Carranza and his bolshevik regime

Front matter

m

li'ii'lliKi I . , '/'"'

iliilSiH?»i1 iiIm:;'"

Contents

PAGE

CHAPTER I —The Mexican constitution of 1917 is illegitimate, viewed from a legal, political or revolutionarystandpoint 3

CHAPTER II.— The Assembly of Queretaro, which approved the constitution of 1917, did not represent the will of the entire riation but merely that of an armedrninority of the proletariat. ... 13

Chapter I

The Fedebal Congress of Mexico, composed of the Chamber of Senators and the Chamber of Deputies, was the only legitimate body authorized by the Constitution of 1857 to revise and amend that Constitution. To accomplish this the action of a two-thirds majority of said body, followed by the ratification of a majority of the State Legislatures, was necessary.

Nevertheless, Carranza called together a special assembly which met in Queretaro, the sole object of which assembly was to approve the fundamental code which is in force today in Mexico.

Carranza foresaw since his first decree of September 19th, 1916, that the nation — or, to use his own term, the "reactionaries" — would not fail to protest against the bastardity of the Constitution's origin. He, therefore at once attempted to justify himself byadvancing the argument that the revolution of Ayutla, which overthrew the tyranny of Santa Anna, had also convened a Constituent Congress and sanctioned a fundamental code without abiding by the regulations of the Constitution of 1824.

What ignorance, or shall we say duplicity, did he display in citing this precedent!

According to the wording of the "Plan de Ayutla" — amended at Acapulco — "Those of its good sons who launched forth to vindicate their rights so scandalously trampled upon, cherished not even the vaguest idea of imposing conditions upon the sovereign will of the nation, either re-establishing by force of arms the federal system or restoring things to the same state in which they were at the time of the 'Plan de Jalisco': for, all those things relating to the form under which the nation must definitely establish itself must be submitted to the Congress which shall be called to that end; thus is it made known publicly and explicitly even now."

Consistent with this program, the fifth clause of the above mentioned plan promised the nation that "fifteen days after the president 'ad interim' undertakes his new duties, he shall convene a special congress in conformity with the provisions of the law enacted for that purpose on the 16th of December, 1841, which shall devote itseK exclusively to the work of organizing the nation as a popular representative republic and investigating the acts of the present government, and those of the provisional executive, which are treated of in Article 2. This constituent congress is to meet four months after its convocation."

Thus we see that the Revolution of Ayutla did not offer to restore to the nation a former constitutional system, but rather to convene a constituent assemblage, the form of which had been previously agreed upon, with the object of drawing up a representative, republican and popular constitution.

This was the explicit pledge of the Revolution of Ayutla and it was carried out to the very letter. Nor did the leaders of that revolution deceive the people with the intention of dragging them into armed strife, nor did they defraud them after victory was obtained.

The revolution of Carranza proceeded along entirely different lines.

From its very origin, it proclaimed itself "the restorer of the constitutional system.

6 Carranza and His Bolshevik Regimb

which, it declared,[hadibeen|^violated with the overthrow of Madero. This system was established by the Constitution of 1857. Even though in the course of its development, the revolution of Carranza was obliged to proclaim the necessity of political, economic and social reforms, nevertheless it did not renounce, at least publicly, its originally declared purpose. In addition to the fact that it assumed the deceiving name of "Constitutionalism," there are numberless documents in which it pledged itself expressly or by implication to support the Constitution of 1857, with the amendments so loudly advocated appended.

