day. The two Governments shall, for this purpose, instruct their respective Embassies to receive and give receipts for such pleadings any week-day between the hours of 10 and 16 (4 p.m.) except on the following legal holidays:

In Mexico	In the United States
January 1	January 1
February 5	February 22
May 1	May 30
May 5	July 4
September 14	The first Monday in September
September 15
September 16	The last Thursday in November
October 12
November 20	December 25
December 25
December 31

((m) In view of the herein prescribed limitations upon the time allowed for the completion of the work of the Agencies and the Commissioners, it is recognized that the success of this simplified plan of procedure depends fundamentally upon the prompt and regular filing of the pleadings in accordance with the provisions of this section. It is agreed, therefore, that any pleading which shall be filed more than thirty days after the due date for the filing thereof, shall be disregarded by the Commissioners and the Umpire, and that the respective case shall be considered by them upon the pleadings preceding the tardy pleadings, unless, by agreement of the two Governments, the continued pleading of the respective case shall be resumed.)

[(m) It shall not be necessary to attach original evidence to the pleadings but all documents submitted as evidence shall be certified as true and correct copies of the original, or, in the event that any particular document filed is not a true and correct copy, the nature of the difference between it and the original copy shall be stated in the certificate.]

[Where the original of any document or other proof is filed at any Government office on either side, and can not be conveniently withdrawn, and no copy of such document is in the possession of the agent of the Government desiring to present the same to the Commissioners in support of the allegations set out in his pleadings, he shall notify the agent of the other Government in writing of his desire to inspect such document. Should such inspection be refused, then the action taken in response to the request to inspect, together with such reasons as may be assigned for the action taken, shall be reported to the Commissioners and, in turn, to the Umpire mentioned in article 5 of this Protocol, so that due notice thereof may be taken.]

((n) It shall not be necessary to attach original evidence to the pleadings but all documents hereafter submitted as evidence shall be certified as true and complete copies of the original, if they be such. In the event that any particular document filed is not a true and complete copy of the original that fact shall be so stated in the certificate. The complete original of any document filed, either in whole or in part, shall be retained in the Agency filing the document and shall be made available for inspection by any authorized representative of the Agent of the other side.)

(Where the original of any document or other proof is filed at any Government office on either side, and can not be conveniently withdrawn, and no copy of such document is in the possession of the Agent of the Government desiring to present the same to the Commissioners in support of the allegations set out in his pleadings, he shall notify the Agent of the other Government in writing of his desire to inspect such document. Should such inspection be refused, then the action taken in response to the request to inspect, together with such reasons as may be assigned for the action taken, shall be reported to the Commissioners and, in turn, to the Umpire mentioned in article 5 of this Protocol, so that due notice thereof may be taken.)

48. Not printed.
49. Supra.