When I saw in the Congressional Record of February 16, 1898, Mr. Grosvenor's Resolution, I thought it proper to submit both to Mr. Grosvenor himself, and to the Secretary of the Treasury, the press proofs of my paper on the Free Zone, as it contained full and impartial statements on the subject, and in doing so I informed both of them that I was well aware that I had no right to interfere in the internal legislation of this country, and that therefore I did not ask for nor suggest anything at all, my object being merely to allow them the opportunity of reading a complete, and, in my opinion, impartial statement of the Free Zone question, so that they could understandingly make up their minds on the subject and arrive at a fair and just conclusion.

My paper does not seem to have made much impression upon Secretary Gage, if he really had an opportunity of reading it carefully, as, after it had been in his possession several days, he reiterates in his Report of March 11, 1898, the same views that he and his predecessors had before expressed upon the opportunity of committing frauds upon the revenue of the United States as allowed by the Mexican Free Zone.

The Committee on Ways and Means of the House did me the honor to ask my consent to insert in their Report my paper on the Free Zone, and as my object in writing and publishing it was to dispel misapprehensions existing here on that subject, which were in the way of a better understanding between the two countries, I was very glad that my paper should be published in an official document, as in that way it could be within the reach of Senators, Members of Congress, and other high officials of this Government, for whose benefit it was specially written.

The Committee on Ways and Means presented on March 11, 1898,1

'Fifty-fifth Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives. Report No. 702. Mexican Free Zone. March 11, 1898, referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. Grosvenor, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following report. [To accompany H. Res. 27.]

The Committees on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. Res. 27) to repeal the joint resolution in reference to the Free Zone,' having had the same under consideration, beg leave to report:

"By section 3005 of the Revised Statutes, the right of 'free' transportation in bond is accorded to adjoining countries through the United States and upon its railroads and other transportation systems, under regulations made by the Secretary of the Treasury. This right extended to the Republic of Mexico. The Republic of Mexico, in the exercise of its sovereignty, created a district of territory along its entire frontier bordering on the United States, about 13 miles wide, in which territory goods and merchandise were and are admitted free of duty. It is called and known as the Free Zone' or Zona Libre.' This right of shipment was enjoyed until March 1 1895, when a joint resolution was passed authorizing and directing the Secre

their Report on Mr. Cooper's Resolution, and that Report was accompanied by the Secretary of the Treasury's letter of January 26, 1898, to which I have already referred, and by my paper on the Free Zone as it appears in this book.

The House of Representatives repeals the Joint Resolution of March 1st, 1895.-On May 4, 1898, Mr. Grosvenor on behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives moved to consider Mr. Cooper's resolution. Messrs. Grosvenor, Dingley, and Slayden sustained the privileged character of the resolution, while the motion was opposed by three representatives from Texas, Messrs. Lanham, Bailey, and Stephens, who contended that the resolution was not privileged; but the Speaker having decided in favor of the Committee's tary of the Treasury to suspend this right so far as the Free Zone was concerned, and in pursuance thereof the Secretary did suspend said right.

The reason for the passage of that joint resolution (vol. 28, United States Statutes at Large, page 973, No. 23) was to prevent what was represented as a large 'smuggling' trade back into the United States from the 'free' goods admitted into this zone. Earnest protest was at the time made against the passage of the resolution, and for the facts bearing upon the matter reference is here made to Congressional Record, volume 27, part 4, page 2850 et. seq., Fifty-third Congress, third session. Since that time three years have elapsed, and the purpose for which the resolution was passed shows that it has failed. Mexico has not repealed the 'Free Zone,' and the United States has not been better protected. On the contrary, the only effect of the resolution has been to drive from our own transportation lines a large traffic into European and foreign lines-a very large and profitable business-without any return whatever. The goods that should and would be shipped in bond over our lines into the territory of Mexico are now shipped by vessels to Vera Cruz and other Mexican ports, in foreign bottoms, and over the Mexican railroads into the Free Zone, thus depriving our railroads of their legitimate business. These facts have been submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury and his opinion taken upon the adoption of the resolution now before the committee, and he sees no objection to such action. His letter, dated January 26, 1898, addressed to Hon. Nelson Dingley, Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

"We therefore recommend the adoption of the joint resolution (No. 27) now before the Committee, and report the same back to the House with a recommendation that it do pass.

44

The subject of the Free Zone, with its history and the variety of historical data connected therewith, is a very interesting subject; and inasmuch as it affects the relations between this Government and the Republic of Mexico, and inasmuch as the whole subject-matter is one of great interest, the committee have seen fit to embody in this report a very able and comprehensive paper prepared by Señor Don Matias Romero, the distinguished representative of the Republic of Mexico at this capital. That gentleman has had ample opportunity to know whereof he writes in this behalf, having been a member of the Mexican Government and intimate with everything connected with the subject. Your committee take pleasure, therefore, with the consent of that distinguished gentleman, in here presenting his paper as a part of this report. It is taken from the proofs of a series of papers bearing on the relations between Mexico and the United States that the Mexican minister is now about to publish in book form.

contention, the resolution was taken up and passed in Committee of the Whole. During the short discussion which took place previous to the passage of the resolution, the members from Texas representing the districts adjoining the Mexican frontier were in favor of the same, excepting Mr. Stephens, who contended that Mr. Cooper favored it because it only benefitted the railroads to the prejudice of the merchants on the frontier. Messrs. Slayden and Kleberg, the two representing the districts in Texas bordering on the Rio Grande, excepting El Paso represented by Mr. Stephens, contended that the Joint Resolution of March 1, 1895, had injured the interests not only of the United States railways but of the local merchants on the border, and that they all were anxious for the repeal of such Joint Resolution.

