# Mexico under Carranza/Chapter 2

Contents
CHAPTER II
Character of the Carranza Revolutionary Party Constituting the Recognised Government of Mexico The Relations Established with tie United States and the Rest of the World
THE character of the Carranza revolutionary party may be judged by the record of negotiations between its representatives and our own Department of State and by its acts in conducting the recognized government of Mexico. Some of the most important of these negotiations are set forth in U. S. Senate Document No. 321, entitled "Affairs in Mexico." The relations established by the Carranza regime with the United States Government and with other nations are shown by the communications contained in that document. Still more illuminating is the record made by the Carranza government by its treatment of foreigners, especially Americans. The information contained in Senate Document No. 321 was elicited by a resolution adopted by the Senate on January 6, 1916, which was in part as follows:
"Resolved, That the President be requested, if not compatible with the public interests, to ​inform the Senate upon the following subjects and to transmit to the Senate the documents, letters, reports, orders, and so forth, hereinafter referred to:
"First. Is there a government now existing in the Republic of Mexico; and if so,
"Second. Is such government recognized by this Government; how is such government maintained, and where; who is now the recognized head of such government, and is the same a constitutional government?
"Third. By what means was the recognition of any government in Mexico brought about, and what proceedings, if any, were followed prior to and resulting in recognition, in any conference between this country and Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, and any other country or countries?
"Sixth. What assurances have been received from the Mexican Government, or requested by this Government, as to payment of American damage claims for injury to life or property of our citizens resulting from the acts of Mexico or citizens of that country within the past five years?
"Seventh. What assurances have been given by the Mexican Government as to the protection of foreigners and citizens, and particularly in the free exercise of their religion, in public or in private?"
In response to this resolution, the President, on February 17, 1916, transmitted to the Senate a letter to himself from the Secretary of State, ​attached to which were various documents to which the Secretary refers. says [the italics throughout In this letter the Secretary are the author's]:
"(1) The government at present existing in Mexico is a de facto government established by military power which has definitely committed itself to the holding of popular elections upon the restoration of domestic peace.
"(2) This de facto government of Mexico, of which General Venustiano Carranza is the chief executive, was recognized by the Government of the United States on October 19, 1915.
"It cannot be said that the de facto government of Mexico is a constitutional government. The de facto government, like the majority of revolutionary governments is of a military character, but, as already stated, that government has committed itself to the holding of elections, and it is confidently expected that the present government will within a reasonable time, be merged in or succeeded by a government organized under the constitution and laws of Mexico.
(6) With regard to the settlement of American claims against the Mexican Republic for injuries to the lives or property of American citizens, the undersigned has the honour to direct your attention to the copy of a letter from Mr. Arredondo (the de facto government's agent in Washington), dated October 7, 1915, and its enclosures heretofore referred to and hereto appended No. 4 and its annexes.
(7) With reference to the assurances given by ​the Mexican Government concerning the protection of foreigners and 'citizens,' particularly respecting the free exercise of religion, the undersigned encloses herewith a letter on the subject from Mr. Arredondo, dated October 8, 1915, (Enclosure No. 7)."
In Mr. Arredondo's letter, referred to by the Secretary of State as Enclosure No. 4, appears the following:
Mr. Arredondo's letter was accompanied by a number of documents, referred to by the Secretary of State as "annexes." The first of these, in ​order of date, is entitled "Plan of Guadalupe" and appears to be the declaration of principles upon which the Carranza revolution was founded. This declaration is dated March 26, 1913, and purports to have been signed by sixty-four officers of the troops of the state of Coahuila with which Carranza, then governor of that state, began his revolution against the Huerta government, which had succeeded the murdered Francisco Madero. In this "Plan of Guadalupe" appears the following;
"Whereas the legislative and judicial powers have recognized and protected General Huerta and his illegal and anti-patriotic proceedings contrary to constitutional laws and precepts;
we, the undersigned, chiefs and officers commanding the constitutionalist forces, have agreed upon and shall sustain with arms the following:
"1. General Victoriano Huerta is hereby repudiated as President of the Republic.
"4. For the purpose of organizing the army which is to see that our aims are carried out, we name Venustiano Carranza, now governor of the state of Coahuila, as first chief of the army which is to be called 'Constitutionalist Army.'
"5. Upon the occupation of the City of Mexico by the Constitutionalist Army, the executive power shall be vested in Venustiano Carranza, its first chief, or in the person who will substitute him in command.
"6. The provisional trustee or the executive power of the Republic shall convene general ​elections as soon as peace may have been restored and will surrender power to the citizen who may have been elected."
Accompanying the letter of Mr. Arredondo was a document entitled "Résumé of the Mexican Constitutionalist Revolution and Its Progress," of which Mr. Arredondo was the author, in which, after reciting the deaths of President Madero and Vice-President Suarez and their succession in power by General Huerta, he says:
"Mr. Venustiano Carranza, upon being apprised of the above-mentioned outrageous assault and of the infringement of the federal constitution and acting in his capacity of the governor of the state of Coahuila and in fealty to the oath he had taken upon entering into the performance of his high investiture to preserve and cause all others to observe the federal constitution and to guard its institutions repudiated the aforesaid General Huerta as President of Mexico and initiated that which has been named as 'The Revolution of the Constitutionalist Party.'"
Mr. Arredondo also transmitted to the Secretary of State, as an "annex" to his letter, a document entitled "Decree of General Carranza" dated December 12, 1914, which was signed by General Carranza and in which the following occurs:
​"That the undersigned, in his capacity as constitutional governor of the state of Coahuila, had solemnly taken the oath to observe and cause the general constitution to be observed, and that complying with this duty and of the above oath, he was inevitably obliged to arise in arms to oppose the usurpation of Huerta and to restore constitutional order in the Republic of Mexico.
"That, it being imperative, therefore, that the interruption of constitutional order should subsist during this new period of struggle, the Plan of Guadalupe should, therefore, continue to be in force, as it has been the guidance and banner of it, until the enemy may have been overpowered completely in order that the constitution may be restored.
"Article 4. Upon the success of the revolution when the supreme chieftainship may be established in the City of Mexico and after the elections for municipal councils in the majority of the states in the republic, the first chief of the revolution, as depository of the executive power, shall issue the call for election of congressmen, fixing in the call the date and terms in which the election shall be held."
