No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Between the glamorous galleons of the sixteenth century and the flashing fighter planes of the 1940’s—which were the Mexican commercial and military introductions to the Far East—came the less brilliant but more permanent diplomatic orientation toward the Far East on the part of Mexico during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
1 The expenditure of 30,000 pesos was censured by critics of the Lerdo administration (Vicente Riva Palacio, Histqria de la administración de D. Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada [Mexico, n.d.], 461).
2 Viaje de la Comisión astronómica mexicana al Japón para observar el tránsito del planeta Vénus por el disco del sol el 8 de Diciembre de 1814 (Mexico, 1876). It is considerably more of a compendium of Japanese life and history, and an urgent pleading for the opening of relations between the two countries, than it is a scientific report of an astronomical mission.
3 Ibid., 164.
4 These included the Superintendent of Customs (ibid., 111–113), the Governor of the Prefecture of Kanagawa (ibid., 159, 241), the Director General of the Japanese Telegraph System (ibid., 174), the Minister of Education (ibid., 175, 188, 309), various officials of the Department of Marine (ibid., 321), and the Foreign Minister (ibid., 167, 171).
5 Ibid., 114, 127, 256.
6 Ibid., 171.
7 Ibid., 164, 171., Díaz maintained that, had he but possessed the requisite authority, he could have left Japan with formal diplomatic relations between the two states a reality.
8 Ibid., 125–127, 129. Although his judgment, of the Japanese was based on an experience of less than three months, his contacts with the Chinese people were even more restricted, having been limited to exceedingly brief stays in San Francisco and Hongkong.
9 Ibid., 129. Díaz hoped that the imitative genius of the Mexicans might extend to such Japanese endeavors as silkworm culture, cabinet making, and porcelain and lacquer production—in all of which fields he held the Japanese to be without peer.
10 Ibid., 140, 171. Representative movement of Mexican pesos into the Orient is seen in the following reports of shipments to Hongkong via San Francisco:
Nor was the movement of pesos restricted to China (“Tráfico entre Mexico y San Francisco,” Informes y documentos relativos á comercio interior y exterior, No. 7 [January, 1886], 78, 85, 91 and No. 9 [March, 1886], 58, 64). The entire question of the historical role of Mexican money in the Orient deserves study.
11 Mexican consciousness of the role of its silver in the western Pacific world was not restricted in point of time. In 1872, the Diario oficial (May 24) carried word that the Japanese government, as it substituted new money for old, was stating values in terms of Mexican pesos. In 1894 the international conference on silver, to which Díaz hoped to call not only all the American states but also the principal powers of Asia, stemmed from this same issue. The conference failed to materialize because of the Sino-Japanese conflict (Díaz to Congress, September 16, 1894, in Mexicana, República, Informes y manifiestos de los poderes ejecutivo y legislativo de 1821 á 1904 [3 vols., Mexico, 1905], II, 559) (hereinafterTeferred to as Rep. Mex.).Google Scholar
12 Díaz C., op. cit., 138–143.
13 For further discussion of China and the Mexican Pacific Navigation Company, see infra, 10–12.
14 Most of the biographers of Don Porfirio Díaz either omit or understate his contribution toward wider participation by Mexico in world affairs. An exception is Godoy, José F., Porfirio Díaz, President of Mexico. The Master Builder of a Great Commonwealth (New York, 1910), 49–52, 56, 206–207.Google Scholar
15 Count Shigenobu Okuma, Fifty Years of the New Japan (2 vols., London, 1910), L 105–106, 162; and Jones, F. C., Extraterritoriality in Japan and the Diplomatic Relations Resulting in Its Abolition (New Haven, 1931), 113.Google Scholar
16 Díaz to Congress, April 1, 1888, in Rep. Mex., II, 376. The impatience with which Japan later awaited the opportunity to exchange the ratified copies of the Mexican-Japanese treaty signifies the Japanese desire to get this negotiation a matter of record (Romero to the Mexican Foreign Office, No. 468, April 23, 1889; same to same, No. 520, May 4, 1889; same to same, No. 555, May 14, 1889; and same to same, No. 582, as cited in Oliver Turner Ivey, “Relations between Japan and Mexico, 1598–1930” [unpublished ms., M.A. thesis, University of China, 1931], 25–28). Although the Ivey thesis relates to but one Pacific area, it is unique as a contribution to the study of the Mexican interest in the Pacific world.
