The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-09-23
n. SECRETARY Of STAT. to Mr.. Po...ia.


Washington, April 10, 1919.
sR have bad the honor receive your note of the
S0th uno in reply that Of the 2sh addressed you by
Port aFrench CITIZEN against tho Of tho Uni
ted States You are correct IA saying that did not forth
length the which led the conclusion
municated in that This however, must be imputed
doubt part as 10 the adequacy OF those reasons.
but a presumption that You would necessarily arrive
the conclusion u you bestowed upon the documents
full examination In the correctness Of most Of the facts
stated breviate OF the entirely concur, but
you mention which can nowhere find subsantated
by the evidence and 10 which a. important should
the outset invite your attenton. You observe "Mr Pou
fact not Ignorant that Mr. Domercq had said that he
the OF the tobacco the day before tth oc
tober Not being able find any proof Of his statement
must be allowed asctibe IL either oversight
part or TO design 70 convey an impression that Mr.
tobacco until that time No such impression is warranted
by the testimony On the Trial Of the before the mil
quest was MANNED a witness In his behalf The fol-
lowing Is material part Of his examination
Question. Did not several occasions. inform You
time heard anything the subject was day
Pot called in my hearing the Of the Spanish
purchase VI the iobaocoi The reply TO which was. No;
Tor the properly Of friend, and you viii make your
,od witness he had purchased 900 bales OF the .oIaoeo
ed him II he did wish Join him Ia the pur
wish to buy his properly Por answered, that made
no difference, that ood always interposs his claims
positive and inefragabls fact that prior the
sale Of the tobacco TO hun. under the authority Of he United
property and that sale be made igno
rance OF that fact This testimony iscoadrned By ccum
examination before the court Sensbls apparently,
Of importance Of showing that Mr.. Port when the
we're without tide you endeayof inv.idan the
rnony Of Colonel Chds by asserting that Mr. Por could
because he vas no, in Paeba at the time the TO Mr.
Hugou. Mr. Domercq that he left that Guy on the
ober tie day before the adve Of the sale which
purchased. SupPo.ing these allegations 10 be true,
Thar no proof OF adduccd before the military
at Pueba Had this been done, be doubted that
due weight would have been allowed to them lnasmuch,
however, ey the statement Of witness,
considering the testimony under the necessity Of
You also deny the assertion OF Colonel Child. that Mr.
Port bacco dealer BY this you doubtless intend 10
interest in that Gle Paeba
necessarily have led 70 knowledge Of the previous sales OF
Port. sle basnes but the very Of his purchase and
sale Ia this instance sufficient answer to the unqualified
statement tba, he was not tobacco dealer
r. therefore, the legal testimony only in the
stands be regarded. mpst deem inoon,estsbs Mr.
Port the time he msds the purchase, Privy 70 tls
.amed Tia, you woald no, oairn on b. behalf rom
United States more than the Mexican woad have
the property Individual which the seller, also an IN
dvidua. had sold without being Of the tue owner
owner by process Of law. II correctly informed, the
Mexican law declares that such case ne purchase,
NOT even be entitled q tefnru Of the purchase meuey
These sir are the grouads for ogn,9n that the mill
= he money which he had pad tor the tob loco with inter
20, thereon rendered him substantial justice and thai
TO guaranty spec alaons made by him II
an article under sach This opin
b. NOT IL my Judgment shaken BY the remarks con
lava. myself Of hi, opportunity to renew 70 you air. Ii,
assurance q my nigh confederation :, :, .vrox (
To VIZ TEL. Poussrs, nc
I---------------------
a.. ossff krf.