Mr. Arredondo also transmitted with his letter an "annex" entitled "Declaration to the Nation", signed by V. Carranza, dated June n, 1915, in which the following occurs:
"Treason was carried into effect by General Huerta under the pretext of saving the City of Mexico from the horrors of war.
The ​President and Vice-President were assassinated and, due to the complicity or weakness of the other powers, the nation was left without a constitutional representative. Then I, as governor of the state of Coahuila, and in obedience to the constitutional provisions, articles 121 and 128 of our fundamental charter, assumed the representation of the republic in the terms in which the constitution itself vests me with this right, and supported by the people which rose in arms to regain its liberty. In fact, the above-mentioned articles provide the following:
"'Every public officer, without exception, prior to his taking possession of his charge, shall render an oath that he will sustain the constitution and the laws emanating therefrom. This constitution shall not fail in force or vigour, even though on account of rebellion its observance may he interrupted. In the case that pursuant to a public disturbance a government contrary to the principles sanctioned by the constitution may be established, as soon as the people regains its freedom its observance shall he reëstablished and, according to it and to the laws which by virtue of it may have been enacted, those who may have figured in the government emanated from the rebellion shall be tried as well as those who may have cooperated in the movement.'
"With a view to realising the above-mentioned purposes, I have deemed proper to inform the nation upon the political conduct to be observed by the constitutionalist government, in the performance of the program of social reform contained in the decree of December 12, 1914."
​"First. The constitutionalist government shall afford to foreigners residing in Mexico all the guaranties to which they are entitled according to our laws, and shall amply protect their lives, their freedom, and the enjoyment of their rights of property t allowing them indemnities for the damages which the revolution may have caused to them, in so far as such indemnities may be just and which are to be determined by a procedure to be established later. The government shall also assume the responsibility of legitimate financial obligations."
Fourth. There shall he no confiscation in connection with the settlement of the agrarian question. This problem shall be solved by an equitable distribution of the lands still owned by the government; by the recovery of those lots which may have been illegally taken from individuals or communities; by the purchase and expropriation of large tracts of land, if necessary; by all other means of acquisition permitted by the laws of the country."
"Seventh. In order to establish the constitutional government, the government by me presided shall observe and comply with the provisions of articles 4, 5, and 6 of the decree of December 12, 1914."
It should be noted that the two documents entitled respectively "Decree of General Carranza," dated December 12, 1914, and "Declaration to the Nation," signed by V. Carranza, dated June n, 1915, were, when they were issued, given the widest possible circulation in this country, as well ​as abroad, with the intention, undoubtedly, of appealing to the sympathy and support of our country and the world for the declared effort of the Carranza revolutionists to restore the constitution in its full force and thereby give to Mexico a government which should safeguard the rights of her own people, as well as of foreigners. These documents, undoubtedly, had that effect among people who knew the Mexican constitution of 1857, referred to in them, as being an admirable organic law for the foundation of a democratic government.
The "Inclosure No. 7," referred to in paragraph 7 of the letter of the Secretary of State to the President is a letter from Mr. Arredondo to the Secretary of State, dated October 8, 1915, as follows:
"Hoping that I may have honoured your excellency's wishes, I avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to you the assurances of my highest consideration
"E. Arredondo."
There was also included in the report to the Senate a letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Arredondo, dated October 19, 1915, as follows:
"My Dear Mr. Arredondo:
It is my pleasure to inform you that the President of the United States takes this opportunity of extending recognition to the de facto government of Mexico, of which Gen. Venustiano Carranza is the chief executive.
"The Government of the United States will be pleased to receive formally in Washington a diplomatic representative of the de facto government as soon as it shall please General Carranza to designate and appoint such representative; and, reciprocally, the Government of the United States will accredit to the de facto government a diplomatic representative as soon as the President has had opportunity to designate such representative.
​"I should appreciate it if you could find it possible to communicate this information to General Carranza at your earliest convenience.
"Very sincerely yours,
"Robert Lansing."
The foregoing correspondence between Mr. Arredondo, the agent of the Carranza revolutionists at Washington, and our Secretary of State plainly shows two things:
First, that our Government, trusting in the pledges contained in the communications of Mr. Arredondo to it and in the various declarations of General Carranza, conferred upon the constitutionalist revolutionary party, headed by General Carranza, recognition as "the de facto government of Mexico of which General Venustiano Carranza is the chief executive."
Second, that when the Secretary of State in his letter to the President referred, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of that letter, to Mr. Arredondo's letters of October 7, 1915, and October 8, 1915, with annexes quoted from, he intended that those should be accepted as an answer to the inquiries appearing in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Senate resolution, as to what assurances had been received from the Mexican Government regarding the payment of damages for injury to the life or property of American citizens; the protection of ​foreigners and citizens in Mexico, and the free exercise of their religion.
The final outcome of the pledges that the personal, property, and religious rights of foreigners in Mexico would be observed by the Carranza Government that were iterated and reiterated by the head of that government, and by its representative in Washington, appeared when the new constitution of Mexico was adopted by the Carranza party on January 31, 1917. An inspection of that instrument shows that every pledge made by the representatives of the de facto, since recognized as the de jure, government was deliberately and completely violated. The record made by the Carranza administration since the adoption of that constitution in dealing with the rights of foreigners has shown a consistent and continued violation of all those rights. To show how completely the pledges of the Carranza government were broken by the new constitution, a reference to a few of the provisions of that document will be appropriate.
THE MEXICAN CONSTITUTION OF 1917
It will be observed that General Carranza, as the head of what he and his followers had denominated the "Constitutional Party of Mexico," repeatedly made the pledge that as soon as he was established in the City of Mexico he would issue ​a call for the election of Congressmen. The record shows that he did nothing of the kind. To the contrary, as soon as he found himself in control of the City of Mexico in the summer of 1914 he declared a "preconstitutional period," setting aside the constitution he had claimed he fought to restore and in the fall of 1915 he issued a call for a constitutional convention whose functions it should be to enact for Mexico a constitution de novo in complete disregard of the constitution of 1857 to which he and his adherents had pledged unlimited fealty in communications addressed to our country and to the world.
