of the Free Zone in Mexico what was really the consequence of the civil war in the United States, and of the new condition of things brought about by the restoration of peace, and that they should account for their depressed condition by the existence of the Free Zone, although in that opinion they were utterly mistaken, and perhaps some others were guided by a feeling of jealousy or envy for the passing prosperity that the Mexican side of the line enjoyed during that war. Their complaints and murmurs naturally spread to the Members of Congress from the respective districts, and finally reached the highest officials of the United States Government. As Mexican affairs had been then so little understood in the United States, and this question had not been presented in its true light, the impression finally prevailed that the establishment of the Free Zone was an act of hostility on the part of Mexico towards the United States, intended to destroy its commerce and to favor smuggling into this country to the prejudice of its Treasury and bona-fide merchants. Of course the existence of this impression afforded a good opportunity to anybody who desired to attack or abuse Mexico to do so, as was the case with Mr. Schleicher, a Representative from Texas, of whom I shall presently speak.

It was in this way that almost all the representatives of the United States in Mexico since the restoration of the Republic in 1867, beginning with Mr. Edward Lee Plumb, General Rosecrans, Mr. Thomas H. Nelson, and especially Mr. John W. Foster, and some of their successors, seemed to labor under the impression-judging from the correspondence which they sent to the State Department on the subject, published afterwards by Congress-that the Mexican Free Zone was a very great injury to the United States; and several secretaries of state, including such distinguished men as Mr. Hamilton Fish, Mr. William M. Evarts, and others, seem-very likely for want of sufficient information to have given the Free Zone more importance than it really deserved.

This impression extended even to President Grant who, in three of his annual messages to Congress, spoke of the Mexican Free Zone, expressing the mistaken opinion about that institution which prevailed for so long.'

' Extract from the annual message of President Grant, December 5, 1870: "It is to be regretted that our representations in regard to the injurious effects, especially upon the revenue of the United States, of the policy of the Mexican Government, in exempting from impost duties a large tract of its territory on our borders, have not only been fruitless, but that it is even proposed in that country to extend the limits within which the privilege adverted to has hitherto been enjoyed.

"The expediency of taking into your serious consideration proper measures for countervailing the policy referred to will, it is presumed, engage your earnest attention." Extract from the annual message of President Grant, December 4, 1871 : "The republic of Mexico has not yet repealed the very objectionable laws estab

Mr. Samuel A. Belden, a citizen of the United States, residing at Brownsville, Texas, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated in Washington on September 21, 1868,' in which he said that the effect of the Free Zone had been most disastrous to the commerce of lishing what is known as the Free Zone' on the frontier of the United States. It is hoped that this may yet be done, and also that more stringent measures may be taken by that republic for restraining lawless persons on its frontiers. I hope that Mexico, by its own action, will soon relieve this government of the difficulties experienced from these causes."

"

Extract from the annual message of President Grant, December 7, 1875:

"The Free Zone, so called, several years since established by the Mexican Government in several of the states of that republic adjacent to our frontier, remains in full operation. It has always been materially injurious to honest traffic, for it operates as an incentive to traders in Mexico to supply without customs-charges the wants of the inhabitants on this side the line, and prevents the same wants from being supplied by merchants of the United States, thereby, to a considerable extent, defrauding our revenue and checking honest commercial enterprise."

1 "WASHINGTON, D. C., September 21, 1868.

"Some time in the year 1857 or '58 the governor of the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, issued a decree authorizing the merchants and citizens inhabiting the strips of territory embraced in the portion of the State extending from the mouth of the Rio Grande to its farthest boundary, and from the river inland for two leagues, to introduce free of duty, merchandise of all classes.

