LUXEMBURG ACCREDITING OF THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO BELGIUM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES NEAR THE GRAND DUCAL GOVERNMENT 124.50a/4 The Chargé in the Netherlands (Sussdorff) to the Secretary of State No. 1148 THE HAGUE, December 19, 1922. [Received January 4, 1923.] SIR: I have the honor to report that, in spite of the fact that the Government of Luxemburg has expressed the earnest desire that the United States Government should continue to accredit the American Minister at the Netherlands in a similar capacity to the Grand Duchy, I am of the opinion that the combination of these two missions has ceased to serve the best interests of the United States Government. The economic agreement between Belgium and Luxemburg, which became effective a few months ago, has brought these two countries into a closer and closer economic relationship. With the exception of the United States, all of the countries which accredit diplomatic representatives to Luxemburg and do not maintain permanent diplomatic missions there have now found it desirable to transfer their representation in the Grand Duchy to their Embassies and Legations in Brussels. From the point of view of efficiency, there can be no doubt that a foreign representative in Brussels is in an infinitely better position to follow the situation in Luxemburg than a foreign representative in The Hague. Reports from American missions in Brussels and Luxemburg would be inter-related, whereas the American mission in the Netherlands is completely detached from the situation in the Grand Duchy. The question of distance is also an important one: it takes thirteen hours to make the journey from The Hague to Luxemburg, whereas Brussels and Luxemburg are only separated by a train journey of five hours. The combination of the American missions in the Netherlands and Luxemburg is frequently a disadvantageous one because the American representative at The Hague is virtually obliged to abandon his more important duties there to make occasional visits of ceremony to the Grand Duchy. It is only by such visits that the Legation at The Hague is able to obtain any information regarding events in Luxemburg. ... MEXICO RECOGNITION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GENERAL OBREGÓN BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS1 711.1211/61a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) [Paraphrase] WASHINGTON, March 7, 1923-11 a.m. 21. On February 27, General James A. Ryan 2 in person informed the Department that General Obregón had assured him a short time ago that he would be pleased to see the problems between the United States and Mexico discussed by a commission to be made up of representatives of the two countries. The Secretary replied that such a procedure was most agreeable to him, in fact he had thought of suggesting the same idea, but had not done so, fearing that a premature suggestion would come to naught, and render it impossible to use this promising procedure on a more auspicious occasion. On March 5, at a subsequent meeting, General Ryan was informed by the Secretary that President Harding was favorably disposed towards the suggestion, and was ready to name two representatives of the United States to confer with two representatives of Mexico for the purpose of discussing the questions now existing between the two nations. The Secretary stated further that he does not favor any secret procedure and, if the step be taken, he prefers that it should be taken openly, and that a public announcement of the appointment of the commission should be made. It does not matter whether the procedure is suggested by General Obregón or here. In either case, however, the American Embassy in Mexico is the channel through which the suggestion should be made, as well as the arrangement of the details. This telegram is sent you merely for your information, and in case General Obregón should not decide to make the suggestion, you need take no steps in the matter. 1 HUGHES For previous correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 11, pp. 639 ff. 'Representative of the Texas Oil Co., S. A., in Mexico. 522 711.1211/61 The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State No. 7270 [MEXICO CITY,] April 5, 1923. SIR: In confirmation of my telegram No. 21, April 4, 5 P. M.,3 and with reference to your informal instruction dated July 28, 1923 [1922], and to previous correspondence, in regard to the proposed Treaty of Amity and Commerce, I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy and translation of Mr. Pani's informal note dated March 31, 1923, which was delivered to me yesterday by a member of the Protocol Section of the Foreign Office. I have [etc.] GEORGE T. SUMMERLIN [Enclosure Translation"] The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs (Pani) to the American Chargé (Summerlin) MEXICO CITY, March 31, 1923. MY DEAR MR. SUMMERLIN: By direction of the President of the Republic I have the honor to reply to your letter of August 3 of last year with which was enclosed a true copy of an instruction to you from the Secretary of State at Washington referring to my letters of the 4th and 24th of May of the same year." This Government is pleased to note that that instruction suggests the possibility of a desirable change of procedure, abandoning the narrow method of signing a treaty of amity and commerce-which as an unavoidable condition precedent to granting recognition to the present Government of Mexico prejudiced the national sovereignty and dignity-for the broad method of an adequate development of the Mexican governmental program which has included and still includes the intention to respect rights legally acquired prior to the promulgation of the Constitution of 1917. In spite of the fact that the present Government of Mexico, from its inauguration, has given continuous proofs of its ability to carry out such a program, yet as the resultant of its policy in this respect was considered unsatisfactory by the Department at the time you sent the letter I am now answering—although satisfactory enough to render the attitude of Department, while maintaining all that was essential, compatible with the only attitude which the Mexican Chancellery has properly been able to assume notwithstanding its great desire to reach an early 'Not printed. Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. I, p. 674. File translation revised. Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. п, pp. 653 and 661. agreement-President Obregón, respecting the right of others to judge freely the results of his official acts and awaiting, confident in the cooperation of the other federal powers, in the support of public opinion, and the powerful evidence of other facts that would soon have to be added to his political credit, decided to postpone this reply. Since then, in fact, the Government of Mexico has performed acts of such importance in carrying out its program that they must have an advantageous effect on the solution of the problem of the diplomatic relations of the two Governments-granted the good disposition manifested by both parties and this, above all, if the present complicated Mexican question be considered a little from the human and not solely from the legal and somewhat commercial standpoint, as it appears to have been considered abroad, without regard to its deep influencing historical causes and the interests of the country itself. In order to define the present state of the international situation between Mexico and the United States it will be necessary to make a brief examination of the five points contained in the final summary of the said instruction of the Department of State at Washington and which, in August of last year, the said Department presented as obstacles preventing the resumption of normal diplomatic relations between the two countries, namely: The first point refers to the agreement for the resumption of the payment of interest and the amortization-suspended since the year 1914 of the foreign debt, arranged in New York between the Secre tary of the Treasury of Mexico and the International Committee of Bankers. This agreement provides guarantees entirely satisfactory to the holders mostly Americans of the bonds, whose value amounts to the large sum of one thousand four hundred million pesos; it includes, further, the return of the National Railways of Mexico to the owning company-of which also Americans are the principal bondholders-and has been ratified both by the President of the Republic and the Congress of the Union and, consequently, is now in full force and effect. This obstacle, therefore, has disappeared, The second point relates to the negotiations initiated, also in New York, between the same Secretary of the Treasury and the representatives of the principal companies interested in the exploitation of the Mexican petroleum wealth. These negotiations tended toward a special form of financial reorganization of those companies which might guarantee-independently of the respective legislationtheir rights and which might facilitate the subsequent development of their interests. The corresponding agreement, which was not concluded, would constitute-from the sole point of view of the guarantees demanded-an unnecessary protection additional to that which the future organic law of article 27 of the Constitution will afford. The lack, then, of this agreement does not necessarily imply the absence of securities for petroleum rights prior to 1917, nor can it constitute, therefore, an international obstacle or difficulty. The third point deals with the protection of titles legally acquired by American citizens before the Constitution of 1917 was promulgated. This question also will be resolved by the future organic law of constitutional article 27. The fourth point speaks of the decisions which the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has rendered in five cases of amparo of oil companies against the President of the Republic and the Secretary of Industry and Commerce, for acts of retroactive application of constitutional article 27, the presumption being that the said decisions are insufficient to protect all the rights which American citizens may have acquired in Mexico before the year 1917. The Court, naturally, limited its decisions to the concrete cases which gave rise to them and, under this aspect, the result could not be more favorable to the interested companies, since, aside from being duly protected, the second paragraph of the said decisions emanating from the highest authority in the matter-has defined in an unmistakable manner, as will be seen later, the nonretroactive character of article 27 of the Constitution, in that part relative to petroleum. This obstacle, therefore, is also removed. The fifth point finally refers to the expropriations carried into effect, without indemnification, for the restorations and grants of ejidos. The five questions considered in the foregoing lines, consequently, may be condensed-in order to be resolved from the American point of view-into two: The enactment of the organic law of constitutional article 27, and the indemnification for the lands expropriated. Let us examine these two questions separately. Regulation of constitutional article 27.—It is obvious that the part of this article which principally interests the Government of the United States is that which relates to the exploitation of petroleum, as much because of what this product signifies as a factor in the industrial development and, therefore, of military and naval power, as of the enormous amount of capital which American citizens have invested or desire to invest in this exploitation. Firstly, there must be borne in mind the almost fabulous development of the Mexican petroleum industry during the six years that have elapsed during the regime of the nationalization of the products of the subsoil, reestablished by the Constitution of 1917. In |