New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-08-10
The Mexican Claims Commission.

= dered by Sir Edward ThorntoB, the umpir
, in the United States and Mexican claim
: commission:
missed for want of proof of the claimant
American citizenship. This claim for al
legged expulsion from a ranch near Tabasco
Mexico, in Augtst. 1913. nv order of Gen
eral Miguel Bruno, of the Mexican army.
Elizabeth A. Evans, widow, anu L. w
Evans, administrator, Of Harry L. Evans
deceased, against M-xico.-Award OF
, the widow, and $4,000, gold, with interes,
at the rate of six per cent per anuum from
April 10, 1857. in favor of the administra
tor. This was a claim arising ont Of the
, robbery and murder of DR.. Harry E Evans
by the Mexican military authorities a,
Alta, Mexico. in April, 1857. Evans was q
brother-iu-law OF Crabb, Who led a tilibus-
tering expedition into Mexico about that
time, and was charged with cOmplicitv in
the expt dition The umpire holds that the
charges were not proven, and the manner
of his death by sentence OF military court
was unwarrantable.
Bernardino and Francisco Garcia Mur.
veizn vs. the United States.--D Dismissed.
This was claim arising out of the pillage
and destruction Of stock of merchandise
in the town of Bagdad, Mexico on the Rio
Grande, on January 5, 1866 The town had
been in the occupation Of the French or
lmperialists, when, on the morning in ques-
tiOn, an attack was made. and the place can.
tured by force organized on and sta, t ing
from the American side Of the river, where
upon the town was Dillaged. 1t was claimed
by Mexico that the force was composed
OF soldiers Of the United States army, and
that the government Of the United States
should have prevented the expedition from
| starting, and, not having done so, was re-
| spOnsible for the consequences. The umpire
holds that the expedition, although organ
lied on American territory, was organized
under the direction of General Escobedo
! and other commissioned officers of the Mex
! lean army; that thele was no lack of due
diligence on the part Of the United States
in preventing its starting, and that Mexico.
and not the United States, is responsible
| for the acts of the capturing force.
! Charles Taussig, administrator OF Maurice
| Taussig, deceased. against Mexico-This
! was claim on q draft for 500. 1913, drawn
| by Senior DobladO, acting Secretary of the
Mexican Treasury. on April Is, 1862, against
United States to Mexico under the
Corwin treaty. This treaty twas not rat
! itied by the United States Senate, and the
draft has never been paid. The umpire
holds that the draft. having been given in
payment OF the balance due on divers con-
tracts between the claimant and the Mexi-
can government, it is necessary to know
fully the nature of the contracts in order TO
dstermne whether they are such as the
United States would support before the
commission, and for want Of this ipforms-
tiOn dismissed tho claim.
Charles p. Stowe and Samuel W. inee
against Mexico-These were claims arising
out Of the violation Of contract for the
survey OF the public lands in Sonora. and
for avnu1nion A.,
execution of the work. The umpire holds
that the original contract having been
between Messrs. decker. Tore & Co.. .
French firm, and the claimants only sub
contractors, The claim for violation Of COT
tract must be dismissed for want Of julis-
diciioh. The second part of the claim he
dismisses on the ground that it has been
already adjusted between the United States
and Mexico.
Joseph w. Hale against Mexico-This
was claim arising cut Of the occupation
and destruction of the claimant's cedar
wood saw mills by the Mexican military
authorities at Topic. Mexico, in April and |
May. 1860. Award OF $4,000. gold, with /!
interest at the rate of six per cent per an |
mum from June l. 1860
Margaret Glenn against Mexico.-This |
was claim tor the murder and robbery Of |
her husband and son by the Mexican civil |
authorities, near SaltillO, Mexico, in Octo- !
Der, 1858. and the failure to bring the mur. |
derers to trial. Award Of $4,000, gold, |
without interest.
Samuel w. Pratt against Mexico This
was claim for the seizure Of household !
effects and me cchandise on the Tehuante.
pee railroad, at Suehil. Mexico, ON the min tn |
OF November, 1859. Dismissed, the umpire
deciding that the seizure was made under
the Judicial process Of competent court.
Augustus Jovan against Mexico.-This
was claim arising Cat of false arrest and
imprisonment and seizure of personal prop
erty and valuable papers by the Mexican
civil authorities in Chilpanzingo, Mexico, in |
1853 and 1854, and denial of Justice in de-
laying the trial. Awarded $35, 600, with in
terest at six per cent per annum from Jan
T. w. Latham, assignee of r. H. Howell.
against Mexico.-Thls was claim for vio-
!atiOn OF contract for supplying arms in
1863 between Howell and General Busta-
mente in behalf of Mexico. Tho umpire
doubts General Bustamente's authority to
bind the Mexican government. and holds
that Howell failed to fulfill his part Of the
contract, and dismisses the claim.
Adolph Wedmon & Brothers against
Mexico. - This was a. claim for mOuey
loaned to General Placido Viga as agent Of
Mexico in San Frapcisc in 1855. The um-
pire rejects the claims, holding that General
Vlga had no authority to bind his govern.
nent for such loan.
Edward kearney against Mexico.-This
Vas q claim for the value Of arms furnished |
20 Mexico under contract with Colonel Z.
Mexia. in 1867. Rejected, on the ground
II lack OF authority IN the agent to bind
he Mexican government |,
Juan NJ Silva against MexicO-This was |
claim for damages to house, farm, etc, by !;
he military authorities at Santo Tomas, in |
af md Sov /
he umpire holding that the damages are {
lot proved to have been inflicted by Mex
can authorities"
Edgar Kellow against Mexico1fhis was I
claim for the value of Mexican bond
eized by the Mexican treasury officials as c
ne OF lot OF stolen bonds, on July Is, S
$50, at the City of Mexico. The umpire b
ecldes that Mexico shall pay an amount
quail to the claimants interest in the sum | 4
ctually paid for the bond, holding that \
here are circumstances in the case indicat.
lg that the bond was partnership property,
q which point, and as to actual cost of the d
ond, further proof will be necessary. Il
Patrick t'rider against MexicO.-This was G.
claim for forced loans. Rejected, in pur- n
lance OF the former decision of the umpire v
/ the case Of McManus.
Andrew Curcier's representatives against 81
e4lco.-This was claim for an alleged p
enial OF justice by the Mexican courts in r,
'e case of Andrew Curcier's executors
sainst Stephen C1rcier. Rejected by the fl
mpire, who holds tha. the proceedings h
,mplained of were in accordance with
exlcan law and judicial procedure. II
Jules E. Caire against Mexico-This was o.
claim arising out OF the suppression of the
'wspaper La Estatetta, in the City OF 81 q
exico, in January, 1862. Rejected by the .
npire on the ground that the claimant has OF
It proved that he owned any share in the II