Mr. Plumb to Mr.
Seward.
No. 211.]
Legation of the United States,
City of Mexico,
October 22, 1868.
Sir: In the passage of a law published in the
Diario Oficial of yesterday, providing for the navigation of the lakes
in this valley by steamboats, being the fourth act passed at this
session of the Mexican congress, some remarks were made in the debate,
and a feature was introduced in the bill as first reported by the
committee, that merit notice in their relation to the feeling in this
country as regards foreigners, to which I alluded in dispatch No. 198,
of the 2d instant.
To judge intelligently of the situation here it is necessary that this
feeling should be known. Whether there may not be sufficient cause
[Page 607]
for its existence, or what
consequences may result therefrom, and whether it may not gradually
disappear, as is to be hoped, it is perhaps not my province to discuss.
I beg to inclose translation of the remarks referred to herewith. In a
project of a general railroad law reported by the committee on industry
in congress on the 2d instant, there are provisions containing the same
ideas, of which I also inclose translation herewith.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[From the Siglo XIX, city of
Mexico, October 13,
1868.—Extract.—Translation.]
Congressional report.–Session of the 12th October, 1868.
The project of law for the navigation of the lakes in the valley of
Mexico by steam being under consideration, Mr. Sanchez Ascona,
secretary, read article thirteen, which is as follows:
This company is purely Mexican, and on no account shall cease to have
that character; by the sole act of passing to foreigners the
concession shall be forfeited, and it shall be obligatory to return
the sums that may have been received, as also to pay the duties and
imposts that may have been caused, for which purpose the steamers
and all that forms the capital of the enterprise shall be held
hypothecated.
Mr. Mata. When I see what the committee
here reports to us it appears to me that we have returned to the
times of Philip II. I agree that the enterprise shall be Mexican,
but why from the fact of there entering into it a foreigner should
there be imposed the return of the small sum with which it is
subventioned? All who take part in or form a company in the country
are subject to its laws. This article will establish an odious
restriction, and I therefore ask the committee to be pleased to
withdraw it, or if not, that it be divided, as directed by the
rules, in order that the chamber can thus vote the first part, and
refuse the second, as I beg it will do.
Mr. Baz. The committee has done nothing
more than for some time past has been done in all affairs of this
kind that have been approved by congress.
Mr. Mata states that all who take part in or form a company in the
country, have to submit themselves to its laws. So it should be, but
in practice it has proved to be other-Wise. Experience has proved to
us that the slightest incident in which foreigners suppose their
interests to be attacked, is made the occasion of reclamations, and
we now know to what those lead. This evil is what the committee has
sought to avoid. Mr. Mata has been minister, and I wish that he
would state to us what remedy he has found to impede, or at least to
neutralize the effect of the reclamations of foreigners.
Here many observations can be made, but on coming to the result in
practice difficulties are met with which it is necessary to prepare
for beforehand.
Mr. Prieto. Less severe than Mr. Mata, I
understand all the embarrassments of reclamations, and the necessity
of averting them; but the committee should bear in mind that our
diplomatic relations with foreign governments are almost entirely
discontinued; that we are now all under a common law, and therefore
there is no occasion for the restriction treated of.
Mr. Baz. If we did not remember how
exacting foreigners have been; if the recollections were not so
fresh of the pressure they have exercised upon the country, the
observations of Messrs. Mata and Prieto would have force. But
experience warns us to be cautious, and the committee has reported
this article to prevent the repetition of the disagreeable scenes to
which such reclamations have given rise.
Mr. Mata. I have to state again that I
asked the division of the article, as is provided in the rules. For
the rest I would mention that I am not myself under discussion. As I
have never been minister of foreign affairs, I have never had to
study the manner of impeding reclamations.
The constitution marks clearly what are the obligations of the
foreigner in the republic. When it shaU be necessary to subject them
to the restrictions now proposed, it will be better to state to them
that they shall not reside among us, and to close to them our ports.
There is scarcely an enterprise in which foreigners have not a part,
and to condemn them in this manner on account of a miserable
subvention of $4,000, is even worse, as I have already said, than to
close to them our ports. We have proclaimed the, principle of
universal fraternity, and we should be faithful to it.
[Page 608]
Mr. Baz. The committee does not believe
that it should reform the article. It is a clause which has its
utility, for although Mr. Prieto states that there cannot he
reclamations, because we have no diplomatic relations, the truth is
that there are. They are of North Americans, but they exist. I know
several.
On the other hand, the committee does not state that foreigners shall
not take part in enterprises, but that enterprises shall not be made
foreign.
Mr. Prieto. I beg the committee will be
pleased to divide the article, for article 100 of the rules so
directs. The article we are discussing is composed of two parts, and
if it is not divided in approving it there will be approved what the
chamber does not desire, and in rejecting it there will also be
rejected a part that congress wishes to approve.
Mr. Sanchez Ascona. The committee reform
the article in this manner:
“The company is purely Mexican, and in no case can it lose this
character. It will be subject to the laws and tribunals of the
country. With respect to the responsibilities that it contracts with
the government, there will remain hypothecated the steamers and all
that forms the capital of the enterprise.”
The vote having been taken, the article was adopted by sixty-nine
votes against forty-nine.
[From the Siglo XIX,
Mexico, October 3,
1868.—Translation.—Extract.]
Project of a general railroad law reported by committee in the
Mexican Congress.
CONGRESSIONAL REPORT.—SESSION OF THE 2D OCTOBER,
1868.
The first reading was given to the following project of law reported
by the committee on industry, which was ordered to be printed:
* * * * * *
Article 8. The concessions shall be
forfeited:
1. If they are hypothecated, transferred, or ceded, in whole or in
part, to any foreign government.
2. If they are hypothecated, transferred, or ceded to any individual
or corporation without the previous permission of the authorities
that have made them.
* * * * * *
Article 17. The companies, shareholders,
creditors, directors, employers, laborers, and in general, all
persons who have any part in railroad enterprises in the republic,
shall be considered as Mexicans in all that relates to the same;
they cannot allege rights as foreigners with respect to interests
connected with the enterprise, nor can they have, even when alleging
denial of justice, other rights or other means of enforcing them
than those that the laws of the republic concede to Mexicans.
[From the Siglo XIX, city of
Mexico, September 23,
1868.—Translation.—Extract.]
Project of railroad concession to Vera Cruz.
CONGRESSIONAL REPORT.—SESSION OF THE 22d SEPTEMBER, 1868.
Mr. Peña y Ramirez presented the following project of law, signed by
a majority of the representatives in congress from the state of
Coahuila: Project of law with reference to the railroad to Vera
Cruz. Concessions.
* * * * * *
Article 24. This permission shall be
forfeited:
By the transfer, cession, or hypothecation of the rights under it, in
whole or in part, to a foreign government, or the reclamation by the
company under whatever pretext, of foreign protection.
For the transfer, cession, or hypothecation of the same to any
individual or corporation, without the previous consent of the
government.
* * * * *
Article 26. The penalty of forfeiture for
the causes to which paragraph 1 of article 24 refers will produce,
in addition to the penalties established in the preceding article,
criminal action against the infractors, as traitors to the country;
suffering in consequence a fine equal to the half of the capital
they represent in the road, without prejudice to the other penalties
to which they may be liable in conformity with the general laws of
the country.