To show just how completely this action of the Carranza party violated the rights of the Mexican people, it should be observed that the constitution of 1857 was adopted by the vote of representatives of all the Mexican people, whereas when General Carranza issued his call for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention several states of the republic were in no sense under his control and his writ calling the election did not run in those states.
This fact is well known to everyone acquainted with the conditions which obtained in Mexico at that time and if any additional proof were needed it is found in the fact that shortly after the constitution was adopted, Mr. Cabrera, the Secretary of Finance under Carranza, stated on the floor of the Mexican Congress that the five ​states of Tlaxcala, Puebla, Morelos, Oaxaca, and Chiapas were entirely under the control of opponents of the Carranza government. Furthermore, in his call for the election, First Chief Carranza expressly provided that the elective franchise should he exercised only by those citizens who were known to have been the supporters of his revolutionary party. Thus, we have the spectacle of the chief of a movement which he denominated the "Constitutional Party," pledged to the restoration of the constitution of 1857, deliberately throwing that instrument upon the scrap heap and assuming to enact a new constitution for the whole Mexican nation by a convention whose members did not represent several states of the Mexican federal union and were in no sense the representatives of all the citizens even in the states in which the election was held, because, by the very terms of the writ calling the election, a large number of those citizens were disfranchised. It has been stated, and I believe truly, that the votes cast for delegates represented less than 2 per cent. of the population.
A glance at some of the provisions of this new constitution will show how completely it violated, in every possible way, the pledges that had been made to our Government and the rest of the world by the Carranza party. Section XIV of Article 27 of the new constitution provides:
​"Commercial stock companies shall not acquire, hold, or administer rural property. Companies of this nature which may be organized to develop any manufacturing, mining, petroleum, or other industry, excepting only agricultural industries, may acquire, hold, or administer land only in an area absolutely necessary for their establishments or adequate to serve the purposes indicated, which the executive of the union, or of the respective states, in each case, shall determine."
Almost all large real estate holdings of foreigners in Mexico in the form of ranches, coffee and rubber plantations, and great projects for the irrigation of arid lands were held by corporations regularly organized under the laws as they had existed under the constitution of 1857. It will be noted that by the terms of the foregoing provision it is made impossible for any corporation to hold any rural or agricultural property, and, as a result, under a strict construction of this provision, many great properties belonging to foreigners, and particularly to Americans, are to-day without legal ownership.
Furthermore, so far as manufacturing, mining, petroleum, and other industries of that nature are concerned, the executives of the nation and of the respective states are given the arbitrary authority to determine what extent of lands are "absolutely necessary" to carry on their business and to divest them of all other lands. No appeal ​is provided against the exercise of this most despotic power. No one who is at all acquainted with the character of the men who have come into office under Carranza can for a moment suppose that the great majority of them will neglect such an opportunity for robbing the foreign owners of mining and petroleum properties either by arbitrarily taking from them the larger or more valuable part of their holdings or by extorting money from them by threats of exercising this power.
In the same Article 27 is found the following provision, relating to mineral deposits, including petroleum:
"In the nation is vested direct ownership of all minerals or substances which in veins, layers, masses, or beds constitute deposits whose nature is different from the components of the land, such as minerals from which metals and metaloids used for industrial purposes are extracted; beds of precious stones, rock salt, and salt lakes formed directly by marine waters; products derived from the decomposition of rocks, when their exploitation requires underground work; phosphates which may be used for fertilizers; solid mineral fuels; petroleum and all hydro-carbons—solid, liquid, or gaseous."
Under the national laws formerly in force, "solid mineral fuels; petroleum and all ​hydrocarbons solid, — liquid or gaseous" were the property of the owners of the lands in which they existed. Under this law the title to the petroleum deposits as well as to coal mines, was acquired by foreigners who invested their money in the development of these great natural resources which had been neglected for four hundred years by the Latin masters of the country. Thus, at a stroke of the pen, all these great deposits of natural wealth, which had been bought and paid for by their foreign owners, are confiscated and the ownership transferred to the nation.
The effort on the part of the Carranza government to assert the national ownership of these petroleum deposits has recently called forth a letter of protest from our ambassador at Mexico City. In this letter the position, entirely correct under international law, is taken that the attempt on the part of the new Mexican constitution to transfer the ownership of the oil deposits, that had been acquired by American citizens by purchase, to the Mexican nation is a violation of international law which works great injustice to our citizens and can not be tolerated. This matter is now under discussion, but there can be no doubt that, unless the Carranza government is compelled by the sternest attitude on the part of this nation to hold its hand, this robbery will be consummated.
​Section VII of Article 27 of the new constitution provides, as follows:
"During the next constitutional term, the Congress and the state legislatures shall enact laws, within their respective jurisdictions, for the purpose of carrying out the division of large landed estates, subject to the following conditions:
"(a) In each state and territory there shall be fixed the maximum area of land which any one individual or legally organized corporation may own.
"(b) The excess of the area thus fixed shall be subdivided by the owner within the period set by the laws of the respective locality; and these subdivisions shall be offered for sale ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS SHALL APPROVE, in accordance with the said laws.
"(c) If the owner shall refuse to make the subdivision, this shall be carried out by the local government by means of expropriation proceedings.
"(d) The value of the subdivisions shall be paid in annual amounts sufficient to amortize the principal and interest within a period of not less than twenty years, during which the person acquiring them may not alienate them. The rate of interest shall not exceed 5 per cent, per annum.
"(e) The owner shall be BOUND TO RECEIVE BONDS OF A SPECIAL ISSUE to guarantee the payment of the property expropriated. With this end in view, the Congress shall issue a law authorizing the states to issue bonds to meet their agrarian obligations."
​Thus, machinery has been prepared by which the amount of real property owned by any individual or corporation may be limited and the owner may be forced to accept for all excess real_estate which he owns prices fixed by the State, in State Bonds, which at the present time would certainly not be worth the paper on which they were printed.
