Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session of the Thirty-ninth Congress
Mr. Romero to Mr. Seward
Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to transmit to you, for the information of the government of the United States, the documents mentioned in the accompanying [Page 263] index relative to Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s offer of his services to the government of Mexico, to which I alluded in my notes of the 26th of May and the 12th of August last to your department.
I am pleased to avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my most distinguished consideration.
Hon, William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.
Index of documents sent by the Mexican legation in Washington to the Department of State of State of the United States with its note of this date, relating to Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
| No. | Date. | Contents. |
| 1866. | ||
| 1 | Sept. 5 | Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna’s reply to Mr. Romero’s letter of the 25th of May last, and Mr. Lerdo de Tejada’s note of the 6th of July following. |
| 2 | Sept. 20 | Mr. Romero’s refutation of Don A. L. de Santa Anna’s charges and imputations in the preceding tetter. |
| 3 | June 28 | Extracts of the case of Taylor against Montgomery and Cañedo, about the purchase of the steamer Agnes, in the name of Don A. L. de Santa Anna, to bring him from St. Thomas to the United States. |
| 4 | July 16 | Extracts from the report of the suit of Don A. L. de Santa Anna against Abraham Baiz, for embezzlement of money given to him in trust. |
| 5 | July 17 | Reply of Abraham Baiz’s lawyers. |
| 6 | Aug. 27 | Santa Anna’s case in the supreme court of New York, before Judge Barnard, against Dario Mazuera and Abraham Baiz for breach of trust. |
| 7 | Aug. 28 | Notice of the suit of L. Martin Montgomery against Don A. L. de Santa Anna, demanding $60,000 for services rendered as his agent. |
| 8 | Aug. 28 | Santa Anna’s power of attorney given to Dario Mazuera, in St. Thomas, on the 12th of December, 1865, authorizing him to act for him in the United States. |
| 9 | Sept. 1 | Notice of L. M. Montgomery’s suit against Don A. L. de Santa Anna, for services rendered. |
| 10 | Sept. 5 | Notice of Emilia Cupia’s suit against Don Luis G. Vidal y Rivas for debt, and his imprisonment. |
No. 1.
[Untitled]
Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your note of the 5th ultimo, enclosing a copy of that of Don Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, secretary for foreign affairs, dated at Chihuahua, July 6, 1866.
I had previously received your letter of May 25, in reply to my own of the 21st of the same month, in which I tendered once more my services for the defence of the national cause. The singular terms of which you make use in this letter, casting highly offensive and unjust imputations on my character, had restrained me from answering it; but, as the two notes mentioned at the beginning of this communication reproduce and officially approve those terms, I am compelled to reply to those imputations once for all. Before going any further, allow me to observe that the rude and aggressive tone m which you respond to the courteous offer of my services in so solemn a cause seems to me not only out of place, but wholly unworthy of a public man.
In the notes alluded to, you see fit to make me the object of the most blackening charges. Señor Lerdo de Tejada, with equal disregard, adopts the same course. I feel, therefore, in duty bound, for the sake of truth, to oppose to said charges my most explicit and emphatic denial.
You say in your letter of May 25, (subsequently approved by Señor Tejada,) that “I was the first to solicit the establishment of a European monarchy m Mexico when I was at the head of the supreme government,” and that “I have recognized and supported the intervention of the French Emperor in our country’s affairs, as appears from documents recently published.” I had, until now, no idea that any one would regard as real evidence the gratuitous [Page 264] charges of persons who, among our own countrymen as well as among other people, are ever found ready to attack the members of any government without specifying or proving in proper form any of their accusations, but content themselves with uttering vain and declamatory accusations that have no weight except in the estimation of the ignorant. If the urbanity and courtesy with which I have always treated even those whom I have had to oppose, has induced you to suspect me of supporting this or that form of government, you have fallen into a very serious mistake. In our past national struggles I have always treated Frenchmen, Spaniards, and North Americans, even on the field of battle, with that politeness which is invariably observed among cultivated men. It was reserved for you and Señor Lerdo de Tejada to reject the offer of my services to our country under the very strange pretext, indeed, of my alleged treason to all causes and parties.
If we except the present struggle, (and, as you say, it was brought upon our country, not by me, but by our evil passions and domestic discords,) there has not been a single instance in which Mexico, from the time of her political transformation in 1821, has been engaged in war that I was not the first to come forward to serve her unreservedly with my person and private resources. Thus you see that the courtesy and politeness with which I treated the imperial authorities, when it became necessary, is inadvertently made the basis of a charge of treason against me, and it is taken for granted that my obedience to the plain dictates of prudence is nothing but infidelity to my country. Facts, with their irresistible logic, are justifying me. Those decrees of expulsion with which the French intervention has favored me do not certainly afford evidence of that support given to the usurpers which has been so gratuitously attributed to me.
Further on you state your reasons for not accepting my services on behalf of the republican cause, remarking that “during the late years of my life I have appeared associated with the conservative party of Mexico, a party which,” you say, “has promoted the anti-patriotic project of subjugating Mexico.” “This,” you continue, “would cause every one to fear that by having a share in the affairs of the republic I should contemplate a new revolution, as (so you say) I have done at other times in favor of the same party, and with the decided object of securing the impunity of its guilty members, thus disappointing the reasonable hopes of our people.”
I do not understand how ideas so erroneous and incoherent can have occurred to you. If any real fear is entertained of my supposed design to lead a new revolution in the exclusive interest of one party, let me ask how could I start such a scheme by placing my sword at the service of its most bitter antagonists? If such were the case I should be commencing in the worst possible manner, and should sacrifice by such a step that irresistible influence which you say that I hold over the conservative party. Moreover, it would become impossible in such a way for me to make a whole, uniform, and compact body of that party. If I had any other object in view than that of uniting all parties in the defence of the republic and its independence, I would not have placed my services at the disposal of those very leaders whom I had heretofore to oppose in arms while I was at the head of public affairs, and they were trying to disturb public order and to upset our political institutions. By this step I have tried to set an example, for our ruin is certain if, in the interest of our common country, we do not all forget our domestic dissensions and discords, and use our united endeavors in defence of the republic against all foreign and domestic enemies.
You, as well as Señor Tejada, charge that I did not offer my services to the republic in the day when the intervention appeared too powerful, but that now I do, when the intervention is about to be abandoned. I never looked upon the intervention as a very powerful and permanent institution. There is no foreign yoke so strong that a people, however weak they may be, cannot finally shake off. But it is sad for one who loves his country to see ill feelings, hatred, and revenge preside over the councils of even those who are at the head of a movement so worthy of the best success.
I do not, indeed, deplore so much the calumnious imputations of which I am made the object as that inexorable disregard with which the extermination of an important and valuable circle of Mexican society is boldly proclaimed. The terms in which you and the government at Chihuahua proscribe a numerous party of the Mexican people, form a perfectly horrible programme of death and desolation. It is an easy matter to set a place on fire, but not so easy to set bounds to the damage it may do, or to foretell the number of victims it may sweep away.
