expressed in your communication of May 22d, for which I can imagine no purpose but to impugn the good faith of this Government for I find it hard to believe that such imputations are not universally known to be without the least shadow of justification in fact.

Can the de facto Government doubt that, if the United States had turned covetous eyes on Mexican territory, it could have found many pretexts in the past for the gratification of its desire? Can that Government doubt that months ago, when the war between the revolutionary factions was in progress, a much better opportunity than the present was afforded for American intervention, if such has been the purpose of the United States as the de facto Government now insinuates? What motive could this Government have had in refraining from taking advantage of such opportunities other than unselfish friendship for the Mexican Republic? I have of course given consideration to your argument that the responsibility for the present situation rests largely upon this Government. In the first place, you state that even the American forces along the border whose attention is undivided by other military operations, "Find themselves physically unable to protect effectively the frontier on the American side." Obviously, if there is no means of reaching bands roving on Mexican territory and making sudden dashes at night into American territory it is impossible to prevent such invasions unless the frontier is protected by a cordon of troops. No government could be expected to maintain a force of this strength along the boundary of a nation with which it is at peace for the purpose of resisting the onslaughts of a few bands of lawless men, especially when the neighboring state makes no effort to prevent these attacks. The most effective method of preventing raids of this nature, as past experience has fully demonstrated, is to visit punishment or destruction on the raiders. It is precisely this plan which the United States desires to follow along the border without any intention of infringing upon the sovereign rights of her neighbor, but which, although ob

HD-64-1-vol 145-26

viously advantageous to the de facto Government, it refuses to allow or even countenance. It is in fact protection to American lives and property about which the United States is solicitous and not the methods or ways in which that protection shall be accomplished. If the Mexican Government is unwilling or unable to give this protection by preventing its territory from being the rendezvous and refuge of murderers and plunderers, that does not relieve this Government from its duty to take all the steps necessary to safeguard American citizens on American soil. The United States Government can not and will not allow bands of lawless men to establish themselves upon its borders with liberty to invade and plunder American territory with impunity and, when pursued, to seek safety across the Rio Grande, relying upon the plea of their Government that the integrity of the soil of the Mexican Republic must not be violated.

The Mexican Government further protests that it has "made every effort on its part to protect the frontier" and that it is doing "all possible to avoid a recurrence of such acts." Attention is again invited to the well-known and unrestricted activity of de la Rosa, Ancieto Piscano Pedro Vinos and others in connection with border raids and to the fact that, as I am advised, up to June 4th de la Rosa was still collecting troops at Monterey for the openly avowed purpose of making attacks on Texan border towns and that Pedro Vino was recruiting at other places for the same avowed purpose. I have already pointed out the uninterrupted progress of Villa to and from Columbus, and the fact that the American forces in pursuit of the Glenn Springs marauders penetrated 168 miles into Mexican territory without encountering a single Carrancista soldier. This does not indicate that the Mexican Government is doing "all possible " to avoid further raids; and if it is doing "all possible," this is not sufficient to prevent border raids, and there is every reason, therefore, why this Government must take such preventive measures as it deems sufficient.

It is suggested that injuries suffered on account of bandit raids are a matter of "pecuniary reparation " but

66 never the cause for American forces to invade Mexican soil." The precedents which have been established and maintained by the Government of the Mexican Republic for the last half century do not bear out this statement. It has grown to be almost a custom not to settle depredations of bandits by payments of money alone, but to quell such disorders and to prevent such crimes by swift and sure punishment.

The de facto Government finally argues that "if the frontier were duly protected from incursions from Mexico there would be no reason for the existing difficulty"; thus the de facto, Government attempts to absolve itself from the first duty of any Government, namely, the protection of life and property. This is the paramount obligation for which governments are instituted, and governments neglecting or failing to perform it are not worthy of the name. This is the duty for which General Carranza, it must be assumed, initiated his revolution in Mexico and organized the present Government and for which the United States Government recognized his government as the de facto Government of Mexico. Protection of American lives and property, then, in the United States is first the obligation of this Government, and in Mexico is, first, the obligation of Mexico, and second, the obligation of the United States. In securing this protection along the common boundary the United States has a right to expect the cooperation of its neighboring Republic; and yet, instead of taking steps to check or punish the raiders, the de facto Government demurs and objects to measures taken by the United States. The Government of the United States does not wish to believe that the de facto Government approves these marauding attacks, yet as they continue to be made, they show that the Mexican Government is unable to repress them. This inability, as this Government has had occasion in the past to say, may excuse the failure to check the outrages complained of, but it only makes stronger the duty of the United States to prevent them, for if the Government of Mexico can not protect the lives and property of Americans, exposed to attack from Mexicans,

the Government of the United States is in duty bound, so far as it can, to do so.

In conclusion, the Mexican Government invites the United States to support its "assurances of friendship with real and effective acts" which " can be no other than the immediate withdrawal of the American troops." For the reasons I have herein fully set forth, this request of the de facto Government can not now be entertained. The United States has not sought the duty which has been forced upon it of pursuing bandits who under fundamental principles of municipal and international law, ought to be pursued and arrested and punished by Mexican authorities. Whenever Mexico will assume and effectively exercise that responsibility the United States, as it has many times before publicly declared, will be glad to have this obligation fulfilled by the de facto Government of Mexico. If, on the contrary, the de facto Government is pleased to ignore this obligation and to believe that "in case of a refusal to retire these troops there is no further recourse than to defend its territory by an appeal to arms," the Government of the United States would surely be lacking in sincerity and friendship if it did not frankly impress upon the de facto Government that the execution of this threat will lead to the gravest consequences. While this Government would deeply regret such a result, it cannot recede from its settled determination to maintain its national rights and to perform its full duty in preventing further invasions of the territory of the United States and in removing the peril which Americans along the international boundary have borne so long with patience and forebearance.

Accept, etc.,

ROBERT LANSING.

PER CAPITA PAYMENTS TO CHOCTAW, CHICKASAW, AND SEMINOLE CITIZENS.

LETTER FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

JUNE 29, 1916.-Ordered to be printed.

JUNE 21, 1916.

The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

SIR: Reference is made herein to a report of June 9, 1916, from the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes concerning the per capita payments authorized by section 19 of the Indian appropriation act of May 18, 1916 (Public, No. 80), to be made to the enrolled members of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Tribes entitled thereto or to their heirs, and to the draft of rules and regulations to govern said payments as recommended by the superintendent.

The superintendent raises the question as to the laws of descent and distribution which should govern the determination of the heirs of enrolled members who died subsequent to the passage of the act and prior to the receipt of their shares in the payments, and he requests instructions as to what law should be followed in determining the heirs entitled to the per capita payments in the cases of deceased enrolled citizens. The laws of the State of Oklahoma made applicable to the descent and distribution or administration of individual estates of deceased Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes do not apply to or govern the distribution of the tribal funds by the department. In this connection your attention is invited to the ruling of the Comptroller of the Treasury as set forth in his opinion of September 29, 1909 (16 Comp. Dec., 184), as to the law governing in the per capita distribution of Seminole Indian funds. The comptroller, after referring to the then recently enacted laws of descent and distribution of the State of Oklahoma, quoted the provision of the agreement with the Seminole Nation contained in the act of Congress of June 2, 1900 (31 Stat. L., 250), to the effect that where a Seminole citizen died after December 31, 1899, the land, money, and other property to which he would have been entitled, if living, should descent to his heirs according to the laws of descend and distribution of the State of Arkansas with, however, certain modifications as provided by the Seminole agreement, and be allotted and distributed to them accordingly.