Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T18:42:37.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Settlement of Mexican Claims Act of 1942

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Herbert W. Briggs
Herbert W. Briggs*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the enactment on December 19, 1942, of the misnamed “Settlement of Mexican Claims Act of 1942,” American nationals with claims based upon the international responsibility of Mexico for acts or omissions in contravention of international law appear likely to receive long-delayed satisfaction. Some of the claims are more than 60 years old. Awards were made by the United States-Mexican General Claims Commission in favor of some of the claimants more than 15 years ago, but to date no money has been paid to the beneficiaries of these awards. Various factors appear to have made this claims arbitration one of the most dilatory, inefficient, and unfortunate in our history. Claimants were notoriously lax in presenting evidence to the State Department, although in some cases they appear to have been hindered by the Mexican Government from obtaining necessary evidence in Mexico. The preambles to three conventions extending the life of the General Claims Commission allege that “it now appears” or “it has been found” that the Commission could not hear, examine, and decide the claims within the time limit fixed; but Judge Fred K. Nielsen, American Commissioner on that court, has pointed out with some vigor that it was not the Commission, so much as the failure of American counsel and the Department of State, to prepare cases for presentation to the Commission, which caused the delay and paucity of decisions. Resignations of Commissioners, protracted delays in replacing them, antagonisms between Commissioners, and lack of cooperation by the Mexican Government were other factors contributing to the 19-year delay in effecting a settlement.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 1943 , pp. 222 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Public No. 814, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. S. 2528, Congressional Record, Vol. 88, pp. 9710–9713, 9748, 9814, 9840 (daily edition, Dec. 8, 11, 14, 1942). Cf. also Claims of American Nationals Against Mexico. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. on S.2528, June 30, July 1, 2, 6, 10, and 14, 1942. (Hereafter cited as Hearings.)

2 Cf. the statement of Mr. Benedict M. English, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State, before the Senate subcommittee, July 14, 1942: “Despite the fact that the general claimants had some 12 years in which to file their evidence, it is now proposed to open up the matter again and to give claimants who had 12 years in which to file their evidence and who were repeatedly requested and begged to file evidence but who failed to file it, still another opportunity to file, thus probably jeopardizing the interests of the claimants who were diligent and who filed their evidence.” Hearings, pp. 142–143. Cf. also information to same effect from Department of State, quoted by Hon. Sol Bloom in the House of Representatives, Nov. 24, 1942. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, p. 9415 (daily ed.). It has been pointed out, however, that the Commissions and an American Agent directing the gathering of evidence were active during only six or seven years.

3 Hearings, pp. 34–37, 216 fif.

4 Cf. Feller, A. H., The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1923–1934 (1935), p. 56 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 Cf. U. S. Treaty Series, No. 678.

6 Ibid., Nos. 758 and 801.

7 Feller, op. cit., p. 60. For the decisions of the General Claims Commission, cf. three volumes published by the U. S. Government Printing Office: Claims Commissions, United States and Mexico. Opinions of Commissioners under the Convention concluded September 8, 1923, between the United States and Mexico. February 4, 1926, to July 23, 1927 (G.P.O., 1927); September 26, 1928, to May 17, 1929 (G.P.O., 1929); October, 1930, to July, 1931 (G.P.O., 1931).

8 Cf. U. S. Treaty Series, No. 883. This convention extended the duration of the Commission two years from the date of the exchange of ratifications. The United States delayed ratification, with the result that the exchange of ratifications and the coming into force of this convention did not take place until Feb. 1, 1935, almost three and one-half years after the Commission had ceased to function.

9 The last decisions of the General Claims Commission are dated July —, 1931. Opinions of Commissioners (cited), 1931.

10 Cf. U. S. Executive Agreement Series, No. 57. This agreement was originally published by the Department of State in 1934 as Publication No. 601 : “General Claims. Protocol between the United States of America and Mexico, Signed April 24, 1934, Effective April 24, 1934.” In 1935 it was reprinted as Publication 709 with a statement that it had been “Ratified by the President of the United States, January 14, 1935. Ratified by Mexico, November 23, 1934. Ratifications exchanged at Washington, February 1, 1935.” There is no indication that the agreement was ever submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent, and, despite its ratification by the President, it was republished as a “Revised Print, Superseding Publication No. 601” in the Executive Agreement Series rather than in the Treaty Series.