I do firmly believe that unless our domestic quarrels and hatreds be stifled, we can never expect to witness a cessation of this effusion of blood by our countrymen, or an end to the calamities that now afflict our unfortunate nation. Out of decorum I have carefully abstained from making any personal imputations while repelling the charges with which you and Señor Tejada have sought to overwhelm me, and which rest on the supposition that I am influenced by the worst of motives, and to judge even my inward intentions. Are you not aware of the confiscation of my valuable estates by the imperial authorities in punishment of my adhesion to the national cause?
I might as well have made no reply to the vague and unfounded charges contained in your notes alluded to, but I feared that my silence regarding points of so much delicacy may be construed in an unfavorable sense.
As to my past career, to which you allude by saying that I have served all parties, allow [Page 265] me to inform you that no partisan feeling has ever actuated my official conduct. As a soldier I have always been found at the post assigned to me by my duty. You cannot be ignorant that, in our international conflicts, I have always fought under that same flag which I was the first to unfurl before the civilized world—even before the formation of our republic. The rough terms in which your notes reject my services do not deter me from doing my best in behalf of our people. I am still influenced by the same desire. I acknowledge the same duty of using in the service of my country that sword with which she honored me in her brightest days. The people to whom you appeal will know how to appreciate my devoted-ness in thus disregarding the scorn of men whom I had to oppose, in former times, in the defence of our Mexican institutions. For my part I will always continue to promote union among our countrymen, considering it an indispensable condition for the triumph of the republic.
I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
His Excellency Don M. Romero, Minister from the Republic of Mexico, at Washington, D. C.
No. 2.
[Untitled]
Dear Sir: Night before last I received your communication of the 5th instant, in reply to mine of the 25th of May last and 6th of August following, with the last of which I sent you the answer of our government to your offer of services in your letter of the 25th of May already mentioned.
The reason why it was so long reaching me was, it was mailed unpaid to the post office, most likely through the oversight of your secretary, as you will see by the envelope which I return to you, and was not forwarded, but sent to the dead letter office of the department in Washington, whence it was sent to me by courtesy the night before last. I make this explanation to excuse myself for not answering your communication sooner.
Here I ought to conclude this letter were it not for your remarks and charges made upon the government I represent, and upon me in person, which compel me to give a more lengthy reply to your communication. This I prefer doing in a private letter, because I can thus speak to you more frankly than I could in the official style.
You call the language used in the reply to your offer of services as seeming rude and offensive, and you term it improper and altogether unsuited to public men. These complaints, which I think without foundation, reached me since my letter of the 25th of May was in the hands of your commissioners. If you had confined yourself to making an offer of your services in writing, I would have done no more than acknowledge the receipt of your communication, and informed you that I would transmit it to my government; but, besides writing. you saw proper to send a committee composed of four gentlemen, who were to explain your wishes and plane to me. According to your instructions, and the tenor of your letter of the 21st of May to me, they entered into minute explanations, with great candor on my part, about the condition of our country, and the propriety of accepting or declining your services. After two long interviews with them, I thought it my duty to put the principal points of my remarks in writing, so that there should be no doubt about my meaning. In my letter I did my best to be frank without being disrespectful to you. I had no cause to offend you, nor would I have used it had there been a reason. I have too much respect for the position in which my government has placed me to abuse it by entering into personal disputes. Moreover, it would have been very ungenerous in me to seek to offend you when you were offering your services to our country. This is not my nature. If, therefore, you found some sentences in my letter which you thought harsh, and perhaps so might have been, you must attribute them to the circumstances and facts emanating from your antecedents, and not to any ignoble desire to insult you.
Allow me, sir, to inform you, once for all, that/as I took no part in the public affairs of our country while you were in it—for I have only been connected with politics in Mexico since December, 1855, and you left Vera Cruz in August of that year—I have never had you for an opponent in politics, nor have I suffered any injury from you or your government, and, of course, have not the slightest cause of resentment against you. I look upon you as a historical character, and I judge you, and have always judged you, as far as I was able, with the same impartiality you might expect from future generations.
You complain that I made charges against you in my letter of the 25th of May, which you term defamatory, and say are without foundation. They are two, namely:
First. That you were first to solicit the establishment of a foreign monarchy in Mexico when you exercised the supreme power.
Second. That you recognized and supported the intervention which the Emperor of the French has brought to our country.
These two facts are so well known, and have been acknowledged by you on so many occasions, and in so many ways, that I am surprised that you now attempt to deny them, and [Page 266] that you term them “gratuitous imputations.” You may allege, as an extenuating circumstance, that you were mistaken, as you have already said; you may say that the error was in good faith; that thus you thought to promote the well-being and prosperity of our country; but the fact that you solicited the establishment of a foreign government in Mexico, and that you acknowledged and submitted to French intervention, and gave it the support of your name, is altogether undeniable.
To convince you that I am not “repeating the imputations that have been thrown upon you without proof or substantiation of the charges,” I would inform you, at the risk of being prolix, that the publications recently made by your late political friends furnish all the proof necessary in this particular. The full powers you gave to Don José Maria Gutierrez de Estrada, on the 1st day of July, 1854, while you were dictator in Mexico, authorizing him to negotiate with the courts of London, Paris, Madrid, and Vienna, and to make due efforts to obtain from these governments, or any one of them, the establishment of a monarchy, derived from one of the dynastic houses of those powers: “This might prove whether or not how disinterested you were, when you were ready to give up your place to a foreign prince at a time when you could have made yourself monarch, as you assert in your manifest of the 7th of June last; but it leaves the fact that you did solicit the establishment of a European monarchy beyond doubt.
In the same documents before quoted, published in January last in numbers 20 and 22 of the so-called Diario del Imperio, the authenticity of which you have never disputed, it is seen that as soon as you heard that the Emperor Napoleon had decided to send the Archduke Maximilian to Mexico that is, on the 30th of November, 1861, even before the allied forces had arrived upon the territory of the republic you wrote to Mr. Gutierrez Estrada from the island of St. Thomas, as follows:
“The candidate of whom you speak (his imperial highness the Archduke Maximilian) is unexceptionable, and, of course, I hasten to give him my approbation.” Not yet satisfied, you wrote a letter to the archduke himself on the 22d of December, 1863, expressing great admiration for him personally, and making protests of submission of such a nature they might serve as a model of epistolary style for despotic governments.
You next went to Vera Cruz, and on the 28th February, 1864, you wrote to Don Juan de D. Peza, so-called under-secretary of war and marine of the regency established by the French, informing him you had returned to Mexico “to co-operate, as much as you could, in the consolidation of the government created by the intervention; and you concluded by asking that the so-called regency might give you any orders it esteemed convenient.
