Wulfsohn against the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic (195 N. Y. Supp. 472) that an unrecognized foreign government is a foreign corporation aggregate and like a foreign corporation which has failed to comply with the requirements of the general corporation law and tax law, it cannot sue but may be sued in our courts. As bearing upon the effects of this decision, Messrs. Polk and Hess argued that there is a large distinction between the respective positions of Mexico and Soviet Russia vis-à-vis the United States, since informal relations are maintained with the Mexican Administration, which has in the United States its embassy, consuls and other representatives, while no such relations are maintained with Soviet Russia. Mr. Baker remarked that there undoubtedly was a distinction in fact but that the distinction in law was more difficult to see. Mr. Polk stated that the British courts had refused to entertain suits against the Soviet Government and Mr. Baker stated that this might be based upon the fact that the British Board of Trade, a quasi governmental institution, had made a trade agreement with the Soviet Government, thus extending some measure of recognition. Mr. Hess stated that he was present from a desire to arrive at some friendly solution of the problems arising out of the suit and attachments and that from his information he believed the judge who granted the attachments had acted pro forma, was inclined to regret such action and might welcome an opportunity to vacate the attachments. Mr. Hess therefore proposed that the Department might think it appropriate to communicate with the Governor of New York in an effort to have the Attorney General of that State go before the court as amicus curiae and make some statement to the effect that while the Obregon Administration was not recognized by this Government, yet the Mexican Nation was so recognized and that the United States maintains friendly though informal relations with that Nation. The Department's representatives stated that it desired to compose the existing difficulties but of course did not desire to do any injustice to the Oliver Trading Company, an American corporation, and Mr. Baker stated that even if the Mexican Administration were recognized by this Government, the Department according to its precedents would hardly be justified in taking any action on behalf of a business concern like the National Railways of Mexico, even though controlled by the government. Mr. Polk apparently acquiesced in this view, referring to the Department's position with respect to government owned merchant vessels. Finally the Acting Secretary stated that the Department was concerned over the existing difficulties and would consider what remedial action, if any, it was in a position to take. J[OSEPH] R. B[AKER] 702.1211/1128 Mexican Executive Decree Suspending Commercial Relations with the State of New York ** [Translation] WHEREAS, some authorities of the State of New York have established the violative precedent that any country which does not maintain official relations with the Government of the United States of North America lacks personality before the Courts of the State mentioned to require fulfillment of obligations contracted with it by persons or companies domiciled in said State; yet, on the other hand, that unrecognized country may be brought into court as subject of a cause and its properties embargoed (attached) by persons or companies, in disregard of its rights and sovereignty and in disregard, also, of the prerogatives which pertain to it pursuant to International Law; and WHEREAS, Mexico is included in the foregoing case, as shown recently on an occasion when in seeking the fulfillment of a contract or purchase and sale of ships, personality to prosecute an action was denied on the ground that its Government had not been recognized by the Government of the United States of America, and that, subsequently, by virtue of a claim made by the Oliver Trading Company against the National Railways of Mexico, the New York Courts were not only declared to have jurisdiction to sit in the premises but they ordered the sequestration of goods and chattels belonging to the Nation: Now, THEREFORE: The Executive in my charge has resolved that all the dependencies of the Federal Government shall suspend all manner of commercial operations or contracts of whatsoever kind with persons or associations domiciled in the State of New York; and that Governors of the Mexican States be urged to issue similar resolutions. Your Secretariat is informed in respect of the foregoing to the end that it may, in its turn, advise all the dependencies and departments of the Federal Government and the Governments of the Mexican States. Effective Suffrage. No Re-Election. The President of the Republic, A. OBREGÓN Transmitted by the Chargé in Mexico as an enclosure to his despatch nʊ. 6576, Nov. 2, 1922. Published in El Universal, Nov. 1, 1922. 