Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 6, 1886

No. 307.
Mr. Morgan to Mr. Bayard.

Legation of the United. States,
Mexico, May 25, 1886. (Received June 7.)

No. 230.]

Sir: Referring to previous correspondence relative to the attack made by Mexican soldiers upon United States troops, near Nacori, on January 11, 1886, in which Capt. Emmet Crawford lost his life, I have the honor to transmit, herewith inclosed, copy of a note from Mr. Mariscal, with four accompaniments, under date of 19th instant, but not received till Friday evening last, the 21st.

Appreciating the importance of the promptest possible dispatch of these documents, I have left no effort unexerted to accomplish that end, and I have personally compared the inclosed copies with the originals.

This study, which of necessity has been unsatisfactorily hurried, has left upon my mind impressions which I respectfully submit, with the hope that they may facilitate you in the perusal of the voluminous incisures.

The testimony produced by the Mexican Government endeavors to establish—

First. That Captain Crawford’s command was not engaged with the hostile Apaches at, or near, Teopar, on January 10.

The Mexican commander, Santana Perez, upon receiving the report of Lieutenant Maus, charges it with many inexact and false statements. He positively denies that there was an engagement between our troops and the hostile Indians on January 10, saying that he kept a close watch all that day upon Captain Crawford’s command from an elevated position called Drvisadero, and that he heard no tiring and saw no movement indicative of battle. The evidence of ten volunteers from Degollado (accompaniment 1) is to the effect that the Divisadero was reached about noon on the 10th, and that the scouts’ camp was visible only with field glasses, while Ramon Chavarria (accompaniment 3) and Francisco Araiza (same accompaniment) states that the Divisadero was reached about sunset, and that the scouts’ camp was about 5 leagues distant.

Second. That only one attack was made by the Mexican soldiers upon the American troops at Teopar.

The statement made by Lieutenant Maus that two different attacks were made by the Mexican soldiers upon Captain Crawford’s command is denied by the Mexican deponents, and they assert that but one attack was made.

Third. That the Indian scouts first fired upon the Mexicans.

The evidence contained in accompaniment 1 indicates the extreme caution observed during the march of the Mexicans on January 10, and their night march of the same day proves their eager desire to meet their supposed (so claimed by them) hostile foe.

On the morning of the 11th, so near were the Mexicans to our scouts that they give, in accompanimet 1, words called out by them (the scouts), and state that in the first volley fired by our troops, Juan de la Cruz (Mexican) fell, pierced by thirteen balls, “casi á quema-ropa;” still it is maintained that the scouts fired first.

Mr. Mariscal suggests that Captain Crawford may have been shot by his own men; but this theory would seem untenable in view of the evidence of accompaniment 2, which clearly demonstrates that he was shot in the forehead, and he was facing the Mexicans.

Fourth. That no evidence of military character was worn by any of the officers of the United States Army or their men on the occasion of the encounter at Teopar.

Fabian Martinez and Juan J. Ramos testify (see accompaniment 2) that Captain Crawford wore black pantaloons, while the other deponents state that none of the officers wore any evidence of military character.

Fifth. That the Mexican commander, Santana Perez, denies having asked Lieutenant Maus for rations for his command.

José Antonio Varela (see accompaniment 1) states that the Mexican volunteers, on their expedition, carried as pro visions only “pinole” (parched corn), and that article in a small quantity. They had been marching sixteen days when they encountered our troops at Teopar, and the limited supply of their provisions may be estimated from the testimony of Ramos and Vidal (see accompaniment 3); that the want of food and ammunition caused their commander, Perez, to grant a parley to Lieutenant Maus.

Sixth. That Lieutenant Maus was detained in the Mexican camp at Teopar.

The conflict of evidence as to the detention of Lieutenant Maus, which appears in accompaniment 4, would be impossible of solution, did not Mr. Mariscal concede it to be a fact. He (Mr. Mariscal) indorses the two motives inducing the detention. The first, that Lieutenant Maus was not attired in uniform, seems conclusively overthrown by the evidence contained in accompaniments 2 and 3. The second would be weakened, if not destroyed, by the fact that Perez (see accompaniment 1) states that the animals were delivered upon his receipt for the same, and does not refer to the killing and skinning of said animals until he makes his third deposition (see accompaniment 4), when he joins his comrades in that charge.

Seventh. That Captain Crawford’s scouts are responsible for numerous robberies and murders committed in Northern Mexico.

The testimony contained in accompaniment 3, which endeavors to prove that our scouts stole the animals found in the possession of Lieutenant Maus’ command, and which he says he captured from the hostile Indians, is but hearsay or assumption, such language as “is to be supposed,” “is undoubted,” “is almost assured,” “is believed,” being a fair sample of that evidence.

It might be well here to remark that the evidence of Amaya and Casavantes, in accompaniment 3, is, they frankly acknowledge, based upon hearsay only.

Mr. Mariscal, in his note, says that he will, in a few days, transmit further testimony proving that Captain Crawford’s scouts, and not the hostile Indians, are responsible for the depredations on the Mexican frontier, and that as soon as the claims for damages sustained by Mexicans at the hands of these Indians (scouts) are formulated, although suffered prior to the encounter at Teopar, the Mexican Government will have the unavoidable obligation of asking that they be indemnified. This promised testimony, he says, will prove, by an admission made by Lieutenant Maus to Casimiro Grajeda, police commissary of Nacori, and to Mr. Emilio Kasterlitzki, that the death of Captain Crawford was the result of an accident—of a mistake.

