Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 2, 1878
No. 357.
Mr. Foster
to Mr. Evarts.
Mexico, September 3, 1878. (Received September 24.)
Sir: In your dispatch No. 401, of July 3, 1877, I was instructed to complain to the Mexican Government of the firing into Consul Sutter’s boat, carrying the American flag, at Acapulco, in May, 1877. In my No. 576, of July 20, 1877, I reported that I had presented the matter to the minister of foreign affairs, who promised to give the subject prompt attention.
The matter has been several times presented by me to the minister in our conferences during the past twelve months, but having failed to obtain any action or definite answer, I sent to him, under date of July 23, last, a formal note recapitulating the facts of the case and remonstrating against further indifference and delay.
The minister answered me on the 5th ultimo, expressing regret at the occurrences, and stating that the investigations held had failed to discover who had been guilty of the firing, and denying that it had been intentional; but in view of the failure of the commandant of the fort to investigate the affair at the time, his trial had been ordered.
In my reply of the 31st ultimo, I stated that my government would doubtless be gratified at the expressions of regret manifested in the minister’s note, and would duly appreciate the efforts which had been made to ascertain the authors of the outrage. I was satisfied that unless some example was made at Acapulco, for the event, it would only be an encouragement toward similar acts, and I therefore expressed the opinion that the facts justified some more summary action against the commandant than had been taken, as the trial ordered will, doubtless, amount to nothing in that port.
I am, &c.,
Mr. Foster to Mr. Mata.
Mexico, July 23, 1878.
Sir: The consul of the United States at Acapulco officially reports to this legation that during the conflicts which took place between the troops belonging to the revolutionary [Page 581] forces of General Diaz and those of General Alvarez, late Lerdist governor of the State of Guerrero, at the port of Acapulco, in May, 1877, on the 28th and 29th of said month, the flag of the United States was intentionally fired upon by the forces of General Diaz while the said consul, in company with the other consular representatives of foreign nations then in Acapulco, was passing in the consul’s boat to the Mexican gunboat Mexico, with the object of securing some protection to the lives and property of their countrymen exposed to the bombardment then going on.
On the 20th of July, 1877, I called upon the late Secretary of Foreign Affairs; left with him a written statement of the facts as then known, and asked that an investigation be made with a view to such reparation as was due to the honor of my government. Mr. Vallarta in that interview assured me that the matter should have prompt attention.
On the 23d of November, 1877, having up to that date received no communication or information from the Mexican Government on the subject, I again called Mr. Vallarta’s attention to it, and submitted, to him a written proposition for a method of settling this and other pending questions at Acapulco. On the 27th of the said November Mr. Vallarta stated to me that this, with the other questions, had been submitted to the President for his consideration, and he had been instructed to inform me that the Mexican Government could not, with a due regard for its dignity, consider and adjust them previous to a recognition of said government by that of the United States.
On the 15th of April last, in the first interview which I had with the late Secretary of Foreign Affairs, after my government had officially recognized that of President Diaz, I left with Mr. Vallarta another written memorandum referring to the previous one of November 23, 1877, and expressed to him my earnest desire to secure a proper satisfaction for the indignity which had been offered to the American flag at Acapulco.
I have waited patiently up to the present date without having received any information as to the result of the investigation which was promised in July, 1877, and without having had any proposition made by the Mexican Government for a settlement of this grave affair, which so seriously affects the honor of my country. Your Excellency will, I think, agree that I am justified in insisting that the Mexican Government shall cease to treat this subject with indifference, and shall take some prompt and decided steps to meet the just demands of the Government of the United States. I have, therefore, to request that Your Excellency will at as early a day as possible inform me of whatever action it has taken and of the decision of the Mexican Government on the subject.
With the renewed assurances of my distinguished consideration, I remain,
Your excellency’s obedient servant,
Mr. Mata to Mr. Foster.
Mexico, August 5, 1878.
Mr. Minister: I had the honor to receive Your Excellency’s note dated July 23 last, in which you are pleased to state that the consul of the United States in Acapulco officially informed your legation that during the conflict had between the revolutionary forces and those of General Alvarez, in the port of Acapulco, on the 28th and 29th May, 1877, the flag of the United States was intentionally fired upon by the forces of General Diaz, while the said consul, in company with the consular representatives of other foreign nations then resident in Acapulco, was passing in the boat of the consul to the gunboat Mexico, with the object of obtaining some protection tor the lives and property of their fellow-countrymen exposed to the bombardment which was then taking place.
