The San Francisco call., 1910-01-19
What the Decision Means

Garret w. McEnerney, who, as at
torney for Archbishop Riordan, con-
Quoted the pious fund case, gives The
call the following explanation Of the
foregoing dispatch:
The suit OF Nathaniel Wilson against
the Roman Catholic archbishop and
bishops of California. which has just
been decided ia Washington in favor
of the archbishop and bishops against
Nathaniel Wilson, arose out of the
pious fund.
"In 1892. when General Santa Ana was
in control Of the Mexican government
he confscated a fund of about Sl.400,-
coo which had been created for the
spread OF the Roman Catholic religion
in the CALIFORNIA;, Upper and Lower.
in the legislative proclamation by
which this property was conf1scated,
Mexico greed that il would pay for the
same religious uses and purposes 6
per cent on. the capitalization Of the
fund for all time TO come.
CHURCH GETS AWARD
~In IS4S upper California became
american territory, and IL was thence
forth claimed by the Roman Catholic
authorities in upper California that
they We're entitled to q fractional share
Of 8 per cent on the ca capitalization Of
Tie COnfscated property. The per
cent interest on the ca equalization
would be about $4,000. and in subse-
auent litigation over the matter upper
California, the American territory, was
awarded half of the $4,000, or $4,000,
per annum.
The litigation wherein this ques-
tion was decided first arose in 1863.
in that year the United States of
America and Mexico created a tribunal
at Washington for the settlement Of
claims OF citizens of Mexico against
the United States and claims of citi-
zens Of the United States against Mex
leo which had arisen between ls4S and
1859.
CLAIM PRESENTED
ITO the tribunal the then archbishop
and bishops Of California presented a
claim for q years interest or annuities
for q years. arising out Of the pious
fund. In presenting this claim to the
tribunal al Washington the archbishop
and bishops employed Philip Philips.
then a very distinguished lawyer at
Washington, and with him Nathaniel
Wilson, and agreed TO pay them 10 per
cent Of the award. The church au-
thorities won the case. Philips and
Wilson were paid 10 per cent and their
services dispensed with The payments
were made by Mexico in installments
and ran along until about 1880
Archbishop RiOrdan, from the time
he came to California in 1884, sought
10 obtain another treaty between the
United States and Mexico for the an
nuities accruing after 1869, but he was
not successful until the year 1902, when
Mexico and the United States con-
Guided another treaty. by which the
question OF Mexico's liability for the
annuities from 1869 to 1902 was sub
mitted to the international tribunal at
The Hague.
Philips DIES
In the meantime Philip Philips had
died. and just about the time when the
matter was 10 have been submitted to
The Hague Nathaniel Wilson claimed
that the contract OF Philips and VIII
son entitled them 10 act as attorneys
for all time TO come in the pious fund
litigation. This claim was denied by
the archbishop. and they were refused
the right 10 participate in the litigation
at The Hague. The litigation at The
Hague was conducted by other attor-
neys and won. Thereupon the estate
Of Philip Philips and Nathaniel Wilson
brought a suit claiming to be entitled
10 % per cent of the annuities between
1859 and 1902 which were recovered at
The Hague
The decision just rendered undoubt-
edly proceeds upon the proposition that
Philips and Wilson were emploved
with respect to the annuitfes from IS4s
10 1863 and had nothing TO do with
the annuities between 1863 and 1902.
and therefore could not recover a per
centage OF the annuities for those years
awarded at The Hague and subsequent
ly paid by Mexico"