The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-16
The Claims of Andrew Nc
Kinstry and Patrick Shields
Disputed.
THEIR IMPRISONMENT DENIED.
Secretary Gresham's Signature and
Seal Of State Met a Similar
Fate.


Andrew McKinstry and Patrick Shields,
the American sailors who were beaten by
ChiIenos in Valparaiso in 1891, has received
copies of the answers filed by Chile before
the International Claims Com mission. To
the attorneys intense surprise Chile re-
pudiated the claims, interposed objections
to each count and each legal proceeding;
rejected the seals and signatures of Ameri-
can notaries public, and the English Consul
at San Francisco. Legal representatives OF
the bumptious southern republic refused
to accept the signature of the late Secre-
tary Gresham of the Department of State,
although the great seal of State was at
tached thereto.
In his answer to the Shields claim be-
fore the commission now sitting in Santi-
ago, Chile, he said:
The claim filed by Patrick Shields executor
is based on events which occurred two months
after the pacifcation of the republic. These
events are in no way connected with the civil
war. The question is one referring to the fire.
man of an American steamer, who alleges TO
have been unlawfully apprehended and bar
Such acts give rise to civil and criminal
actions, which must be instituted before the
ordinary tribunal in the same manner as any
other vexatious act or any claim preferred by a
paraiso or against the Chilean exchequer.
will put an end to this assortment by stat
ing that the honorable tribunal is not compe-
tent to adjudicate this claim, both because 1T
is not known whom it will favor and whether
Patrick Shields heirs are British subjects or
not. and because it is based on facts which
have not been brought about by the civil
war of 1891.
However evident the want of jurisdiction of
the tribunal may be, cannot refrain from en-
tering into the merits of the case, since the
llaG 6O
ton of demurrers will therefore state to the
honorable tribunal, that the facts set forth in
The impro liability of such facts is at the out
set manifest. 1t would be useless to seek for
the determining motive of the illegal conduct
of the police and OF the torture inflicted to
Patrick Shields, as 1t could not be found either
in the antecedents of the corps charged with
the custody of Valparaiso, or in any special
motives connected with the claimant II in no
case could 1t be justified, 1t would at least be
explainable that an exaggerated zeal on behalf
of persons and property should induce to tor
ture any one with the purpose of detecting
crime.
The torture should still be attributed to the
exaltation of deep and obstinate hatred. But
Shields, according to his own statement. was
not apprehended for the inquiry of an offense
committed by him or by others. nor could he
call up hatred or feelings of vengeance, mas
much as he was an unknown person. being
recently arrived in this country.
His Imprisonment and ill-treatment, which
he attributes to the police of Valparaiso, are
only proved by his own testimony and some
how by that of Andrew McKinstry. another
sailor who has filed similar claim, based on
identical grounds. The Chilean courts of
justice made ali possible efforts to inquire into
the truth of Shields complaint, but all in vain.
A legal inquiry was made with this purpose,
but neither in the police office, whose records
are kept in an accurate and careful manner,
nor any where else were even traces of Shields
IMPRISONMENT found.
Either by the latter's fault or by the refusal
of the American Consul in Valparaiso. it was
impossible to get Shields himself to recognize
those whom he supposed to be the author OF
his Imprisonment and of the blows he received;
and this was the only proceeding which was
carried out.
and severely ill-treated during the days he re-
manned on land in the month of October, 1891.
But there is no reason to attribute to the po-
lice what was surely the result of quarreling
engaged in in some of the numerous places of
amusement where sailors are in the habit of
meeting for drinking and amusing themselves.
Shields himself declares that on the 28th of
October he had drunk two bottles of beer, and
it is possible that this should disturb his rea-
son and that this disturbance should call for
new libations and for the natural consequences
of drunkenness
If Shields quarreled with his comrades or
with other individuals in the same condition
as he was, the cause OF his misfortune is easily
accounted for; but there Is no reason to i'm
pute it to the police of Valparaiso, and much
less to the Chilean Government.
In the case of McKinstry it was claimed
that he had never been arrested or i'm
prisoned, much less beaten in Valparaiso.
The police records failed to show that
McKinstry had been imprisoned, and his
reported escape from Jail was treated cyni-
ally-men were not in the habit of escap-
ne from Chilean prisons.
Because the present British Consul
signed his name as acting Consul ad
interim his signature was not legalized
in the eyes of Chile, though the British
Government seal was attached to the
document.
But by far the boldest exception was that
to the documents from the Secretary of
State bearing his signature and seal. These
were not "legalized" for reasons known
only to the Chileno statesman, who cut the
last leg from beneath the claims of his re-
fusal to accept documents which several
lawyers here have declared perfect as law
papers between one country and another.
Three years ago Chile admitted the claims
but now backs down on wholly unexpected
grounds which paralyze international legal
procedure.
And yet Attorney Orr, assisted by other
lawyers, will make last effort to secure
the indemnity due the maltreated sailors.