Your Excellency is pleased to add that on the 20th of July, 1877, you left a written statement of the facts with my predecessor, and asked that an investigation should be made with the object that due satisfaction might be given to the honor of Your Excellency’s government, and that my predecessor assured you that this matter would be promptly attended to.
Your Excellency adds, that on the 23d of November, 1877, not having received up to that date any note or report whatever from the Mexican Government in regard to the matter, you called the attention of my predecessor to it and submitted to him a written proposition as to the mode of arranging this and the other questions pending in Acapulco. That on the 27th of the said November, Mr. Vallarta stated to Your Excellency that this and the other questions had been submitted to the consideration of the President, and that he had been instructed to inform Your Excellency that the Government of Mexico could not with respect for its dignity consider and arrange the said [Page 582] questions previous to the recognition of the said government by that of the United States. That on the 15th of April last, in the first interview which Your Excellency had with iny predecessor, after your government had recognized that of President Diaz, you delivered to Mr. Vallarta another written memorandum referring to the former one of November 23, 1877, and expressed to him an ardent desire to obtain adequate satisfaction for the indignity done to the American flag in Acapulco.
Your Excellency is pleased to conclude your note by stating that you have waited patiently until now without having received any information whatever concerning the result of the investigation promised in July, 1877, and without having received any proposition whatever on the part of the Government of Mexico for the adjustment of this grave affair which affects so seriously the honor of Your Excellency’s country, and you believe you are justified in insisting that the Government of Mexico shall cease to treat this matter with indifference, and that it adopt prompt and decisive measures for satisfying the just demand of the Government of the United States; and you ask me, in consequence, to inform Your Excellency so soon as may be possible of whatever action may have been taken and of the decision of my government with regard to this matter.
The explanation of facts which I will make to Your Excellency, in reply to the note which occupies my attention, will, I hope, be sufficient to correct the idea which the said note contains, to the effect that the government has treated the grave matter to which reference is made with indifference, and will convince you that the delay which has occurred in giving to Your Excellency the reports desired, and in communicating to you the resolution adopted by the government has been occasioned by the character of the investigation ordered, and by the desire of the government to prosecute it to its farthest limits, to the end that it might be ascertained whether or not the act treated of was intentional, and, if so, to discover its authors, in order that, on being submitted to trial, condign punishment might be applied to them by the tribunals.
When Your Excellency was pleased to leave an informal statement of the act in this department on the 20th of July of last year, it was ordered without loss of time, on the 21st, that an investigation should be instituted by the respective military tribunal, the report of which was received in this department on the 5th of the following September. With the hope that the truth would be found in it, the said report was examined, and although at first, on reading the joint note which the consuls of the United States and Guatemala addressed to the commander of the war-steamer Mexico on the 30th of May, in which they say, “we have the testimony of an eye-witness who saw the act within the castle itself, and we know perfectly well by whom it was ordered and executed”; and on seeing also the assertion of the said consul of the United States in the note which he addressed to the prefect and military commander of Acapulco, on the 13th of June, to the effect that Pedro Garcia Leonardi was an eyewitness of the act, there appeared to be reason for expecting that no difficulty could be presented in proving that the act had been intentional and who its author was; still, on continuing the examination of the documents, it was seen with pain that notwithstanding the consul of Guatemala declared that Pedro Garcia had privately told him who gave the order to fire upon the boat, the said Garcia resolutely denied in his declaration of June 18 (inclosure No. 1) that he had said what was affirmed by Mr. Pintos, the consul of Guatemala, in his declaration (inclosure No. 2), and he afterwards confirmed his denial in the confrontation which took place between the two (inclosure No. 3).
Neither was it possible to obtain the light which was looked for from the declaration of the consul of the United States on June 22 (inclosure No. 4), since he limits himself in it to repeating what he had said in his note to which reference has already been made, without presenting proof of his statement.
