New-York daily tribune., 1851-07-28
THE GARDINER CASE.
Opinion of the Board of Commissioners-De-
fense of the Administration-The Evening
Posts Ceres pondent.
From The National Intelhgcnce

FROM the Ndlloht4
The following is the opinion OF the Board
Of Commissioners on Claims against Mexico IN the
case Of DR. George A. Gardiner As So much has
been said about tins claim the opinion OF the Board
viii possess some interest
BOARD or COMMISSIONERS ON CLAIMS AGAINST MENIco.
March -. 1870
The claim of George A. Gardiner, for loss Of pro
perty consequent on his expulsion from the State of
san LUIS POtoSl. IN Mexico, IN October. 1916.
Ii appears from the evidence IN thus ease thai the
claimant the sole proprietor OF certain silver
mines IN the state OF san LUIS, IN MeNico, and
from the year 1874 up TO the period Of his expulsion,
on the 2ith day of October 1916, he had, at great
outlay of capital, brought ms operations IN mlnng
to a state OF prosperity which bade far % weld hm
a handsome profit upon the capital invested by hlm
in SAID miIes. While thus engaged IN the prOSecu-
ton Of hiS lawful business. ia which he had worked
unmCested from the early part OF the year lsii the
Executive OF the state OF san LUIS published
decree The .ls of October. 1916, that all Ameri-
citizens treu IN iht STATE should leave tuc same
within the pcrlOu OF three days. or else be SUBJECT
20 arrest and carried be} end The limits of the Ste
The cause alleged for such order of expulsion Was
the near approach to the State OF san LUIS OF the IN
vadng army Of the ned States, and The apprehen-
SION that Of the United States, suffered 20 re-
man Ia the State would give intelligence 70 the army
of their country In pursuance oi hS order ol expJl-
Si0n he present claimant Was driven ont OF sad
State, and forced 20 depart. BY body ot Mexican
troops. Who after cNpe,iiug the claimant and puag-
ing ms property set IRE 10 and destroyed ms bulii-
inCS, thus stripping him OF all his property Nv the
and Mexico, II is expressly stipulated that, IN the
event Of a war between the contend.ng parties the
cuzenS Of either nation residing IN the territories OF
the other and engaged m any other trade or proos
SON than that OF a merchant shall bc permtedto 10
remain in the uninterrupted enjoyment of their liner
" and property Is long As they conduct themselves
peacoaoy, and do not commit any oiense against the
laws
The claimant was, therefore. residing IN Mexico
undor The guarantee OF protection SET forth IN the
treaty OF 1891 and entitled, a. a citizen ot the
United States, 10 the iu bencnt Of the provision OF
that pant OF the treaty above set iorth II Is 10 De
Observed. however, that IN estimating tie damages
which citizen Of the United states should receive
for a violation of hS rights of residence IN Mexico
due regard must be had 70 the motives which appear
to have Influenced the public authorities OF Mexico
20 put end to such right II Is not To DC presumed
that either nation by any article of stipulation o the
treaty Of 1881, ntenced 10 deprive ltset OF TAKING
reasonable measure of prtCautlOn against an INJURY
nko'y 10 result Immediately from the residence ot
the citizens ot the one nation IN the territories OF tnc
other. To suppose the contrary would be TO az
knowledge that by the SAID treaty each nation
had stipulated against the right to itself oi setpro-
lection ArcaSOnable cause OF apprehension thai an
injury 10 rs own sccuny and protection was likely
10 arse from the residence OF the citizens OF the one
nation IN any particular part Of the territories oil The
other. IN state Of war between the two nations.
would Justify a proper prec2uton or prevention
against the possibility Of such an INJURY. The rght
of a citizen therefore, violated under such clrcum-
stances could not be considered as wantOnly of yn-
dctlvelv done and under the treaty OF 1881, he
would Lc eItlleu IOt 10 !llttllFc uuHdstN, bhk W
such only resulted Immediately from the nterrup-
ton Of such rights and the acts OF the agents OF the
Government carrying ont It's orders. II appears
from The evidence III this that the expulsion
of the present claimant was not ylndctlye or IN
sulting hut that he and all other citizens OF the
United States resident IN the State OF san LUIS
were ordered 10 leave because the armies OF their
country w,rc marching toward that State and were
then IN the possession of the ncighborlng Stale oi
New Leon. II a reasonable time had been allowed
the claimant To make necessary arrangements for
the security o ms property, preparatory to his leay-
ing the State, he might have had little cause 10 com
PLAN and no such time beng allowed him, but, on
the contrary, beng compelled TO abandon his prop
cry to page and destruction he Is entitled To m
domn Gcaton for the losses he sustained by such in
mediate 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 accordingly allowed the amount 70 be
awarded subject to the further action of the Board.
GEO EVANS,
ROBT Il PAINE,