The new constitution has proved so successful as an instrumentality for robbery and spoliation that its makers and administrators have been encouraged to amend it so as to extend very greatly its usefulness for acquiring without compensation the property of individuals and corporations. To that end, President Carranza, on December 14, 1918, submitted to the Mexican Congress a proposed amendment to the confiscatory Article 27 of the constitution heretofore referred to. A part of the amendment provides that paragraph 3 of Article 27, as amended, shall read as follows:
"The nation shall have at all times the right to impose upon private property such limitations as the public interest may demand, as well as the right to regulate the development of such natural resources as are susceptible of appropriation, in order to conserve them and equitably to distribute the public wealth. Establishments or concerns of private ownership, having a general interest, whether belonging to single individuals or to associations or persons, shall not be closed ​on account of lockouts, strikes, or any other like reason, without the authority of the executive who shall be empowered to administer them whenever, in his judgment, the suspension or closing of operation may prejudice the interest of society or the demands of the public service. So soon as the difficulties which have brought about governmental administration shall have disappeared, the government shall return to the owners, or their lawful representatives, the establishments that have been intervened, and the net proceeds obtained therefrom during the official administration. Establishments or concerns of public interest shall be deemed to be those having to do with communication by railroad, telegraph, telephone, ocean cable, radio-telegraph, radio-telephone and tramway; places for the sale of drugs and medicines; light companies; undertaking establishments; municipal water and sanitation enterprises; the mining industry, including both the extraction and the treatment of ore; agricultural establishments; cotton mills, and all other concerns which are analogous in the opinion of the executive."
Just how the power that would be granted by this amendment to take over and operate any business or enterprise upon the occurrence of a strike of its employees would be used by the government in power is shown by an incident which transpired in the City of Mexico shortly after the Carranza soldiers took possession of it in 1914. After ​appropriating everything that was movable and which could be converted to their own use, the Carrancistas looked around for bigger game. The company operating in the city at that time which received the largest cash income was "The Tramways of Mexico Company" a corporation financed by American, Belgian, Canadian, and English capital. This company was earning and paying a large bond interest and a small dividend upon its stock. It was also paying large monthly amounts to the Necaxa Light and Power Co. (owned by the stockholders of the railroad company) for hydroelectric power.
The governor of the Federal District in which Mexico City is situated, General Heriberto Jara, solved the problem of acquiring the street railroad lines with their great earning power by fomenting a strike of the company's employees. He notified the Mexican employees that he would stand by them in a strike, whereupon they promptly struck for double wages and half time. The officials of the railway resisted their demands, which would have meant immediate bankruptcy for the company. Thereupon Governor Jara, declared the lines a public utility and that as such their operation could not be suspended, and the government took over the lines. This was in October 1914. The government still holds and operates the lines; it pays no bond interest and has paid only a small ​part of the total amount due from the railroad company to the Hydroelectric Company for power. Of course the balance of the income has gone to pay the expenses of the Carranza government, which consist largely of salaries to army officers.
Other concerns have been taken over in the same way, and, with the constitution amended as proposed by the president, any business in Mexico which appears to be earning a profit, from running a railroad to farming, can be seized and used by the government, as the street railways in the Federal District were.
Article 33 of the new constitution provides:
"The executive shall have the exclusive right to expel from the republic forthwith and without judicial process any foreigner whose presence he may deem inexpedient."
The significance of this article is twofold: First, it is undoubtedly intended to provide against any foreigner remaining in Mexico who might be disposed to make himself disagreeable by opposing any violation of his rights. Should he attempt such a thing, the president has power, from which there is no appeal, to banish him. That power has already been exercised in numerous instances. One use of it that attracted some attention a short time ago occurred when John C. ​Royle, correspondent of the Associated Press, an American citizen, made himself persona non grata to the government in power in that country by telegraphing out of the country an article of news value which had appeared in one of the newspapers published in Mexico City. This American citizen was arbitrarily loaded upon a passenger coach, a guard was stationed on each platform and he was compelled to remain there until the train arrived at a frontier town, whence he was forced to leave the country.
Second, the fact that such a provision as this could become part of the organic law shows how utterly the party now in power fails to conceive of the most rudimentary principles of democratic government. No people who have any correct conception of democracy could for a moment contemplate the possession of such arbitrary power, from the exercise of which no appeal is provided, by any member of its government.
The pledge regarding religious toleration, contained in the letter of Mr. Arredondo to the Secretary of State already quoted, will be recalled. That pledge was undoubtedly accepted as satisfactory by our Secretary of State and by our President when, following its receipt, he recognized the Carranza power as the de facto government of Mexico. This, like all other pledges made by the Carranza party, was violated by the new ​constitution. Section II of Article 27 of this document provides.
"The religious institutions, known as churches, irrespective of creed, shall in no case have legal capacity to acquire, hold, or administer real property or loans made upon such real property; all such real property, or loans, as may be at present held by the said religious institutions, either on their own behalf or through third parties, shall vest in the nation, and any one shall have the right to denounce properties so held. Presumptive proof shall be sufficient to declare the denunciation well founded. Places of public worship are the property of the nation, as represented by the federal government, which shall determine which of them shall be continued to be devoted to their present purposes. Episcopal residences, rectories, seminaries, orphan asylums, or collegiate establishments of religious institutions, convents or any other buildings built or designed for the administration, propaganda, or teaching of the tenets of any religious creed, shall forthwith vest, as of full right, directly in the nation, to be used exclusively for the public services of the federation of the states, within their respective jurisdictions. All places of public worship which shall later be erected shall be the property of the nation."
In Article 130 of the new constitution, the following appears:
"The state legislatures shall have the exclusive power of determining the maximum number of ​ministers of religious creeds according to the needs of each locality.
"Only a Mexican by birth shall be the minister of any religious creed in Mexico.
"No minister of religious creeds shall, either in public or private meetings, or in acts of worship or religious propaganda, criticize the fundamental laws of the country, the authorities in particular, or the government in general; they shall have no vote or be eligible to office, nor shall they be entitled to assemble for political purposes."
Compare the foregoing with the declaration in the letter of Mr. Arredondo to our Secretary of State in which he says:
"Therefore, the constitutionalist government will respect everybody's life, property, and religious belief, without other limitation than the preservation of public order and the observance of the institutions in accordance with the laws in force and the constitution of the Republic."
