« 이전계속 »
from San Francisco to Acapulco, then in the possession of General Alvarez, to obtain a cargo of corn. He had no pass. port. After remaining at Acapulco for several days he went to Manzanillo, but failing to obtain a cargo there went to Colima, in the interior, where he was informed that the corn could be purchased. At Colima he was arrested for being without a passport, the penalty for which was a fine of $20 and imprisonment for ten days.
The commissioners being unable to agree, the case was referred to the umpire, Dr. Lieber, who said:
"At a period when civil commotions were chronic in Mexico and when America almost looked with shame upon Walker's repeated piratical attempts to establish a ó military democracy,' as he called it, in countries with which his country was at peace, at this period Halstead entered Mexico without a pass. port, committing not a criminal violation of the laws of Mex: ico'-passports are a matter of police--but an offence for which he was arrested according to the laws of Mexico. He was legally arrested and kept legally in prison for a couple of weeks, but he was held a prisoner for something like four months, plainly not according to right and justice.”
A. H. Halstead v. Verico, No. 18. convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. I. 251. The umpire having decided that Halstead was illegally detained in prison, the commissioners awarded him $1,600.
"William Collier resided for fifteen years in Collier's Case. Mexico, chietly, or wholly so, at Tepic, in the
Mexican State of Jalisco, on the coast of the Pacific. Claimant (Collier} was the superintendent, or director, as it was called there, of a cotton factory, belonging to the firm of Barron, Forbes & Co. In January 1856 the unfortumate country was once more disturbed after the expulsion of Santa Anna and during the attempts made to settle a government of the Liberals. * * * Barron and Forbes were expelled from Tepic; the cotton factory was assaulted by some persons who were driven away, but the business went on, when, towarıl the end of January, Collier attracted the displeasure of the Mexican national guards and of the authorities, perhaps by discountenancing the entering of the people occupied in the factory into the national guards, a body of volunteer militia, or by other acts, real or merely suspected. According to his own statement he did not act wisely toward the Mexican authorities. Claimant, as appears from several of his own letters on the docket and from the answer which he received from Mr. Gadsden, the American minister at Mexico, seems to have been of a temper not too placid or patient, which may very naturally have contributed to the feelings or views entertained by the Mexican authorities toward him.
On the 28th of February Collier and his brother-in-law, Hale, were assaulted and robbed. Collier was wounded, whether severely or not does not appear, by a man, Jesus Gutierrez Garcia (called acting adjutant of the national guards), saying, as it is given in the papers on the docket, that he committed this crime at the instigation of José Landeros Cos, commandant of the guard, and of someone else, in order to ascertain whether Collier and Dale carried any interesting papers about them. (See paper No. 39 and others.) The whole statement is somewhat undefined, and, what seems surprising, not plainly mentioned again in the claim for damages.
"On the 2d of April Collier was arrested by Pens, the political chief, at the request of Acibo, the prosecuting fiscal or public prosecutor, and confined at the barracks of the national guard until April 5th-three days when he was discharged on parole, and after forty days more the whole prosecution was abandoned. While Collier was imprisoned the factory was searched, the arms which Collier kept by license from the authorities for the protection of the factory were seized, and it is mentioned that during this search people outside the factory called, "Death to the foreigners !' and Death to Guillermo Collier ! Everything indicated a suspicion, prob. ably a pretty general suspicion, against Collier, either that he favored the cause opposed to those then in power, or that he was not loyally disposed toward Mexico or its rulers in general, we have no means of ascertaining which, at this distance of time and space.
"We have, then, two alleged wrongs complained of, the robbery of Collier by Garcia, and Collier's detention in the barracks for three days, while, as the learned commissioner of the United States urges, the constitution of 1824, in force in April 1856, declares that no one shall be detained on suspicion only (solamente por indicios) for more than sixty hours. I have not the constitution of 1824 with me, but I readily admit the citation, * * * But it appears that there was no constitution existing at the time claimant was arrested. The federal constitution of 1824 ceased to exist in 1853, and from that date to February 12, 1857, there was no constitution in existence, because the whole country was under the rule of three successive dictators, Santa Anna, Alvarez, and Comonfort. The overthrow of Santa Anna and the so-called clerical party caused a long and general revolution, especially serious in the State of Jalisco, and the constitution of 1824 can not be said to have existed at this time. If, however, it had existed as the active law of the land, wonld it not be admitted on all hands that the difference between seventy-two hours, the time of the three days' imprisonment, and the sixty liours allowed by the suspended or canceled constitution, in short the difference of the ten or twelve hours, is not very startling in a country so disturbed by military disloyalty and political violence as Mexico was at that time? * * *
“ The habeas corpus principle, as the Constitution of the United States calls the protection of the individual against arbitrary or liasty imprisonment, and the insurance of a speedy trial, embodied in the immortal habeas corpus act of 1679 which England bestowed upon our race as one of the greatest giftsthe habeas corpus principle, I say, of which the mentioned passage in the constitution of Mexico somewhat partakes, is a sacred principle indeed for all people that value liberty, but it is not absolute, and can not be so. The very Constitution of the United States provides for cases where it may be suspended. The Americans were obliged to suspend it during the recent civil war, and I do not know whether martial law did not exist in the State of Jalisco at the time when claimant was arrested; but whether martial law existed or not, the certain fact is that Jalisco was in a state of political disturbance, and that Collier was not detained on suspicion over seventy-two hours, perhaps not even fully for that time. * * *
66 There seems to have been fair reason for the suspicion mani. fested against Collier. Not that he committed the offense of which he was suspected--we know nothing about that-but that his conduct occasionally or generally was such that it naturally led to suspect him of that which he was believed to have committed, namely, the using of his influence to prevent people employed in his establishment from enlisting in the volunteer troops destined to protect the State, or the immediate neighborhood, and of sympathizing with the domestic enemy of Mexico. After three days' imprisonment claimant is dismissed. Some measure of security is continued for some weeks, perhaps more pro forma than otherwise, perhaps because it was believed necessary. There was at all events no maltreatment in this. * * * I can not come to the conclusion that any award is due to the United States from the Republic of Mexico for the benefit of claimant, and consequently decide that the case must be dismissed.”