To increase the confusion, the said Mr. Pintos presented himself on the 24th of the same month of June, asking to amplify the declaration which he made on the 18th (inclosure No. 4), with the object of stating that, although he had designated the person who gave the order to fire upon the boat in consequence of the fact having been communicated to him by Pedro Garcia, he had found out afterwards that it was not true that such person had given the order, but another; and that he knew this from having heard it said by certain soldiers who went out of the fort, whom he did not know, neither did he hear them name the person who gave the order.
As the first measures were unavailing which were set on foot to ascertain whether or not the act had been intentional, and in the latter case who were its authors, the government, animated by an earnest desire to ascertain the truth, ordered the investigation to be continued, requiring that all persons who could present any data in the affair should be called upon to testify, and that the question as to who should be suspected of having participated in the crime should be submitted to their judgment.
The new investigations, which were prosecuted with scrupulous diligence and the trial carried on against all the officers of the garrison of the fort of Acapulco in regard to those who might be suspected of having given the order to fire upon the boat, were not received until the 25th of last May, and they tended to demonstrate that no proof [Page 583] could be obtained to the effect that the projectiles which went in the direction of the boat were directed deliberately.
Among the declarations obtained from persons who witnessed the combat, that of Lieutenant of Marines Luis L. Romano (inclosure No. 5) is noteworthy. Being on board the war-steamer Mexico on the day of the event, he could witness the direction of the shooting, and his testimony, which may be considered as impartial, if it does not constitute a perfect proof, does give rise to a well-founded presumption that the projectiles which went in the direction of the boat may be considered more properly as the consequence of the latter having entered within the line of fire which was crossed crossed by the course the boat followed than as a deliberate intention.
The government, which has made every effort within its power to discover the truth, with the firm resolution that the author of the act should be exemplarily punished if it was proved that that act was intentional (as in such case it would have constituted a crime worthy of the most serious reprobation and its author have merited the severest punishment), not having been able to demonstrate such truth, and being obliged in consequence to characterize the act as not culpable (although very much to be regretted, not only because it produced the suspicion of having been intentional and for the same reason highly offensive to a friendly nation, but because it would also have constituted a base attack upon persons who, aside from the official character with which they were invested, were engaged in a noble and humanitarian mission), believe it should inform Your Excellency that on learning of the event it experienced the most profound pain, and not having discovered any person upon whom to fasten the guilt of the same, it has nevertheless ordered the trial of the chief who commanded the fort at Acapulco on the 28th of May of last year, not for the fact itself, inasmuch as it has not been proved intentional, but because of having failed to perform his military duty in not at once ordering the corresponding investigation when the act took place.
In view of the foregoing, the government hopes that its proceedings in this lamentable affair will convince Your Excellency and your government of the solicitude with which it has endeavored to discover the truth, animated as is found by the desire that no act should take place which could be of an offensive character to the dignity of the United States, and of its resolution to cause the person or persons to be severely punished who, failing to perform the duties which the principles of public law impose upon them, violate the same.
Your Excellency will be pleased to accept the assurances of the distinguished consideration with which I am, your obedient servant,
His Excellency John W. Foster, &c., &c., &c.
Military command of Acapulco.
Not until the 18th of the same month (June, 1877) did the citizen Pedro Garcia present himself in this office, as he was not in the city, for reasons or fears concerning the condition of affairs occasioned by the revolution; and he took oath to speak the truth with regard to the questions asked him, and said that his name is as given; a native and resident of this port; married; of age; and a merchant. On being questioned in conformity with the summons served upon him in this investigation, he said that on one of the last days of the past month, having taken refuge aboard the national war-vessel Mexico, from fear of the revolution, he left said vessel for the American barge, anchored in this bay, in the boat of the Pacific Mail Company, in company with Messrs. John Sutter, Antonio Pintos, Cecilio Arosemena, José Judar, and Martin Alsuyeta, of the commerce of this city; that in the said passage from the war-steamer to the barge the conversation turned upon the firing which had taken place in those days between the plaza and the castle, and the witness said also that they had fired a great deal and in every direction; that about two days after this (he does not remember the date) Senor Don Antonio Pintos went to the barge and asked of the witness, privately, whether he knew who had fired upon the boat of the consul of the United States of the North; that witness replied that he did not know; and that then Señor Pintos replied to him that it was all right, and that, in order to establish this, the word of one consul and four merchants who witnessed it was enough; which is all he has to say. And the foregoing is the truth affirmed and ratified, and he signed upon its being read to him with the citizen prosecuting attorney and present secretary. I certify.