17 Díaz to Congress, April 1, 1888, in Rep. Mex., II, 376.
18 Diario oficial, June 22, 1889. Ratifications were exchanged in Washington, June 6, 1889. This treaty was destined to remain the primary basis for Mexican-Japanese relations until 1924 (México—Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Tratados y convenciones vigentes entre los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y otros países [6 vols, in 3, Mexico, 1930–1938], I, 489–495.
19 El Tiempo, July 4, 1889, as cited in Ivey, op. cit., 31, and Jones, op. cit., 113.
20 Memorandum of an Interview between the Minister of Mexico at Washington and the Acting Secretary of State of the United States, November 4, 1888, in Records of the Department of State, Mexico—Notes, XXXVII, The National Archives, Washington, D. C.
21 Ibid.; and G. S. Rives to Matías Romero, November 6, 1888, ibid.
22 Evidence of the economic interest that paralleled the treaty negotiation is seen in reports such as that of Hipólito Chambón, “Industria sericícola,” Informes y documentos relativos á comercio interior y exterior, No. 44. (February, 1889), 39–117. Chambón, having dedicated himself to sericulture in Mexico for years, had searched for Chinese and Japanese treatises in translation on that subject. Citing one Japanese author whom he found particularly interesting, he wrote, “hemos copiado todas las notas importantes que se adaptan mejor á la industria en México” (ibid., 41). Díaz, hailing the pact, said that relations with Japan would be “muy útiles en lo porvenir” (Díaz to Congress, April 1, 1889, in Rep. Mex., II, 403).
23 Same to same, September 16, 1890, ibid., 448.
24 Same to same, April 1, 1891, ibid., 459.
25 Diario oficial, June 16, 1891. When President Díaz addressed Congress in the following September, he could point to the fact that diplomatic representatives had recently been received from Japan, Argentina, and Russia (Díaz to Congress, September 16, 1891, in Rep. Mex., op. cit., II, 471).
26 Rascón to the Mexican Foreign Office, No. 5, Tokyo, November 12, 1891, in Diario oficial, December 18, 1891; same to same, No. 8, Tokyo, November 18, 1891, ibid.; and Wollheim (First Secretary) to the Mexican Foreign Office, No. 8, enclosure no. 1, November 18, 1891, ibid. The first budget for the Mexican legation in Tokyo provided for three persons: the minister, the first secretary, and an interpreter (ibid., October 5, 1891).
27 Dated October 29, 1891, the authorization was promulgated in Diario oficial, November 4, 1891.
28 The Japanese Foreign Office later thanked Mexico for the kindness which had been extended to Fujita by the President, the Foreign Minister, numerous governors and other officials of Mexico while on his trip. (Japanese Foreign Minister Mutsu to Rascón, November 29, 1892, and Rascón to the Mexican Foreign Office, December 8, 1892, in Diario oficial, January 17, 1893).
29 A decree of April 30, 1892, permitted President Díaz, Foreign Minister Mariscal, and the career-diplomat, Wollheim, to accept decorations from the Japanese government (ibid., May 7, 1892).
30 Rascón to the Mexican Foreign Office, Tokyo, September 28, 1892, ibid., September 10, 1893. The diplomat’s search had been inspired by the work of Angel Núñez Ortega, Noticia histórica de las relaciones políticas y comerciales entre México y Japón durante el siglo XVII, available today as volume H of Archivo histórico diplomático mexicano (Mexico, 1923).
31 Mexico granted Consul General Shinamura Hisashi his exequatur on January 4, 1894 (Diario oficial, January 9, 1894).
32 Ricardo de María y Campos, “Sericicultura en el Japón,” Boletín de agricultura, minería é industrias, III, No. 8 (February, 1894), 263–265.
33 “Preparación del té del Japón,” ibid., IV, No. 4 (October, 1894), 31–76.
34 “El desarrollo de la industria en el Japón,” ibid., IV, No. 12 (June, 1895), 157–171. The necessity of reprinting this article (in Mexico), which had previously appeared in Anales del Instituto de Ingenieros of Santiago, Chile, instead of using firsthand reports from Mexican representatives in Japan, suggests that Mexican interest outstripped the supply of information streaming back from the legation and consulate in Japan.
35 México—Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Guía diplomática y consular de la República Mexicana (Mexico, 1896), 37, and México—Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Guía diplomática y consular (Mexico, 1902), 60.