Of course, as the constitution of 1857 was in force in Mexico when this letter was written, and the Carranza party had pledged itself to the support of that constitution, our Secretary of State was justified in accepting this declaration at its face value. In the cities of Mexico to-day are numbers of chapels and churches, erected either by missionaries in their endeavour to serve and elevate the character of the people, or by foreigners for their ​own use. Every one of these properties has been confiscated by the terms of the constitution and now belong to the nation. Furthermore, no foreign congregation can gather in a place of worship built with its own money to enjoy the ministration of a preacher of its own race. In all the world no government recognized as even semi-civilized imposes upon religion such burdens as those under which it now rests in that portion of Mexico subject to the new constitution which has resulted as the perfect fruit of the Carranza movement.
In view of the kind of government which the Carranza party has conducted, one can well understand the motive of its representatives for including in their new constitution an inhibition against a minister of the gospel criticizing the laws of the country, the authorities in control, or the manner in which they exercise their power. It would appear, however, that the provision divesting every minister of the gospel of his franchise as a citizen was a gratuitous expression of the hatred of the constitution-makers for all religion.
The action of the Carranza government in inflicting the new constitution upon Mexico, thereby violating all its pledges to this country and to the civilized world, is so thoroughly characteristic and illustrative of the moral degradation of the element now governing the larger part of Mexico as to ​justify a short recapitulation of the violated pledges.
First. In the Plan of Guadalupe already set forth, in the letter of Mr. Arredondo to our Secretary of State, and in Carranza's Decree and Declaration dated, respectively, December 12, 1914, and June 11, 1915, appears the unqualified pledge that upon the success of the revolution begun by Carranza he would restore the constitution of 1857 to full force and effect. He violated this promise by assembling a constitutional convention as soon as he obtained control of a major portion of the national territory and causing the convention to enact an entirely new constitution which should take the place of the constitution of 1857.
Second. There appears in both the Decree and the Declaration of General Carranza an unqualified promise that when his revolutionary movement was successful he would first "issue the call for an election of congressmen, fixing, in the call, the day and terms in which the election shall be held." He violated this promise by issuing a call for the election of the members of a constitutional convention and did not call congress together until he had secured the enactment by that convention which, as we have seen, did not represent the Mexican people, of a new constitution which would govern and control the action of the congress.
Third. Both Mr. Arredondo in his letter to ​our Secretary of State and General Carranza in both his Decree and Declaration solemnly promise to "afford to foreigners residing in Mexico all the guaranties to which they are entitled according to our laws, and shall amply protect their lives, their freedom, and the enjoyment of their rights of property, allowing them indemnities for the damage which the revolution may have caused to them." As we shall see in succeeding chapters, the Carranza government has confiscated the capital of banks, the public service properties throughout the country, and various other properties of foreigners of the value of hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, although Carranza's administration has been recognized as the de facto government of Mexico by this country since October 9, 1915, and as the de jure government for a year, no step has been taken to pay the indemnities due foreigners for damage done by the revolutionists, but the damage and destruction of those properties have continued to the present time and are now proceeding.
Fourth. In his Declaration to the nation of June 11, 1915, General Carranza pledged himself that "there shall be no confiscation in connection with the settlement of the agrarian question. This problem shall be solved by an equitable distribution of the land still owned by the government, etc." In violation of this pledge, the new ​constitution gives to each state and territory the right to fix the maximum area of land which any one individual or corporation may own and to compel the owner to subdivide the remainder and offer it for sale at a price to be fixed by the government or, in default of such action on the part of the owner, gives the state the authority to fix the price at which it will take over the land and compel the owner to accept bonds of the state in payment therefor, which would mean absolute confiscation.
We have seen how completely the Carranza government has violated the pledge of its diplomatic representative, Mr. Arredondo, that "the laws of record which guarantee individual freedom of worship 'according to everyone's conscience shall be strictly observed."
One of the worst features of the Carranza constitution is that, not having been enacted by a constitutional convention representing either all of the national territory or all the people of the nation, it will be a perpetual and very just incitement to revolution on the ground that it was not adopted by and does not represent the will of the Mexican people. Indeed, that objection has already been urged by all the opposing factions now in arms against the Carranza government as constituting a ground for their revolutionary activities.
The story of the violated pledges made to this ​government by the Carranza administration would not be complete without some reference to the chapter which led to the Columbus massacre and subsequently to the killing of American soldiers and officers at Carrizal, which is briefly as follows:
After the United States had recognized the Carranza regime as the de facto government of Mexico the latter applied for permission to transport by rail through American territory a military force to attack Villa, for the reason that the famous bandit could not be reached in any other way. The request was granted; and Carranza soldiers, carried upon American railroads through United States territory, invaded that portion of Mexico controlled by Villa's forces and defeated them. This, of course, inspired Villa with the bitterest hatred of America and led to his attempt to secure revenge by raiding Columbus, New Mexico, and killing a number of the citizens and several United States soldiers. Before the President ordered the punitive expedition to invade Mexican territory he arrived at a diplomatic understanding with Carranza which is embodied in a communication from our State Department to the Carranza government under date of March 13, 1916, which included the following:
"The Government of the United States understands that in view of its agreement to this ​reciprocal arrangement proposed by the de facto government, the arrangement is now complete and in force and the reciprocal privileges thereunder may accordingly be exercised by either government without further exchange of views."
The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army, thereupon ordered the punitive expedition to proceed into Mexico, and on the evening of the day on which this order was given he called the newspaper correspondents to the White House and gave to them the statement which was published the next morning to the effect that the punitive expedition had been ordered under an agreement with the de facto government of Mexico and was to be used for the single purpose of apprehending the bandit Villa and his followers. There can, of course, be no doubt that this statement was absolutely true and that the invasion was amply justified. Later, however, it became apparent to Carranza that the presence of American troops upon the soil of Mexico was prejudicing him, as the head of the government, with his supporters in whose minds he had sedulously cultivated hatred and distrust of the "gringos." With the purpose of rehabilitating himself in the regard of his supporters, he caused his Secretary of Foreign Relations to address to our State Department the impudent letter, referred to in Chapter IV, in which the claim was made that the presence of American ​troops in Mexico was an act of bad faith and was being used by our Government for political purposes; that their presence upon the soil of Mexico constituted a grave wrong to that country and ending with the following threat:
"The Mexican government understands that in the face of the unwillingness of the American Government to withdraw the above forces, it would be left no other recourse than to procure the defence of its territory by means of arms."
