John Bassett Moore to William Jennings Bryan

The Mexican Situation
May 14, 1913.
For the Secretary:
1. The conditions resulting from our non–recognition of the existing government at the City of Mexico are producing serious inconvenience. There are matters pending between the two countries of which a solution should be reached, but of which none is now possible unless we deal with the government at the City of Mexico as the responsible government of the country, there being no other governmental organization professing to represent it.
We have a convention pending which affects the granting of water rights along the Colorado River. An agreement had practically been reached, but this is now held up and for the time being nothing can be done.
The Government of the United States refused to accept the award rendered two years ago in the Chamizal case, and the Mexican Government agreed in a friendly spirit to enter upon a revision of it. Such a revision, acceptable to both Governments and to the parties in interest, had been substantially agreed upon. By the convention under which the arbitration was held the award becomes definitive within two years. The two years will be up on the 15th of June. The arrangement heretofore formulated can not now be concluded, because we do not recognize any responsible government in Mexico with which to sign it.
The case is the same with regard to claims, general and special. Negotiations are suspended, and no relief is obtainable.2. The government at present existing at the City of Mexico is legally organized in conformity with the provisions of the Mexican constitution. This has not, however, in the practices of the United States been considered a prerequisite to the recognition of a new government. The Government of the United States having originally set itself up by revolution has always acted upon the de facto principle. We regard governments as existing or as not existing. We do not require them to be chosen by popular vote. We look simply to the fact of the existence of the government and to its ability and inclination to discharge the national obligations.3. The government at present existing at the City of Mexico is the only government professing to be able and willing to discharge the international obligations of the country. It has no competitors. There are certain States along the northern frontier that refuse to recognize its authority, but none of them claims to be the national government of Mexico. It is said that Carranza, of whom among the opponents of the government we hear the most, has in all perhaps 8000 troops. However this may be, he is merely maintaining an opposition to the central authority, and does not profess to be maintaining a government which could in any sense be called the government of Mexico. 4. The opposition to the recognition of the central authority at the City of Mexico seems to be based chiefly upon the circumstances attending the killing of Madero two days after he had resigned the Presidency. Taking these to be as narrated in the press, we necessarily deplore them; but our deprecation of the political methods which may prevail in certain countries can not relieve us of the necessity of dealing with the governments of these countries. It might be possible, if reports, official and unofficial, are to be credited, to cite recent instances of much denounced despotisms with which we have been and possibly still are on very pleasant terms. In this we are not at fault. We cannot become the censors of the morals or conduct of other nations and make our approval or disapproval of their methods the test of our recognition of their governments without intervening in their affairs. The Government of the United States once boasted that the Pope, the Emperor of Russia and President Jackson were the only rulers that ever recognized Don Miguel as King of Portugal. This action on the part of President Jackson was ascribed to “our sacred regard for the independence of nations.” We recognized, as did other powers, King Peter, of Servia, who actually gained his throne by means of assassination.5. It is suggested that we cannot recognize the government at the City of Mexico, because we should treat that government and the leaders in the northern States in opposition to it, both alike. The answer to this suggestion is two–fold: First, that we are not at liberty to treat them alike in point of law; and secondly, that we do not treat them alike in point of fact. We can not treat them alike in point of law for the simple reason that the political chiefs in the northern States do not represent a united governmental organization whose belligerency can properly be recognized. In the second place, we have at no time treated and are not now treating both sides alike. We have all along permitted and are now permitting the shipment of arms and munitions of war to the government at the City of Mexico, while we forbid such shipment to its adversaries.6. An extraordinary stress seems lately to have been placed upon the act and effects of recognition. Perhaps this impression may partly be ascribed to the importance which was attached to the act of recognition by the Powers who were seeking to make a loan to China, recognition having been withheld for the purpose of inducing the existing government of China to take a particular course. This case is, however, to be considered as special and exceptional. The government of the United States once recognized five governments in Mexico within a few months, and did not injure its own interests or commit itself to any responsibilities by so doing. Recognition is purely and simply the avowal of an apparent state of fact, and the advantage gained by it is that the country is held responsible for the acts of the authority so acknowledged.7. It is evident that the government at the City of Mexico will soon have been recognized by the principal European Powers. It has already been recognized by Great Britain and Spain, and we are advised that the recognition of France has been received and that that of Austria–Hungary is on the way. We are also advised that, as the result of this action, the government is enabled to obtain large sums of money in Europe. For some years past Mexican loans have been brought out in the United States, but a new loan is not attainable here under present conditions. As I write this memorandum, official advices arrive of the recognition of the central government by Japan, Salvador, and Guatemala.8. A suggestion has been made that the government at the City of Mexico and the insurgents, or “Constitutionalists”, would both welcome a proposal from the outside for a cessation of arms with a view to the holding of an early and free election of a new President. Before such a step should be taken, it would be important to ascertain the precise grounds of the supposition that the proposal would be welcome. It would be most important for two reasons. In the first place, we know not only that in most cases of civil strife such proposals from the outside are unwelcome, but also that they are usually repulsed with more or less heat by both sides, in order to conciliate popular feelings. In the second place, if such a proposal were made by the United States and declined by the Mexicans, it might be thought that we had tried the last peaceful expedient and that nothing but intervention remained.9. It is also possible as the result of inaction to drift into intervention. During the past two months the United States has been represented at the City of Mexico by an Ambassador whose conduct apparently is not approved and whose recommendations have been disregarded. This is a situation which does not and cannot relieve itself. Ambassador Wilson has strongly advised the recognition of the central government, but such recognition has not been accorded. These facts are evidently well know to that government and to the public, and have contributed to the resentment which found expression in the recent conversation of President Huerta with the Ambassador. There would appear to be an incongruity in keeping an Ambassador at a post, not for the purpose of transacting important business, but merely for the purpose of receiving and transmitting complaints against the attitude of his own government, with which attitude he does not himself agree.Nor is the fact to be lost sight of that this state of things has, in Mexico, the double effect of producing anti–American feeling among the adherents of the central government and encouraging the enemies of that government.10. In any event, it would not seem to be expedient or becoming, in view of the long delay that has taken place and of the recent conversation of President Huerta with Ambassador Wilson, for the United States now to recognize the former by answering his autograph letter. The best course, if the reestablishment of normal relations should be determined upon, would seem to be to nominate to the Senate a new Ambassador to Mexico, who could present his letters in due course. Ambassador Wilson has repeatedly stated that he has no desire to remain in Mexico; and, assuming that the United States desires to avoid intervention, there is every reason for bringing to an end the present situation.