Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-07-26
THE GARDINER CLAIM.

The folowingis the Opinion ofthe Board of Com.
misSioners on Claims against Mexico in the case
Of pr. George A. Gardiner. As so much has been
said about this claim the opinion of the Board will
possess some interest.
BoARD OF COMMISSIONERS on CLANS AsAISsr MrIrco,
MARcH IL, $780,
The claim Of George A. Gardiner for loss Of property con-
suent his expulsion from the State of San Luis Polos
id Mexico, in October, 1916.
appears from the evidence in this that the claimant
was the sole proprietor of certain silver mines in the State Of
San Luis IN Mexico, and from the year 1914 upto the period
expulsion, the 24h day OF October ls46, he had
great outlay capital brought his operations in mining
state OF prosperity which bade fair to yield him hand
SINE profit upon the capital invested by him in said mines
While thus engaged the prosecution Of his lawful business
which ne had worked unmoested from the early part Of
He year 1884, the executive of the State of San Luis pub
lshed decree the 2l Of October ls46 that all Ameri-
ON citizens then in the State Should leave the within
e period of three days, else be subject and
rid beyond the limits Of the State. The alleged for
such order Of expulsion the approach to the State
oSan LUIS OF the invading army OF the United States and
m apprehension that citizens of the United Sates suffered
toreman n the State, would give intelligence the army Of
their country la pursuance Of this order of expulsion, the
pHsent claimant was driven out of said Stae and forced
dP by body OF Mexican troops, who after eIpelng the
cmant and psgng his property set fire to and destroyed
BIB buildings thus stripping him Of all his property. By the
ay OF 1881, article 26, between the United States and
Mxco, Is expressly stipulated that in the event Of
pdIues, CiLeuS Oi
rdng In the territories of the other and engaged in any
oier trade or profession than that of merchant shs be
permitted to remain in the uninterrupted enjoyment Of their
liberty and property long they conduct
ably, and do not commit any offence against the laws"
The claimant VS. therefore, residing in Mexico under the
guaranty Of protection forth in the treaty 1884, and
entitled citizen Of the United States, the full benefit
Of the provision Of that part of the treaty above set forth
10 be Observed however, that in estimating the damages
which citizen ofhe United States should receive for vio-
aon Of his rights Of residence in Mexico, due regard must
be had TO the notifies which appear TO have Influenced the
public authorities o Mexico to put end to such right II
is to be presumed that either nation, by any article Of
stipulation of the tay Of 1884, intended to deprive itself Of
taking reasonable measure Of pecauon against injury
likely result Immediately from the residence of the citizens
Of the nation in the territories of the other To sup.
pose the contrary wod be to acknowledge that by the said
treaty each nation h stipulated against the right TO itself of
self protection reasonable of apprehension that
injury its security and protection likely arise
from the residence the citizens of the nation in any
particular part of Thy territories of the Other of
between the two naions, would justify proper precauon
prevention against he possibility of such injury The
right Of citizen, therefore, violated under such circumstances
could be considered wantonly vndicively done
and under the treaty of 1881, he would be entitled
vndcye damage but to such only resulted Immediately
from the interruption Of such rights and the Of the agents
Of the Govemmet carrying its orders appears from
the evidence in bis that the expulsion of the present
claimant notvndctve insulting, but that be and all
other citizens of The United States resident in the State of
San Luis were dered 70 leave because ne armies OF their
country rching towards that State and then in
the possession the neighboring State Of New Leon.
reasonable tm had been allowed the claimant make
sary arrangements for the security Of his property preparatory
to his leaving the State he might have had little
complain am no such time being allowed him. but The
contrary, bein compelled to abandon his property page
and desruco he is entitled naturalization for the losses
he sustained y such immediate expulsion. The Board is
therefore of H opinion, and does decide that the claim Of
George A. Gsdiner is valid claim against Mexico and the
is accordingly allowed-tbe amount to be awarded
subject to theiurther action of the Board.
GEO. EVANS, }
ROBT. T.. PAINE. \