Plumb to Señor Lerdo de Tejada, January 22, 1868

Mr. Plumb to Señor Lerdo de Tejada.

Dear Sir: I feel it my duty, as the only foreign representative in this country, and in the spirit of the correspondence that has taken place between the government of the United States and the government of Mexico, upon the subject of the extension of the protection of the United States to foreigners resident in this country who are in a condition of non-representation, to call your earnest attention to the occurrence that has taken place in San Luis Potosi, where a number of the leading foreign merchants have been imprisoned, in addition to the embargo of their property, because they have declined to pay a contribution summarily levied upon them by the governor of that state.

My attention was called to this matter by the telegraphic accounts of what occurred published in the papers of this city; but I now lay before you copies of two letters, not addressed to me, but which have been placed in my hands, from highly respectable commercial houses at San Luis, whose partners have been imprisoned, and which give a full account of the affair.

By no modern legislation is the person of the individual held for the payment of public taxes. His property is liable to the extent of all he possesses, to meet the equitable and proportional contributions, levied in accordance with law, required by the legitimate necessities of the government under which he lives; but the individual is not held liable to personal imprisonment because he is unable or unwilling to pay the civil demands that may be made upon him. This was the case under Marquez, but it had been supposed that time had passed.

In your note to Mr. Otterbourg, of the 7th of September last, you state that “foreigners resident in Mexico, who have no representative of their government, have been and are under the protection of the Mexican authorities, to whom they can apply with confidence that they have enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy, the guarantees conceded by the laws of the republic.”

In your note to me of the 26th of October last, you add: “Although such subjects have not a representative of their own, the government will watch with special care to see that they are protected by the Mexican authorities, and that they enjoy the guarantees conceded by the laws of the republic.”

In your note on the 11th of December last to Mr. Middleton, the late chargé d’affaires of England in this country, I find it stated that “the government has taken care that English subjects resident in Mexico shall be under the effective protection of the laws,” and “the same as until now, the government of the republic will comply with the duty imposed upon it by public law and by its own legislation.”

In the discourse of the President of the republic at the opening of the sessions of the national congress on the 8th of December, he said:

“The government has also taken care that the subjects of such nations resident in the republic shall be under the protection of the laws and the authorities. The efficacy of this protection has been such that there has been no ground for complaint. It has been practically demonstrated that under the illustration of our people, and under the principles of our liberal institutions, foreigners resident in Mexico, without the necessity of the special protection of treaties, are considered on an equality with Mexicans and enjoy the rights and the guarantees established by the laws.”

In the manifesto, issued on the 8th instant by the national congress of the republic, bearing the signature of one hundred and fifteen deputies, from twenty-one States, the Territory of Lower California and the federal district, it is stated as follows:

“Meanwhile it is honorable for our people who have been so atrociously calumniated, that the world is seeing that in Mexico foreigners, in order to enjoy every guarantee, require no other protection than that of the laws and the Mexican authorities.”

Whether, therefore, what has now occurred at San Luis is the act of the State authorities or of the federal authorities, the duty has been assumed by the general government of the republic of securing to foreigners the guarantees authorized by the constitution and the laws of the country.

Section 1, article 1, of the constitution of the republic, I find is as follows:

“The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the basis and the object of social institutions. Wherefore it is declared that all the laws and the authorities of the country must respect and sustain the guarantees established by the present constitution.”

Article 14 states that “no retroactive law shall be passed. No one shall be judged or sentenced except under laws of date anterior to the fact, and exactly applicable to the case, and by a tribunal which shall have been previously established by law.”

Article 16 states that “no one may be molested in his person, family, domicile, papers, or possessions, except in virtue of a written order from a competent authority, based upon legal cause for the proceeding.”

Article 17 prescribes that “no man can be arrested for debts of a character purely civil;” and article 18 that “imprisonment shall only take place for offenses which merit personal punishment. In whatever stage of the proceedings it shall appear that the accused may not be liable to this penalty, he shall be put at liberty under bail. In no case shall the imprisonment be prolonged for default of payment of fees, or whatever other furnishing of money.”

Article 19 further adds that “no detention shall exceed the term of three days, except upon proof of sufficient reason for imprisonment, in conformity with the requisites required by law.

“The sole lapse of this time shall render responsible the authority that orders or consents to it, and the agents, officers, or jailors that execute it.”

In section 2, article 31, it is declared that it is obligatory upon all Mexicans “to contribute towards public expenses as well of the federation as of the state and municipality where they may reside, in an equitable and proportional manner, as shall be prescribed by the laws.”

And in section 3, article 33, with reference to foreigners, it is stated that “they are entitled to the guarantees established by section 1, article 1, of the present constitution, (which have been quoted,) except that in all cases the government has the right to expel those who are pernicious to society. It is obligatory upon them to contribute toward public expenses in the manner that may be prescribed by the laws, and to obey and respect the institutions, laws, and authorities of the country, submitting to the judgments and sentences of the tribunals, without power to seek other protection than that which the laws concede to Mexican citizens.”

And, finally, article 126 of the constitution states as follows:

“This constitution, the laws of the congress of the union which emanate from it, and all treaties made or that may be made by the President of the republic, with the approbation of congress, shall be the supreme law of all the union. The judges of each State in giving their decisions shall do so in conformity with said constitution, laws and treaties, anything to the contrary that there may be in the laws or constitutions of the States notwithstanding.”

Under these constitutional provisions, and under the declarations that have been made by the Mexican government, there can be but one opinion entertained by the world, if the foreigners who have been thus imprisoned at San Luis are not immediately plaeed at liberty, and there be not some power felt throughout the republic, by which the occurrence of such acts in the future can be prevented.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,