If, after this, you persist in saying you did not recognize the acts of the French intervention, we must confess that language with you has a different meaning from what the generality of men give to it.
In the communication I am now answering you say: “If you take the politeness and civility with which I am accustomed to treat even those who are opposed to me as evidences of a support to this or that government, you are very much mistaken.”
If you call your support of French intervention in Mexico by the name of civility and politeness, we can hardly believe your offer of services to us in May last to be serious. Perhaps you will hereafter call that mere politeness and civility, particular when, on comparing the terms of the two offers, we find the language of the latter much more expressive than that of the former.
Continuing your very difficult task to prove that you did not recognize intervention, you say:
“Facts are in open contradiction to you. Did the partisans of Maximilian, or the French who sustained him, allow me to stay a moment on the soil of our country?”
And further on you add:
“Do you not know that my immense estates have been confiscated as a punishment for my adhesion to the national cause?”
Because the Freneh and traitors did not admit you, it is no proof that you did not offer them the influence of your name, and even the assistance of your sword; but it is a proof that, on account of your past conduct, and from the peculiarities of the present, you did not inspire them with confidence.
The fact that the usurper has ordered the sequestration of your property in the State of Vera Cruz, far from demonstrating that you did not recognize him, is a proof that you are a traitor to his cause. The property of Mexicans who did their duty from the first by opposing French intervention and all its consequences, has not been systematically sequestrated or confiscated, while yours has been. This goes to show that you have been with them, and they have reason to treat you with especial severity.
These two points settled, I now proceed to the others mentioned in your communication.
You say in two places that I rejected your services, which I do not think is exactly so. You offered them to my government, through me. I immediately sent your offer to the President of the republic, and in my conference with your commissioners I told them frankly why I thought it was doubtful whether they would be accepted, and why I could not accept them. The government could have accepted them even after what I said, if it deemed it would be for the interests of our country.
Among the reasons I then gave for thinking of doubtful expediency the acceptance of [Page 267] your offer, I mentioned that your alliance during the last years of your life with the conservative party of Mexico, who have been the originators and supporters of the anti-patriotic project to constitute Mexico a dependency of France, would cause a fear that in your participation in the affairs of the republic you might try to excite a revolution in favor of that party, so as to leave guilty persons unpunished, or attempt to establish a new party.
You are pleased to term these powerful considerations “incoherent and contradictory arguments,” and proceed to explain why you say so. No one who is acquainted with your antecedents, and who judges you impartially, can fail to see the foundation of those fears.
The fact that the republic as well as the French have rejected your offers, shows that both Mexicans and French doubt your good faith and fear your defections. No one can doubt that you have given cause for this mistrust.
You say, in speaking about the parties of Mexico, you are favoring no party in Mexico, but your only desire is to unite all in defence of the republic and independence.
Further on you say: “Certainly I do not deplore the defamatory imputations made upon me so much as I do that inexcusable blindness with which the extermination of a valuable-portion of our society is openly proclaimed. The terms in which you and the government of Chihuahua proscribe a large portion of the Mexican people presents a programme of death and desolation too horrible to contemplate.”
I might agree with you in some of your remarks about the conciliation of parties; in regard to the others, I must say to you that nothing in my letter of the 25th of May, nor anything in the note from Mr. Lerdo de Tejada of the 6th of July, justifies the interpretation you give to both documents.
There must be parties in republican governments to serve as barriers to usurpation of those in power and as a counterpoise to the executive; and as long as they keep within legal limits, they are an advantage rather than an evil to the nation Their organization and aims depend upon questions of the day, and end with them. The principal question discussed in Mexico since the establishment of the republic is progress, and the party advocating it is termed the liberal party; the party in favor of the statu quo or retrogression is called the conservative party.
The members of this last party exceeded the limits of law and patriotism when they solicited the intervention of a foreign nation in the domestic affairs of its country, to overthrow the national government and establish an order of things which, whatever may be the appearance, could only constitute it a European dependency. Now, this party, with few exceptions, recognized the intervention which some of its leaders had solicited, and have continued to support it. From that moment it ceased to be a political party and changed into a traitor faction.
The liberal party, with the exception of a few renegades, believed it a duty to oppose-foreign intervention and defend the independence of the country at all hazards. From that time the names and objects of the parties changed. One is the national or independent, struggling against foreign conquest; the other is the traitor Frenchified party, composed of those who favor the invader of the country.
All the former conservatives who were animated by patriotic sentiments, and did not choose to follow their party, have met with a kind and frank welcome from the national party; and the few liberals who joined the usurper now belong to the traitor faction. The efforts of the national government to rally around its flag all Mexicans, without distinction of party, are well known. All those who invited the invader, or are assisting him materially, no matter whether they were called conservatives or liberals, are guilty of treason in my opinion, and ought to be punished according to law. This is required by public morality, for the welfare of society.
In my letter of the 25th May I did not say it was feared your intervention in the politics of our country would cause a revolution in favor of the conservative party, for the purpose of saving that party from punishment, but only the guilty members, and this is not proscribing the whole party, as you seem to understand it.
In this second war of independence the same events are taking place that occurred in the first; a portion of the nation, though much less than that which joined the Spaniards then, now unite with the French. Those fought against their brothers who were contending for the most sacred right upon earth; these strive now, under the French flag, to subjugate the common mother.
The inexperience and candor of our fathers induced them to accept those Mexicans opposed to independence when for personal interest they abandoned the cause they were defending, and left the situation in their hands. The evil consequence of this serious error was immense, and the present French intervention is one of the results. To make the parallel more perfect, there is yourself, who first fought with the Spaniards and then turned independent; now helping French intervention, then opposing it. I consider it the duty of every Mexican, however little love he may have for his country, to contend against the repetition of the error of 1821.
In conclusion, you say “your public conduct has never been governed by party motives,” and that, “as a soldier, you have always occupied the post of duty.”
It seems to me altogether unnecessary for me to dwell upon your antecedents, as nothing could be gained by the discussion. Your acts are indelibly consigned to history; and I [Page 268] think I can assure you that no one who desires to hand down a spotless name to posterity would envy you some of your antecedents.
If any doubt remains about the good sense and correct judgment of the Mexican government in rejecting your services, you have dissipated it by declaring your intention of taking part in Mexican affairs, even against the resolution of the government of the republic. If you had that intention, your offer of services could certainly not have been in good faith.
If you acknowledge the President as the supreme chief of the nation, who is to direct the defence of the country, you ought to submit to his determination. If this is unjust or inconsiderate, the responsibility falls on him, and not on you; but, after knowing that he considers your presence in the republic as prejudicial to the cause of independence, if you insist upon entering the country, whether to join the unrepenting traitors, or to raise a new party, either act will be considered as unpatriotic and criminal.
