Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-03
EX-PRESIDENT HAYES.

| A treaty between Mexico and the United
States to reopen the notorious We'll and
La Abra claims, is now before the senate.
These two claims were part of number
which were decided by the Mexican claims
commission under the treaty of 1868. Be-
| fore that commission were presented
claims of Americans to the prodigious
amount of S475,OOO,OOO. The commission
after hearing evidence, awarded the claim
ants in all 100000, or less than 1 per
cent. of the total claims.
Of these 100000 awarded 81 100000
were represented by two claims those of
We'll, for cotton, and of the owners of La
| Abra mine. Very soon after the awards
were made the Mexican government pre-
scented to the United States documentary
proofs only then discovered of the fraudu-
| lent nature of these two claims. From
this mass of papers it appears that Benja-
min We'll obtained an award before the
mixed commission for $487, 81O6S, based
upon ex-parte afidavits, alleging that in
1864, while the confederates were in pos
session of Texas, We'll purchased on his
| 1914 bales of cotton, which he swore he
was transporting in one immense train of
| 100 wagons through Mexican territory to
Matamoras for export to Europe, when it
was alleged to have been seized and con-
fscated by the Mexican authorities.
From the new evidence it appears:
l. That We'll was from 1863 to 1868 en-
gagged in a general partnership with
number of persons; that during the year
1864, the time when the cotton was alleged
to have been bought, shipped and seized
by Mexico, he was wholly and exclusively
engaged in the partnership business, and
that he could not and did not engage in
any such operations as those alleged, and
which were made the basis of his claim
and award.
2. That for number of years prior to
and at the date of the alleged purchase
and collection of cotton, We'll was pos
sessed of very limited means, and had
neither the money nor credits on his own
account to purchase the cotton claimed by
him and seized by the Mexican authorities.
3. That no such train of cotton as alleg
| ed ever crossed the Rio Grande from Texas
into Mexico, or was seized by Mexican
forces. The partnership agreement is filed,
as also the afidayits of Wells partners,
all of whom swear he had no business oper-
atoms except those connected with the
partnership, that he had no means outside
| of the firm, no personal credit, and that he
never owned or lost the cotton claimed. In
addition, there are filed 200
original letters of the firm, seventy of
which are in Wells own handwriting,
showing where he was and the business in
which he was engaged during the year
1864, from which it clearly appears that he
never was engaged in the cotton transac-
tons alleged, but in an entirely different
business, and hundreds Of miles away from
the localities where he claims TO have been,
| in his case before the commissioner.
The material witness by whose affidavit
the purchase and shipment of 1900 bales
of cotton is made to appear is proved to
have been at Shreveport, La, during the
whole of.tS64, and that he was suborned by
We'll to give his perjured testimony. The
price of his subornation is shown, and he
| has since offered to confess his perjury.
| The other material witness, who swears
thai he was an eye witness of the seizure
! and coniscation of the cotton by the Mexi-
| can authorities on the Rio Grande, is
| proved to have been at the time, and for
| months before and after the date fixed for
| the seizure. in Belmont county, Ohio. He
also has confessed that this affidavit was
| corruptly obtained and was false IN every
particular.
It is shown by the testimony of we'll
| known federal and confederate authorities
in Texas and on the Rio Grande that no
| such train of cotton ever crossed into Mex
| leo in 1864 or was seized by the authori-
ties of that region.
The ffauduIence of the claim of La Abra
| Silver Mining company was as conclusive
Iy shown, the mine for which they claim
compensation having been abandoned by
them voluntarily as worthless.
| IN June, 1878, congress directed the
president to investigate this evidence and,
if he saw proper, to agree with the Mexi-
can government for retrial of these
| cases: in the meantime authorizing him to
suspend the payment of the awards to
| these claimants. The state depart
ment, after investigation, reported to
congress that the honor of the country
required that these two cases should be
still further investigated in order that this
government should not be used to enforce
upon friendly government claims about
| whose integrity there were grave doubts.
Meantime two installments had been paid
to the owners of La Abra, but nothing on
the We'll claim. The house and senate dis
agreed on the course to be adopted in the
matter and adjourned in June, 1880, with
out acting. Thereupon the claimants made
another vigorous effort to obtain the dis
tribution of the money from Mr.. EVarts,
then secretary of state, but without sue
cess. Mr.. Evarts left Washington for his
summer vacation, leaving the money I'M
distributed in the treasury.
A very extraordinary thing now occur
led. A large number of lawyers had been
retained in these cases after they were dis
puted; among them Messrs. Shellabarger
and Wilson, ex-Attorney General BARLEY,
Mr.. F. B. Stanton, Mr.. John J. Key, and
others. These gentlemen had argued the
questions in dispute before the secretary
of state, and in vain, for they did not get
the money.
But now appeared on the scene new
man, Thomas L. Young, member of con-
gress from Ohio, at that time, as he is still,
and particular friend of Mr.. Hayes, then
president. He suddenly appears as coun-
sci for the We'll claimants, Gen. Young
does not appear anywhere, before or
since, on the record as counsel in this case,
but the following letter from Mr.. Hayes,