It is unnecessary, in order to prove the foregoing statements, to quote the official and confidential messages transmitted by Carranza agents to the United States Government. Suffice it to say that Carranza's manifesto to the Nation, issued on June 11th, 1915, to which I shall refer later on, was the outcome of pledges made in Washington during the course of negotiations relative to the recognition of the de facto government. Proof of this fact was furnished by Richard H. Cole, one of Carranza's confidential emissaries, who made public the following telegram sent to him in care of the Mexican Embassy at Washington by Carranza on the 23rd of May, 1915: "Received your courteous message. The proclamation will be issued in due time. "

It will suffice also to quote the following statements published by the American press, with reference to the Mexican-American conference held in New London on the 12th of September, 1916: "The Mexican Deputies expect that the election of the Congress which vyill formulate and submit the new Constitution to the various state legislatures will be simultaneous with the local elections." Like all reports given out by the press at that time, this report was published after being passed by these same deputies and therefore, there can be no doubt as to its authenticity. This report shows, unquestionably, that in the opinion of the official representatives of the de facto Carranza government the approval of Congress, that is, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, and of the State Legislatures was necessary in order to sanction any changes in the constitution.

But I must speak, not exactly of the diplomatic pledges made by Carranza, but rather of those which he gave to the Mexican people. These were numerous and explicit.

Article 2 of the decree of Februar^ 19th, 1913, issued by the Legislature of the State of CoahuUa, as the initial act of the Cqlrrancista insurrection, authorizes the Executive of said State "to arm forces in order to co-operate in sustaining the constitutional system of the Republic. " This constitutional system of the Republic was precisely that of the Constitution of 1857.

The circular issued on the same day by Carranza in which he "urges co-operation in the legitimist movement" affirms that "it is the duty of the general Congress to meet for the purpose of calling at once a special election as provided in Article 81 of our Magna Charta. " Our Magna Charta was of course the Constitution of 1857. And the same circular adds that "the Government of the State finds itself obliged to hoist the flag of legality in order ^to uphold the constitutional government which grew out of the last election." That government to which Carranza referred could be none other than the one established in pursuance with the provisions of the Constitution of 1857.

In the "Plan de Guadalupe" of the 26th of March, 1913, not one word is said regarding the reconstruction of the Nation under a new constitution. On the contrary, in order to justify its stipulations, it states that the "Legislative body and the Judiciary have recognized and supported General Victoriano Huerta contrary to the constitutional laws and precepts." The said constitutional precepts were those of the Constitution of 1857.

The decree modifying the "Plan de Guadalupe" issued on the 12th of December, 1914, asserted that the "constitutional order of things" (originating from the Constitution of 1857) "had been interrupted" as a result of the events which took place on the 19th of February, 1913; and as the "Constitutional Governor of Coahuila had solemnly sworn to uphold and cause to be upheld the general Constitution," which was none other than that of 1857, "he was bound to take up arms in order to re-establish the constitutional system in the Mexican Republic," that is, the Constitution of 1857. And, therefore, "at the triumph of the revolution the First Chief . shall issue the

call for election of the Congress of the Union, " and "shall submit to it the reforms proclaimed and put in force during the strife so that the Congress may ratify, amend, or

10 Carranza and His Bolshevik Regim^

supplement them and may constitutionalize such amendments as may be necessary before the constitutional order of things can be re-established." Such Congress of the Union could be no other than the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies established in conformity with the Fundamental Code of 1857.

Even more explicit is the manifesto which Carranza himself issued to the Nation on the 11th of June, 1915, in order to secure recognition as a de facto government according to his telegram to Richard H. Cole, quoted above, since the following unmistakable statements can be read in said manifesto: "As Governor of the State of Coahuila and in obedience to the Constitutional mandates, articles 121 and 128 of our fundamental Code," — that of 1857 — "I then assumed the representation of our Republic under the terms in which such right is vested in me by the same Constitution" — that of 1857. Not satisfied with simply mentioning these articles, the First Chief made the following exact quotation from them : "Every public ofiicial, without any exception, before assuming his duties, shall take solemn oath to uphold this Constitution" — ^that of 1857 — "and all laws emanating therefrom." "This Constitution shall not lose its force and vigor even though its observance be interrupted by a rebeUion. In case that by any public disturbance a government contrary to the principles which it sanctions is established, its force shall be restored as soon as the people regain their liberty."

Carranza, therefore, very definitely supported the revolution against the government of Huerta upon the precepts of the Constitution of 1857; he called the people to armed strife under that flag; he promised to re-establish the Constitution of 1857, and explicitly acknowledged, furthermore, that inasmuch as this Constitution could not lose its force and vigor, under any circumstance the Nation, immediately upon regaining its liberty, would revert to the observance of this same Constitution of 1857.