Eighth. That the passage of the frontier by the Indian scouts is in contravention (in letter and spirit) of the treaty between the two nations for the reciprocal crossing of the boundary line by the regular Federal troops of both Governments in pursuit of hostile Indians.

Although this treaty has been twice prorogued, this objection was not presented by the Mexican Government at the time of such extension, notwithstanding the fact that the employment of Indian scouts in the frontier service of the United States Army would, at least, seem to have been notorious.

The foregoing observations I beg respectfully to submit for your wiser consideration.

I am, sir, &c.,

J. L. MORGAN.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 230.—Translation.]

Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Morgan.

State Department, Mexico, May 19, 1886.

Mr. Chargé d’Affaires: In conformity with what I had the honor to communicate to your legation in my note of the 18th of February last, it was ordered that the department under my charge institute a scrupulous investigation in regard to the unfortunate encounter had on the 11th of last January, at a place called Teopar, near Nacori, between a volunteer force raised in the State of Chihuahua and a numerous band of Apache and Chiricahua Indians, with which latter were some American soldiers under the command of Captain Crawford. The different proceedings had for this object are now in my possession, and it is proven, in a manner conclusive to my judgment, that during that lamentable affair the Chihuahua volunteers did not commit any offense deserving of punishment or indemnification, and I permit myself to make extracts from the charges made by Lieutenant Maus against said Mexican force, as also to state the result of the accumulated proof in this delicate business.

The charges which Lieut. Marion Maus preferred in his report, dated the 21st of January, and submitted to Capt. C. S. Roberts, may be summed up in the following manner:

(1) That after the Mexican force had promised to discontinue the firing because they had been made acquainted with the fact that they did not have to deal with hostile Indians, and when it had retired to a hill at a short distance, Captain Crawford ordered him (Lieutenant Maus) to go and assure himself that no more firing should take place; that he so did; and-that thereafter the Mexicans repeated their firing. That Mr. Horn and Lieutenant Shipp, who at the same time were at other points telling who they were, had to seek places of safety from the desperate attack, and that when he returned to the camping place he found Captain Crawford stretched upon the ground, wounded in the head.

(2) That the Mexicans knew that they were firing upon American soldiers. “It appears almost impossible,” so he says, “that these people should have continued their firing when they knew who we were: but now I believe they expected to make us, by their superior force, retreat and thus possess themselves of our camp and effects.”

(3) That the Mexican force requested of them a few horses for the transportation of their wounded, to which he acceded, as it was within his power to do so. That the Mexicans were not satisfied with those that he gave them; and that to arrange this business he held a consultation with said force by going to their camp. That they then surrounded him, he says, with threatening looks; that they demanded of him the papers giving him his authority. He was not able to show them, so he adds, because Captain Crawford had left them behind with the pack-train, and that the Mexicans only permitted him to retire when he offered them on his word of honor to send them good animals, and above all, because the Indian scouts were clamoring for the fight to continue.

It must be taken into account that Lieutenant Maus explains the arrival of the force under Captain Crawford at Teopar, saying that on the preceding day they had there had a fight with some hostile Indians, and that he was then pursuing them; that he had wounded some Indians by the first volleys, but had not been able to capture any of them, and that they had left no other trail in this direction than some blood which was found here and there. The eye-witnesses on the Mexican side deny positively that the fight took place between the American force and the hostiles, and made their statements in great detail. Here I must beg that you will please note that Lieutenant Maus confesses:

(1) That the scouts of the American force kept up firing sufficient not to allow the Mexicans to draw near.

(2) That so soon as the former made itself known the Mexicans suspended their firing and retired to a hill in the near vicinity.

(3) “That it seemed to me that the sorrow expressed by the Chihuahuaan force on account of the unhappy affair was very sincere.”

It is also interesting to observe that the firing had ceased when Captain Crawford ordered him to go and make sure that no more firing should be done. What could have been the motive for such order when the Mexican force had already retired? And could it not have been possible that while Lieutenant Maus went towards the Chihuahua volunteers Captain Crawford may have been intentionally or unintentionally wounded by the Indians while he was trying to get them to cease firing? May it not be supposed also that the Indians wished also to wound Mr. Horn for the purpose of freeing themselves of the few American soldiers commanding them and then to return to their customary raiding? At all events it is very strange that there should not have been left some sign of the fight, which, it was said, took place on the preceding day between the American force and the hostiles, and that Captain Crawford, whom Lieutenant Maus left at the camp, should have been mortally wounded, and that Lieutenants Maus and Shipp should not have been wounded although they were walking toward the expeditionary force of the state (Chihuahua).

Having made this superficial examination of the first report of Lieutenant Maus, I shall now make different extracts from the principal affidavits which have been made regarding this affair by order of this government.

At the instance of the district attorney of Chihuahua, Santana Perez, commander of the expeditionary force of the State, testified before the judge, among other things, the following:

That he had been commissioned by the government of Chihuahua as a volunteer officer to raise a small force, also volunteers, for the purpose of pursuing the hostile Indians which were then invading the territory of the same state.

