411.12/2471

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

No. 5811

Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s telegram No. 234 of November 26, 1937, 6 p.m. and to other recent correspondence. I enclose herewith a copy with translation of a memorandum dated December 1, 1937, from the Foreign Office on this subject. The memorandum has just been received under cover of a personal note from Mr. Beteta, dated December 8, 1937.

Respectfully yours,

Josephus Daniels
[Page 694]
[Enclosure—Translation]

The Mexican Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the American Embassy

Memorandum

The Ministry feels that the moment has not yet come to undertake the transaction provided for in Article V of the Protocol, since the National Commissioners have not discussed all the claims, which, in accordance with Article IV, must be known (considered).

The Mexican Commissioner has always been prepared and willing to discuss all claims and if the two Commissioners found it impossible to do so, then surely it was not their fault; but anyway, it is a fact that a good number of the claims of both countries have not been discussed. Perhaps the explanation of what has happened, as was the case with regard to the functioning of the former Commission whose powers, on various occasions, it was necessary to prorogue for a greater length of time than was initially provided for in the Treaty of September 8, 1923,89 is due to the lack of provision by the Protocol with respect to the period of time necessary to complete their work.

However, given the reasons cited by the Department of State, in which this Ministry fully agrees, it is considered most fitting that both Governments make an effort together to agree upon an en bloc settlement by means of an ad hoc transaction, which would thus settle all claims.

The Mexican Government considers that said en bloc agreement could not be agreed upon by following the features of the Protocol, because it would be impossible to be confined to them, taking into consideration the provision of Article V, since it would not be possible later to come to an agreement through an arbiter for the resolution of the claims on the bases of each one, as the two National Commissioners could not be required then, for not having had an opportunity to discuss them, to “bear witness to the agreements celebrated by them with respect to each claim and the bases upon which they found their conclusions,” according to the text of said article.

Therefore, the Ministry begs to insist upon the understanding that the Government of Mexico, essentially, manifests its conformity to name a representative with ample power to discuss the possible terms of an en bloc settlement on all claims presented before the General Commission, without said transaction being considered as that provided for in Article V of the Protocol of April 23, 1934, but rather as an extraordinary effort (esfuerzo), not within the terms of said Protocol, to obtain the result abovementioned.

  1. Department of State Treaty Series No. 678, or 43 Stat. 1730; Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. ii, p. 555.