Edward L. Plumb to William H. Seward, March 18, 1867
Mr. Plumb to Mr. Seward
Sir: During my stay here I have occupied some of my leisure in reading a work which has accidentally fallen into my hands, containing the official publication by the Mexican government of the correspondence connected with the rupture between France and Mexico that occurred in 1838–’39,and which was followed by the attack by the Prince de Joinville on Vera Cruz.
I find one of the prominent points of complaint then urged by France was that of “forced loans,” which formed the second principal point in the ultimatum then presented. In the recent demands of France and of the allied powers on Mexico, that point has not formed a subject of special correspondence or mention, nor do I know what has been the treatment of the subject by our own legations previous to 1861, but since that period all that has transpired relating to it is what I referred to in my official note to the department of the 8th instant. I have, therefore, thought that as the topic is one of some interest, and may have to form the subject of future and perhaps early correspondence, the views of the French government as presented at the period I have referred to, and the stand taken by the Mexican government at that time, might not be altogether without interest as a matter of reference.
I have consequently made a translation of such portions of the correspondence as most clearly show the character and interpretation given to what are termed “forced loans,” and the views of the respective governments upon the subject. The views then taken are equally pertinent to the discussion of the subject at the present time, and the concession of the whole question offered to be made by the Mexican government may be important.
To this latter point I would beg respectfully to call attention.
I am, sir, with the highest respect, your most obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State; Washington, D. C.
[Untitled]
The last forced loan of two millions imposed in Mexico has called the most serious attention of the government of France to the general question with reference to this class of imposts.
Perhaps there is no country in the world where the government has not been obliged to resort, beside the ordinary and permanent contributions to those of an extraordinary and temporary character; and it is without doubt by reason of this example that the different administrations which have succeeded in Mexico since the independence, have come to establish, beside the fixed imposts, their forced loans. On the other hand, foreigners have submitted to these loans by virtue of the general principle according to which strangers established in whatever country should, outside of certain known exceptions, bear the same charges as the native citizens.
But such measures and such doctrines, which are perfectly just under certain circumstances, may be entirely inadmissible under different circumstances.
First. In all nations regularly administered, extraordinary and temporary contributions are never exacted except in special cases of extreme necessity, and excessively rare.
Thus it is that no contribution of this class has been collected in France since the year 1816—that is to say, for 21 years.
In Mexico, on the contrary, forced loans appear to be the favorite combination of the ministers of finance. In the month of December, 1835, (in order not to cite acts entirely recent,) the first forced loan was decreed; in the month of June, 1836, it was followe dby the second; and finally, in the month of December of the same year, 1836, a ministerial proposal (which fortunately did not receive the legislative sanction) sought to establish, in fact, the third loan, under the appearance of an augmentation of the quotas of the second.
In this manner, the extraordinary imposts, which in other nations only create a momentary embarrassment to the contributors, are here a constant and continuous source of ruin.
Extraordinary contributions, whether they rest upon all the territory and upon all the population capable of sustaining the charge, or whether it appears more just to exact them only in certain localities and from certain particular classes of society, are apportioned, in all countries, in so far as possible, according to the legal, proportionable, and consequently equable bases which are adopted for ordinary imposts.
This, for example, is what occurred in France with reference to the extraordinary contribution already mentioned, of 1816, placed upon the city of Paris.
In Mexico, on the contrary, the apportionment of the forced loans is made by estimates purely administrative, without fixed basis, and necessarily accompanied by a multitude of instances of injustice, and this injustice in apportionment is another source of ruin to the persons from whom they are exacted.
Third, and finally, foreigners, besides being subjected here in the exaction of forced loans to the general grave inconveniences just mentioned, have a special reason for complaint.
In place of paying in Mexico, as in other places, such part of the forced loans as is in proportion to their fortunes compared with those of the citizens of the country, they have constantly to support the heaviest part of these imposts. This result, so little in conformity with natural equity and the principles of public right from which it is derived, arises from the fact that on the one hand there are found only a small number of native citizens comprehended in the apportionment of the loans, while very few foreigners are omitted from it; and on the other hand, that the greater part of the native citizens comprehended in it are not made to pay, while all foreigners found in the same case are prosecuted with the greatest rigor.
These facts are of public notoriety. The proofs are within the knowledge of all, and one of the most notable instances has lately occurred in the failure to comply with the legal dis position which requires the publication of the lists of the persons who have paid their quotas in the forced loan of 2,000,000.
According to the special instructions which have been received by the legation of France the considerations which precede have appeared to the government of his Majesty more than sufficient to take the resolution of which the undersigned has been charged to inform the Mexican administration, which is, not to tolerate the application to French subjects of any forced loans, under whatever denomination that may be established.
But the government of the King has observed that it can, besides, found its determination in this sense upon article 9 of the declarations of 1827, and it has blamed the undersigned for not having appealed to this article when the loan of 2,000,000 was first levied.
With reference to this loan in particular, the government of his Majesty, from sentiments of loyalty which, perhaps, will be found worthy of note, has not withdrawn from the concessions of principle which its representative here, without instructions and even against those he had, has taken upon himself to make.
It would not, therefore, have asked that the French subjects should be indemnified for the quotas that they have paid under the loan of 2,000,000 if the loan had been established upon a common agreement, and according to the legal, proportional, and equitable apportionment proposed by the undersigned. But the legation of the King is ordered to demand, in the most positive manner, the restoration of the sums of which his subjects have been thus violently deprived.