11 Hearings, p. 27. Unofficial estimates have placed the number of claims submitted for dismissal as “worthless” or “unproven” by agreement of the American and Mexican agencies, and consequently dismissed by the two Commissioners, as high as 1,500.

12 Hearings, pp. 21, 82, 228. Statements of F. K. Nielsen and L. H. Woolsey.

13 Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 9419, 9420, 9655 (daily ed., Nov. 24, Dec. 4, 1942).

14 Hearings, p. 229. Statement of Mr. Lester H. Woolsey.

15 As quoted by Mr. Benedict English. Hearings, p. 14.

16 As quoted by Mr. Lester H. Woolsey. Hearings, p. 81. Italics supplied by Mr. Woolsey.

17 Hearings, pp. 82, 83.

18 Hearings, pp. 14, 82, 142.

19 The Protocol of June 18, 1932, which accompanied the signature of the Convention of June 18, 1932 (Treaty Series, No. 883) for the extension of the duration of the General Claims Commission, has not been published in either the Treaty Series or the Executive Agreement Series. Feller, op. cit., pp. 338–340, prints it with a note: “Text furnished by Department of State.” Cf. also his comments, ibid., pp. 60–63.

20 U. S. Ex. Agr. Series, No. 57: First recital.

21 Hearings, p. 81.

22 U. S. Ex. Agr. Series, No. 158, containing notes exchanged Nov. 9 and 12, 1938, and April 17 and 18, 1939. Cf. also Compensation for American-Owned Lands Expropriated in Mexico. Full Text of Official Notes, July 21, 1938, to November 12, 1938. Department of State, Inter-American Series 16.

23 Hearings, pp. 74, 187. Statements of Mr. Benedict English. Mr. Lawson’s determinations have been praised as methodical, painstaking, objective, and impartial by an official of the Department of State. Cf. Hearings, p. 144.

24 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 980. Claims Convention between the United States and Mexico, signed Nov. 19, 1941. Ratifications exchanged, April 2, 1942. Cf. this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), Supp., p. 179. For discussion in the Senate in giving its advice and consent, cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 860–864 (daily ed., Jan. 29, 1942).

25 The oil claims are the subject of a special agreement signed the same day (Nov. 19, 1941) as the Claims Convention. Cf. U. S. Ex. Agr. Series, No. 234: Expropriation of Petroleum Properties.

26 Art. II continues that except for the oil and bond claims, the claims excepted in Art. II “will be the subject of future agreements which the two Governments will conclude ae soon as possible.”

27 The first annual instalment of $2,500,000 was paid in 1942. Cf. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. VII, No. 179 (Nov. 28, 1942), p. 968. The fund available for American claimants will include not only the amount paid by Mexico but will be supplemented by $533,658.95 “which is an amount equal to the awards and appraisals on claims of Mexican nar tionals against the United States,” and which is appropriated by Sec. 8 (b) (4) of the 1942 Act. Cf. Senate Report No. 1615, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess.

28 Cf. House Document No. 722, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. The correspondence and draft bill are reprinted in Hearings, pp. 205–210.

29 Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 9416, 9418–9419 (daily ed., Nov. 24, 1942).

30 Mr. Benedict English of the State Department objected to the characterization of the bill as “an administration measure” or “a State Department project” (Hearings, pp. 139–143), but in the House of Representatives on Nov. 24, 1942, Mr. Luther A. Johnson of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs stated that “this bill was drafted by the legal department of the State Department and by the legislating [sic.] drafting branch of the House.” Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, p. 9422. Cf. also, ibid., p. 9410.

31 Cf. Statement of Mr. L. H. Woolsey, Hearings, pp. 81, 229.

32 Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 7921–7923 (daily ed., Oct. 1, 1942).

33 Ibid., pp. 9409–9428 (daily ed., Nov. 24, 1942). Cf. also the statement of Senator Bennett Champ Clark of Missouri that the House “passed a bill simply striking out all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and inserting a canned bill, sent up here by some clerk or assistant in the State Department, which he himself had abandoned before the Committee on Foreign Relations. He was present when we adopted the amendment, and raised no objection, then slipped over to the House and got the House to strike out all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and take this canned bill, which was sent up from the State Department for the purpose of shutting off all these claimants, and was passed by the House in that form.” Ibid., pp. 9659–9660 (daily ed., Dec. 4, 1942).