You say “you have refrained from personal imputations of every kind, through respect while repeating those used so profusely by Mr. Lerdo de Tejada and myself.”
I presume you do not mean by this that you could give mean motives of our conduct towards you. If this is so, it is certainly your duty to the nation to make the revelation. If it alludes solely to personalities, having no connection with public affairs, you have acted very prudently in not mentioning them.
In accordance with this principle, I too have refrained from everything not in direct connection with the acceptance of your services. However, I cannot but mention, in connection with this incident, that you would have spared much discredit to the good name of Mexico if you had never come to this country; for your conduct in New York, the facts your different lawsuits have brought to light, whether as plaintiff or defendant, and every other incident of your litigations, are of such a nature that they bring the blush to the cheeks of every man who has the least regard for the honor and good name of Mexico in other countries.
In various parts of your letter you attribute to me expressions made by Mr. Lerdo de Tejada; as when you say, “I accuse you of not offering your services to the republic when you thought intervention successful, and now, when it is about to expire, you offer your aid to the victors.” In other places you assert what neither of us had said; for instance, speaking of the conservative party, you say, “I imagine you have an irresistible influence on it.” I can find no such sentence in my letter to you, or anything that could authorize you to attribute it to me.
I have purposely refrained from taking any notice of what you say in regard to Mr. Lerdo de Tejada, as that gentleman is fully capable of answering you much better than I could, if he thought proper to do so.
In conclusion, I must inform you that this letter ends the discussion of your remarks in the note of the 5th; and if you do write me another letter, I hope you will excuse me from answering it, for I believe the continuation of this discussion can result in no good. Facts, in regard to doubtful points, will demonstrate who is right or who has come nearest to the truth.
I remain, sir, your most attentive and obedient servant,
Señor Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, New York City.
No. 3.
The case, of the alleged swindle on Santa Anna,—Argument of the motion to discharge the defendants from arrest.— Was there an attempt in this city to fit out an expedition against Maximilian?
SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM, JUNE 28—BEFORE JUSTICE GROVER.
Wm. J. Taylor et al. vs. L. Martin Montgomery and A. H. Cañedo.—This case, some of the particulars of which have been already published, came up yesterday on a motion made by the defendants to be discharged from an order of arrest. The additional developments appear from the papers read on the argument by counsel on either side. Mr. Jerome Buck, for plaintiffs, appeared to oppose the motion, and Mr. P. Y. Cutler for the defendants. The defendants, it may be remarked, were, immediately after their arrest in this city, sent to Ludlow street jail, being unable to procure the necessary bail. Their counsel now makes the motion that they ought to be discharged for the reasons stated in the following papers, and from these the public will learn the cause of the arrest and the reasons why they are detained.
Wm. J. Taylor, plaintiff, being sworn, testifies that the cause of this action is as follows: Upon several occasions in the months of March and April, 1866, at the city of New York, the said Montgomery and Cañedo deceitfully and falsely represented to deponent that they, the said Montgomery and Cañedo, had been duly accredited and appointed the agents of one General D. A. L. de Santa Anna, then residing at the island of St. Thomas, West Indies, to [Page 269] procure and purchase in the United States, for and on behalf of said Santa Anna, a large steamer, &c., and to deliver the same to said Santa Anna at said island of St. Thomas; and said Montgomery and Cañedo further exhibited and gave to deponent a written statement (drawn up by themselves) of the authorities and powers conferred on them by said Santa Anna, as his agents, which deponent has lost or mislaid, and which deponent alleges was in every respect false and deceitful, and offered with the intent to deceive this deponent. The said Montgomery and Cañedo deceitfully represented to deponent that, under the authority and power possessed by them as aforesaid, they wished to purchase a steamer belonging to him and others, called the Agnes, which they desired should be taken by him to the island of St. Thomas, and there delivered to one Phillips, the resident agent of said Santa Anna, and that then and there said Santa Anna would pay deponent the sum of one hundred thousand dollars in gold. Deponent, wholly relying on the false and fraudulent representations made by said Montgomery and Cañedo, entered into a written agreement with them, the provisions of which are as follows:
“This agreement, made and entered into on the 10th day of April, 1866, in the city of New York, by and between William J. Taylor, of Philadelphia, United States, managing owner of the steamer Agnes, party of the first part, and Louis M. Montgomery and Andrew H. Cañedo, both of the city of New York, agents for and in behalf of D. A. L. de Santa Anna, parties of the second part. Whereas, for the hereinafter named consideration, the parties of the first part have sold, and do hereby sell, the steamer Agnes, of Philadelphia, with all of her tackle, furniture, &c., to the said parties of the second part, for the sum of $100,000 in gold, payable on her delivery to G. W. Phillips, merchant, in St. Thomas, for the use and benefit of parties of the second part; and it is agreed by the parties of the second part that they will well and truly pay or cause to be paid to the parties of the first part the sum of $100,000 in gold on the arrival of said steamer in St. Thomas, or as soon thereafter as the transfer can be made; and in case of default of payment, they, parties of the second part, shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid to the parties of the first part the sum of $20,000 in gold, in St. Thomas, as damages. And it is further agreed by the parties of the second part that they will pay or cause to be paid to the parties of the first part, for all surplus coal or stores that may remain on said steamer at the time of her transfer in St. Thomas, at the market rates in St. Thomas. And it is further agreed that the parties of the second part shall, in case of the discharge of the crew of said steamer in St. Thomas, pay to the parties of the first part the amount lawfully due said crew upon their discharge, less the amount due to them upon arrival in St. Thomas.”
That said engagement was duly executed by the parties of the first and second parts, and delivered by said parties of the second part to this deponent, party of the first part. That in pursuance of said agreement, and relying upon the said statements and representations of said Montgomery and Cañedo, that they were the authorized agents of said Santa Anna to purchase a vessel for him, deponent furnished said steamer Agnes with the necessary officers, crew, engineers, provisions, coal, and stores, at great expense, to wit, $15,000, and sailed for said island of St. Thomas on 14th April, 1866. That on the 24th of April, 1863, the said steamer and deponent arrived at said island, and, in pursuance of the contract aforesaid, made a tender of said steamer to said Phillips for said Santa Anna; the said Phillips tendered the same to said Santa Anna, who declined receiving said vessel, and denied that said Montgomery and Cañedo were ever his agents, nor were they authorized by him, or by any person, to purchase for him a vessel or anything else in the United States or elsewhere. That thereupon deponent returned with said steamer Agnes to the United States, and deponent has since ascertained that this denial of authority is true, and deponent states that the said Montgomery and Cañedo were not, and they knew they were not, at any time authorized to act on be half of said Santa Anna, and their representations on that behalf were utterly false, and made by them to deceive deponent. That said deponent, through the false, deceitful representations of said Montgomery and Cañedo, was induced to pay out and expend the sum of $15,000 in furnishing said ship as aforesaid, and in making said voyage to St. Thomas and the return to the United States. The said statements and representations of said Montgomery and Canedo deponent has now discovered to be, and alleges to be, false in each and every particular, and they were so known to be to said Montgomery and Cañedo, and were used and held forth by them solely to deceive deponent and to induce deponent to enter into agreement aforesaid, and to incur the heavy expenditure hereinbefore mentioned. That by the fraudulent and deceitful practices of said Montgomery and Cañedo he has been damaged $20,000, to recover which the action aforesaid is to be brought. And deponent finally says that he is informed and believes that said Montgomery and Cañedo are not residents of this State; that said Montgomery was late an officer in the confederate army and chief of staff of General Lee, and that Cañedo is a resident of Texas.