That in the discharge of this duty he formed a company of 128 men, for although the government authorized and ordered him to raise one of 150, yet the number was reduced as above indicated, because they had to send back with a guard the animals which they brought with them and which could not follow the troops on account of the very broken roads that could only be traversed on foot with great difficulty.

That on December 26 last the company having been duly organized, he started on the march towards the mountains in pursuit of the Apaches, who were reported to be there.

That from above date they continued their march with all the precautions suggested by experience, as they momentarily expected to encounter the enemy.

That on January 9, at a point called Arroyo Seco (Dry Gulch), near Sapachie, they struck the trail of the Indians, and followed it as far as Arroyo del Carrizal, where they encamped for the night; that on the following day (the 10th) they continued the march over the same trail, and soon arrived at Divisadero Mountain, whence they could see the rancheria or camp of the Indians.

That they waited till nightfall with the intention to attack them on the following morning.

That after sundown they took up the march, and on the following day (11th) at about 7 a.m., taking up a convenient position, they commenced firing upon the rancheria or camp of the Indians, after noticing that they had been seen, the Indians yelling and vociferating.

That deponent and his companions were convinced that these were wild or hostile Indians; because from the near proximity they could distinguish them, and they recognized them by their voices when they challenged them (the Mexicans) to fight; that therefore they kept up a fire upon them for about one hour.

That he did not know whether his companions fired before the enemy did so, because the volleys were almost simultaneous; but that he has no doubt that the Indians discharged their rifles toward him before he fired, and that therefore he saw himself obliged to return the fire.

That during this time there were killed: Mauricio Corredor by reason of a bullet received in the breast, which penetrated him diagonally from right to left; Juan de la Cruz, who received thirteen bullets at very close range; Luz Estrada and Martiniano Madrid.

That thereupon a beardless young American came forward, giving them to understand that they were on a campaign—i. e., that they were not hostile Indians, but pursuers of such—and thereupon he (affiant)ordered the firing to cease.

That meanwhile the Indians had commenced to flee.

That thereupon the fugitives were recalled by the young American and another lieutenant, and that they then returned.

After the cessation of the fight it was found that above-mentioned young American was wounded in the right arm, and that the captain of the Indians, also an American, was wounded in the head.

That the Americans had with them no military insignia whatever; that the young man who was wounded in the arm came forward in an overshirt; and the lieutenant wore a black sack coat without braid or any distinctive insignia.

That the Apaches were of a hostile tribe, their dress being nowise different from that of the hostiles; wearing breech-clouts, handkerchiefs tied over their heads, long hair, and moccasins.

That the Americans also wore moccasins.

That in the American camp were found animals stolen by the Indians upon national (Mexican) territory; that of these he recovered three donkeys, one mare, six mules (four with pack apparatus and two with saddles), which he turned over to the State government.

That he exhibited a certificate and some notes, written with lead-pencil, of the American lieutenant, by which he proved the places from which the animals were obtained. (See Appendix No. 1.)

That after the fight the greater portion of the stolen animals remained in the possession of the Americans because they refused to give them up, claiming that they were on a campaign in pursuit of Indians, and that they delivered the above-enumerated animals only because they were needed to transport the wounded.

That the Indians had stolen animals at Las Varas, Yepome, and Dolores, and had killed the owner of Las Varas, an American; that at Dolores they had killed three persons; and that affiant had learned of these acts before he started on the campaign, from reports made to the State government and from public rumor.

That said depredations were committed by the same Indians attacked by deponent, because at that time no other Indians were in the Sierra Madre.

And that the following soldiers of his force were wounded during the fight at Teopar, and were then under medical treatment at Guerrero: Marcos Gonzales, Herculano Coz, Apolinar Zapien, and Francisco Romero.

The same Santana Perez, having been made acquainted with the first report of Lieutenant Maus, which was read to him by order of the judge, stated:

That said report contains many inaccuracies and falsehoods.

That it is an absolute untruth that Captain Crawford, his subalterns and troops of Apache Indians, had any encounter on the 10th of January, as stated in the report, with other hostile Apaches; because he (Santana Perez), after following the trail of the Indians, being in a good position upon Divisadero Mountain, did not lose sight of Crawford’s Indians all that day (10th), and did not observe any movements nor did he hear a single shot; but on the contrary, he took notice of their quietude, of which he took advantage to march during the night of the 10th and to take up a convenient position with the object of attacking them early on the 11th, which he accordingly did.

That during said 11th, at the hour indicated in his foregoing testimony, both parties fired several volleys; but that it is an exaggeration that he had surprised the enemy with a “shower of bullets,” as reported by Lieutenant Maus.

That he repeats that the numbers of troops under his command was 128 men, who were not uniformed because they were volunteers gathered at a moment’s notice.

That Captain Crawford did not exhibit any handkerchief to request an interview, as stated in above-mentioned report; but that it is true that a young American, wounded in the arm, came forth in the midst of the flying bullets, and requested that the firing be stopped, saying that they were American soldiers, friends of Mexico; and that when this took place the Indians under the command of the Americans were already precipitately fleeing, having learned that Mauricio Corredor and he (affiant) were of the attacking force, because they were much feared by the Indians, as the Apaches knew them well, having been constantly at war with them.

That it was well known that years ago the dreaded Victorio was killed by him.