34 For the text of the 1st Conference Report, cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 9543–9546 (Dec. 2, 1942); adopted by House, ibid., p. 9615 (Dec. 3, 1942); debated in Senate, ibid., pp. 9652–9663 (Dec. 4), 9672–9685 (Dec. 7); 2nd Conference Report adopted by Senate, ibid., pp. 9710–9713; by House, ibid., pp. 9737–9740, 9748 (Dec. 8, 1942).

34a The members of the American Mexican Claims Commission are Edgar E. Nitt, of Texas, Samuel Marshall Gold, of New York, and Charles F. McLaughlin, of Nebraska. Cf. Cong. Rec. (March 1, 1943), Vol. 89, p. 1456.

35 Sec. 3 (a) (6) permits the rehearing of the Dickson Car Wheel Co. Claim (Docket No. 1074) and the International Fisheries Co. Claim (Docket No. 625), which Commissioner Fred K. Nielsen pointed out, in dissenting, were not rendered in conformity with the rules of procedure of the General Claims Commission. Opinions of Commissioners (1931), pp. 206, 286. Cf. also Feller, op. cit., p. 59. Sec. 3 (a) (6) will thus permit the rehearing of a case involving the validity of a Calvo clause. In the draft of S. 2528 which originally passed the Senate (Oct. 1,1942) was a proviso (Sec. 3 (a) (7)) which would have authorized a rehearing of the North American Dredging Co. Claim (Docket No. 1223) in which the United States had filed a motion for a rehearing by the General Claims Commission, but this proviso was deleted in conference. Cf. also, Hearings, p. 56.

36 Presumably the “notice” would include a copy of the appraisal and the reasons therefor, although the Act does not so state.

37 The circumstances referred to probably include a Mexican decree or constitutional provision allegedly penalizing by loss of citizenship any Mexican who aided an alien in establishing any claim against the Mexican Government. Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 9419 (Nov. 24, 1942), 9657, 9659. 9661 (Dec. 4).

38 At the Senate subcommittee hearings, Mr. Benedict English said: “The point is that there is only so much money to be distributed, and the greater the number of claims let in the thinner the fund must be spread.” Hearings, p. 142. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the American Mexican Claims Commission will have jurisdiction to decide about 60 claims which had been filed with both the General Claims Commission and the Special Claims Commission (set up by the Convention of Sept. 10, 1923, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 676), and which Commissioner Underwood had decided were “special” claims, too late for decision by the domestic Special Mexican Claims Commission set up by Act of Congress approved April 10, 1935 (49 Stat. 149). These claimants who receive awards by the American Mexican Claims Commission will therefore be paid from the “general claims” fund set up by the 1942 Act rather than the “special claims” fund previously set up. For the history and decisions of the “special claims” based upon revolutionary damage in Mexico, cf. Feller, op. cit.; Hearings, pp. 6–16, 38–43, 65–69, 81; Special Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, Opinions of Commissioners (1931); Special Mexican Claims Commission under the Act of Congress Approved April 10, 1935: Report to the Secretary of State, with decisions… (1940) (Department of State Arbitration Series 7).

39 In 1940 an attempt had been made in Congress to have the United States Government pay to American claimants the amounts awarded to them by the General Claims Commission, since Mexico had not paid any of the awards against her. The bill (S. 326) was quite properly defeated, in the House of Representatives. Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 86, particularly pp. 6450–6463, 9293–9303, 12120.

40 Hearings, pp. 17, 36–37, 89, 100. On May 20, 1940, a table was printed in the Congressional Record showing that Congress had appropriated $3,405,000 for expenses in conducting the General and Special claims arbitrations from 1925 through 1938. Cf. Cong. Rec., Vol. 86, pp. 6459, 6461.

41 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 678: Art. V.

42 Feller, op. cit., p. 57, points out that “the two governments proceeded figuratively to dump the contents of their claims files on the desks of the Commission.”

43 Cf. Wilson, Robert R., “Some Aspects of the Jurisprudence of National Claims Commissions,” this Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), pp. 56–76 Google Scholar.

44 Cf. “Agreements with Mexico,” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. V, No. 126 (Nov. 22, 1941), pp. 399–403; remarks of Senator Vandenberg, Jan. 29, 1942, Cong. Rec., Vol. 88, pp. 862–863.