411.12/2263
The Ambassador in Mexico (Daniels) to the Assistant Secretary of State (Moore)
[[Received November 18.]
My Dear Judge Moore: I have received the Department’s instruction No. 922 of November 2, 1935, concerning the negotiation of a convention to deal with agrarian claims now filed with the General Claims Commission. It is my belief that to carry out this instruction may close the door to further negotiations and I should like you to know my views before taking this course.
From the Mexican viewpoint the object of the proposed convention in removing agrarian claims from adjudication by the General Claims Commission is to avoid any juridical discussion of the Mexican Constitution and Mexican laws. This objective has been clearly brought [Page 758] out from the very initiation of the discussions and in every draft submitted by the Mexican Government. The Mexican negotiator has never wavered in his demand that the claims should be decided upon the facts in each case and that all legal discussion should be avoided. With this in mind he has uniformly insisted that the documents to be submitted by the representatives of either Government be limited to memorials and answers thereto.
Since the object of the proposed convention was to find a satisfactory formula to settle these agrarian claims without entering into a long drawn out and involved discussion with the Mexican Government as to its Constitution and laws, I was under the impression that, in its willingness to enter into the negotiations for the proposed protocol, the Department was agreeable to endeavoring to find such a formula. However, the instruction just received would seem to indicate that though apparently approving of the negotiations the Department never intended to waive its rights under the Protocol of April 24, 1934, to question the legality of the Mexican Agrarian Code “in accordance with the principles of international law, justice and equity”.
If this is the case and the Department insists upon its right to plead the claims by arguments directed against the legal issues involved, it would seem to be unnecessary to further prolong the negotiations. If however this is the case, I am at a loss to understand why the negotiations have been permitted to drag on for eight months, or why they were ever initiated, since the Mexican position was well known to the Department even when the Protocol of April 24, 1934, was signed.
In view of the importance which the Mexican Government attaches to the avoidance of legal discussion of its Constitutional provisions with reference to the agrarian laws, which form the keystone of the national policy of the present administration, I am wondering whether the Department has considered the consequences which will probably result from insisting upon following the course outlined in Instruction No. 922 of November 2. In this event it is almost certain the agrarian claims filed with the General Claims Commission will have to follow the long and involved procedure with the filing of briefs and counter-briefs, which would raise legal debates on the Mexican laws and regulations with possible unfortunate repercussions upon our general relations with Mexico.
The Mexican Agent, barely able to keep up with his schedule for the other claims, has intimated that he will be unable to cope with the addition of all the agrarian claims and will, presumably, have to ask for an extension of time.
The Mexican negotiator expressed the hope that once a convention was signed it might be possible to arrange for a speedy en bloc settlement of all these agrarian claims in accordance with the procedure [Page 759] followed in the case of the Special claims. These agrarian claims, as you know, cover only those which accrued before August 30, 1927, and does not include the many claims which have arisen since that date. As I reported to the Department, the successful conclusion of the proposed protocol might have a bearing upon the Mexican proposal to refrain from expropriating any more land from American citizens, and I fear that this suggested solution to our present agrarian difficulties would be out of the range of possible consideration should we now terminate these discussions. Moreover, there is room for an honest difference of opinion as to whether the advantage gained from the right to press past agrarian claims on legal bases would offset the advantage which might accrue to present American land owners in Mexico and possibly to American claimants whose lands were expropriated subsequent to August 30, 1927, were the convention to be successfully concluded.
With the former oil discussions6 in mind, it is doubtful whether it is good policy to embark upon a legal discussion with the Mexican Government as to its rights to enforce its Constitution and laws upon foreigners within its borders, and I fear that like these former discussions it will avail us nothing but may embarrass our relations and react to the detriment of a favorable solution of other questions now pending, or which may arise.
I shall, of course, abide by the decision of the Department but feel it to be my duty to bring the above considerations to your attention before carrying out the instruction and terminating the negotiations for this agrarian claims convention. I shall, therefore, await the receipt of further word from you before communicating the substance of the instruction to the Mexican Government.
Faithfully yours,