That it is a falsehood, as stated in the report, that deponent’s forces knew they were attacking American soldiers. That this is not true; that absolutely nobody could have known it, because by his (Maus’) side were 250 or more Indians who carried no flags and wore no uniform, and who, after the cessation of the firing, did not produce any documents proving them to be members of the Regular Army or militia.

That, nevertheless, affiant expressed his regret at the killing of Crawford, while the other party did so at the killing of Mauricio Corredor and his comrades; whereupon they exchanged some papers drawn up in lead-pencil.

That the Mexicans did not request rations of the Americans, although they did demand animals, because they needed them for the transporting of their wounded, and because they had been stolen of residents of the country.

That the Americans delivered aforesaid animals upon receipts being given them.

That affiant’s force suffered the greater loss, because they made the attack with greatest intrepidity, while the enemy was sheltered among the rocks.

That another omission or inexactness in said report is that no mention is made of the fact that the subordinates of Crawford lost their presence of mind, with the exception of the young man wounded in the arm, Mr. Horn, who in disregard of the danger came forth from between the rocks to request a cessation of hostilities.

That affiant ordered camp to be broken, and made his report of the occurrences to the State government; that it is also inexact that his force had an intention to continue that attack upon the Americans, because if that had been the case, the Americans were at the end of the combat in such a disadvantageous condition that it would have been easy to destroy them entirely, especially the Indians who were the majority, and who discontinued their flight when their officers reassured them by crying out that they had nothing to fear.

After Santana Perez, the court examined Pedro Rascon, who confirmed the declarations of the former affiant and added: That there were many of the hostile or wild Indians, which was proven by their having among them a Mexican named Concepcion as prisoner.

The depositions of Eulalio Fierro and Jose Antonio Varela, also eye-witnesses, were of the same tenor as that of Santana Perez.

The foregoing are extracts from the proceedings of the investigation held by the District Court of Chihuahua. Copy of the proceedings I forward herewith as Appendix No. 1, leaving out however, two newspapers in which was published the first report of Lieutenant Maus; these are the “St. Louis Globe-Democrat” of February 6, and “El Fronterizo” of Tucson of the same date.

If you will examine the Proceedings you will find the itinerary of five route followed by the Chihuahua expedition before and after the unfortunate encounter of the 11th; said itinerary agrees perfectly with the testimony of the witnesses, and it proves that, whether the firing of both parties was simultaneous or one party fired before the other, it is evident that the Mexican force had reasonable grounds to believe that it was in pursuit of hostile Indians, enemies of all civilization, and violators of life and property, and that it could not then imagine that, contrary to the spirit of the terms of the contract, two or three hundred armed Indians in the guise of American soldiers would cross our frontier, which Indians did not in truth look like a regular Federal force of the United States.

I also transmit, marked No. 2, copy of proceedings of an investigation on the same subject ordered by the Asst. Adjt. Gen. Francisco T. Boza, by direction of the general commanding the second military zone. Said investigation was held February 24th last before the justice of the peace of Guerrero, State of Chihuahua.

The following-named twenty-nine persons were eye-witnesses: Ramon Chavarria, Jose Ma. Romero, Herculano Cos, Jesus Campos, Francisco Araiza, Apolinar Zapien, Fabian Martinez, Trinidad Calderon, Laureano Corredor, Roque Ramos, Juan Enriquez, Anastasio de la Cruz, Marcelino Ramos, Agapita Romero, Juan J. Ramos, Ignacio de la Cruz, Martin de la Cruz, Enrique Techone, Termin Chavez, Esteban Vidal, Jesus Leonardo, Jesus Ramos, Francisco Tolis, Valentin Gonzalez, Ramon Gonzalez, Alejandro Ramos, Reyes de la Cruz, Hilario de la Cruz, and Manuel de la Cruz.

They testified to the following:

(1) That they went, on the 11th of January last, at a point called Teopar, to attack some Apache Indians that were in ambush between some rocks.

(2) That Captain Crawford (whose name they heard there for the first time) did not request an interview; and that he was not wounded after the order had been given to cease firing, because when it was noticed that some Americans were with the Indians, by their making themselves known, the said Captain Crawford had already ceased to exist.

(3) That Crawford received a wound above the forehead, from right to left.

(4) That during the fight not one of the Americans, or of the wild or tame Indians, wore a uniform by which it might have been known that they belonged to the United States Army; the former wore civilian dress, and the latter generally wore only breech-clouts and moccasins, with bare heads and hair so long that it covered their shoulders.

(5) That the Mexican commanders did not order the attack; that they only replied to the firing from an ambuscade which they had not noticed; that they could not well imagine them to be civilized troops when all the appearances were to the contrary.

(6) That they did not hear any of the Americans say that they had in their power some hostile Indians as prisoners, holding them captives, together with the articles stolen by said Indians.

(7) That they were all eye-witnesses to said occurrence, because they formed part of the expeditionary column and took part in the encounter at Teopar.

It should be noticed that witness Zapien added that the Apaches were so well hidden that only from time to time could be seen parts of their heads, and the Indians were favored by the broken nature of the ground, having gulleys and parapets for hiding themselves.

Laureano Corredor added that the first volley of the Apaches caused the death of his brother (Mauricio), the commandant; which fact is also stated by Roque Ramos, Anastasio de la Cruz, Marcelino Ramos, and Ramon Gonzalez.