J. H. TAYLOR.
Affidavits were also made by several other parties, to wit, the defendants, Montgomery and Cañedo, Solon Dike, Thomas J. Rice, J. W. Robinson, in behalf of the motion.
Mr. Dike testified in substance that he had a conversation with Santa Anna, at the island of St. Thomas, in November last; that Santa Anna then told him that he was desirous of returning to Mexico to assist in driving out Maximilian and establishing a republic there, [Page 270] but that an order was still in force prohibiting him from coming to the United States. If that order could be annulled, and he be allowed to cross the Rio Grande, he could, with the aid of 1,000 Americans, drive Maximilian out of the country. He also said that if deponent could help him he should be amply remunerated. On Mr. Dike’s return to New York he communicated with Montgomery, and they agreed to work together in relation to the matter. Deponent further states that it was fully understood and agreed between Santa Anna and himself that he (Dike) should do all he could in the matter, and also get others to co-operate with him. Santa Anna delivered to him certain proclamations addressed to the Mexicans, which he desired to, be distributed.
Andrew H. Cañedo, one of the defendants, deposed that on or about the 5th of March last he attended a meeting at Mr. Mazuera’s residence, No. 101 West Twentieth street, and that while there Mr. Montgomery and Mazuera produced letters from Santa Anna, which were read and interpreted by Mr. Baiz; and further, that Mazuera represented himself as the commissioner of Santa Anna, and had received ample powers to act as such, and that Baiz was in his confidence and would act for him; that Mazuera and Baiz expressed their desire to purchase a steamer for Santa Anna, for the purpose of bringing him to the United States; that it was arranged to purchase the steamer with Montgomery, the drafts to be drawn on Santa Anna for $100,000, payable in gold. The deponent called on Mr. Baiz, who stated that he could represent Mr. Mazuera, and informed him that an arrangement had been made with a banking-house to negotiate said drafts on the commissioner, showing his authority, and that Mr. Baiz said he would have the commissioner at his office next day.
Deponent further saith that a Mr. Billerton assisted him in negotiating the drafts, and had also called on Mr. Baiz, and stated that one of the banking firm could speak Spanish, and would be pleased to see Mr. Mazuera and examine his authority as a commissioner, in strict confidence, and, if satisfactory, advance the money; that when he (Billerton) stated this to Baiz and Mazuera, they replied they did not wish to expose the authority, intimating thereby chat the said powers were either to violate the neutrality law, or do some other illegal or unwarrantable act, which they desired that no other person should see or examine.
The following affidavit, made by General Santa Anna, was read by Mr. Buck in opposition to the motion to discharge:
City and County of New York, ss:
Antonio L. de Santa Anna being duly sworn, says: I am not acquainted with the parties to this action. I met Cañedo on the 24th of April last at St. Thomas. I have never authorized Montgomery, Cañedo, or anybody else to purchase a vessel for me. In the brief correspondence I have had with Montgomery and Cañedo I never authorized Montgomery or Cañedo to do anything for me, but, to the contrary, I wrote I never wanted their services; Montgomery and Cañedo made offers to me of all sorts of impossible helps, and so foolish and exaggerated that they were the dreams of madmen, and I declined them all and peremptorily.
A. L. DE SANTA ANNA.
Sworn to before me this 27th day of June, 1866.
JOHN McCLUSKY, Commissioner of Deeds.
Mr. Buck also read several other affidavits, and some letters, which we have not space to print, all tending to show that the defendants had been guilty of gross fraud in the purchase of the steamer Agnes, for the sum of $100,000 in gold, from the plaintiff, Taylor, on the pretence that they were regularly authorized agents of Santa Anna, and purchased the vessel for him and at his request.
At the conclusion of the argument ail the papers in the case were handed up to the court. Decision reserved.
For plaintiff, Jerome Buck; for defendants, P. Y. Cutler, esq.
No. 4.
[Untitled]
SUPERIOR COURT—CHAMBERS—BEFORE JUDGE M’CUNN.
July 16.—Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna vs. Abraham Baiz and Jacob Baiz. An action was commenced on Saturday last in the superior court of this city, by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna against Abraham Baiz and Jacob Baiz, for the recovery of thirteen thousand dollars, the proceeds of four bills of exchange on London which had been left with A. Baiz & Co. to be sold, and the proceeds delivered to the owner of the bills. The firm of A. Baiz & Co., consisting of Abraham Baiz, and his son, Jacob Baiz, had been highly recommended to the general as men of integrity and responsibility; and thus highly recommended, the general was importuned by A. Baiz & Co. to allow them to sell his bills of exchange. This [Page 271] firm, having made the sale and received thereon for the general about thirteen thousand dollars, suggested to him, when they were asked for the proceeds, that he leave the money in their hands, as it would be extremely unsafe, in view of the many burglaries being committed in the city, for him to keep so much money in his house The general, deeming the suggestion an honest one, deferred drawing his money until a few days ago, when he sent his son to the house of A. Baiz & Co. to get the money. The firm thereupon refused to pay over the $13,000, or any part of it. to General Santa Anna. On this state of facts, on Saturday last, an action was commenced by General Santa Anna, in the superior court of this city, against Abraham Baiz and Jacob Baiz, in which action Judge McCunn granted an order of arrest, directing that the defendants be arrested and held to bail in the sum of $15,000. In pursuance of this order, the sheriff yesterday morning arrested Abraham Baiz and his son Jacob, and held them to answer in the above sum.
No. 5.
[Untitled]
To the Editor of the Herald:
We notice, among the law reports of your morning edition, a statement of the arrest of A. Baiz & Son, at the suit of General Santa Anna, springing out of certain drafts alleged to be placed in their hands. We suppose they owe this publicity to the fact that they have had business dealings with Santa Anna. But as the publication is but an ex parte statement, and reflects upon their mercantile standing and integrity, contrary to the course usually adopted by us not to notice such publications, we beg leave to state that, upon the trial of the action, Baiz & Son will show and maintain that General Santa Anna was largely indebted to them in an amount exceeding the amount of the drafts mentioned, and which he has recognized as correct, and promised to pay; and after crediting the proceeds of the drafts, there still remains a very considerable balance due to them.
