Evening star., 1926-04-27
CLAIMS DECISION
EvOKES HOT ROW
U. S. Envoy Disputes Legality
of Ruling in Favor of
Mexico in Case.

by the Associated Press.
MEXICO CITY, April 21.-The claim
of the United States Government for
indemnification for the killing of Is
American mining engineers by Villa
bandits at Santa Isabel in January,
1916, has been decided adversely.
DR. Rodrigo Octavio of Brazil. the
neutral persiding judge of the Mex
ican-American Special Claims Commits
sion, and Fernando G. Roa, Mexican
member of tn commission. ruled yes
terday that Mexico was not liable to
damages. The claims, totaling ST.
225 900, were regarded as Il test case
for loss Of various American lives in
Mexico.
Judge Ernest &. Perry, the United
States commissioner, and Attorney IL.
A. BaSham. adviser to the American
embassy, disputed the legality of the
decision and requested another hear
ing. DIR. Octavio set September as
the date for hearing at Tampico.
Perry Presence Uncertain.
Judge Perry said it was uncertain
whether he would attend the meeting
at Tampico, as his action would de-
pend on the attitude of the State De
partment.
British, German and other diplo
mats attended yesterdays session of
the commission considering that the
decision would afford precedent pos
sibly affecting thousands of claims
from various countries against Mex
leo.
When the session began yesterday
Judge Perry at first refused to par
ticipate. Later. however. he entered
into a vigorous argument with the
other commissioners, charging that he
had not been consulted in formulating
the decision, of which he knew moth
ing. He charged that the presiding
commissioners opinion had been in
the hands Of the Mexican delegate
for some time and asked Senor Roa il
it were not true. The Mexican replied
that he did not know.
DIR. Octavio said that he had sent
his opinion to Judge Perry. who re-
torted that he had never seen it.
When adjournment was taken until
the afternoon. Judge Perry said he
would not enter into any conference
with the presiding commission unless
it was made a matter of record that
they had arrived at no decision and
that they. were ready to discuss the
facts and law before coming to
conclusion.
Attends Later Session.
The American commissioner, how
ever. was present when the afternoon
session opened. Immediately after
the members seated themselves. DIR.
Octavio and Senor Roa began official
ly signing the decision.
The Americans msssacred by the
Mexican bandits were taken from a
Mexico Northwestern train, robbed,
stripped and killed.
Judge Perry in presenting his ar
gument refused to accept the Judg-
ment Of DIR. Octavio and Senor Roa
that Francisco Villa was g. bandit
on January 10, 1916, the date Of the
massacre at Santa Ysabel.
DR.. Octavio declared that until
January l, 1916, Villa was a revolu-
ZIONIST and the Mexican government
would have been responsible If he had
killed the Americans before that
date, but after January l Villa be-
came a bandit and the government
was not responsible.
Judge Perry read documents pur-
porting to prove that the government
continued after January l to recog-
nize Villa as a revolutioniSt. Further
more, he insisted that the government
was responsible whether Villa was a
bandit or not. 1t had, he asserted,
specifically promised safe conduct to
the Americans.
Charges Date Changing.
In addition the Mexican United States
convention, creating the claims COM
mission definitely fixed the dates of
the revolutionary period, which he
charged the commission now was at
tempting to change.
The Octavio-Roa decision. as given
out by the Mexican foreign office last
night, points out that the United States
recognized Villa as a bandit. 1t fur.
ther denies there was proof that Villa
had been present at or was responsible
for the Santa YSabel massacre, for
which possibly other bandits were re-
sponsible. It denies that the passports
given to the Americans constituted
guarantees of protection by the Mexi.
can government, because they were
issued by the border immigration Off
Gals.
Mexico has recognized her moral OBJ
legations to pay the revolutionary
damages, it says, but in this case she
is under no obligation, because 1t is
not proved that the massacre was not
perpetrated by unlawful elements be
yond the control Of the Mexican. gov
ernment, and because responsibility
for unlawful elements is specifically
exempted in the claims convention.