Now then, this Constitution contains the following provision:

"Article 127. The present Constitution may be amended. No amendment shall become part of the Constitution, if not agreed upon by the Congress of the Union, by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, and approved by a majority of the Legislatures of the States."

We see, therefore, that regarded in all three aspects — ^legal, political and revolutionary — the

Assembly of Queretaro was the bastard offspring of a coup d'etat, and its work — the Constitution of 1917 — also illegitimate, is inevitably condemned to disappear when "the people regain their liberty" as stipulated in Article 128 of the Magna Charta of 1857 quoted by Carranza in his manifesto of the 11th of June, 1915.

Chapter II

Inasmuch as the Constitution of 1857 provides for its own amendment, and also specifies the legal proceedings to be followed in organizing the administration, why, instead of convoking an illegitimate constituent assembly, did not Carranza immediately call elections for a Federal Congress and President of the Republic at the same time, and compel the military governors of the States to do likewise so as to restore state authorities as well?

Why did he not wait for the Federal Congress and the State Legislatures to be convened in order to submit the constitutional amendments which the revolution had proposed?

The answer is simple.

If the laws of the Magna Charta of 1857 had been honestly observed, all social classes would have participated in the general elections. It would have been impossible to withhold the suffrage either from the Villista faction, which disagreed with the Carrancistas, or from the agrarian faction, represented by Zapata and his followers, or from the scattered adherents of the old regime, or, in general, from all the passive or orderly classes capable, on account of their education, of comprehending the importance of the moment.

But such participation of all the social classes in the coming election augured with absolute certainty the defeat of the ruling faction and its elimination from power.

As a matter of fact, the Carrancista faction was composed of a small percentage of the proletariat. With one or two exceptions, those in its ranks acting as advisers were unsuccessful and embittered professional men, underpaid primary school teachers, mainly from the rural districts, untrained students, and journalists. The officers and heads of the revolutionary army had been recruited from the ranks of foremen, muleteers, policemen, clerks, milkmen, and included also quite a number of drudges, farm hands, peons, and jail-birds.

Such was the group of men which had seized the government by violence, which had confiscated both individual and public property, which had so easily enriched itself with the proceeds of confiscation, levies, and spoliation concomitant with and following the military campaign. Having obtained victory, they naturally were determined to enjoy the spoils, for they considered that the Nation had become their patrimony.

They knew full well that in a free political contest they would be eliminated, not only because of their ignorance and their antecedents, but also because they represented a scanty minority.

One of the foremost members of this group, Machorro Narvaez, speaking before the Constituent Congress, said: "The present revolution is not as yet popular in Mexico. The greater part of the Mexican people are still against the revolution; the higher class, part of the middle and the old intellectual element are against the revolution, as well as the laboring class of a certain rank; clerks and office employees who constitute mainly the middle class are also against the revolution. We are still in the minoriiy. " (Diario de los Debates, Vol. II, page 71).

The ignorance of this revolutionary caste is well known to all, and recognized even by the very mouthpieces of the Carrancista faction.

Bojorquez, another of the members of the Constituent Congress, made this statement: "I can say, and many of my fellow congressmen can say with me, that we do not only lack that preparation" — in financial affairs — "but also all prsparation in constitutional and all other laws; we decide these momentous questions after hearing the pros and cons" — sometimes without even hearing them— "because when we vote we are led more by our revolutionary instinct than by our understanding ..." (Diario de los Debates, Vol. II, page 367).