In reply to this letter Secretary Lansing, in his indignant letter of June 20, 1916, quoted in Chapter IV, said:
At the same time General Treviño, in command of a force of Mexican troops located near the camp of the American punitive expedition, sent a note to General Pershing, under date of June 16, 1916, as follows:
​"I am instructed by First Chief Carranza, to inform you, that any movement of American troops from their present lines to the south, east or west will be considered as an overt act and will be the signal for hostilities."
To this message General Pershing replied, under date of June 18, 1916:
"I have not received any orders to remain stationary or withdraw. If I see fit to send troops in pursuit of bandits to the south, east or west, in keeping with the object of this expedition, I shall do so. If any attack is made on any part of my forces when performing such duties, the entire military strength of the expedition will be used against the attacking forces."
A short time after these threats were exchanged, a force of several hundred Mexican soldiers, armed with machine guns, attacked a small detachment of American cavalry killing several of their number, including two fine young officers. This killing of American soldiers, considered in the light of all the circumstances under which it occurred and the overwhelming force that attacked our men, was virtually assassination by lying in wait, but it was not succeeded by the "serious consequences" mentioned by our Secretary of State, nor was "the entire military strength of the expedition" used against the attacking forces, as ​threatened by the general commanding the American punitive expedition. On the contrary, Carranza, apparently appreciating the fact that the wave of indignation at this outrage which swept over this country might force the hand of the Administration and compel the carrying out of the threats of Secretary Lansing and General Pershing, came forward with a proposition to appoint a joint commission to be constituted of three members representing each of the governments to "hold conferences and resolve at once the point regarding the definite withdrawal of the American forces now in Mexico, draft a protocol of agreement regarding the reciprocal crossing of forces, and investigate the origin of the incursions taking place up to date, so as to be able to ascertain responsibility and arrange definitely the pending difficulties or those that may arise between the two countries in the future.
The purpose of the Mexican government is that such conferences shall be held in a spirit of tie most frank cordiality and with an ardent desire to reach a satisfactory agreement and one honourable to both countries."
To this our acting Secretary of State replied as follows:
"In replying, I have the honour to state that I have laid your Excellency's note before the President, and have received his instructions to inform ​your Excellency that the Government of the United States is disposed to accept the proposal of the Mexican Government in the same spirit of cordiality in which it is made. This Government believes and suggests, however, that the powers of the proposed commission should be enlarged so that, if happily a solution satisfactory to both governments of the question set forth in your Excellency's communication may be reached, the commission may also consider such other matters, the friendly arrangement of which would tend to improve the relations of the two countries."
It was stated at the time in the press that the "other matters" which the United States desired the commission to consider were the payment of indemnities to American citizens for damages sustained in the course of revolutionary activities and also an agreement which would protect their property there from future exploitation by the government and people; and the truth of this statement was afterward shown by the course of the negotiations.
The United States was represented on this commission by Secretary of the Interior Lane, Judge Gray of Delaware, and Dr. John R. Mott, three of the ablest men in the country. Shortly after the commission convened in the Griswold Hotel at New London, Connecticut, I visited the hotel and remained for several days. While there, the President came to New London on his yacht. The ​commissioners in a body paid their respects to him and later he returned the call and was in conference with the commission at the hotel for some time. On the afternoon of the day of the President's call, a member of the commission said to me: "The talk of the President to the commission, and especially what he said to the Mexican commissioners about the importance of their country recognizing and living up to its international obligations, was one of the most impressive things that I ever listened to."
The commission remained in session for months and during this time the American commissioners endeavoured, without success, to secure some agreement regarding the recognition and protection of the rights of our citizens in Mexico. Just how this effort was met on the part of the Mexican commissioners is shown by an incident that occurred at a session of the commission. Some time after the commission adjourned without having been able to put a word of agreement in writing, I was told by a friend, who had just arrived from the City of Mexico, that the friends of Mr. Bonillas, a representative of Mexico on the commission, were circulating there with great gusto a story that during a session of the commission one of the American members had delivered what was evidently a very carefully prepared speech for the benefit of the Mexican commissioners in which he dwelt upon ​the importance, and the necessity, of Mexico's recognizing her obligations under international law, and concluded with the statement that unless Mexico did recognize and live up to her international obligations she could never hope to have the respect of the other nations of the world, when, quick as a flash, came from Mr. Bonillas on the other side of the table:
"Then the other nations of the world can go to hell!"
Upon meeting one of the American members of the commission, afterward I told him of this story and asked if anything of the sort had occurred. The answer was:
"The incident occurred exactly as you have related it."
"Don't you believe that before the Mexican commissioners left the City of Mexico they were instructed by Carranza to make no commitments whatever regarding the protection of American owned property in Mexico, because he had in mind at that very time the confiscatory constitution which was subsequently enacted at Querétero?" I asked.
"I am absolutely certain of it," was the reply. Undoubtedly, this attitude of Mr. Bonillas toward his country's international obligations showed him to be so worthy a member of the Carranza government as to suggest his supreme fitness ​to represent it diplomatically at the capital of the nation whose rights under international law it had violated and proposed to continue to violate. So the climax of the exhibition of boorish manners which Mr. Bonillas's friends related with so much pride is found in the fact that he was later appointed ambassador to Washington and, in pursuance of our policy of "patience" with his government, was, of course, accepted as persona grata in that capacity. With such a spirit inspiring the Mexican members of the joint commission it is, of course, no subject of surprise that its sessions, extending over several months, should have resulted in exactly nothing.
But, in the meanwhile, the appointment of the commission and its prolonged sessions had acted as a sedative, giving time for cooling the burning indignation of the American people over the murder of our soldiers, which undoubtedly was the result desired by Carranza when he suggested its formation. It also marked another of the countless instances of betrayal of the American Government in its efforts to meet and adjust our differences with Mexico by the peaceful means of diplomacy rather than by the exercise of force.
