Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-11-23


cause these convictions were the
result of a most unusual and SEN
sational occurrence that attracted
national attention.
History of the Case.
Early in the morning of the 9th
day of March, a. D., 1916, a de-
tachment of Mexican soldiers un-
der the Command of General Fran
cisco villa attacked tn town o.
Columbus. i'm the county of buna'
IN the state of New Mexico, which
said town is very close 10 he boun-
cary line between the United states
and Mexico; upon the attack being
made. a number of United States
soldiers, who were stationed in thaI
settlement, quickly came to the
cefonse of the community, and very
soon a pitched battle occurred be-
tween the forces led by General
Villa and his subordinate officers
and our soldiers. 'lnder their re-
spective officers; in the engage
ment several people were killed
and others wounded on both sides,
and the struggle ended in the hur-
ried retreat of the assailants, VINO
were promptly pursued by our
troops; very soon thereafter, on, to-
| wit, the 10th day of March, A. D.,
1916, a formal expedition into Mex
| lean territory was undertaken and
| carried into effect by United states
| troops under the command of GEN
eral John j. Pershing. These
troops occupied certain sections of
| territory in the state of Chihuahua,
in the republic of Mexico, until
about the 5th day of February A,
H., 1917, when the last of our sol
diers returned to Columbus, after
their evacuation of Mexican terri
| tory.
The defendants above named
were all common soldiers, what Is
generally known as privates, in the
ranks of the Villa invading column
and were all, subsequently,, cap
tured in Mexico by our troops, ano
having been brought into Luna
county, New Mexico, were there in
dicted, charged with the crime OF
numbering the people that were
killed at Columbus at the time OF
the assault on the morning OF
March 8, A. D., 1916. All of the
above named defendants pleaded
guilty of murder in the second de
gree, except the defendant Jost
Rodriguez, who had theretofor'
been tried by a jury and, as above
stated, was found guilty of murdel
in the first degree, and was sen
fenced to hang, his sentence beint
thereafter conmuted by the gov
ernor of the state.
The above named defendants
acting by and through their attor
ney, A. b. Renehan, Esq, and als'
through the Mexican consul, tn
Honorable Carlos Palacios Rojl
have appealed to me as executive
of the state to grant them a par
don, the petition being based on tn
proposition that these defendant
are not guilty of the crime 70
which they were convicted, be
cause, at the time of the commits
sion of the crime whereof the.
stand convicted, they were not re
sponsible agents, in the commits
sion thereof. This brings US to
consideration of the conditions ant
circumstances dnder which thes
men acted.
, Were We Mt Peace With Mexico?
"In the first place, the frs
Q question that arises in my mind
? and which creates very seriou
doubt as to the actual condition o
q things, is this Were we at peac
witch the republic of Mexico on tn
q 3th day of March, A. d. 1916, whe
0 the assault on Columbus took place
or did state of war exist betwee
the United States and Mexico?
0 is fact of contemporaneous his
tory known to all of us that on o
about the 2lst day of April, A. l
4 1914, our troops, under the Pre-
8 lection of our navy, occupied tn
Mexican port of Vera Cruz, and i
s the taxing of military possessio
thereof, a battle took place be
tween our troops and navy on tn
one side, and the Mexican soldier
defending the port, in which strue
y gle several lives were lost on bot
D sides. When the struggle ended ou
troops had the port and CITY
Vera Cruz, and we retained sue
possession until about the 23rd da
D of November, A. d. 1914, being
period of about seven months; tn
Y act on our part certainly created
state of war between us and tf
: republic of Mexico, even though 4
a actual declaration of war VIZ
% made; under the authorities,
:, state of war may, and ottentim'
does, exist between nations, witt
tout any declaration of war beir
made by either.
(See Arce ct al. VS.. the State
Texas. 202 S. W., page 951D
/ am not in possession OF da
and information that. will enab
me to tell whether the relation
between our country and MeXic
+, which were certainly broken al
interrupted by our taking the pc
of Vera Cruz, and which action
our part certainly did create sta
- Of war between the two countri'
had been composed at the time &
~ assault upon Columbus was ma
by the Mexican troops so as
have changed that condition of
state of war between the two n
tons into one of amity and cora
1 relations. If such change had ia
1 en- place, this phase of the ca
i now under consideration is not a
1 plicable, and becomes absolute
/ inconsequential and unimporta
10 deciding it. If, on the 9th
hand, our relations with Mexl
had not been reinstated, but t
state of war still continued to ext
then this point becomes very m
terial and essential because in III
case it is plain to see that these =
PENDANTS would have been prise
ers of war, and should have be
treated and dealt with as such
cording to the rules of civiliz
warfare, and certainly our 81