And as a sample of the boasted revolutionary instinct, as well as of the ignorance of the leaders, let us hear what one of the pillars of the Carrancista party, General Nafarrete, also a member of the Constituent Congress, in discussing the article referring to the freedom of education says: *"As to the explanatory part which treats of individual guarantees, which declares that Mexico is free because it states that Mexico is released from the restriction of those rights which the people declare of its sovereign and free initiative, I believe that it is the representative share of the Executive of the Union in order to state its policy, who is the only one that can occupy that tribune and tell us: 'I deem it necessary, in order to sustain this contro-

(1) — I offer a literal translation of a part of General Nafarrete*8 speech whiob is as unintelligible in Spanish as it is in English. — Author's Note.

versy, to suppress these guarantees,' and not come, gentlemen, to invade the office of the First Magistrate of the Nation so to speak in a manner particular to the ideas. Ideas are sacrifices, gentlemen, as we soldiers sacrifice ourselves. I am willing to justify that the congressmen are invading the office of the First Chief, of the First Magistrate of the Nation, who is the only one who can ask the legislative power whether the suppression of guarantees is to be conceded in whole or in part, for we are in the explanatory session in which we say that man is free. I ask, sir, that my speech may be meditated upon, because the honor of the home is being invaded." (Textual). (Diario de los Debates, Vol. I, page 470).

Thus spoke and thought not the elect of the people, but the select of the triumphant faction !

But if on the one hand this faction, ignorant and in a minority, could expect nothing from a free vote of the people, on the other hand it could rely upon might to kfeep itself in power. Inasmuch as the Constitution of 1857 was an obstruction to this end, it was necessary to give it a death blow; and inasmuch as the banner of the Constitution was also an obstruction, it was necessary to tear it to pieces.

As a result, the proletariat in arms assumed the exclusive right of citizenship, declared itself the proprietor of the Nation and the arbiter of its destiny.

The heads of the military caste joined in what they called the "Liberal Constitutionalist Party, " pledged themselves to support the candidacy of Carranza for the Presidency of the Republic and that of the members of this same caste or its followers for the Constituent Assembly.

The lists of congressmen were drawn up by the military chiefs and revised and arranged by their agent, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior; the congressmen were elected at the polls under the armed pressure of the local military posts and of the military governors of the States in an atmosphere of death and oppression. If here and there a congressman — ^for example those who had belonged to the "Partido Renovador" of the 26th Legislature, during the administration of Madero — succeeded in entering the Constituent Congress, it was through the special efiforts of Carranza, and in absolute opposition to the head of the military caste, General Alvaro Obregon, who went so far as to request Congress to reject the credentials of the "Renovadores."

"I come to point out to this Assembly" — said Candido Aguilar, son-in-law-to-be of Carranza — "that it is becoming a victim of ministerial intrigue. I come to tell the truth even though General Obregon and Mr. Acuna (Secretary of the Interior) are my friends. The intrigue against Mr. Palavicini — one of the 'Renovadores' — ^has been hatched by Mr. Acuna and General Obregon, and though you are all aware of the intrigue, only few of you have the moral courage to oppose it; you always oppose the downf alien. That intrigue, gentlemen, dates from the meetings of the Liberal Constitutionalist Party . . ." "I do not come to incite government crises, I come to speak of personal intrigues, for such were those of Chapultepec. Once, when I was in the company of Mr. Acuna and General Obregon, a man whom I admire, esteem, and look upon as a pride of the Nation, they said to me, 'that man, Palavicini, is giving too much trouble; but he will see, he will not get to Congress." (Diario de los Debates, Vol. I, pages 154-227).

If the Secretaries of War and of the Interior so treated their associates, is it possible to think that they would allow any one not a member of the military faction of the Carrancistas to enter the Constituent Congress.''

The decree of the 15th of September, 1916, has the following provisions: ". . . besides those disqualified by the said Constitution (that of 1857) no one shall be elected who either by taking up arms or by holding government positions, has aided the governments and factions hostile to the constitutionalist cause." (Art. 40).

The letter of convocation for the elections, of the 19th of the same month of September, adds that " those should be considered citizens of a State" — one of the requisites for election — "who had resided in their locality for at least six months prior to the date of the elections" (Art. 8, Section III), "and those who had been qualified citizens or residents of their respective States during the ten days of the uprising in the City of Mexico, provided that they had proved afterwards with actual deeds their adherence to the constitutionalist cause." (Art. 8, Section IV).

