Office of the Historian

File No. 812.00/627.

[Untitled]

[January 3, 1911]

Note.—The reply to the foregoing letter from the Mexican consul was inclosed to the Attorney General by Marshal Nolte on January 3, 1911, and forwarded to the Department of State.

[Inclosure.]

The United States Marshal to the Mexican Consul.

San Antonio, Tex., December 31, 1910.

Sir: I am in receipt, through the hands of Deputy Marshal H. R. Hillebrand, of a copy of your letter addressed to him under date of the 24th instant, and regret to state that the statements contained therein are a great surprise to me, as I do not feel that they are entirely warranted by the facts.

Replying to the strictures contained therein, I have the following to say:

I.
The public and private meetings of which you complain are not of themselves an offense against the laws of the United States, nor do they in any way violate the neutrality which this Government is most anxious to maintain between this country and Mexico. As you are well aware, the laws of the United States provide for free speech, and no one is so humble that they can not with [Page 391] impunity express their views as to another person, providing always they do not utter a scandal. A scandal is punishable through the civil courts, and the remedy lies through that channel. Under the laws covering conspiracy, an overt act must accompany the oral or written agreement which has been entered into to complete such conspiracy. The mere conspiring together and not actually doing anything does not admit of punishment.
II.
Regarding your statement to the effect that Antonio I. Villareal and Praxedes G. Guerrero have been in El Paso, my information does not seem to bear this out. I have been informed that these two gentlemen left Los Angeles, but I have no direct or positive information to that effect. My representatives have been warned of their possible appearance in this district, and more especially when we received word that they were at Presidio a special investigation was made along that line, and it was found that they were not there, and that the men who were mistaken for them were not working in their interests and had nothing to do with them. It is possible that if they had left Los Angeles for Mexico they left the train at some point west of El Paso and crossed the border there, but of this I have no direct information; and if they did do so, the matter is one that does not come within my jurisdiction.
III.
Regarding the meetings at Toyah, Big Springs, and other places in Texas, the same statement as in I above applies to any meetings that may be held at these points. There is no doubt that numbers of Mexicans have left this district and gone into Mexico, but they have done so in a large majority of cases openly, and not being armed nor having any semblance of military organization, there is no breach of neutrality in such acts. That any large bodies have so crossed into Mexico we have been unable to show. In every instance our investigation has failed to locate any such bodies of men, either before or after the reputed crossing. With reference to the statement as to one Guerra, who is supposed to be Encarnación Díaz Guerra, I beg to inform you that my reports show that Guerra is living quietly at Del Rio, and he states positively that he has nothing whatever to do with the present movement; that he has had one punishment in relation to revolutionary matters and he does not propose to get mixed up in the same again. If this is the party you refer to, he has not left Del Rio at any time during this excitement, unless it has been so recently that I have not received the report thereof.
IV.
Regarding your statement regarding the large amount of arms and ammunition smuggled from this country into Mexico, I beg to state that while this may be true, we have no evidence of any such smuggling. It is quite possible that, in small quantities, such arms and ammunition may have been smuggled across the river. I have been informed that in one instance a number of 30:30’s were taken across the river at Juárez, about the beginning of the present movement. This seems to have been well known in El Paso and it is not understood why the Mexican customs officers did not take any action in connection therewith. Regarding the question of restrictions as to the selling of arms and ammunition, there are no laws upon the statute books of this country which prohibits their sale to anyone who has the price to pay for same. I have no right, nor do I know of any other authority that has any right, to forbid their sale, under the usual conditions of trade, to anyone. The Government is watching several lots of arms and ammunition, and if evidence can be obtained that they are about to be moved across the border for the aid and comfort of the revolutionists, action will be taken immediately; but until this is clearly shown we have no cause for action.
V.
Regarding the information furnished by you that there was a party of men at Flores ranch, near the city of Juárez, I beg to state that an investigation of this matter failed to show any such party had crossed the river from this side. In fact, the El Paso papers state that there was no such body of men there. Of course, if they were on the Mexican side it was no part of the duties of my representatives to take any action. This office is in constant communication with its deputies, of which we have two at El Paso, one at Presidio, two at Del Rio, and one at Eagle Pass, and they are persistently engaged in running down rumors that are reported to us as to movements, and their possible action leading toward a violation of neutrality, and we have not yet received any evidence of any infraction thereof. All of these men that are immediately on the border are in close connection with other officers of the United States and of the State of Texas, and they receive not only the benefit of their own observation but of the observation of the other officers referred to. They are all men in whom I have the greatest confidence and who faithfully perform their duties, and I am convinced that [Page 392] they have done so in this case. Personally, upon any evidence which can be furnished or which may be discovered, that will show an infraction of neutrality, I assure you that action will be taken at once, but mere rumor of such infraction is not a sufficient warrant for arrest. I am willing to use the full scope of my authority in these matters. I assure you that the representatives of this office will immediately act upon any definite information, showing a violation of the neutrality laws, and that rumors of violations will be investigated promptly in the future, as in the past. In addition to the men under my supervision, the Department of Justice also has a number of other representatives watching this matter and both forces are cooperating in every move.

In conclusion, Mr. Lomelí, I will add that I am of the opinion that you should furnish me with a list of witnesses to violations of the neutrality laws to which you refer or, if you find you have been misinformed, that it is due me that you write to me to that effect.

Respectfully,

Eugene Nolte.