In all the diplomatic negotiations with Germany, and the shameful violations of her diplomatic pledges to this country which led to the world war, there was nothing which for infamous and immoral ​violation of diplomatic pledges compares with the experience which the United States has had with the Carranza administration since it was recognized as the de facto government of Mexico. In view of the fact that Germany's breach of diplomatic agreements with this country rightly resulted in a declaration of war, one can hardly understand why the Carranza régime's shameful violations of its diplomatic promises to, and agreements with, us should have been rewarded by recognition as the de jure government of the country which it was misgoverning in so terrible a way.
Long before the infamous chapter of violated diplomatic agreements was written by Carranza we had had similar experiences with the Latin Mexicans who have always controlled that country which showed their utter lack of diplomatic honour. A history of Mexico says:
"Almost from the commencement of the Mexican republic, outrages on the persons and property of American citizens have been committed and redress has always been either positively refused, or so delayed that both there and in the United States the idea became current that such violations of the laws of nations were to be overlooked and unpunished.
"This course on the part of Mexico was especially disgraceful, as the United States had been the first nation to recognize her separate existence, ​and American citizens had fought well in more than one of the battles of her revolution.
"This state of things was endured patiently by the Government and people of this country, because both the one and the other were unwilling to add to the burdens of Mexico, and hoped that a calmer day would break over the sister republic, and a season of peace at home enable her to attend to her foreign obligations.
"On the 5th of April, 1831, a treaty of amity and navigation was concluded between the republics; but almost before the ink on the parchment was dry, fresh outrages were perpetrated, so that within six years after that date, General Jackson, in a message to Congress, declared that they had become intolerable, and that the honour of the United States required that Mexico should be taught to respect our flag.
"He declared that war should not be used as a remedy 'by just and generous nations confiding in their strength for injuries committed, if it can be honourably avoided'; and added, 'it has occurred to me that, considering the present embarrassed condition of that country, we should act with both wisdom and moderation, by giving to Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past, before we take redress into our own hands. To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as well as to protect our national character from reproach, this opportunity should be given with the avowed design and full preparation to take immediate satisfaction, if it should not be obtained on a repetition of the demand for it. To this end I recommend that an act be passed ​authorizing reprisals, and the use of the naval force of the United States, by the executive, against Mexico, to enforce them in the event of a refusal by the Mexican government to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy between us, upon another demand thereof, made from on board of one of our vessels of war on the coast of Mexico'."
Congress granted the authority to President Jackson which he had requested to settle our differences with Mexico. When that nation found that our Government was in earnest and came to fear the use of force, it suggested the formation of a joint commission, as Carranza did under similar circumstances. The commission was appointed, and the history of its dealings is so much an anti-type of the record made by the joint commission appointed at the suggestion of the Carranza government that it appears to justify the following additional quotation from the historian referred to:
"On the 11th of April, 1839, a joint commission was appointed, which, however, was not organized until August n, 1840. The powers of the commission by the act creating it, terminated in February, 1842, and Mr. Polk, in his last annual message, thus characterizes its conduct:
"'Four of the eighteen months were consumed in preliminary discussions on frivolous and dilatory points raised by the Mexican commissioners; and it was not until the month of December, 1840, ​that they commenced the examination of the claims of our citizens upon Mexico. Fourteen months only remained to examine and decide upon these numerous and complicated cases. In the month of February, 1842, the term of the commission expired, leaving many claims undisposed of for want of time. The claims which were allowed by the board, and by the umpire authorized by the convention to decide in case of disagreement between the Mexican and American commissioners, amounted to two million twenty-six thousand one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and sixty-eight cents. There were pending before the umpire when the commission expired additional claims which had been examined and awarded by the American commissioners, and had not been allowed by the Mexican commissioners, amounting to nine hundred and twenty-eight thousand six hundred and twenty-seven dollars and eight cents, upon which he did not decide, alleging that his authority had ceased with the termination of the joint commission. Besides these claims, there were others of American citizens, amounting to three million three hundred and thirty-six thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven dollars and five cents, which had been submitted to the board, and upon which they had not time to decide before their final adjournment.
"'The sum of two million twenty-six thousand one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and sixty-eight cents, which had been awarded to the claimants, was a liquidated and ascertained debt due by Mexico, about which there could be no dispute, and which she was bound to pay according to the ​terms of the convention. Soon after the final awards for this amount had been made, the Mexican Government asked for a postponement of the time of making the payment at the time stipulated.
"'In the spirit of forbearing kindness toward a sister republic, which Mexico has so long abused, the United States promptly complied with her request. A second convention was accordingly concluded between the two governments on the 3oth of January, 1843, which upon its face declares that "this new arrangement is entered into for the accommodation of Mexico." By the terms of this convention, all the interest due on the awards which had been made in favour of the claimants under the convention of the nth of April, 1839, was to be paid to them on the 30th of April, 1843, and the "principal of the said awards, and the interest accruing thereon," was stipulated to "be paid in five years, in equal instalments every three months." Notwithstanding this new convention was entered into at the request of Mexico, and for the purpose of relieving her from embarrassment, the claimants have only received the interest due on the 3oth of April, 1843, and three of the twenty instalments.
"'Although the payment of the sum thus liquidated, and confessedly due by Mexico to our citizens as indemnity for acknowledged acts of outrage and wrong, was secured by treaty, the obligations of which are ever held sacred by all just nations, yet Mexico has violated this solemn engagement by failing and refusing to make the payment. The two instalments due in April and July, 1844, under the peculiar circumstances connected with them, ​have been assumed by the United States and discharged to the claimants, but they are still due by Mexico. But this is not all of which we have just cause of complaint. To provide a remedy for the claimants whose cases were not decided by the joint commission under the convention of April the 11th, 1839, it was expressly stipulated by the sixth article of the convention of the 3oth of January, 1843, that a new convention be entered into for the settlement of all claims of the Government and citizens of the United States against the republic of Mexico which were not finally decided by the late commission, which met in the city of Washington, and of all claims of the government and citizens of Mexico against the United States.