Roque Ramos explained that the parley took place about an hour and a half after the fight commenced, at which time some of the Apaches were abandoning their positions, jumping in their moccasins into the river; and not till then were seen some white rags or handkerchiefs flying at places occupied by the Indians, as signals of peace, wherefore firing ceased, and some Americans, who had not before shown themselves, came forth from between the rocks, with whom the commanding officer, Santana Perez, held a conference.

Before proceeding further, I must call your attention to a point of great importance.

The commander, Santana Perez, opportunely recalls the fact that it was Mauricio Corredor, a man greatly feared by the Apaches, who killed the terrible Indian Victorio, which latter did so much damage to the lives and property of citizens of the United States and Mexico. I have before me the supplement published by the official journal of Chihuahua, under date of October 20, 1880, wherein is printed the report of the colonel commanding the expeditionary column sent against the savages, Joaquin Terrazas, on the hotly-contested battle of the Cerros de los Castillos (Castle Mountains), during which fight Victorio perished. Said document closes with the following words:

“The sons of the State fought with audacious gallantry, but the following, on account of their heroic conduct, are worthy of special mention: The Jefe Politico of Galeano and the junior chief Juan Mata Ortiz, Rodrigo Garcia, captain of public security, and Mauricio Corredor, captain of the Arisiachic forces.”

The Government and press of the United States were much pleased with the results obtained by the Mexican forces in exterminating the cruel Victorio. Who could then have foreseen that years after, through an accidental and unforeseen circumstance, which in all respects is lamentable, the heroic Mauricio Corredor would be killed by a force of Indians under the command of American officers? While Mexico and this Government deplore the loss of Captain Crawford, the Government and people of the United States must certainly deplore the death of Corredor.

I also transmit, for official use, and marked Appendix No. 3, the proceedings of an investigation ordered by the supreme court of Chihuahua, relating to this same business.

In that document will be found the testimony of the following circumstantial witnesses: Silviano Gonzalez, Francisco J. Amaya, Jose de la Luz Armenta, and Gabriel Casavantes; and of the eye-witnesses: Roque Ramos, Esteban Yidal, Felipe Ochoa, Ramon Chavarria, Herculano Coz, Agapito Ramos, Francisco Araiza, Apolinar Zapien, Jose, Maria Romero, Jesus Campos, and Vicente Gandara.

Laying aside for the sake of brevity the testimony of the circumstantial witnesses (although they are all proper persons, and especially worthy of credit, Jose de la Luz Armenta, captain of volunteers, who conducted the Mexican wounded from Guerrero to Degollado), I shall confine myself to calling your attention, and that of your Government, to some points in the affidavits of the eye-witnesses who took part in the campaign.

Roque Ramos declared that he was almost certain that the Apaches with whom they fought were the same that a short time before attacked the mining settlement of Dolores, killing several persons and stealing at the same time the greater portion of the stock at the place; that this is easily believed because Commandant Santana recaptured on the battle-field some of the animals stolen at above-mentioned mining town, and they were returned to their owners; that, furthermore, some of the volunteer campaigners from Temosachic recognized several animals, and when they were claimed the lieutenant in command promised to return them; but during the night they were killed, and it was afterwards noticed that the part of the skin showing the brands had been removed from nearly all the carcasses.

Esteban Vidal said that he believes that the Apaches with whom they fought had committed depreciations upon national (Mexican) territory; he was led to believe this because in their possession were seen some animals which were recognized as some that a short time before had been stolen from the mining town Dolores when it was attacked by the savages; that said animals were demanded of Lieutenant Maus, who indicated that he would give them up on the following day; but that in place of this being done, said animals were found killed, with skins removed so that neither color or brand could be recognized.

Felipe Ochoa stated that in the possession of the Apaches at Teopar were found some of the stock that had been stolen shortly before during the attack upon the mining settlement of Dolores, when several inhabitants of that place were killed; that this was so well ascertained that the campaign chief (Santana Perez) took from them, after conclusion of peace, three donkeys, which he returned to the owners in said mining town.

Ramon Chavarria was more explicit, and related that those Apaches were doubtless the same who attacked the mining settlement Dolores, because in their possession were found some live stock stolen at aforesaid place; and of these Chief Santana recovered three donkeys, which he delivered to Melquiades Vargas; that Santana recognized and demanded several other animals, but, instead of their being surrendered, they were killed during the night. He also cited among other cases that one of the volunteer campaigners from Temosachic, whose name is Petronelo, recognized a mare as his property, and demanded its return of afore-mentioned lieutenant, but that on the following day the mare was found killed; all of which acts lead to the belief that these were the same Apaches who had caused so much damage in the State of Chihuahua.

The positive assertion that the Apaches at Teopar had in their possession stock stolen from the mining town Dolores, and that the animals were recognized by several persons, is supported by the statements of the other eye-witnesses: Herculano Coz, Agapito Ramos, Francisco Araiza, Apolinar Zapien, Jose Maria Romero, Jesus Campos, and Vicente Gandara.

In Appendix No. 4 you will find the proceedings of the judicial investigation as to the occurrences at Teopar, held at the request of Pedro Artalejo, colonel of cavalry, detailed for this purpose by the general commanding the second military zone, by direction of the Secretary of War and Navy.

