Señor Matias Romero to William H. Seward, March 25, 1866

Señor Romero to Mr. Seward

Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday, informing me that “in reference to my communication of this date, requesting that the necessary orders may be given by this government to prevent the exportation of five thousand muskets purchased by agents of the usurper Maximilian, and embarked not as private property, but on account of the said usurper,” you enclose me the copy of a note from the Attorney General of the United States, whose opinion you had readily asked, and from which . it appears that the orders referred to would be illegal.

I also received the copy of the note of the Attorney General of the United States addressed to you yesterday, stating that the question was settled by the opinion he gave to the State Department on the 23d of December, 1865, off which you sent me a copy with your note of the 24th of that month.

The Attorney General states that that opinion was given in reply to a complaint of mine against the order issued on the 11th of October, 1865, by General McDowell, commander-in-chief of the military department of California,. prohibiting the exportation of arms and munitions of war across the northwestern frontier of Mexico; that the order was then declared illegal; and adds, there is no essential difference between that case and the present, for as far as neutrals are concerned, belligerent parties must consider them as equals.

The Attorney General concludes by saying that “he is acquainted with no law or regulation that prohibits any person or government, whether the firm be real or fictitious, from buying arms from citizens of the United States and shipping them at the risk of the purchaser.

In submitting to the government of the United States for the first time the question of the legality of the exportation of articles contraband of war from this country to one of the belligerents in the present war in Mexico, you replied to me in your note of the 24th of November, 1862, enclosing me the copy of a note from the Treasury Department to the Department of State, dated the 20th of the same month, (Executive Document No. 11, sent to the Senate of the 38th Congress, 1st session, page 19,) and extracts of authorities quoted by the Solicitor of the Treasury, from which it appears that the purchase of articles contraband of war in the United States, and their exportation for the use of belligerents, is permitted when it is done in trade by way of merchandise and private speculation, but not when done directly by one of the belligerents, with the declared intention to be used against the other belligerent, with whom the United States are at peace.

This is the same principle, in my judgment, that serves as a foundation for the neutrality laws of the United States, which prohibit the arming of vessels of war in the United States for belligerents, as well as the organization of hostilities against either of the belligerent parties.

Such, at least, was my understanding of the neutrality laws of this country, up to the present time, deduced from data furnished me by your department; that is, trade in articles contraband of war for the use of belligerents, was lawful when carried on by merchants as a private speculation, but unlawful when done by the belligerents themselves.

For that reason I complained of General McDowell’s order, supposing it prohibited all trade, both that which I considered to be lawful and what I held as unlawful, and I requested it to be revoked in regard to the first.

And for the same reason I requested in my note of yesterday that the necessary orders should be issued to . prevent the clearance of the “five thousand muskets purchased and shipped in the steamer Manhattan for Vera Cruz, by the agents of the usurper Maximilian,” stating I had been assured that the muskets had been shipped, “not as private property, but on account of the said usurper;” and I added, “that I desired the orders to be issued, in case the facts were as they had been represented to me.”

The Attorney General says that “he knows of no law or regulation which forbids any person or government, whether the political designation be real or assumed, from purchasing arms from citizens of the United States and shipping them at the risk of the purchaser,” and this statement makes me believe that I have been mistaken in my understanding of the laws of this country, since I cannot suppose for a moment that a restrictive interpretation to the disadvantage of Mexico has been given to them, up to the present moment. In this supposition I have now to state, that I accept the interpretation the Attorney General gives to those laws, not doubting, of course, from the equity and good faith of the government of the United States, that they will be interpreted in the same manner when the Mexican government attempts to purchase and export articles contraband of war from the ports of the United States, or over its frontier.

I do not pretend to ask that any law of this country be interpreted in favor of Mexico, to the detriment of the other belligerent, (the French government,) but I think it is reasonable to ask that no interpretation be adopted by which Mexico is placed in a situation inferior to that of her enemy.

As the Attorney General seems to consider me inconsistent in asking the revocation of an order prohibiting the exportation of arms across the frontier, and a few months afterwards asking the prohibition of the shipping of arms purchased, not by way of merchandise, but by agents of the usurper Maximilian, and on his account, “provided the facts were as they had been represented to me,” I take the liberty to request you, if there be no objection, to communicate to him the explanations I make in this note.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.