The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-07-14
The Mexican Claims


The following is the opinion of the Board on
Claims against Mexico, in the case Of DR.. George
A. Gardiner:
The amount awarded $3.50 oon
S4<o, Ipo
Ofthe foregoing there awarded Gardiner ssal SO 90
Total. ~
As there has been good deal of talk about this
claim, the opinion of the Board will p Jssess some
interest:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON CLAIMS M1 ,sl
The claim of George A. Gardiner for loss of
property consequent on his expulsion from the
State Of San Luis Potos, in Mexico, in October,
1916.
1t appears from the evidence in this case, that
the claimant was sole proprietor of certain silver
mines in the State of San Luis, in Mexico, and
from the year 1874 up to the period of his expul-
sion, on the Mlh day of October, 1916, he had, alta
great outlay of capital, brought his operations in
mining to state Of prosperity which babe fair to
yield him handsome profit upon the capital in.
vested by him in said mines. While thus engaged
in the prosecution OF his lawful business, in which
he had worked unmoles ed from The early part of
the year 1874, the Executive of the State of San
Luis published decree on the 2lst of October,
1885, that all American citizens then in the State
should leave the same within the period Of three
days, else be subject 10 arrest and carried be.
yond the limits of the Stale. TIE alleged
for such order of expulsion, was the near approach
to the State of San Luis of the invading army of
the Uniied States, and the appr hsnsion that cti'
zens of the United States, suffered to remain in
the State, would give intelligence TO the army of
their country. In pursuance OF this order OF ex-
pusion, the present claimant driven out of
said State, and forced to depart, by body of Mex
lean troops, who, after eIpelling the claimant and
paging his property, set fire TO and destroyed his
buildings, thus stripping him of all his property.
BY the treaty of 1884, article 26, between the Uni
ted States and Mexico, it is expressly stipulated
that, 10 the event of a war between The contend
ing parties, the citizens of either nation residing
in the territories of the other, and engaged in any
| other trade or profession than that of merchant
" shall he permitted to remain in the unn erfupted
enjoyment of their liberty and property as long as
they conduct themselves psaceaby, and do not
commit any offence against the laws"
The claimant was, therefore, residing in Mexico
under the guarantee of protection, set forth in
the treaty of 1881, and entitled, citizen of the
United States, the full benefit of the provision of
that part of the treaty above set forth 1t is be
observed, however, that in estimating the damages
which citizen of the United States should receive
for violation OF his rights OF residence in Mexico,
due regard must be had to the motives which
appear to have influenced the public authorities of
Mexico to put end to such right 1t is not to be
presumed that either nation, by any article of stp
itself of taking reasonable measure of precaution
against an injury likely to result Immediately from
the residence of the citizens of the nation in the
territories of the other. To suppose the contrary
would be to acknowledge that, by the said treaty,
each nation had stipulated against the right itself
of self. protection A reasonable cause Of appre-
henson that an injury to its own security and pro-
lection likely to arise from the residence of the
citizens OF the nation in any particular part OF
the territories Of the other state OF between
the two nations, would justify proper precaution
prevention against the possibility OF such in
jury. The Tgh of citizen, therefore, violated
under such circumstances, could not be considered
as wantonly or vindctlvey done; and under the
treaty of 1881, he would be entitled not to vindic
tive damages, but to such only as resulted immed-
ately from the interruption of such rights and the
acts of the agents of the government carrying out
its orders. 1t appears from the evidence in this
case, that the expulsion of the present claimant was
not vindictve insulting, but that he and all
other citizens of the United States, resident in the
State of San LUIS, were ordered to leave because
the armies of their country were marching towards
that State, and were then in the possession of the
neighboring State OF New Leon. If a reasonable
time had been allowed the claimant to make neces-
sary arrangements for the security of his property
preparatory to his leaving the State, he mig hit have
hal little cause complain but no such time
being allowed him, but on the contrary, being
compelled to abandon his property to pillage and
destruction, he is entitled to Naturalization for the
losses he sustained by such immediate expulsion.
The Board is, therefore, of the opinion, and does
decide, that the claim of George A. Gardiner is a
valid claim against Mexico, and the same is accord
ingly allowed the amount to be awarded subject
to the further action Of the Board
s sssss ~ : : : :1s5s'