812.00Sonora/221

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

No. 1475

Sir: With reference to the second point of the four policies which the Mexican Government suggests that the American Government adopt in connection with the present revolution, mentioned in the Embassy’s telegrams Nos. 51 [50] of March 4, 5 p.m.; 54, March 4, 10 p.m.; 59, March 5, 8 p.m., I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy and translation of a memorandum dated March 5, 1929, sent to me yesterday by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I have [etc.]

Dwight W. Morrow
[Enclosure—Translation]

The Mexican Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Estrada ) to the American Ambassador ( Morrow )

First:

The internal legislation of Mexico (article 6 of the General Customs Regulations) authorizes the Government of the Nation to close temporarily the customs established at their ports of entry.

This disposition of the Mexican laws is based upon the principles of Public Law, according to which a sovereign Nation can impose duties on merchandise entering or leaving its territory, which implies the right to indicate the points through which the said entrance or exit shall lawfully be effected.

Second:

This power had by the Government of a Sovereign State to designate in time of peace the points through which international traffic [Page 350] can be effected, implies the power of the same Government both to establish and to close ports and consequently also to close ports of entry when the latter are not under Government control, with the principal object of preventing prejudice to the National Treasury which orders the closure or to prevent also the development of unfortunate situations.

Third:

It is said that this power of the Government is merely an internal question, which International Law respects provided a reasonable use is made thereof and opportune notice is given neutrals of the closure of the port in order that they may suffer no unnecessary prejudice. Such is the opinion maintained by E. N. Politis, in his Course of 1925, at the Paris Academy of International Law.

Fourth:

In support of this thesis there can be advanced the example of the United States during the war of “secession” when they declared the Confederate ports closed.

Fifth:

There can likewise be cited the so-called “Coast of Portendiek” cases, between France and England, decided in 1843 by the King of Prussia, and that of the closure of the port of Buenos Aires, between Great Britain and the Argentine Republic, decided by the President of the Republic of Chile, in which the thesis was adopted that the closure of a port to international commerce in case of civil war is lawful.

Sixth:

In the case of the “Oriental Navigation Company”, between the United States and Mexico, decided October 3, 1928, it was likewise maintained that the authorities of a country are not obliged to permit the unloading and subsequent loading of a neutral vessel engaged in traffic with a port in control of insurgents without the customs documents required by the internal laws, thus implicitly confirming the power which a State has to close its ports to international traffic.

Seventh:

The closure of ports controlled by rebel factions cannot be likened to a blockade in time of war. In the first place, a blockade is established for the purpose of destroying the commerce of the one against whom the blockade is effected, while the closure of a port controlled by rebels is decreed principally to prevent prejudice to the Treasury. In this sense, a blockade constitutes an act of an international nature, while the closure of a port is merely an internal question.

[Page 351]

Eighth:

Moreover, it is essential to make a blockade in time of war effective, for since the States not engaged in the conflict should remain neutral, they could not heed the indication of one of the belligerents not to do business with the other without the latter considering such abstention an act of hostility. In the case of the closure of ports occupied by rebels who have not been recognized by the belligerents, nations on friendly terms with the lawful Government should heed the latter’s indications without regard for the opinion of the factions.

Ninth:

While the third nations are obliged and have the right to protect their own commerce, this is true only in case said commerce is lawful and conducted in accordance with the laws of the country with which said business is done.

It is undoubtedly contrary to the peace of the world to disregard the losses and damages caused a nation in a civil conflict to favor the business interests of a few foreigners in the territory controlled by rebels.