Lieber, umpire, William Collier v. Mexico, No. 118, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. II. 323.
Claimants used insulting language to a magTwohig's Case. istrate before whom they were sued, and the
magistrate had them arrested by armed men and thrown into prison for contempt. They were released after three hours' detention. The commissioners held that both sides acted in bad temper and improperly, and dismissed the case.
John Twohig and Joseph Deutz v. Merico Nos. 319 and 350, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. II. 313.
Claimant went from San Francisco to GuayBarnes's Case. mas on the Patrita, a vessel bearing the Chilean
flag. There were on board sixty-eight men, all of whom went as passengers to the State of Sonora. The same vessel, then under the name of the Anita, had brought Walker with his expedition to Toros Santos, in Lower California; and when she arrived again under the Chilean flag and under another name, in ballast and with sixty-eight passengers, the Mexican authorities seized her and put the passengers ashore on an island off the coast, without shelter, exposed to the smallpox and fed with insufficient food. Claimant bore a passport as a citizen of the United States, viséed by the Mexi. can cousul at San Francisco. The excuse made for his detention and for that of his companions was that they were suspected of being engaged in a filibustering expedition. After sixty days' detention, claimant was released without trial, although in the mean time he had been subjected to other bardships in other places of imprisonment than that referred to. The commissioners, being of opinion that his detention was arbitrary and unreasonably harsh, made him an award of $5,100.
William P. Barnes v. Mecico. No. 29, convention of July 4, 1868, MS, Op. 11. 295. Awards were made in favor of other Patrita prisoners, as follows: 108. H. Bryant v. Mexico, No. 26, 2 MSS. Op. 295; James L, Springer v. Mexico, No. 359, id. 299; Peter Blohm y. Mesico, No. 463, id. 302; George Lauer v. Verico, No. 464. id.303; Isaac G. Israel v. Mexico, No. 325, id. 304; Edgar Farren v. Merico, No. 47, MS, Op. III. 565.
“Francis W. Rice, claimant, a native citizen Rice's Case of the United States of America, was consul of
the United States at Acapulco, in the Republic of Mexico. On the 11th of June 1852, while consul, he was arrested by order of the Mexican authorities and kept in jail for three days, after which he remained a prisoner in his own house; that is to say, he was ordered by the Mexican court to remain such, but he states himself that he utterly disregarded the order. He was several times again “imprisoned in his house, as he avers himself, and now asks for the sum of $50,000, made up of losses sustained by the prevention of business which he would have done, by the loss of his consular fees, and, I must suppose, by a sum of money to be paid for the indignity offered to him as consul by the original imprisonment put upon him, if any were, for it does not appear very clear how he was imprisoned after his first detention in jail. * * *
6 It is well established in the law of nations, and has been so ever since the full development of this branch of jurisprudence, that a consul is not a diplomatic agent enjoying ambassadorial privileges; but, on the other hand, it is also acknowledged that a consul ought to be treated with international regard and respect, a rule on which the American Government has repeatedly and signally acted, and which, in the case of Rice, it seems has not been strictly observed by the Mexican authorities; and on the other hand there is no doubt that claimant's conduct as consul had been occasionally objectionable. * * *
"As to the portion of the damages claimed which may be imagined to arise out of consequential damages, the umpire desires to lay down as one of the requisites for consequential damages, that there must be a manifest wrong, the effect of which prevents the direct and habitual lawful pursuit of gain, or the fairly certain profit of the injured person, or the profit of an enterprise judiciously planned according to custom and business. A mere device of speculation, however probable its success would have been or may appear to the projector, can not enter into the calculation of consequential damages. The umpire finds it impossible to say what the loss of profits may have been to claimant, if there were any, for he can not find out whether claimant pursued any distinct line of business. * * * The Mexican judge kept Rice for more than the sixty hours (that is to say, for three days and nights) allowed by the