The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-07-28
For the Union.
MEXICO AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
No IL.


No. IL.
Much OF what has been said on the two frs
classes of the claims of citizens of the United States
against Mexico, is equally applicable to the third
These are those in which the examination was no
fully completed, or was altogether prevented, and
were therefore left unadjudicated, in consequence
either of Mexico failing to produce the evidence
which, under the treaty, she was bound to furnish
or because the Mexican commissioners persevercd
in carrying out the instructions of their government
to resort to any expedicnts which might render the
convention abort3e.
II has been shown, that five months out OF the
eighteen prescribed for the duration Of the board
were consumed in vain efforts TO establish some
rules for the methodica transaction of the business
for which it had been created and for the guidance
of the compainants in the preparation and exhibit
ton of their cases.
In their communication of March 2, 1912, to the
Secretary of State, the American commissioners
say at is very certain that all the objects con,
tempated by the convention have not been fully &C.
complished. A number Of important claims, COM
not been adjusted. Upon whom rests the RESPONSE
bty of this partial failure, is question mol TO BE
settled by the assertion or belief of ourselves or of
late colleagues, but by appeal to the facts re-
corded in the minutes of the oard."--Doc. 800 pp
1875, 1856. ITO this long delay, in the first place, in
determining upon any mode whatever, by which
the business of the board could be conducted and
4 :.
the claimants eventually obliged to resort for
the purpose of getting their papers and documents
before the commissioners, is, in our opinion to be
attributed in some measure, the failure of the com
mission to examine all the cases before il, and to
present them to the umpire in season for his deci-
sion thereon Whatever detriment has resulted
from this cause, must be attributed to such of the
commissioners as erred in their construction of the
convention"
In reference to some particular cases, these gen
tIemen employ language much more emphatic and
accusatory. They specify the case of the Topaz,
IN which, after advertng to the murder Of the cap
tain of that vessel, and the proceedings at Anahuac
growing out of that outrage, and expressing their
tul persuasion "that the whole proceedings at Ana
huac were designed to cover up a most barbarous
and cruel transaction" they add: ''The object of tue
Undersigned in commenting upon this case, is not to
present its merits but only to show the true cause
why 1t was not finally disposed Of" "If the Mexi-
can commissioners had not caused action to bb
suspended on it for more than two months, and
down to within one month Of the expiration Of the
commission, 1t would doubtless have been finally
disposed Of" "a like delay, for the same cause,
look place IN respect TO the several claims growing
OUT oil the seizure of the julius Caesar, Champion,
ana Louisiana, the condemnation of the two former,
ana the imprisonment of the persons on board
'"ern' But for the suspension of sction upon
tese cases at the instance, and by the votes, of the
Mcxlcan commissioners, on the allegation that they
had been withdrawn from the coenizance of the
ooan,- they doubtless would have been sent to the
umpire IN season to have received his final judg-
ment hereon."-Ibid., page $50
Another instance, of similar character is pre-
scented IN the case of Mr.. William s. Parrot,
which the American commissioners made the sub
Fc' oil special report, in which they fully demon
strate that Mexico violated the terms Of the conven-
uoh, by Withholding papers which, "by an express
stipulation in the convention, that government had
come under an obgation'' to furnish and by trans
m'lns such cas- appeared on the face of them i'm
perfect and, in some material points, contradictory
ihey conclude their observations on this case in the
oNowng terms: "Finally, itappears quite evident TO
o Undersigned, that the documents which were de-
msnded and not furnished, were such as the govern
inent OF Mexico was bound, under the fourth article
Of The convention to furnish; that the reausition
was sent out at the earliest period at which it could
nave been sent; and that the want Of those docu-
Inents, for not furnishing which no adequate excuse
mas been given, is the cause why final disposition
was not made of this claim OF Mr. Parrott"
Such was the open and undisguised infraction of
treaties and perverson of Justice in this last cited
case, that Mr. Upshur, in his despatch of the 25th
July, 1Si3, (Doc. 1887 thus advcrts 70 il; "Tbe
conduct OF Mexico, as il seems TO me- had made !,
the duty of the United States to insist on promp,
and specific relief so far as this case is concerned
She has rendered herself liable to the charge Of
having broken her faith, and dsregardcd her obliga
lions. She has not complied with single stipula
ton of the fourth article of the convention Of 1889
She has not even protessed to have produced arg,
number Of the documents called for, and many o
those which she did produce were either imperfec
or grossly falsifed. The American commissioner
complained Of this, but without redress; and to nd,
to the injuries and contemptuous conduct Of tn
Mexican commissioners, they took back witt
lhcm against the assent and remonstrances o
Ihe American commissioners and Of the Secretar,
an ~ -, - ? :, = - 49,,