And the electoral rules of the same date state that the census to be used shall be "the list of voters for the last municipal elections. " (Art. 20).

In the lists, a large number of voters not identified with the Carrancista cause had been eliminated. Nevertheless, as has been seen.

this was not considered enougli, and those who had supported the governments or factions hostile to the Carrancista cause were also excluded.

But not even this elimination satisfied the military caste, and they finally exacted as a qualification for electors, a residence of six months immediately preceding the election. Such a ruling deprived of the franchise hundreds of thousands of citizens who, fleeing from the atrocities of the revolutionary rabble, had removed from hamlet to town, from town to city, from city to State Capital, and from State Capital to the Metropolis.

And in order that the exclusion might be absolute, all inhabitants who had not proved with actual deeds their adherence to the Carrancista cause, or, in other words, to the dominant proletariat caste, were declared nonresidents.

Thus the Assembly of Queretaro, beside the fact that it had usurped constitutional power, did not even originate in the will of all the social classes expressed at the polls.

The Carrancista mobs, and they alone, organized under the direction of their generals and with the name of Liberal Constitutionalist Party, manufactured the lists of congressmen and obtained credentials for these in fraudulent elections, availing themselves of the public forces managed by the Secretaries of War, of Foreign AflFairs and of the Interior, by the military commanders acting as Governors of the States, and the heads of garrisons, and military posts.

Chapter III

The separation of Church and State deserves special consideration as being one of the greatest victories for public rights gained by the Constitution of 1857 and subsequent amendments.

The Church is a society organized to teach the flock of the faithful the road to Heaven.

The State is a society established to normalize the inter-relations of men living in the same community.

The former seeks spiritual, the latter, temporal perfection. The Church is supreme in dogma, discipline and worship, so long as her external manifestations are not opposed to the public welfare; the State is supreme in its function of regulator of social conduct, but cannot go beyond the threshold of the sacred tribunal of conscience.

Members of different religious communities and at the same time of one lay community, can live at peace with their consciences and with their fellowmen only on condition that the Church refrains from all interference in public matters and the State abstains from all meddling in matters of faith. If it were necessary to confirm with historical evidence this truth, which is now an axiom, it would suflSce to cite the crime of the Inquisition in order to condemn the Church political, and to recall the madness of the worship of Reason in order to anathematize the State pontifical.

From these facts, we draw two conclusions:

Firstly, that all political actions on the part of the Church not only pervert her spiritual ends, but also imperil the peace of nations. No action, no practice of a dogmatic character should serve as a means for obtaining control of governments.

Secondly, as to the individual, the inviolability of conscience must be absolute.

With reference to the first point, the. Constitution of 1857 has no other explicit stipulation than that all ecclesiastics are deprived of the privilege of holding certain offices.

Taking advantage of the fact that the Constitution of 1857 did not expressly forbid religious institutions as such to organize into political parties, the Catholic Church, immediately after the revolution of Madero, formed the "Catholic Party" with a view to taking part in the elections of 1912. The party was supported by the clergy. All from the highest to the lowest, availed themselves of religious offices, the confessional, the pulpit, doctrine, dogma, faith, superstition, and all the instruments at hand to gain proselytes. They worked on the consciences of the people, their friends, and their servants, using the formidable argument of ejternal salvation, and when the ballot-boxes were installed they placed about them standards bearing significant legends. On many of them for example, were inscribed the words: "Here you vote for God. "

The Catholic Church attempted in this way to convert itself into a temporal power in rivalry to the State; it endeavored to re-establish the theocratic regime of the middle ages. It was thus false to the lofty and spiritual ends for which it was instituted at the same time that it substituted religious sentiment for the patriotic spirit in organizing the administration.