"This is known as the Zona Libre (free belt), and the decree of the governor was in operation for three years before it was ratified by the general government, and is in full force at this time, notwithstanding the protest of the cities of Tampico and Veracruz against it as partial and unjust. The government was not in a condition to refuse any demand on the frontier, because of the heroic defenses which the inhabitants had made against Carvajal and other raiders. The merchandise introduced under this decree is required to pay duties only when exported from the Zona Libre to the interior of Mexico, or to the United States side of the Rio Grande, and its effect has been most disastrous to the commerce of the city of Brownsville, and other towns on our side of the Rio Grande, as well as to the revenue of the United States. No argument is required to prove this, nor can there be any doubt that it is the cause of the immense amount of contraband trade upon the frontier, the inducements to which are irresistible to such as are willing to engage in it, particularly in liquors and foreign merchandise, which can be purchased at Matamoros at a very small advance over the foreign cost, and their introduction into the United States at some point in an extended frontier of upwards of nine hundred miles, cannot be prevented.

"Prior to the existence of this decree the amount of merchandise in the United States bonded warehouses at Brazos de Santiago and Brownsville ranged from one to three millions of dollars, but since that period the trade has dwindled to such a point the custom-house there, instead of being a means of revenue, is an expense to the United States.

"For the removal of this incubus upon the trade of the citizens of our frontier they are without power, but think that the relations which have existed between the governments of Mexico and the United States, since the passage of the decree, will justify prompt action on the part of the United States to terminate so flagrant an injustice. "Very respectfully,

"SAM. A. BELDEN, Brownville, Tex."

the city of Brownsville and other towns on the American side of the Rio Grande, as well as to the revenue of the United States, and that prior to the existence of the Free Zone the amount of merchandise in the United States bonded warehouses at Brazos de Santiago and Brownsville ranged from one to three millions of dollars, and that since that period the trade has dwindled to such a point that the custom-house there, instead of being a means of revenue, was an expense to the United States; calling the Free Zone a flagrant injustice, and concluded by asking the prompt action on the part of the United States to terminate the Free Zone. Mr. Belden's personal interests might have been adversely affected by the Free Zone, or he might have shared in good faith the prejudices of his neighbors, due to the want of a proper understanding of the case; he also forgot the changed condition of things in the South caused by the then recent civil war, but be this as it will, such slender grounds as those stated in his letter were made the subject of a communication addressed by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Hugh McCulloch, to the Department of State, on September 26, 1868,' endorsing Mr. Belden's views, and asserting that the Free Zone seriously affected the growth and prosperity of that portion of the United States which borders on the Rio Grande.

This statement of facts shows how easy it is to mislead public opinion, not only in complex, but even in simple questions, and how difficult it is, when an error is allowed to spread and to prevail un

MR. MCCULLOCH TO MR. SEWARD.

“TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 26, 1868. "SIR-I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a communication, dated the 21st instant, from Mr. Samuel A. Belden, of Brownsville, Tex., in reference to the existence on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande of a belt of country which is free to

commerce.

"It is alleged by Mr. Belden, and it has also been represented to the department through other sources, that by reason of the existence of such free belt of country, the loss to the revenue by means of smuggling is immense and continually increasing, and that it seriously affects the growth and prosperity of that portion of the United States which borders on the Rio Grande.

"In view of these representations, it is respectfully suggested whether it would not be advisable to bring to the notice of the Mexican authorities the exemption of that section of the country lying in immediate proximity to the United States, from customs duties, and exactions which, so far as I am advised, are enforced throughout the residue of the republic, thus inviting importation of merchandise with a view to its introduction into the United States without the payment of duty, and imposing a heavy expense on the United States Government for the protection of the revenue on that frontier, without any corresponding benefit to Mexico, that I can perceive, which would justify a measure so injurious to a neighboring and friendly power.

I am, very respectfully,

"Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

"H. MCCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.

64

Secretary of State."

challenged, to bring things back to their true condition, the result often being not only unpleasant, but highly dangerous.

