No. 855.
Mr. Romero to Mr. Bayard.
Washington, February 14, 1888. (Received February 15.)
Mr. Secretary: In the note which I addressed to you on the 10th instant, relative to the free zone established in Mexico, I omitted to state two facts, which I think proper to mention here with a view to throwing additional light upon this matter and to dispelling certain prejudices which prevail in this country with regard to it, and which might affect the friendly relations between Mexico and the United States.
The first of these facts is that the free zone was not really an invention of the Mexican authorities of the State of Tamaulipas, but an imitation on a larger scale of similar measures which had been adopted more than five years previously by the United States Government for the benefit of that portion of its territory which bordered on Mexico.
The law of the United States Congress, of August 30, 1852, authorized the transportation to Mexico of goods sent in bond by certain routes specified in that law, and by all such others as the Secretary of the Treasury might see fit to authorize. This rendered it possible to send [Page 1283] large quantities of goods to the frontier towns of the United States without paying duties, and to keep them there in bond until a favorable opportunity offered for their exportation to Mexico.
As everything may be abused, the goods that were stored in the frontier towns of the United States were smuggled into Mexico. The United States Congress, when it passed that law of course did not intend to encourage smuggling to the detriment of Mexico, although such was, practically, its result; just as the governor of Tamaulipas at first, and the Mexican Congress afterwards, did not intend, in establishing the free zone, to facilitate smuggling to the detriment of the United States.
There was no such privilege within the territory of Mexico. All foreign goods, of whatever kind they might be, were subjected to the payment of duty when they were imported.
This difference of circumstances led the public men of Tamaulipas to believe that in order to place both sides of the frontier on the same footing in respect to commercial privileges, they needed to establish privileges similar to those which existed in the United States, although those which they did establish by the decree of March 17, 1858, were much more extensive than those which existed on the left bank of the Rio Grande.
The second fact which I desire to mention is a coincidence which is one of the causes that have induced the inhabitants of the Mexican frontier to attribute to the free zone more beneficial results than it has really produced, which circumstance has, perhaps, led to its maintenance and extension.
The situation of the Mexican frontier, up to the beginning of the civil war in the United States, was, as I have already remarked, one of poverty and even of misery, and formed a striking contrast to the other side of the Rio Grande. That war broke out almost simultaneously with the establishment of the free zone. The situation, of the Mexican frontier thereupon changed very much, and welfare and prosperity crossed from the left to the right bank of the Rio Grande during that war, and for some time afterwards, owing to the general prostration which prevailed in the South. Superficial observers attributed that prosperity not to its true cause, which, in my opinion, was the aforesaid war, but to the free zone, and feeling convinced that it has been productive of extraordinary results, they naturally considered it as a panacea for all evils, and its extension as an imperative necessity for the country.
I hope that these brief explanations will serve to rectify some of the errors and prejudices which prevail in this country in reference to this matter.
Be pleased to accept, etc.,