36 Wollheim to the Mexican Foreign Office, Yokohama, March 16, 1896, published as “Movimiento mercantil del Japón en 1895, comparado con el de los tres años anteriores,” Boletín oficial de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, I, No. 6 (April 1, 1896), 366–369; same to same, Yokohama, March 16, 1896, published as “Revista comercial,” ibid., II, No. 1 (May 1, 1896), 15–21. Direct transportation came with the Toyo Kosen Kaisha in 1910.
37 Wollheim to the Mexican Foreign Office, Yokohama, June 3, 1896, published as “Desventajas que presenta el mercado del Japón para los productos de ganadería de México,” Boletín de agricultura, minería é industrias, VI, No. 1 (July, 1896), 21–24. One report at the turn of the century stated that it was primarily because of Wollheim’s labors that Mexican goods were known and Mexican tobacco preferred in Japan (“Informe general del Japón,” Boletín oficial de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, XIII [1901], 349).
38 Representative figures on Mexican-Japanese trade indicate that in 1895–1896 Mexico exported goods worth 2,990 pesos and imported goods valued at 12,793 pesos; in 1899–1900 Mexico imported Japanese goods worth 51,271 pesos and failed to export anything to Japan. Japanese exports to Mexico gradually increased during the 1890’s; Mexico’s exports to Japan were sporadic and always left the Mexican nation with an unfavorable trade balance (México—Secretaría de Hacienda, Comercio exterior: año fiscal de 1896–1897 [Mexico, 1901], 183, 321 and México—Secretaría de Hacienda, Comercio exterior y navegación: año fiscal de 1899–900 [Mexico, 1902], 195, 249).
39 Díaz to Congress, September 16, 1896, in Rep. Mex., II, 606–607. This and all other colonization projects of the period were subject to the colonization law of December 15, 1883, after which date Mexico gave considerable official encouragement to colonization schemes. Prior to that legislation less scientific and less successful projects had been attempted. On December 8, 1865, Manuel B. da Cunha Reis signed a contract whereby he was entitled to form the Asiatic Colonization Company. Article I gave him a ten-year exclusive right to introduce immigrants into Mexico from East Asia. Article II confused the issue by specifying Egyptians. (México—Secretaría de Fomento, Memoria presentada á S.M. el Emperador… [Mexico, 1865], 536). There is no record that immigrants ever entered Mexico under this contract.
40 México-Secretaría de Fomento, Memoria … de 1891–1900 (Mexico, 1908), 187–190 Annex No. 15). By the turn of the century, Enomoto had fifty-eight colonists in Chiapas (ibid., 264 [Annex No. 21]). The census of 1895 had previously disclosed a total of twenty Japanese in Mexico—sixteen residents and four transients (México-Secretaría de Fomento, Censo general de la República Mexicana verificado el 20 de Octubre de 1895: Resumen [Mexico, 1899], 124, 248).
41 A contract between the Mexican government and Guillermo Andrade, dated February 27, 1897, relating to land in Lower California, provided for the establishment thereon of one hundred families of European, Japanese and Mexican extraction, in the proportion of 75 per cent European and Japanese to 25 per cent Mexican. A similar contract, dated March 22, 1897, concerned the Albert K. Owen concession in Sinaloa, Sonora and Chihuahua. A contract with Andrew J. Porter stipulated that 75 per cent of his colonists were to be European, Canadian, Japanese and Chinese, and 25 per cent Mexican. Only the Japanese concessionaire achieved any success before the end of the century in the movement of Japanese into Mexico. (México—Secretaría de Fomento, Memoria … de 1891–1900, 191, 194–195, 209 [Annex No. 15]).
42 Rodríguez Parra to the Mexican Foreign Office, published as “Informe general del Japón,” Boletín oficial de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, XIII (1901), 62.
43 Díaz to Congress, April 1, 1886, in Rep. Mex., II, 320. Indicative of the well-established Mexican interest in China is the article, “El té de la China—historia, importancia, aclimatación y cultivo, en el territorio de la República Mexicana,” Boletín de la Sociedad de Geografía y Estadística de la República Mexicana, Época 2, IV (1872), 410–412, wherein it was urged that Chinese workers be brought to Mexico and also that a Mexican commission go to China to study the tea industry.
44 Formal relations between Mexico City and London were reestablished shortly before Díaz entered upon his second term as president. A preliminary agreement for the renewal of diplomatic relations was reached in Mexico City on August 6, 1884, and ratifications were exchanged October 28, 1884 (British and Foreign State Papers [Lon don, 1841-], LXXV, 908–910).
