the Government of the United States, with which to make war on the Mexican people, thus tending to disturb those friendly and neighborly feelings and sentiments which should exist between the Government and people of Mexico and those of the United States, which the Government of the undersigned is so anxious to sustain and to cultivate. The undersigned begs [etc.]** ENRIQUE SELDNER AUTHORIZED STATEMENT BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN BOSTON THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD NOT CEASED TO RECOGNIZE MEXICO AS AN "INTERNATIONAL PERSON" 311.1254 V 65/1 The Secretary of State to the Attorney General WASHINGTON, May 15, 1923. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I am advised by Messrs. Hardin and Hess, 50 Pine Street, New York, that the United States of Mexico, for which this firm is general counsel in New York, has instituted in the State courts of Massachusetts an action against Mariano Viamonte y Fernandez to sequestrate certain property which the defendant has in Massachusetts, which is claimed by the United States of Mexico as its property. It is alleged that this property was taken by Mr. Viamonte from Mexico after it had been received by him in his capacity as Chief Clerk of the Department of Special Taxes in Mexico City, and that he concealed the fact of such taking by certain entries in the book of accounts kept by him. The Department is further informed that the United States of Mexico is represented in this litigation by the firm of Ropes, Gray, Boyden and Perkins of Boston, that the defendant has questioned the right of the United States of Mexico to maintain the action, and that the preliminary objections to the jurisdiction will soon be heard. Messrs. Hardin and Hess have requested that you be asked to have the United States attorney appear at an appropriate occasion upon the hearings of such objections and make a statement to the Court, and the Department would be pleased if you will instruct the attorney to make the following statement on the occasion mentioned: "The Government of the United States has not accorded recognition to the Administration now functioning in Mexico, and, therefore, has at present no official relations with that Administration. This fact, however, does not affect the recognition of the Mexican State itself, which for years has been recognized by the United "This communication does not appear to have been answered. States as an 'international person' as that term is understood in international practice. The existing situation simply is that there is no official intercourse between the two States." I have [etc.] 311.1254 V 65/2 For the Secretary of State: The Attorney General to the Secretary of State WASHINGTON, May 17, 1923. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, requesting that the United States Attorney at Boston, appear in the case brought by the United States of Mexico against Mariano Viamonte y Fernandez, in the Massachusetts State Court, and make the statement contained in your letter, in regard to the relations existing between the United States government and the government functioning in Mexico. I have directed the United States Attorney to appear in the State Court and make the statement suggested by you and leave with the court a copy of such statement. Respectfully, For the Attorney General, ALBERT OTTINGER Assistant Attorney General 311.1254 V 65/1 The Secretary of State to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Essex County, Massachusetts WASHINGTON, July 14, 1923. SIR: I beg to request that you be good enough to forward to the Department, for its information, a copy of the recent decision of Justice William Cushing Wait in the case of the United States of Mexico v. Mariano Viamonte y Fernandez. I am [etc.] For the Secretary of State: WILLIAM PHILLIPS 311.1254 V 65/3 Decision Rendered by the Justice of the Superior Court of Essex County, Massachusetts 35 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss. SUPERIOR COURT In Equity United States of Mexico vs Fernandez This cause came on to be heard upon a plea in abatement, a motion to dismiss and a demurrer. It was argued by counsel. I find that the United States of Mexico is an "international person." That the property alleged to have been taken is the property of said person and not of any individuals of a government of said person and is within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That the government of the United States of America has not accorded recognition to the Administration now functioning in Mexico; but that intercourse is in fact maintained between the peoples of this United States of America and of the United States of Mexico. That consuls commissioned by the existing Administration in Mexico function in various places in this United States of America, lacking only the formal exequatur from the government of the United States of America. That an embassy is so maintained at Washington in the District of Columbia lacking only said formal recognition. I take judicial notice that negotiations for formal recognition by the government of the United States of America of the administration now functioning in the United States of Mexico and so functioning at the date of the filing of this bill are in progress; and I take the law to be that recognition if accorded will relate to a period prior to the filing of this bill and to the acts complained of. I find that persons acting in fact within these United States of America generally in matters affecting the property and interests of the international person, the United States of Mexico, other than in diplomatic relations with the United States of America, authorized the bringing of this proceeding and the appearance of the counsel for the plaintiff. Accordingly I overrule the plea in abatement but without prejudice to raising the question by answer and upon a trial of the merits whether the United States of Mexico may maintain this bill. I deny the motion to dismiss; and overrule the demurrer, "Received at the Department without covering letter on July 18, 1923. paragraph one of the bill having been amended before the hearing on the demurrer. 1923 June 29. A true copy. WILLIAM CUSHING WAIT Justice of the Superior Court Attest: [SEAL] GEO. R. LORD Ass't. Clerk SUIT BY THE OLIVER AMERICAN TRADING COMPANY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN NEW YORK 36 702.1211/1218 The Secretary of State to the United States District Judge at New York (Knox) WASHINGTON, September 8, 1923. MY DEAR JUDGE KNOX: Referring to your letter of July 11th last," with respect to the suit of the Oliver American Trading Company, Inc., against the United States of Mexico, in which you requested me to advise you of developments with respect to negotiations between the American and Mexican Commissioners, I am glad to inform you that those negotiations have reached a happy termination and have resulted in the recognition by this Government of the existing Government of Mexico. On Friday, August 31, 1923, it was formally announced by the Department of State that the two Governments "have resolved to renew diplomatic relations between them, and therefore, pending the appointment of ambassadors, they are taking the necessary steps to accredit, formally, their respective Chargés d'Affaires", and on September 3d Mr. George T. Summerlin was formally accredited Chargé d'Affaires ad interim at Mexico City, and Mr. Manuel C. Téllez, the Mexican representative in Washington, presented his letter of credence as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim on the same date. Faithfully yours, CHARLES E. HUGHES Continued from Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. п, pp. 709–717. 702.1211/1245 The Secretary of State to the United States District Judge at New York (Knox) WASHINGTON, October 8, 1923. MY DEAR JUDGE KNOX: Permit me to inform you that under date of October 1, 1923, Mr. Howard T. Oliver of the Oliver American Trading Company, Inc. wrote me at length in regard to the case of his Company against the Government of the United States of Mexico and National Railways of Mexico, and requested definite answers to certain specific questions put to me by counsel for the Company in a communication under date of September 14.38 These questions had reference to several aspects of the recognition by this Government of the Government of Mexico. I feel it my duty to inform you that I am advising Mr. Oliver that it seemed to be a sufficient response to the inquiries made in behalf of his Company to say that the recognition recently accorded the Government of Mexico by the Government of the United States was complete and unconditional. I am [etc.] 702.1211/1249 CHARLES E. HUGHES Mr. Ernest Angell of Messrs. Hardin & Hess to the Secretary of State NEW YORK, October 19, 1923. SIR: We address you with further reference to the case of Oliver American Trading Company, Inc., plaintiff, vs. The Government of the United States of Mexico and National Railways of Mexico, defendants, still pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, wherein we represent the defendants. Judge Knox has lately rendered a decision granting defendants' motion for dismissal of the action and the vacating of the attachment on the ground that the defendants are entitled to the immunity accorded a friendly foreign sovereign. You may remember that I discussed some features of this case with you in Washington last May. We enclose copies of the opinion for your information.39 No order thereon has yet been entered. Plaintiff has now served formal notice that it will appeal the decision by writ of error to the United States Supreme Court 40 and 40 Letters not printed. New York Law Journal, Oct. 18, 1923, p. 209. See 264 U. S. 440. The case was transferred to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which sustained the decision of the District Court; see 5 Fed. (2d) 659. |