Adverse Action of the United States Congress on the Free Zone.-The mistaken opinion that prevailed regarding the Free Zone was naturally reflected in Congress. As early as June 9, 1868, Mr. Blaine introduced in the House of Representatives a resolution,' which passed by unanimous consent, instructing the Committee on Foreign Affairs to inquire whether the action of the Mexican Government in establishing the free ports at Matamoros and other points on the Rio Grande was not in violation of treaty stipulations and unfriendly to the commercial rights of this country.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs called on the State Department for a copy of the papers relating to the subject of Mr. Blaine's resolution, and Mr. Seward sent to General Banks, chairman of that committee, such letters from Mr. Plumb and other diplomatic representatives of the United States in the City of Mexico, as were in possession of the State Department, with his letters of December 17, 1868, and January 2, 1869. With his clear mind, Mr. Seward understood at once, even with the meagre information then at hand, that Mexico had violated no right of the United States in establishing the Free Zone, and in his letter accompanying the correspondence in answer to the queries of the resolution he said: "I am under the impression that the establishment of the Free Zone, so-called, is not at variance with any existing treaty stipulation between the United States and the Mexican Republic."

After receiving the preceding letter the committee failed to make any report on Mr. Blaine's resolution.

On December 6, 1869, a meeting was held in the city of Brownsville, Texas, largely attended by citizens of that city and the adjoining country, and the meeting appointed Edward Downey, Mayor of Brownsville, a delegate to come to Washington to ask Congress that measures be taken to procure from the Mexican Government the abolition of the Free Zone, with a view to prevent smuggling into the United States, and for the protection of American interests on the frontier.

Mr. Downey, therefore, came to Washington and addressed a long memorial to Congress dated January 10, 1870, in which he repeated the assertions of Mr. Belden, that the Free Zone had been established

'House of Representatives Journal, 2d Session, Fortieth Congress, p. 827. "Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be instructed to inquire whether the action of the Mexican Government in establishing free ports at Matamoros and other points on the Rio Grande is not in violation of treaty stipulations and unfriendly to the commercial rights of this country."

Mr. Downey's memorial is published as Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 19, Forty-first Congress, 2d Session, and being a lengthy paper and full of errors and misrepresentations, I will not insert it here.

by the Mexican Government as an act of hostility to the United States, and for the main purpose of encouraging the smuggling of foreign goods into this country, adding that the Free Zone was the outcome of the efforts of European merchants on the Mexican side of the frontier; that during the War of Rebellion the Mexican Government. sympathized with the Southern Confederacy, and to assist it Mexico had reduced to one fourth the duties on munitions of war for the benefit of the Confederates, an assertion entirely at variance with the facts. He stated that the loss suffered by the United States Treasury in consequence of the smuggling carried on by the Free Zone, was estimated from one to six millions of dollars a year, and asserted that the Free Zone had been extended through the whole Mexican frontier with the United States, when that extension did not take place until 1885. How far was correct the assertion regarding the supposed sympathy of the Mexican Government with the Confederates will appear from what I have already stated, and from the facts that I will mention in considering Senator Patterson's report, which accepted the same assertion. This memorial was referred to the joint Select Committee on Retrenchment, which did not take any action on the same. Fortunately a remarkable change of feeling has taken place in Brownsville in so far as the Free Zone is concerned, as will be seen farther on.

Public men in the United States, or at least some of them, had been for some time under the impression that the way to abolish the Free Zone was to repeal the acts which allowed foreign merchandise to go in bond to frontier custom-houses, as if Mexico was very anxious, which was by no means the case, that the border towns of the United States should enjoy that privilege, and this accounts for the efforts made to repeal such acts, which were always unsuccessful until Mr. Cockrell passed his bill, to which I will presently refer.

In accordance with this view, Senator Patterson, of New Hampshire, introduced on April 9, 1870, in the second session of the Fortyfirst Congress, a bill' to repeal all existing laws authorizing the

1 Forty-first Congress, 2d Session (Senate, 783). In the Senate of the United States, April 9, 1870, Mr. Patterson asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the following bill, which was read twice, referred to the joint Select Committee on Retrenchment, and ordered to be printed:

"A Bill to repeal all existing laws authorizing the transportation and exportation of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond to Mexico, overland or by inland waters, and for other purposes.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Sec. 1. That all existing laws authorizing the transportation and exportation of goods, wares, and merchandise in bond to Mexico, overland or by inland waters, be and the same are hereby repealed.

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all existing provisions of law authorizing the payment of drawback upon goods, wares, and merchandise exported from the