The Indianapolis journal., 1884-01-08
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Important Opinions Delivered by the Court
Yesterday-The Mexican Awards.

AeSUefuay-Ine mexican Awards.
WASHINGTON, Jan. THE Supreme Court
rendered an interesting decision to-day in two
cases involving the same question, entitled
Frederick I. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State,
plaintiff in error, against the United States ex
rel. John j. Key, and the United States ex rel
the La Abra Silver Mining Company against
Frederick T. Frelnghuysen Secretary of State,
in error, Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia.
These were suits brought to obtain writs of
mandamus requiring the Secretary of State 10
pay the relators amounts alleged to be due them
from awards made in 1882 by the international
Mexican claims commission, under the treaty
concluded between the governments of the
United States and Mexico on the 4th of July
1865 The refusal of the Secretary of State to pay
claimants the amount of the sixth installment
received from the Mexican government
and nominally due them under the
awards of the commission was based
upon the fact that after President
Arthur came into Office, he made further exami-
nation of the cases and believed the awards had
been obtained by fraud. Another treaty was
negotiated with Mexico providing for rehear-
ing (which is now pending in the Senate) and
directing that the payment of the sixth Install
ment be withheld. In the court below the petit
ton of the La Abra Company was dismissed; but
in the case of John j. Key, writ of mandamus
was awarded.
This court, in a long elaborate opinion by
Chief Justice Waite, holds that the whole pur-
pose of the treaty between the United States
and Mexico was to ascertain how much was due
from one government to the other on account of
the demands OF their respective citizens, as be-
tween the United States and Mexico The
awards are final and conclusive until set aside
by agreement between the two gov
ernments or otherwise. Mexico can
not, under the terms of the treaty refuse
to make payments at the times agreed on if re
quired by the United States. But this she does
not now seek to do What she seeks is the con
sent of the United States to her release from the
liability under the convention on account of the
particular awards now in dispute, because of the
alleged fraudulent character of the proof in sup
port Of the claims, which the United States were
induced by the claimants to furnish for the CON
sideration OF the commission. As to the right of
the United States to treat with Mexico for a re-
trial of these cases, the court entertains no
doubt Each government, when it entered into
the compact under which the awards were made
evidently relied on the honor and good faith of
the other for protection, as far as possible
against frauds and impositions by individual
claimants The presentation by citizen of a
fraudulent claim, or false testimony forrefer-
ence to the commission, was an imposition on
his own government and if that government
afterward discovered it had in this way
been made instrument of wrong
towards friendly power, 1t would be not only
its right but its duty to repudate the act and
make reparation as far as possible for the conse-
quences of its governmental neglect, if any there
had been.
International arbitration must always proceed
on the highest principles of national honor and
integrity. No technical rules of pleading as ap-
piled in courts, ought be allowed to stand in
the way of a national power to do what is right
under all circumstances
The first section of the Act of rs, authorizes
and requires the Secretary of State to receive
the moneys paid by Mexico under the conven-
tions and to distribute them among the several
claimants but it also manifess disposition on
the part of Congress to encroach on the power of
the President and the Sentate, to conclude an
other treaty with Mexico in respect to any or even
all claims allowed by the commission, if
in their opinion the honor of the United States
demanded it. Under the circumstances, in the
opinion of the court, it was clearly within the
discretion Of the President to withhold all future