45 Company to Mexican Foreign Office, Mexico, October 6, 1884, in “Emigración china á la República. Los immigrantes chinos en Mexico quedan bajo la protección de la Gran Bretaña,” in México—Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Correspondencia diplomática cambiada entre el gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y los de varias potencias extranjeras (6 vols., Mexico, 1882–1892), IV, 602–603. Fernández (Mexican Foreign Office) to the Special Envoy in London [Mariscal], cable, October 6, 1884, ibid, (hereinafter cited as Corresp. dipl.). The term “company” both here and in subsequent correspondence refers to the Mexican Pacific Navigation Company.
46 Fernández to the Special Envoy in London, cable, November 5, 1884; and Mariscal to the Mexican Foreign Office, November 20, 1884, telegram, ibid., IV, 605–606.
47 Company to President of Mexico, November 21, 1884, with cablegram from Schneider as an enclosure; and Edward Wingfield of the British Foreign Office to Schneider, London, October 21, 1884, in ibid., 608–609.
48 Fernández to Company, November 22, and St. John to Fernández, December 2, 1884, ibid., 610–611.
49 Fernández to St. John, December 3, 1884, ibid., 612–613. Weeks earlier Mariscal, acting on instructions, had approached the Chinese Minister in London regarding formal relations between their governments. Mariscal’s overtures, which included the hope that the famous trade of colonial days might be revived, were relayed to Peking. Meanwhile Mariscal could not short-circuit the British authorities and deal directly concerning the immigrant issue. because the Chinese chief of mission in London was not instructed on that question (Mariscal to Fernández, London, November 15, 1884, ibid., 613–615).
50 Fernández to St. John, December 14, 1884, ibid., 616.
51 Fernández, St. John to, Mexico, December 22, 1884, and Fernández to St. John, December 29, 1884, ibid., 617–618.Google Scholar
52 Mariscal’s decision was based upon the more eager than able interposition of the company’s agent, Schneider, who reported that the Mexican Foreign Office had in formed St. John in Mexico City that the question of Chinese relations would be pressed again as soon as Díaz had assumed office (Mariscal to Fernández, No. 188, London, December 1, 1884, ibid., 618–619). Mariscal’s determination of his course of action on the basis of rumor conveyed to him by a civilian rather than official instructions from the Foreign Office smacks of unusual naïveté on the part of that able and experienced diplomat. The wait for General Díaz’ assumption of the presidency was a short one because he entered upon his second term on December 1, 1884, the very day that Mariscal had written from London (H. H. Bancroft, History of Mexico [6 vols., San Francisco, 1883–1888], VI, 460).
53 Mariscal to John, St., January 28, 1885, in Corres, dipi, IV, 620–621.Google Scholar
54 Carden (British Chargé d’affaires) to Mariscal, Mexico, March 13, 1885, and Carden to Mariscal, Mexico, March 19, 1885, ibid., 623, 625. At a later moment hope was held out briefly by China. The despairing shipping company which had initially precipitated the issue of Sino-Mexican relations held fast to its transpacific interest as it asked for and received an extension of concession. Cf. Carden to Mariscal, Mexico, May 1, 1885; M. Fernández (Fomento) to the Mexican Foreign Office, May 14, 1886; and M. Fernández to the Mexican Foreign Office, May 17, 1886, ibid., 629–632.
55 Díaz indicated that the Mexican Minister in the United States still possessed instructions which could serve as a basis of negotiation with a Chinese representative so empowered (Díaz to Congress, April 1, 1893, and Díaz to Congress, September 16, 1894, in Rep. Mex., II, 506-S07, 552). The appointment of consular representatives to serve at British Hongkong gave Mexico a window on China which must have sustained Mexican interest across the years (Diario oficial, September 28, 1891).
56 The English version, which was to be decisive in case of disagreement, is available in British and Foreign State Papers, XCII, 1057–1063.
57 Díaz to Congress, April 1, 1904, in Rep. Mex., II, 811, and “Recepción diplomática del Ministro de China,” Boletín oficial de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, XVIII, No. 4 (August 15, 1904), 193–194.
58 México—Secretaría de Hacienda, Comercio exterior: año fiscal de 1896–1891, 183, 231; and Mexico—Secretaría de Hacienda, Comercio exterior y navegación: año fiscal de 1899–900, 195, 249.
59 México—Secretaría de Fomento, Censo general de la República Mexicana verificado el 20 de Octubre de 1895: Resumen, 119, 243.
60 Barretto, F. D., “Hong-Kong: Informe del Viceconsul correspondiente al año de 1904,” Boletín oficial de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, XX, No. 2 (June 15, 1905), 128.Google Scholar