No. 6.
[Untitled]
SANTA ANNA’S LITIGATIONS—SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS—BEFORE JUDGE BARNARD.
An order of arrest against Señor Dario Mazuera. —He is lodged in the Ludlow street jail.— Affidavit of General Santa Anna. —Interesting statements.—The plot thickening, &c.
Our readers no doubt remember the many accounts that have appeared in our columns lately in regard to the adventures of General Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, growing out of the numerous suits and counter suits that have been commenced in our courts of law. We are again called upon to chronicle another phase in the affair, his honor Judge Barnard having yesterday granted an order of arrest, at the suit of General Santa Anna, against his late private secretary, Señor Dario Mazuera, founded upon the following affidavit of the general:
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, being duly sworn, says that he is the plaintiff herein, and resides at No. 8 West Twenty-eighth street, New York; that the defendant is a resident of St. Thomas, West Indies, and is temporarily staying in this city; that prior to the 12th day of December, 1865, the defendant applied to the plaintiff at St. Thomas for permission to proceed to the United States in behalf of the interest of Mexico, as represented by the plaintiff, to confer with the government of the United States in reference to certain business connected with the interest of Mexico, stating and representing that he was able and competent to accomplish the transactions of said business, and did then and there importune the plaintiff to give him, said Mazuera, some paper writing accrediting him as a proper person to whom faith and confidence could be given; that on or about the 12th of December, 1865, the plaintiff did give said Mazuera a paper writing, whereby said Mazuera was permitted by the plaintiff to proceed to the United States and confer with the government thereof in relation to the business contemplated, but when said Mazuera arrived in the United States he did not make any effort to confer with the government thereof in behalf of the matters set forth in the said instrument given him by the plaintiff, as aforesaid, but, on the contrary, in violation of the power and authority conferred on him by the plaintiff, and intending to cheat and defraud this plaintiff, and in violation of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the [Page 272] plaintiff, he, the said Dario Mazuera, and one Abraham Baiz, with the intent to cheat and defraud the plaintiff, did combine, confederate, and conspire together, at the city of New York, to deceive, cheat, and defraud, and did deceive, cheat, and defraud the plaintiff in the Following manner, viz: On or about the 7th day of April, 1866, the said Baiz represented and pretended to be the owner of the steamship Georgia, lying at the port of New York, and as such pretended owner of said steamer, on or about the last day aforesaid, did fraudulently, deceitfully, and with the intent and design to cheat and defraud the plaintiff, make a pretended sale to him, and the said Dario Mazuera, well knowing that the said Baiz was not the owner of said steamship, did pretend to purchase of the said Baiz the said steamship Georgia, for and on account of this plaintiff, for the sum of $250,000; whereupon the said Baiz executed and delivered to said Mazuera, as the pretended agent of said plaintiff, a bill of sale of said steamship, to be delivered to the plaintiff at St. Thomas, West Indies; and the said Mazuera, well knowing that Baiz was not the owner of said steamship, accepted from said Baiz the said bill of sale, and then and there delivered to said Baiz seventeen bills of exchange, to which the said Dario Mazuera fraudulently and without authority signed the name of the plaintiff; that said bills of exchange were drawn to the order of said Mazuera, and indorsed by him were delivered to said Baiz.
That in and by said pretended bill of sale it was stated, as a covenant of the plaintiff, that in case the bills of exchange should not be accepted at sight, and should be protested for non-acceptance. the said plaintiff would pay the said Baiz the sum of $100,000 liquidating damages, and the said bills of exchange should remain in the hands of said Baiz as collateral security for the payment of said $100,000. Deponent further says, that afterwards the said Baiz, with the knowledge and consent of the said Mazuera, did freight the said steamship at the port of New York, and proceeded to the port of St. Thomas, West Indies, where the plaintiff was then temporarily residing, and on their arrival the said Baiz called on this plaintiff and informed him of the said sale of the said steamship, and at the same time exhibited to the plaintiff the said bills of exchange, and desired the plaintiff to accept the same, whereupon the plaintiff informed said Baiz that the said Mazuera had no power or authority from the plaintiff to negotiate for or purchase the said steamship, or to sign any bills of exchange in the name of the plaintiff, and that he, the plaintiff, would not accept said steamship or ratify or confirm the said bill of sale.
Deponent further says that the said Baiz and Mazuera, still combining, conspiring, and confederating together to cheat and defraud this plaintiff, then and there stated and represented to the plaintiff that he, (Mazuera,) while in the United States, had succeeded in obtaining a loan from various parties in the United States, and from the government thereof, of $30,000,000; that the same was to be increased to $50,000,000, to be used in the interest of the Mexican people, and that $30,000,000 was then on deposit in the city of New York, ready to be placed at the disposal of the plaintiff, to be used by him and those assisting him in behalf of the interests of the Mexican people, and at the same time exhibited to the plaintiff a letter purporting to have been written by Hon. Wm. H. Seward, Secretary of State at Washington, advising the plaintiff to come at once to the United States, and that the government thereof was ready, willing, and anxious to aid him in his efforts in behalf of the Mexican people, and that any assistance required by the plaintiff in that behalf would be furnished him by the government of the United States, and that he should lose no time in quitting St. Thomas for the United States for the purpose of immediately entering upon his undertaking.
Deponent further says that the said Baiz and Mazuera further represented that said steamer had been purchased for the interests of the Mexican people, and that the said bills of exchange could be paid from the fund or loan of thirty millions then on deposit as aforesaid, and that the plaintiff individually could not be responsible or incur any liability by accepting the said bills, and that if plaintiff refused to accept the said bill or ratify the said sale of said steamship, the said Baiz would be put to great expense, loss, and damage, and would be pecuniarily ruined; and deponent, believing the said representations of the said Baiz and Mazuera, and that the said sum of thirty millions was then on deposit in the city of New York as aforesaid, and believing the letter exhibited as aforesaid to be a true and genuine letter, the plaintiff accepted the said bills of exchange and delivered them to the said Baiz, conditioned that they should be paid from the said loan of thirty millions; that subsequently the said Baiz, with the knowledge and assent of the said Mazuera, stated and represented to the plaintiff that he (Baiz) had a payment to make at St. Thomas on account of the purchase of said steamship of $40,000 in gold, and that he did not have the necessary means to meet said payment, and desired the plaintiff to let him have the said sum of $40,000 to meet said payment, and that he would return the same when they arrived at New York; and believing said statement to be true, the plaintiff gave to the said Baiz certain notes made by parties in favor of plaintiff, payable in gold, and which were perfectly good, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $35,260, which the said Baiz accepted for the purpose aforesaid.