- FRANCISCO MEJIA.
- PEDRO GARCIA.
- MARCELINO DELGADO,
Secretary.
In view of the foregoing declaration, the citizen prosecuting attorney and present secretary immediately went to the house of Señor Don Antonio Pintos, consul of Guatemala in this port; and on arriving there and the said gentleman being present, he took oath to speak the truth in all that was asked of him; and being questioned as is customary, he said that his name is as given; a resident of this port; married; of age; a merchant, and consul of the republic of Guatemala in this port. On being asked the corresponding question, he said he ratifies, in every respect, what the consular corps of this port said officially to the commander of the national war-vessel Mexico in the communications annexed to this record; and he adds that when, as a favor, they carried Pedro Garcia from the said vessel to the barge, the latter informed them that the act of firing upon the boat of the consul of the United States of America had been intentional, and ordered by an officer of the castle; this occurred in the presence of the persons in the boat mentioned by Garcia himself. That not having given the name at that time of the officer to whom he refers, in order to be better assured, all those gentlemen who were under fire in the boat agreed that the witness should go to the barge to ask privately of Garcia the particulars of this act, as the witness did; and on asking Garcia, the latter replied that he did not wish to compromise himself, but that the person who gave the order to fire upon the boat containing the consul of the United States and the other said persons was Camilo Bracho; that this gentleman (?) gave this order to five soldiers very close to Garcia, who was seated in a hammock with a little child; that he did not give to witness the names of the soldiers, and that this revelation was made to him alone, without any one being present. That this is the truth, which is affirmed and ratified, and he signed upon its being read to him, with the citizen prosecuting attorney and present secretary. I certify.
- F. MEJIA.
- ANTONIO PINTOS.
- MARCELINO DELGADO,
Secretary.
(A seal, which says “Comandancia Militar de Acapulco.”)
On the same date appeared Pedro Garcia and Antonio Pintos, consul of Guatemala, with the object of confronting them, and they took oath to tell the truth. The customary preliminaries are omitted, as they appear in these proceedings, and on being informed of their declarations and advised of the contradictions noted in them, the former said that the statement in his declaration is the truth, without adding to it or taking anything from it, and that he does not remember of having said anything else. The latter said that what he has said is true, and that he had no occasion whatever for lying, a practice to which he is not accustomed, his reputation being known to the entire community; that for such reason he reaffirms what he has said in his declaration, and it not being able to make any further advance in this confrontation, it was suspended, subject to being considered, if it should be necessary; and on its contents being read to the confronted witnesses it was affirmed and ratified, with the prosecuting attorney and present secretary. I certify.
- F. MEJIA (a rubric).
- PEDRO GARCIA (a rubric).
- ANTONIO PINTOS (a rubric).
- MARCELINO DELGADO (a rubric), Secretary.
(A seal which says: “Comandancia Militar de Acapulco.”)
On the same date Mr. John Sutter, being present in his house with the object of giving his testimony, took oath to speak the truth in regard to what he should be asked, and said: That his name is as given, a native of Germany, and an American citizen, married, of age, and consul of the United States of America. On being asked the corresponding questions he said: That he confirms what he said in his communication annexed to this record marked with the numbers 2 and 3; that the house and flag referred to in the communication on pages 4, 5, and 6 is that of Messrs. Olzuyetas Bros. & Co.; that the principal persons of the barge referred to in his said communication are Don Pedro Urnñuela and Don Antonio Silva; that he has nothing more to [Page 585] say at present, and the foregoing is the truth. Affirmed and ratified, and he signed with the citizen prosecuting attorney and present secretary. I certify.
United States Consul.
Secretary.