From these proceedings it appears that some witnesses state that they did not know that Lieutenant Maus was held as prisoner by the Mexican soldiers; that others openly acknowledged that he was detained less than half an hour, but that he was treated with great consideration; and that the motives for such detention were two: First, because said Maus was not in uniform, nor did be show any distinguishing insignia to indicate that he was an officer of the United States Army, nor did he produce any document to prove his official character, although the Mexican force lost three days at Nacori, waiting for the lieutenant to make search for and present such document, because he stated that his papers were with his pack train, some miles distant; second, that on the preceding day Lieutenant Maus had promised to return to the Mexicans the mules stolen by the Apaches at the mining town of Dolores; that he failed to do so, and said mules were found killed, the brands having been cut out; that therefore the Mexican force believed itself justified in exacting other mules in place of those that he had failed to surrender for the transportation of their wounded; that therefore it was necessary to detain Lieutenant Maus until he should fulfill said promise, he having failed to do so.

Herein, Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, it seems that the action taken by the Mexican volunteers was fully justifiable, or at least very excusable, because it was not enough for said lieutenant to say that he was an officer; he should have proven it, especially when his being in company with a great number of savage Indians and other circumstances made him appear to the armed residents of Chihuahua as an enemy.

It should be observed that Lieutenant Maus in his second report, dated February 23, states: “I am ready to concede that the first attach was made because they mistook our identity, because it was very early and cloudy. I wish to be strictly just toward these people, but I cannot possibly believe they were under the same mistake during the second attack, during which Captain Crawford received a wound which deprived him of his existence.”

From all the testimony taken by the Mexican Government it is apparent that there was but one attack; that so soon as the Chihuahua forces learned that Americans were on the other side, even while they doubted their official character, they ceased firing; that thereafter they did not fire a single shot; and that for this reason Captain Crawford was not killed during a second firing by the Mexicans, because there was but one.

In regard to the demand by the Chihuahua volunteers for the loan of good animals for the transport of their wounded, Lieutenant Maus declares them to have been in the right, by stating: “Then I ordered Concepcion to go to the camp for the horses. The interpreter returned with them. The Mexicans refused to accept them, saying that they were unserviceable. The scouts had picked out the worst ones, and the horses were really not serviceable. I sent for others, but the scouts opposed themselves, because they considered these animals their own; and I judged that I had best not insist on the order.”

Does not this seem like connivance on the part of Lieutenant Maus with the Apache Indians—his permitting them to retain in their possession property stolen on Mexican territory? Or, if we do not wish to call such conduct a connivance, is it not at least an undue toleration, or perhaps an impossibility to enforce obedience from his troops?

It is also noteworthy that Lieutenant Maus contradicts himself by saying several times that the Mexican force was intimidated and was unable to hold out against his command, while at the same time he nevertheless represents the Mexican force as oppressive and exacting and accuses it of offenses and arbitrary conduct, which can never be committed by those who through fear are in the inferior situation—by the weak against the strong.

I have in my possession the proceedings of another extensive and detailed investigation ordered by the Secretary of War, which proves serious crimes to have been committed and damage caused and above all, numerous depredations to have been committed in the district of Moctezuma (State of Sonora) by a band of Indians led by Captain Crawford. By the official reports embodied in those proceedings it appears proven that said Indians committed all sorts of outrages and assaults; killing cattle without the owner’s permission and without paying for them; interfering with citizens and authorities, as they did at Guaverache; murdering, as they did citizens Francisco Lavandera and Tomas Moreno; and lastly, stealing and burning, as they did the sugar-cane and the fences of the fields of five or six Mexicans whose names are stated in said reports.

The Indians under Captain Crawford having committed such depredations, furnished another reason why any one might have mistaken Crawford’s force for a band of hostile Apaches; and in attacking them at the very place where Nana had fixed his rancheria, where Chief Geronimo also was and whence he fled—a place well known as a point of assembly for Indians upon the war-path—Santana Perez did certainly not commit an imprudent or punishable act.

From all these proceedings it is plain that the killing of Captain Crawford was the result of a mishap, of a mistake, just as Lieutenant Maus acknowledged it to be to Casimiro Grajeda, commissary of police at Nacori, and to Emilio Kosterlitzky; which proceedings for the present I retain. I shall have the honor to transmit them to you within a few days, and request that you will consider them as Appendix No. 5 hereto; they are not forwarded to you at this time, because it is deemed proper not to delay longer the sending of these documents, and the original of that lengthy document must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State.

As the persons who suffered the damages presented documentary complaints of the depredations committed by Captain Crawford’s Indians, before the encounter of Teopar took place, the Mexican Government is constrained to request that an indemnity be paid for such damages. At present I only mention this that it may be seen how important it is to comply (in letter and spirit) with the stipulated conditions for the passage of troops from one side to the other of the Rio Bravo (Rio Grande). Some time before the occurrence of the unfortunate conflict which resulted in the killing of Captain Crawford and of four Mexicans I issued instructions to Mr. Romero that he should, at Washington, call attention to the unfitness and illegality of allowing the passage to Mexican territory, in pursuit of Indians, of other Indians equally devoid of civilization and therefore unable to understand military discipline. He was requested to call attention to the first article of the treaty in force between the two nations, which article permits passage only to regular Federal troops. Mr. Romero reported that he did as ordered, and that he received a reply stating that the scouts were regular soldiers of the United States, because they were paid from appropriations for the payment of the Army.