Deponent further says that subsequently the said Mazuera assisted in the freighting of said steamer for New York, and that plaintiff took passage on said steamer; that on his arrival, at the earnest solicitation of said Baiz, the plaintiff went to the house of said Baiz at Elizabethport, New Jersey, and remained there for nearly one month; that the said Baiz and Mazuera professed great friendship for the plaintiff, and often asserted and reiterated the statements and representations hereinbefore mentioned; but that just before the plaintiff left [Page 273] the house of said Baiz he ascertained that said steamship did not belong to and was not owned by said Baiz, and that he had no power to sell or convey said steamship, and that he had no payment to make at St. Thomas of $40,000; and that each and every statement made by said Baiz as to the purchase of said steamer were false and untrue, and were made with the knowledge and consent of said Mazuera, and were known by the said Mazuera to be false and untrue, and were made with the intent and design to deceive, cheat, and defraud this plaintiff: and that the statements of said Baiz and Mazuera that the defendant had obtained a loan of $30,000,000, and that the same was then on deposit in the city of New York, were also false and untrue, and had no foundation in fact, but were made with the intent to induce the plaintiff to accept the said bills of exchange for the sum of $250,000; that at the time the said loan was said to have been obtained not one shilling had been obtained or received by the defendant, as he had represented.
This deponent further says that the said letter exhibited by the defendant, purporting to have been written by the Hon. William H. Seward, was not a letter of the said William H. Seward at all, but written and concocted by the defendant and said Baiz, and that all the representations made by said defendant and Baiz were false and untrue, and that said letter was a forgery, and known by said defendants to be so.
Deponent further says that said Baiz and Mazuera, conspiring, combining, and confederating together, did charter the said steamship of Messrs. Williams & Guion, for the sum of $10,000, to go to the port of St. Thomas, West Indies, and that said Baiz freighted said vessel under said charter, and proceeded with said vessel, accompanied by said Mazuera, to St. Thomas, where the said Mazuera falsely and fraudulently reported to various parties, other than the plaintiff, that the said Baiz was the owner of said steamer.
Deponent further says that said Baiz, from St. Thomas to New York, brought on said vessel a valuable freight, and, as the plaintiff is informed and believes, received for the freight of said steamship to and from St. Thomas, West Indies, upwards of $15,000.
Deponent further says that the said Baiz admitted to the plaintiff, as did also the said Mazuera, that the said Baiz at St. Thomas paid to the captain of said steamer Georgia, as charter money and other expenses, the sum of $13,000 and upwards, and that this sum was realized from a portion of the said notes of $35,260 given said Baiz by the plaintiff at St. Thomas.
Deponent further says that when the said Baiz and Mazuera returned to New York they had in their possession the said bills of exchange for $250,000 and the said notes of $35,260, and being so in possession of said bills and notes, they delivered the said steamship to the owners, Messrs. Williams & Guion, at the city of New York, and also gave Messrs. Williams & Guion a portion of said bills of exchange, amounting to the sum of $80,000: and that the said Williams & Guion, with a knowledge of the pretended sale of the said Georgia to the plaintiff, accepted and received from the said defendant the said bills of exchange; and that the defendant has surrendered to the plaintiff the balance of said bills of exchange, amounting to $170,000, but still retains the notes, amounting to $35,260; and that Messrs. Williams & Guion admitted to deponent that they had possession of said steamship, and were the owners thereof, and that they had received the said bills of exchange; and the plaintiff then requested that said bills be surrendered to him, which said Williams & Guion refused to do, except on condition that the plaintiff would give them his promissory note at ninety days tor the sum of $25,000 and collateral security for its payment, which plaintiff was compelled to, and did so: that all of the representations and statements of the said Mazuera and Baiz were false and untrue, and that plaintiff has sustained damages by reason thereof to the extent of at least $70,000, and asks that the defendant may be arrested and dealt with according to law.
A. L. DE STA. ANNA.
Sworn to before me this 25th day of August, 1866.
ALFRED T. ACKERT, Notary Public.
The affidavit is very voluminous, but above we have given its principal features. Annexed to the affidavit is a supplemental statement by the general in regard to the card published in our columns a few days ago, wherein he fully exonerated Mr. Mazuera, the general now alleging that said statement was obtained from him under a misrepresentation of the facts of the case.
Mr. Mazuera was last evening arrested by Deputy Sheriff McGonegal, and in default of bail in the sum of $80,000, committed to the Ludlow street jail.
THE MONTGOMERY SUIT.
August 27.—Montgomery vs. Santa Anna.—In this case an order of arrest was granted against defendant on application of plaintiff. The particulars of this suit have already been published in the Herald. A motion is now made to set aside the order of arrest, and the argument in the case has been set down for to-morrow at 12 o’clock.
No. 7.
[Untitled]
SANTA ANNA’S LITIGATIONS—SUPREME COURT, CHAMBERS—BEFORE JUDGE BARNARD.
The Montgomery Case.—Another postponement.
August 28.—Montgomery vs. Santa Anna.—This case was called on at twelve o’clock today for argument. A motion is now made to vacate the order of arrest issued some days since at the instance of the plaintiff against General Santa Anna on the ground that he was a non-resident of the State of New York. Montgomery makes a claim against the general for the modest sum of $60,000 for services rendered as the alleged agent of Santa Anna. The general was required to give bail in the sum of $75,000, which was afterwards reduced to $30,000. Mr. H. Daily, counsel for General Santa Anna, now moves to vacate the order of arrest on the ground that the general never employed or authorized the employment of Montgomery in any manner whatever. The motion came on for hearing several days ago; but, on the application of Mr. Peter T. Cutler, counsel for Montgomery, it has been postponed from time to time until yesterday, when it came up again for argument. Mr. Cutler answered that he was not ready to proceed, and asked the court to allow the motion to stand over. Mr. Daily strenuously opposed the application for a further postponement of the matter, on the ground that General Santa Anna was very anxious to have the questions presented by this action reviewed by the court, and that he had in every instance been ready and anxious to proceed, but had invariably been met by a motion to postpone by the counsel for plaintiff.
The court finally set the matter down for hearing at ten o’clock on Saturday next.
No. 8.
Statement from Mazuera.
General Don Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna has published the following card:
“The undersigned would inform the public that Don Dario Mazuera has not held, nor does he now hold, any authority to engage in any way whatever the personal responsibility of the undersigned in any contract, note, or engagement whatsoever. Having been informed that said Don Dario Mazuera is attempting (in virtue of a commission intrusted to him for a purpose very distinct from that of making private contracts) to injure the undersigned, notice is hereby given that not only the invalidity of said acts will be maintained, but the undersigned will likewise assert his rights and have the full rigor of the laws extended to those who seek to injure and annoy him in so unwarrantable a manner.
“A. L. DE SANTA ANNA.”