702.1211/1117a The Acting Secretary of State to the Attorney General of the State of New York (Newton) WASHINGTON, October 31, 1922. SIR: For your information and such use as you may desire to make of this letter, I beg to confirm the following telegram sent by me on this date to The Honorable the Governor of New York: "The Honorable October 31, 1922. Reference Department's telegram October 27, concerning litigation instituted in New York Supreme Court Rockland County, by Oliver Trading Company against Mexican authorities. I beg to request that you will be so good as to ask a law officer of your State to appear before the court at a favorable opportunity to make the following statement upon the authority of the Department of State: "The Government of the United States has at present no official relations with the administration now functioning in Mexico. This fact, however, does not affect the recognition of the Mexican State itself, which for years has been recognized by the United States as an "international person ", as that term is understood in international practice. The existing situation simply is that there is no official intercourse between the two States.' I have [etc.] (Signed, William Phillips, Acting Secretary of State.)" WILLIAM PHILLIPS 702.1211/1116 The Acting Secretary of State to the Governor of the State of New York (Miller) 65 WASHINGTON, November 4, 1922. SIR: Referring to recent telegraphic correspondence regarding the case of the Oliver Trading Company versus the present Mexican regime, I have the honor to enclose a translation of a communication dated November 1, 1922, from the representative in Washington of the administration now functioning in Mexico, in which he points out that while the attachment on the property of the Mexican Consulate General at New York has been raised, the order issued by the judicial authorities of the State of New York against the Mexican Financial Agency and the office of the International Railways of Mexico at New York City, as well as the depositories of Mexican funds, still stands; and he requests the Department to exercise its 6 Not printed. good offices looking to the raising of the order of attachment on the property of the institutions mentioned. 66 In bringing this communication to your attention, I have the honor to request that you will consider it in connection with my telegram of October 31, 1922, concerning the litigation in question, in which the Department requested that the statement quoted therein be placed before the appropriate Court of your State. I have [etc.] WILLIAM PHILLIPS 702.1211/1130 The Governor of the State of New York (Miller) to the Secretary of State ALBANY, November 14, 1922. SIR: I have the honor to refer to previous correspondence regarding the matter of the Oliver Trading Company against the Government of Mexico. I am advised by the Attorney-General of this State that the attorneys for defendant in the above matter made an application for the removal of the case from the State to the Federal courts and that it has been granted. It is apparent therefore, that further intervention by the Attorney-General of the State of New York will not be necessary. Respectfully submitted, NATHAN L. MILLER 702.1211/1134 The Governor of the State of New York (Miller) to the Secretary of State ALBANY, November 20, 1922. DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of November thirteenth,67 informing me of the receipt by your Department of a communication from the local representative of the administration now functioning in Mexico to the effect that Mr. Faustino Roel has been appointed Consul General of Mexico at New York City. It is noted that while the United States government has not recognized the present Mexican regime, the Department of State 65 Quoted in letter of Oct. 31, to the Attorney General of the State of New York, p. 714. Not printed. considers that it is advisable for agents of this government to raise no question as to the lack of formal recognition of Mr. Roel. I can assure you that New York State will be glad to extend every courtesy to Mr. Roel in his capacity as Consul General of Mexico and in order that the Secretary of State of New York may be fully advised as to the position taken, I have caused to have filed in that Department a copy of your communication. Very truly yours, NATHAN L. MILLER 702.1211/1150 The First Secretary of the Mexican Embassy (Téllez) to the Chief of the Division of Mexican Affairs, Department of State (Hanna) [Translation] WASHINGTON, December 14, 1922. MY DEAR MR. HANNA: With reference to the antecedents in the case of the complaints of the Oliver American Trading Company, I have received instructions, which I hereby carry out, to apply to the Department and to say that the Government of Mexico yesterday sent to the Consul General at New York permission to appear, if necessary, before the United States Judges who now have charge of the said case, with the understanding that when he so appears he will have no other object than that of confirming before the said Judges the protests already made by the Government of Mexico at the Department of State, and insisting that Mexico does not acknowledge their jurisdiction over a case in which the Government appears as a defendant. I am further instructed to make it clear that the appearance of our Consul General at New York in the Federal court above mentioned does not mean that the Government of Mexico acknowledges them to have jurisdiction in any way whatsoever in the case. I beg [etc.] MANUEL C. TÉLLEZ TERMINATION OF THE EMBARGO ON THE SHIPMENT OF ARMS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO MEXICO 812.113/9306a: Telegram 63 The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) WASHINGTON, March 3, 1922-11 a. m. 32. A Joint Resolution of Congress approved January 31, 1922 (See Congressional Record of January 18, 1922, Page 1499) repeals 68 For previous correspondence relating to the embargo, see Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. 1, pp. 241 ff. |