The undersigned requests Señor Monosterio to have the goodness to communicate to him the definitive determinations of the supreme government upon the two questions, the one general, and the other special, treated of in this note, and has the honor to renew, &c., &c.
BARON DEFFANDIS.
Señor O. Monosterio, Charged with the Department of Foreign Relations.
Second point of the complaint of France in the final ultimatum presented by the French plenipotentiary from the anchorage at Sacrificios, March 21st, 1838.
“II. The collection, by means of violence, of forced loans, contrary in their nature as well to public law as to the existing treaties, and not less opposed to the principles of equity by reason of the unjust partiality of their apportionment.”
Demanded by France as a treaty stipulation, article 4, clause 2.
“Not to impose in any case in the future, upon the subjects of his Majesty, either contributions of war of any class, or imposts similar or analogous to those known under the denomination of ‘forced loans,’ whatever may be their purpose or object.”
Final project of a convention presented by the French plenipotentiary in the conferences at Jalapa, November 20th, 1838, just before the outbreak of hostilities.
Article 1. Until a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, based upon the common interests of the two countries, shall establish in a definite and invariable manner the relations between France and Mexico, these relations shall be provisionally governed by the act known by the name of the declarations of 1827, (although not yet ratified,) principally to what relates to articles 7, 9, and 11 of said declaration.
Article 9 of said declaration is as follows:
“In all that relates to the police of the ports, the loading and discharging of vessels, security of merchandise, property, and effects, the inhabitants of the two countries shall be respectively subject to the laws and statutes of the territory where they reside. They shall be equally exempt from all forced military service of sea and land, and there shall not be imposed especially upon them any forced loans. Their property, also, shall not be subject to other charges, requisitions, or imposts than those paid by native citizens.”
MEXICAN VIEW.
Exposition, published after the war had commenced, by the minister of foreign affairs, Don. Louis G. Cuevas, upon the differences with France, being a résumé of the course pursued in the negotiations, and the stand taken by the Mexican government. Mexico, January 10, 1839.
[Extract.]
With reference to forced loans, France should have proceeded with frankness and learned the real sentiments entertained by the government with reference to this species of taxation.
Forced loans, as all know, have been imposed in circumstances of difficulty and of extraordinary want of resources for the nation.
Whenever this measure has been taken, it has given rise to heated discussions and has been looked upon with repugnance by both foreigners and natives.
The government, notwithstanding, compelled by necessity, has not been able to do less than to adopt means as well known to be undesirable as regretted by all.
The existing treaties do not prohibit forced loans where they are general, and though the foreign text of some appears to prohibit them generally, the Spanish proves in the most irrefragible manner that the prohibition only extends to special forced loans, and not to those which comprehend all classes.
It cannot, be doubted, also, that the government should consult the Spanish text, nor should it be restrained in any manner by the stipulation relative to the declarations of 1827, for besides the fact that the Spanish of these has the same signification as that of the treaties, it is very obvious that, as the said declarations have not been ratified, they are of no force or value.
Notwithstanding this, the good intention of the government, its equity, and the desire with which it was animated to make known to that of France that in the adjustment of the existing differences it would never abandon the principles that it believed most in conformity with the universal practice of civilized countries, required that in this point it should manifest a disposition favorable to satisfy the demand relative to France.
Forced loans, in fact, indicate by their very name an arbitrary act and an attack upon property: the violence by which they may be exacted, and the difficulty of an equitable and proportionate application, have rendered inevitable measures as alarming as disagreeable for Mexicans and foreigners. They have been viewed, also, in a very unfavorable manner by other governments of friendly nations, and, indeed, have appeared little in conformity with the principles of order and civilization of all representative countries. In view, therefore, of these observations, as well founded as politic, this point ought to be ceded, but in such a manner as shall not be understood to be a special concession to the government of France, but taken as a general resolution not to impose forced loans in the future, the reclamation with respect to the French will at the same time be satisfied.
This declaration would not in any way impair the legality of these loans in the past, nor give rise to reclamations from other powers, because, although on the part of Mexico it should be agreed not to impose them in the future, no responsibility would be assumed for the past, with respect to which the reasons on which the declarations would be founded would be solely that of public convenience and policy, and not of rigorous right nor of strict justice. The present administration can proceed upon this point with all the more liberty from the explanations that have already been made in congress by the organ of the ministry regarding the inconveniences of forced loans, and the desirableness that they should not hereafter be decreed by the legislative body. Thus, notwithstanding the extraordinary scarcity in the treasury in consequence of the blockade of the ports of the republic, there has not been initiated during my administration any such measure, and there have been only proposed such as were in conformity with the indisputable right of the nation, to provide sufficiently for the public expenditures.
The article of the convention of Jalapa relative to this subject avoided all difficulties, was in conformity with all that could be desired in the adjustment by the governments of friendly nations and by the Mexicans themselves, and has manifested equally that on the part of Mexico all would be ceded that it was possible to yield, and the convenience of facilitating the desired adjustment was recognized.
Final proposition of convention submitted by the Mexican plenipotentiary at Jalapa, November 26, 1838.
Article 6. The Mexican government being agreed that forced loans shall not be imposed either upon natives or upon foreigners, the demand of the government of France in this point with respect to French citizens is, consequently, satisfied.
Spanish text.
Articulo 6. Estande conforme el gobierno Mexicano en que no se impongan préstamos forzosos ni á nacionales ni á estranjeros queda en concecuencia satisfecha, en este punto la demanda del gobierno de Francia respecto á los ciudadanos Francesas.