Much against my will I am forced to contradict—though I shall do so in a clear and succinct manner—the above assertions of General Santa Anna, by publishing herewith the full powers which he conferred on me at St. Thomas, under date of December 12, last year. I have, moreover, in my possession a letter in the same gentleman’s own handwriting, which was delivered to me only a few hours before my departure from that island, and which treats of this same subject, and confirms the confidence which was reposed in me. I will not publish said letter because of its confidential and private character. If I have committed grave errors I have frankly avowed them, without attempting to escape the responsibility that fell upon me by reason of such errors; nor did I seek to cloak myself with a veil of hypocrisy, as has been done by others whom I may justly stigmatize as corrupt and depraved.
“Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, general of division in the Mexican army, &c.:
“By these presents I give full powers to Colonel Don Dario Mazuera, (in whose talents and good character I have the greatest confidence,) in order that he may be enabled to develop all my ideas, thoughts, and desires before the government of the United States of America, concerning the aid of which I stand in need in order to be able to liberate my country from the yoke of her oppressors. The critical position in which the Mexican nation is at present placed demands that all her sons make extraordinary efforts and great sacrifices. Although exiled from my native soil through French tyranny, still I am anxious to do all in my power in order to prove to my fellow-countrymen that their misfortunes are not unheeded by me. Colonel Mazuera will understand how to set forth, with his habitual discretion, my reasons for having recourse to the government at Washington in order to obtain the aid which only that government can readily afford. The said Colonel Mazuera is fully authorized to make [Page 275] agreement as to the guarantees requisite in order to secure the payment of whatever costs and expenses may be incurred for this aid, which I solicit with the most lively earnestness and ardor. The Mexican nation will in due time, through its legal organs, recognize this debt, and will pay it with religious exactitude, while its gratitude will be everlasting for the service thus rendered. But if, unfortunately, the government of the United States should refuse, from any motive whatever, to lend me its protection, in such case Colonel Mazuera shall endeavor to make an arrangement with some portion of the mercantile community of said nation for the recruiting of two or three thousand armed men, (after having first obtained permission from the local authorities,) as well as for the purchase of the vessels necessary to transport such a body of men to a point on the Mexican coast which I shall indicate in due time. Colonel Mazuera may show these instructions in such cases as he may find it advantageous to do so, seeing that he is my representative—my own person, in fact, in this affair with which he is intrusted. However, he is to bear in mind that he must bestow upon any Mexican soldiers that may be recruited the position for which they may be respectively fitted; for it would be very pleasing to me should such true patriots be brought to my ranks by extending to them any assistance that may be possible. I confide to Colonel Mazuera’s discretion the subject of engaging in our favor some of the leading organs of the press, in order to secure the publication of suitable articles in favor of our enterprise, even though for this purpose it should become necessary to make pecuniary sacrifices. It shall be his duty to visit General Grant, in whose hands he will place the letter which he has received for that general, and shall endeavor to convince him of the advantage it would be to all of us who profess republican principles were he to contribute his powerful influence towards securing the patriotic object which I have in view. As Colonel Mazuera is sufficiently well informed, and understands thoroughly the important charge with which he is intrusted, I leave to his own deliberation the arrangement of many details which he will understand how to work out according as occasions present themselves, for I am inspired with this much confidence in the ability, honor, loyalty, and Americanism of said Señor Mazuera. For the reasons set forth above, I recognize, approve, and confirm as valid, from this moment, the acts which Señor Mazuera may perform while in the discharge of this mission, in order to secure the successful issue of the same.
“In testimony whereof I set my hand to these presents.
“Done at the island of St. Thomas this 12th day of December, 1865.
No. 9.
[Untitled]
MORE OF SANTA ANNA’S LITIGATIONS.—SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS—BEFORE JUDGE BARNARD.
The Montgomery Case.—Motion to vacate an order of arrest against Santa Anna.
September 1.—L. H. Montgomery vs. A. L. de Santa Anna.—Plaintiff in this case claims to have acted as the agent of General Santa Anna in the organization of an expedition to convert the Mexican empire and establish a republic instead. The authority for this agency he alleges to have received through Señor Dario Mazuera and Mr. Solon Dike, who claim to have been the directly accredited agents of Santa Anna for the same purposes. Mazuera is at present confined in the Ludlow street jail, under a suit instituted against him by the general for some $80,000.
The material points in the affidavits and the statements on both sides have already been published in the Herald.
In the present suit Montgomery seeks to get $25,000 for services rendered, and under this claim procured an order of arrest against the general, in which the latter was held to bail in the sum of $30,000. A motion to vacate this order of arrest was made yesterday.
Mr. Peter T. Cutler appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. Daily for defendant.
Mr. Cutler opened the argument, and alluded to the character of the affidavits on the other side. The main question to be determined was upon the agency. Montgomery had produced evidence to show his agency in the matter, which facts were merely denied by Santa Anna, without producing contradictory evidence on each material point.
Judge Barnard. There is sufficient in the affidavits to issue an order of arrest.
Mr. Cutler contended that there was not sufficient in the affidavits of defendant to quash the order of arrest. Defendant had not furnished evidence denying any of plaintiff’s assertions. There was nothing in the affidavits of his opponents which would authorize him to make a motion to discharge from arrest.
* * * * * * * * *
The court having decided to hear the case at length, Mr. Daily proceeded to read his affidavits in support of the motion to vacate the order of arrest. He read the affidavit of General Santa Anna, denying that he had given any authority whatever to Montgomery to act as his agent.
[Page 276]Judge Barnard. Does General Santa Anna speak the English language?
Mr. Daily. He does not.
Judge Barnard. “Who translated these affidavits for him?
Mr. Daily gave the name of the translator. The gentleman then went on with his reading. The affidavit of Mazuera alleged that he had never at any time employed Montgomery under the authority given by Santa Anna to deponent. Several other affidavits were read, when Mr Cutler followed in behalf of Montgomery.
Judge Barnard took all the papers in the ease and reserved his decision.
No. 10.
[Untitled]
STILL ANOTHER SUIT.—SANTA ANNA’S FATHER-IN-LAW ARRESTED.
An order of arrest was granted yesterday by Judge Barnard, of the supreme court, for the apprehension, in a civil suit, of Luis G. de Vidal y Rivas, father-in-law of General Santa Anna. The plaintiff in the action is Emelia Cuppia, owner of a boarding-house in East Forty-first street, this city, who alleges in her affidavits, on which the order of arrest was issued, that defendant, Rivas, is indebted to her in the sum of $355 50, the balance of a board bill. It was furthermore stated that General Santa Anna and the defendant were about leaving this country for Mexico, and that the latter would take with him all his goods and effects; that there was great danger that plaintiff would lose the amount of her claim against him unless the court interfered and granted an order of arrest, holding him to bail in a sum sufficient to fully meet the demand.