On the 24th of the same month, Señor Don Antonio Pintos presented himself in this office and asked to amplify his declaration, for which purpose he received the oath to speak the truth concerning what might be asked of him; the preliminaries are omitted as they appear in this proceeding. Being asked what he had to say in amplificationof his declaration, he said, that although it is true that Don Pedro Garcia told him that Don Camilo Bracho was the person who gave the order to fire upon the boat of which he spoke in his declaration, he has since learned that it was not Bracho, but another person who gave the said order; that he heard this said by some soldiers who went out of the fort whom he did not know, neither did he hear them mention the person who gave the order; that as he has no desire that any person should be unjustly accused, he asks that the foregoing be considered in evidence for the proper effects; that he did not ask of the said soldiers their names, nor that of the responsible persons, because he supposes that the facts will be discovered in the proceedings in progress.
* * * * * * *
- MEJIA (a rubric).
- ANTONIO PINTOS (a rubric).
- MARCELINO DELGADO (a rubric).
Secretary.
Declaration of the lieutenant of marines, Luis L. Romano.
(A seal which says: “Military office of the garrison of the Plaza of Mexico.”)
On the 1st of December of the present year appeared the citizen Luis Lopez Romano, who, after taking the lawful oath to speak the truth in regard to what might be asked him, and which was as customary, said: That his name is as given, from Zacatecas, twenty-four years old, unmarried, and at present lieutenant of marines in commission in this plaza. On being asked if he witnessed the events which occurred on the 27th and 28th of May, 1877, in the town of Acapulco, and in this case to state what he knows in regard to the particular, he said: That for the better understanding of the declaration which he has to make in regard to the events (because the explanations which he might give of the case in regard to the questions put to him would be of no service on account of the want of information concerning the topographical situation of things where the said events took place), he has thought it absolutely necessary to form and present to this office in the shortest time possible a chart of the fort of Acapulco and of the town, upon which he will be able to point out the situation of the belligerent forces, and also the position of the gunboat called the Mexico in the bay of the port, as well as the course followed by the boat of the consuls, in order that in this manner he may demonstrate that if said boat received certain projectiles, it was more probably the result of the imprudence of the consuls themselves for having entered the lines of fire which crossed each other from three different points; from which it is justly inferred that neither of the three points where the firing was going on, none of them, fired intentionally upon the boat of the consuls. What he has stated may be corroborated by the commander of the gunboat Mexico, Juan Soler, the official José de la Cruz, marine guard, and the purser of the vessel, José Gonzalez Jimenez, which three individuals are at present in Mazatlan. On being asked if he knew that the commander, José Ramirez, ordered fire to be made upon the boat of the consuls, and in this case to state through what medium or in what manner he learned it, he said: That in view of the position of Commander Ramirez with the force of his command it is in every way impossible that he could have made fire, or ordered it to be made upon the boat of the consuls, inasmuch as the said Ramirez was in that part of the fort which faces to the north, and the boat of the consuls was on that side of the same fort which faces to the south; lastly, he states that First Marine Lieutenant Don Juan B. Verde, who is at present in this capital, can also testify concerning the facts investigated, since, although he was not present on the day of the event at the port where it took place, he arrived there two or three days afterward and knew all that had occurred. Finally, he states that Commander Ramirez was appointed military commander of the Plaza of Acapulco at that time, upon the petition of the said consuls, and with the concurrence of the belligerent forces, and of the commerce of the said Acapulco, since all of them had absolute [Page 586] confidence in the aforesaid Commander Ramirez. That what he has said is the truth in conformity with the oath taken. On being informed of this his declaration he confirmed, ratified, and signed it in union with the citizen fiscal judge and present secretary. I certify.
- LUIS L. ROMANOS (a rubric).
- VARELA (a rubric).
- A. CARVILLO (a rubric).
I have the honor to inclose to you the chart of the armed contest which took place in Acapulco on the 28th of May, 1877, as I promised in the declaration which, as a witness of the events, I made in the examination instituted against Col. Vincente Sanchez and Commander José Ramirez; and in order that said document may better serve to demonstrate the danger to which a boat would be exposed in passing between fires at the time of conflict, he agrees to mention certain local conditions and circumstances which cannot be made to appear graphically in the chart.
The projecting point of the fort completely controls the waters of the port on account of its situation, and the contour of the ground being a gentle decline, the force within its confines can with simple musketry reach the beach of the wharves, distant about 800 meters at the most inner curve of the shore, and it is, in consequence, within reach of the Remington.