"'In conformity with this stipulation, a third convention was concluded and signed at the City of Mexico on the 2oth of November, 1843, by the plenipotentiaries of the two governments, by which provision was made for ascertaining and paying these claims. In January, 1844, this convention was ratified by the Senate of the United States with two amendments, which were manifestly reasonable in their character. Upon a reference to the amendments proposed to the government of Mexico, the same evasions, difficulties, and delays were interposed which have so long marked the policy of that government toward the United States. It has not even yet decided whether it would or would not accede to them, although the subject has been repeatedly pressed upon its consideration.'
"By failing to carry out the stipulations of this last convention, Mexico again outraged the Government of the United States."
​We see from the foregoing that President Wilson, in his dealings with the present government in Mexico, has met with the same experience that several other chief executives of our country have had. President Wilson has spoken of his efforts to show "patience" in his dealings with the present government of Mexico, and surely it has been amply exhibited in condoning the most outrageous violations of rights ever committed by the people and government of one country against the people and government of another.
Our experience with Mexico, begun nearly a hundred years ago and continuing until it culminated in war, proved that there was a limit to our forbearance. For some time after the close of the Mexican War, the rights of American citizens were respected by the Mexicans. But it did not take long for a people so prone to ignoring and violating the rights of others to forget the lessons of the war and again begin the violation of the rights of American citizens both along the border and in Mexico. The persistent aggressions upon our citizens along the border resulted in the organization by the state of Texas of a force which afterward became famous under the name of "Texas Rangers," which was used to afford to the citizens of that state the protection which they did not get from the soldiers of the nation. Finally conditions became so bad as to provoke from Secretary of ​State Evarts in 1878 a communication to the Mexican Government in which he said:
"The first duty of a government is to protect life and property. This is a paramount of ligation. For this governments are instituted, and governments neglecting or failing to perform it become worse than useless. This duty the Government of the United States has determined to perform to the extent of its power toward its citizens on the border. It is not solicitous, it never has been, about the methods or ways in which that protection shall be accomplished, whether by formal treaty stipulation, or by informal convention; whether by the action of judicial tribunals, or whether by that of military forces. Protection, in fact, to American lives and property is the sole point upon which the United States are tenacious."
This unmistakable intimation that our Government proposed thereafter to live up to its duty, as thus defined, in its dealing with Mexico moved Diaz to take steps to prevent the occurrence of further outrages along the border and to provide proper protection for Americans in the interior also. This condition continued throughout the Diaz regime and, apparently, might have been continued had our Government in its dealings with the Mexican revolutionists maintained the position assumed by Secretary Evarts. This, however, was not done. Every effort was made to avoid ​any clash between Mexican and American forces. Our soldiers and civilians in border towns were killed by bullets from contesting factions in Mexico but our armed forces were forbidden to return the shots. Eighteen American citizens were killed in El Paso, about a score of soldiers and civilians at Naco, and numbers at other points.
No Mexican can understand or appreciate the sort of forbearance with which our Government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has treated the invasion of the rights of our citizens on the border. Instead of interpreting it as an exercise of patience and consideration for the Mexican people, they have regarded it as a manifestation of cowardice and it has merely encouraged them to further invasions of our rights. Shortly after the killing of our soldiers at Carrizal and because it was not followed by the punishment of those who were guilty of that crime, a prominent paper in an interior Mexican city published an article in which it was said that the experience at Carrizal showed how easily a Mexican army could march through American territory to Washington, and dwelt with some gusto upon the wealth of loot that would reward such an expedition.
As a result of the course which our Government had adopted for some time after it recognized the Carranza regime as the de facto government of ​Mexico, conditions along the border became as bad as, or worse than they were during the pre-Diaz period. Just how bad they were is shown in the letter of Secretary Lansing quoted in Chapter IV. They finally became so intolerable and resulted in the loss of so many American lives and the destruction of so much American property at the hands of invading Mexican bandits that in April, 191 8, two hundred and fifty owners of ranches along the Texas border held a meeting at Van Horn in that state and spent several days discussing measures to be taken for the protection of their homes, families, and property. Later, our Government seems to have changed its policy and to-day along the border shot for shot is exchanged whenever a bullet comes across the line. This has resulted in a distinct decrease in such offenses.
In view of the result that has been achieved by the policy of patience maintained toward Mexico since the beginning of revolutionary activities the query is suggested: Would our officials in Washington have maintained such a policy in dealing with the lawless elements represented by the Carranza government at the expense of our citizens, had they known of the results of the same policy adopted seventy-five years ago and followed for a number of years, as set forth in the foregoing quotations from the messages of Presidents Jackson and Polk?
​History shows that throughout the whole career of Mexico as an independent nation except during the Diaz period, the Latin-Mexican element responsible for its government has never failed to attempt to violate any international agreement or obligation when it thought its interests would be served by such a course. The history of our patience and forbearance before the Mexican War reads like the story of the dealings between our Government and Mexico from the period in President Taft's administration, when revolutionary activities began, to the present time. The only difference is that we have secured even less satisfaction as the result of our policy of "patience" than was obtained previous to the Mexican War. In the meanwhile, these experiments with the lawless, dishonest, and criminal element represented by the Latin-Mexican governing class, have been paid for by the lives of hundreds of American citizens and the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of American property.
Previous to the thirty-four years of orderly government enforced by Diaz few Americans resided in Mexico and little American capital had been invested there. But, encouraged by the law and order maintained by the Diaz government and by its invitations to invest in that country, our people had gone into Mexico in considerable numbers. It is estimated that at the beginning ​of the revolutionary period in 1910 at least forty thousand Americans were making their homes there. Americans had invested their lives and hundreds of millions of dollars of their capital in enterprises which, while profitable to themselves, were of enormous economic value to the country with which they had cast their fortunes.
These thousands of Americans and hundreds of millions of their property are the counters with which the game of "patience" has been played with Mexico by our Government for seven years. And, if one may continue the simile, our Government has been playing a game with the cards marked against it, for we have practised the diplomacy of an honest, moral people, while the Mexicans have shown that disregard for every diplomatic agreement and every obligation under international law which should have been expected from the Latin-Mexican element, which has earned the reputation of being the most congenitally dishonest and immoral race in the world to-day. This would appear to be strong language were it not so plainly justified by the history of nearly a hundred years. I believe that in what follows I shall amply establish its truth and justice.