Such an answer may do well enough legally within the United States, but is not satisfactory internationally. In the latter sense the term regular Federal troops is construed to convey the meaning generally applied to those words, i. e., troops of the standing (permanent) Army, and not troops temporarily organized for a certain and temporary service. Above all, to fix the meaning which both Governments wished to express, we must heed the spirit which guided them in making this treaty, which was no other than to pursue the savages engaged in a continuous war against civilization, without, however, abuses being committed against the inhabitants of the foreign territory entered by the troops during such pursuit.

For this object, and this only, were intended all the judicious precautions adopted by the Mexican senate and accepted by your Government. Among them is one which stipulates that the passage of the frontier, for above-expressed purpose, shall be allowed only to such troops as offered the greatest guarantee in points of discipline, morality, and good order; that is to say, troops of the Regular Army. Had it been suspected that the selfsame savages who, after escaping from their reservations, or in any other manner, came to Mexico there to commit their crimes, would be considered as soldiers of the Regular Army of the United States, without their even changing their habits or dress—they would clearly have been in most positive terms excluded from such permission, which does exclude even the State militia or United States Volunteers solely on account of their being less disciplined. It is, therefore, clearly evident, as it could not have been in the mind of the contracting parties—at least not of one of them—to consider that such Indian’s constitute “troops in high discipline,” that there is no treaty allowing them to pass the frontier armed, in pursuit of other Indians.

It seems useless to further continue these considerations, because they are sufficiently evident; or that I should accompany them with others regarding the harm resulting to Mexico from the fact that Indian criminals, fugitives from its territory, find shelter on American territory, where treaties are made with them, which results in their breaking their promises and returning to this side of the river, here to repeat their atrocities, as has just happened in the case of Geronimo. Against this and any other evils which result to us from the voluntary acts of the American authorities executed beyond our boundary line, we have perhaps, as a general rule, no right to complain; but it is otherwise when it concerns what appertains to a treaty regarding the passage of troops across our frontier. The interpretation of that compact concerns the Government of Mexico as much as it does that of the United States, and we cannot consent that an application be made of it which is not warranted, and which must continue to have pernicious consequences.

In concluding this note, permit me to repeat, once more, that it is plainly proven, at least in the judgment of this Government and in view of the accompanying proceedings, that the fight at Teopar and the killing of Captain Crawford during the same were acts for which the Mexican force can not be blamed; and that the original cause of the mistake, of the errors committed on that lamentable occasion, as well as pother displeasing evils upon the territory of Mexico, has been, that in pursuit of hostile Indians our territory was entered by other Indians of the same appearance and habits, who are equally vicious, in contravention—as I have endeavored to show—of the compact binding upon the two nations, regarding the passage of troops across the frontier in the pursuit of the savages.

Be pleased to accept, &c.

IGN’O MARISCAL.

Appendix No. 1.

[Translation.]

Republic of Mexico,
Feee and Sovereign State of Chihuahua,
District Court, Year of 1886, Number 13.

Investigation held at the instance of the Sate government, concerning the occurrences which took place on January 11, between the volunteer state forces and other forces composed of hostile Indians under the leadership of American commanders.

Public prosecutor, District-Attorney Jesus Maria Tarizon; judge, Jose Maria Revilla; clerk of court (secretary), Antonio V. Guiros.

[Seal of State, No. 2488; seal of district court.]

This government, desiring to clear up the facts of the armed collision that took place between an American force of Indian auxiliaries and a volunteer force from Guerrero, under the command of Captain Crawford and Commandant Santana Perez, respectively, which occurred on January 11 last, at a point called Teopar, in the Sierra de Bavis, I shall thank you to institute a formal investigation into the affair, taking the evidence of the Commander Santana Perez, who is now in this city at the disposal of the court, on the following points, and on such others that, in the judgment of the court, may serve to bring forth the true facts:

(1) How is it that the encounter took place at Teopar between the American force of Indian auxiliaries arid the volunteer force organized in the cantons of Guerrero and Degollado in pursuit of savages?

(2) Which of the parties delivered the first fire?

(3) Who commanded the American force?

(4) What was the number of men in that force?

(5) Did it have any military distinctive insignia?

(6) From what reservation in the United States did it come?

(7) What class of Indians were the auxiliaries of the American force?

(8) Was there, in the camp of the American force, any live-stock that had been stolen by the Indians upon the national territory?

(9) In possession of which force did such animals remain after the action?

(10) What depredations had the Indians committed before that time?

(11) What Indians committed them?

To aid in this, as they may prove useful, I inclose the original papers received by Santana Perez, of the American commander at Teopar, and also a copy of the proceedings of the investigation of said occurrence, sent to this government by the political chief of the canton of Guerrero, under date of the 2d inst., and I beg that so soon as you have Concluded the investigation you will forward to me duplicates of the evidence.

Liberty and constitution.

Chihuahua, February 11, 1886.

• FELIX FRANCISCO MACEYRA.
• N. GAMERO, First Official.

To the District Judge in this capital, present.

[Seal: Republic Mexico, government of Chihuahua, office of secretary.—Seal: Office of jefe politico, district Guerrero.]

State of Chihuahua, Governor of Chihuahua.

brief.