As on the 28th of May the federal force and auxiliaries which garrisoned the said fort was very small, the outside works were not garrisoned, and for this reason the enemy took possession of the works of the esplanade, on the 27th, in the morning, and was constantly firing upon the fort and the boats of the gunboat. On the 28th, in the afternoon, the riflemen in these works supported energetically the attempt at assault made by the besieging forces, and it was very natural that the fort and the gunboat should concentrate at one time their fire upon the said works. Very well, then; the oblique fire from the front of the fort against the trees to the left had to reach the beach of the wharves, and if from either of them at the time of the combat any boat started off in the direction of the war-vessel, it had necessarily to run great risk from that fire before entering the cross-fire of the enemy and of the gunboat, and it could have been hit in almost all its passage, as well in going as in coming, by balls which were not directed with such intention.
As the slope of the fort which looks to the north was the most accessible for the assault, because the position of the gunboat contributed only to the defense of the sides facing west, south, and southwest, it had been decided to situate the federal force on the northern side; said force being more accustomed to war and of greater confidence. If this disposition of the forces existed on the 28th in the afternoon, and it is shown thus in the investigation instituted, it will be easy to prove that if certain shots, at the time of the combat, struck or could have struck a boat on leaving the wharf or on returning to it, when close to the beach, these shots came from the front of the fort, defended by auxiliaries, in their fire upon the works to the left, which attacked them, and not from the federal force, which fired in the opposite direction, against the enemy in the field to the north.
Liberty in the constitution!
To the citizen general first fiscal of the garrison of the Plaza of Mexico.
Mr. Foster to Mr. Mata.
Mexico, August 31, 1878.
Sir: The note which Your Excellency did me the honor to send to this legation under date of the 5th instant, in relation to the firing upon the flag of the consul of the United States at Acapulco in May, 1877, was duly received, and it, together with its inclosures, has been carefully examined.
My government will doubtless be gratified to be informed of the displeasure and pain expressed in said note with which Your Excellency’s government received the news of the event in question, and will duly appreciate the efforts which have been [Page 587] made by it to ascertain tbe authors of the outrage perpetrated upon the flag of the United States. It will, at the same time, be disappointed that no punishment has as yet followed that occurrence, and that the insult remains without the reparation which I think the facts of the case demand should be publicly made in the port where it took place, in order to impress upon the local authorities the necessity of greater respect for the Government of the United States. I have no disposition to prolong the discussion upon this affair, but I think I ought to direct attention to a few facts in acknowledging receipt of Your Excellency’s note. The said note seems to overlook the fact that the consuls of the United States, Guatemala, and Colombia, in their official communication to the commander of the naval steamer Mexico, of May 28, 1877, expressly charge that the firing was made directly upon their boat, and in that of the 30th of the same month they repeat the declaration and give circumstances and reasons to prove that the said firing was intentional. There is no evidence in the documents inclosed with Your Excellency’s note to disprove the facts therein stated. The declaration of Lieutenant Romanos is not that of an eye-witness, as he does not claim to have seen the boat at the time the firing took place, and he only presents a hypothetical case based upon a diagram of the localities. The fact is unquestioned that the consul’s boat had already made two or more trips between the town and the gunboat without any shots having been fired; and the outrage was the more inexcusable as the combatants in the fort well knew the humanitarian mission in which the consuls were engaged.
It is natural to suppose that the consuls could not with certainty fix the guilt upon the persons who really fired the shots, and after allowing so much time to elapse before an investigation was had, I recognize the difficulty which Your Excellency’s government would encounter in discovering the immediate authors of the insult. Under such circumstances Your Excellency was correct in fixing the fault upon the commandant of the fort, but I regard the action of the government in simply ordering the trial of said official as inadequate to the circumstances of the affair. It is confessed that he failed in his duty. In view of the facts, it would seem that the President would have been justified in exercising his faculties as commander-in-chief by such summary reduction of said officer from his command and rank as would have satisfied the authorities in that port that they could not outrage the flag of a friendly nation with impunity. If the trial of the commandant is to take place before a court composed of officials at or in the vicinity of Acapulco, or if it is to be prosecuted with no greater diligence than has marked the investigation thus far, I fear that exemplary punishment will be so long delayed, if inflicted, as to lose in a great measure its efficacy.
I embrace this occasion to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my distinguished consideration.