We, sincere and earnest liberals, lovers of the State, and solicitous for its progress and development, cannot but applaud the provisions of the Constitution of Queretaro which deny to ministers of any religion the right to hold office, to organize for political ends, to use the pulpit, the confessional, or any other clerical function as an instrument for political propaganda, whether by word of mouth or in writing. We also are in complete accord with the provisions which forbid the similar use of publications and periodicals of a religious character and those which forbid any group or political faction to assume a name implying adherence to a religious creed, and finally, that which prohibits any political meetings to be held in temples of worship.

But in order to be consistent with the same principle of public right, it is only just to admit that the Church must be supreme in questions of faith, that it must enjoy absolute freedom in the determination of its dogmas, in the adoption of its doctrines, in the external forms of its worship, and even in its precepts of morality, with no other restriction on the last two, than a prohibition against perturbing or imperiling public peace or retarding the work of the masses; it must, in addition, be free to organize its hierarchy and to appoint its doctrinal and ofiiciating personnel.

The Constitution of 1857 with its amendments of 1873 places no restriction on liberty of conscience in these matters, and as to external forms of worship and discipline, empowers the federal authorities, to exercise any supervision over them designated by law. In addition to this, it prohibits monastic orders.

The first of the foregoing restrictions was quite justifiable. It was inspired only by the wish to preserve public order which, owing to the ignorance and fanaticism of the masses of our people, was very easily disturbed at that time, as it is even now, if the external forms of worship are not properly regulated, especially when services are held outside the churches.

The second restriction, the necessity for which wa:s easily explainable at that time because of political and economic conditions, should no longer be in force in all its rigor, at least in so far as it concerns orders of pious women consecrated to good works, as for example, the Sisters of Charity. The State should limit itself in this matter to denying civil sanction to monastic vows.

Although ostensibly the Constitution of Queretaro recognizes liberty of conscience, as a matter of fact, it violates its most fundamental manifestations. I shall treat of these briefly, leaving for a later chapter the most important, freedom of education.

The Constitution of Queretaro begins by prohibiting foreigners to exercise the functions of the priesthood. Can anything be more ridiculous? Such a prohibition is equivalent to establishing a national religion, and national religions in the twentieth century are worse than the Inquisition at the dawn of the nineteenth. When religious institutions and their ministers are not allowed the enjoyment of political rights while discharging their priestly duties, what difference does it make whether it is a native or a foreigner who imparts doctrines, moral commandments, or the consolations of religion?

Carranza himself, shocked by this excess of tyranny, felt obliged to allow three foreign priests to hold services in Mexico City. It is true that he used as an excuse a demand on the part of congregations for services in foreign languages in order to justify so flagrant a transgression of his own constitution, but, as a matter of fact, one of the priests was a Spaniard,

Another provision of the Constitution of Queretaro authorizes each State of the Federation to determine the number of ministers of religion that shall practice their profession in its territory. Granted the separation of

Church and State, is not this another absolutely unjustifiable interference?

If catholics, protestants, and in general, members of any religious body or sect are privileged to follow their form of worship, all limitations of this right trample upon liberty of conscience, inasmuch as the preaching, doctrine, religious ceremonies and propaganda are essential manifestations of such freedom.

As a proof of this we can recall the state of tenseness bordering on rebellion which obtained in Jalisco due to the decree limiting the number of priests in that State. As further proof, we can also point to the fact that this same decree was revoked because of pressure brought to bear by President Carranza himself at the cost of the sovereignty of this same State, thus conceding the indisputable fact that more than any conception of state sovereignty, society needs peace of conscience.

Finally, in the same article 130, the Constitution of Queretaro authorizes the formulation of laws bearing upon "religious discipline in the Churches." Are laic and civil laws to set the standard of religious discipline inside the churches? They may dictate regulations for policing, for morality, and for hygiene, but vesting the State with the power of regulating internal religious discipline is tantamount to denying and repudiating freedom of worship.

This encroachment on religious liberty resulted from the fact that the Constitution of 1917 was not drawn up by the Mexican people nor for the Mexican people. That Constitution was an agreement of the "armed citizens" formed by a minority of the subsocial classes turned into fighters, and their works are born of the passions, hatreds and animosities which formed the revolutionary bond of union of this neo-military caste.