Mr. Slayden considered the Mexican Free Zone as a real advantage to the United States and expressed a desire that it should be extended to a larger area, so as to increase its benefits,' and that is the first time that I have heard an American statesman express an opinion on that subject which agrees entirely with mine. Mr. Lanham objected to the consideration of the resolution, but did say that he was not opposed to it although he finally so voted, and the only one who spoke against it was Mr. Stephens, who contended that his constituents objected to the resolution.

Mr. Stephens's only argument worthy of such a name was that, under the present conditions, the United States merchants on the frontier had the advantage of low freight rates, because there are several competing lines to the respective border towns, while the merchants on the Mexican side of the frontier, having only one line to each town, pay high rates over the Mexican roads for want of competition, and that it was not wise to give the Mexican merchants the advantage of low freight rates obtained by the United States merchants resulting from the present law. But supposing that it would be a sound principal to regulate railway freight rates by the nationality of the shippers, Mr. Stephens did not take into consideration the fact that the haul from Tampico to El Paso, Mexico, which is the furthest town on the frontier from the Atlantic seaboard, is about one third of the distance of the haul from New York to El Paso, Texas, and that the Mexican railroads are interested in establishing their freights in such a way

' The following is an extract from Mr. Slayden's speech relating to this subject : MR. SPEAKER: So far from desiring the abolition of the Free Zone, I would, if I could, exercise any influence whatever upon the Mexican Government, ask it to extend that zone three, four, or five hundred miles farther back. This territory adjacent to us has a duty of only 17 per cent. of the normal Mexican duty; and on the other side it backs up against a part of Mexico which has a tremendously high duty, so that the extension of this Free Zone would certainly be a benefit to the trade of this country. Therefore, I say that so far from asking the abolition of the Free Zone, I would vastly prefer to have it extended farther back into the interior."

as to encourage instead of destroying their business, which would be. the result if exorbitantly high rates were collected.

Mr. Stephens brought my paper on the Free Zone into the discussion, saying that I criticized General Grant and Mr. Blaine on account of their views on the Free Zone, while I only stated their action on the subject without commenting on it at all. Mr. Grosvenor closed the discussion, making a very clear, concise, and conclusive speech; the vote resulted in the approval of the resolution by forty-eight votes. against four. Mr. Grosvenor mentioned the fact that two different Secretaries of the Treasury had expressed their opinion in favor of the repeal of the resolution of March 1, 1895. He also recognized the right of the Mexican Government to establish the Free Zone, saying: "It is a matter that the United States Government cannot control. It is the prerogative of the sovereignty of the Mexican Republic. This is a matter for her. It is not our revenue. It does not in that way affect our revenue, theoretically, at least." Although Mr. Grosvenor stated that he was himself against the Free Zone.

Mr. Stephens seemed to be under the impression that the Committee on Ways and Means had asked my opinion on the subject, and that I had written an argument for their benefit, and under that supposition he complained that his side had not been heard. Mr. Grosvenor disposed conclusively of that contention, stating what appears from my paper, namely, that it was written and published long before the Committee on Ways and Means of the Fifty-fifth Congress took up that matter, and is only a review of the whole question, stating the contention on both sides, for the benefit of those who desire reliable information on the subject.

It is a fact which cannot be denied that the Joint Resolution of March 1, 1895, was passed with the object of inducing Mexico to abolish the Free Zone, and as such object has not been obtained it is beyond all question that the purpose of that legislation has entirely failed and brought about only injury to the railways and merchants of the United States, a point which Mr. Grosvenor made very clear in his remarks.

Far from having any interest in the repeal of the Joint Resolution of March 1, 1895, Mexico would rather let it remain in force, as it constitutes a real benefit to the Mexican railways. I personally was pleased to see the tenor and result of the discussion in the House, because it showed me that the question was treated more intelligently than ever before, and because it showed a more friendly sentiment toward Mexico than on former occasions. Mr. Slayden qualified in his speech the Joint Resolution of March 1, 1896, as a “deliberate affront by a petty annoyance to the Republic of Mexico, which lies on yonder side of the Rio Grande."

The Joint Resolution as approved by the House of Representatives passed to the Senate and was referred to the Committee on Finance, but as the Senate has had very important matters to consider during the present session, especially those affecting the war with Spain, the House Resolution has not been taken up in the Senate up to the time that this paper goes to press. I would like to give here the outcome of this incident, that is, the final action of Congress on the pending Joint Resolution; but I am afraid that under the present political conditions of this country no conclusion will be reached for some time, and it would not be reasonable to delay indefinitely the printing of this volume in expectation of such action.

As this paper goes to press the fifty-fifth Congress of the United States has closed its second Session without the Senate having taken any action on the Joint Resolution approved by the House of Representatives to repeal the Joint Resolution of April 1, 1896.