The commanding officer and volunteer soldiers who from this canton marched to Teopar under the orders of the late Commander Mauricio Corredor, report and give a detailed account, confirming the following facts: (1) The enemy had in his possession live-stock that had been stolen by the Indians while depredating at Dolores some months ago, the Mexican commander bringing with him two donkeys, which he delivered to the owners in said mining town, the commander and his troops knowing that the Indians killed the other above-mentioned stolen stock near the place where the agreement (of peace) was made; (2) The enemy’s force, to the number of about 300, consisted almost entirely of Indians, only some twenty foreigners or Americans being with them, the latter not showing themselves in uniform during the fight; (3) The fight and agreement took place on Mexican territory, as Teopar is a place situated between here and Nacori, in Sonora; (4) The American enemies, in command of the Indians, did not indicate to what organization of the Army they belonged; (5) All the Indians engaged in the fight at Teopar were Apaches; it is not known from what reservation they came; (6) The American commander who made the request for an agreement, after the killing (during the skirmish) of his captain (whose name is not known), was called a lieutenant, who stated his name as Morius P. Moris, and his interpreter was Concepcion Aguirre; (7) The Mexican column was seen by the American and Indian enemies on the day before the battle, because they made preparations to repel it, instead of sending messengers, whereby the conflict might have been avoided; (8) Near the camp where the enemy was located signal fires were made to give notice of the Mexican column, by which signals the Apaches usually notify their comrades of the near approach of forces pursuing them; (9) The firing was commenced in broad daylight, the band of the gallant Mauricio Corredor attacking unsheltered the enemy’s position up to the muzzles of their rifles; (10) When the Indians bad been dislodged from behind their parapets they commenced a precipitate flight, and the Americans who could not do the same then commenced to shake white handkerchiefs above their parapets, which resulted in the Mexican commander giving orders to cease firing; (11) An agreement was concluded, not because the hostile force produced any legal authority (for its presence there), but because the Mexican column lacked rations and ammunition to remain in the desert.

Liberty and constitution.

Guerrero, February 2, 1886.

GIL RICO.

A true copy.

Chihuahua, February 11, 1886.

N. GAMERO,
First Official.

[Translation from the Globe-Democrat of Saint Louis, Mo., dated February 6, 1886.]

As hostages.

chief nana and four squaws prisoners of lieutenant maus—mexican version—about the fate of captain crawford.

Tucson, Ariz., February 5, 1886.

A message from Guadalupe Cañon to the Star says: “A courier has just arrived, and relates that Lieutenant Maus has arrived at Lang’s ranch with Chief Nana, an Indian boy, and four squaws, as hostages for the surrender of the Indians on the war-path. Lieutenant Maus will await the surrender at Lang’s ranch.”

the death of crawford.

Tombstone, Ariz., February 5, 1886.

The causes which public opinion ascribed for the killing of Captain Crawford have once more been confirmed by the arrival here, from Sonora, of Mr. A. J. Huncke, a trustworthy person. That gentleman states that during the past month fourteen Indians, spies of Crawford, while drunk, attacked a Mexican living near Frontera; after which they jumped the town, firing shots in the streets and obliging the inhabitants to close their houses to defend themselves. The Indian scouts were masters of the town for several hours. The Mexicans recovered and organized for an attack; but when about to make it, Captain Crawford arrived, and only by his presence did he save his subordinates.

the indian scouts are responsible for the killing of crawford.

Washington, D. C., February 5, 1886.

Mr. Romero, the Mexican minister at Washington, has received of the government of the State of Chihuahua an official communication regarding the late unfortunate encounter between the troops of Mexico and those of the United States commanded by Captain Crawford, at Bavis Mountain, in Chihuahua, on the 11th ultimo. In this official note it is stated that the Mexican force, under the command of Mauricio Corredor, arrived on that day at a place called Teopar, in the Sierra de Bavis, where it was supposed that the Apache Indians, under the lead of Geronimo, would be found. The Mexican troops fired upon the American force, in the belief that they had to do with the enemy.

During the attack, which was led by Chief Mauricio Corredor, perished Captain Juan de la Cruz and the soldiers Mariano Madrid and Luz Estrada, and four other men were wounded. So soon as the Mexican forces understood their mistake, and that they were fighting American soldiers, they ceased firing, and manifested to the latter their regrets at the losses occasioned on both sides. The note of which we are speaking gives as an excuse for such a mistake the difficulty of distinguishing the hostiles and the’ Indian scouts, and asserts that while the latter are in camp and within sight of their commanders they behave very well; but this is not the case when they go out of camp under the pretense of hunting, or searching for rebellious Indians, or for some other purpose, because then they commit all sorts of depredations against the peaceable inhabitants of the frontier, and can really not be distinguished from Indians on the war-path. It is reported from Mexico that the Indian auxiliaries of the American troops on September 17, last year, killed and wounded a considerable number of cattle and horses belonging to a Mexican, and that on the 23d, they being encamped at a place about 1 mile from Guasabas, Sonora, seven of them went to the town and committed grievous outrages, so that the jefe politico saw himself compelled to resort to armed force to bring them to order, during which affair one of the guides was wounded. The same auxiliaries afterward killed eleven head of cattle and wounded others near Granados, and killed two muleteers that were driving a bunch of mules laden with goods, which the Indians stole. It is also said that three Mexicans were assaulted by some Indian scouts on January 9, on the road leading from Nacosari to Cumpos; the men were enabled to escape, but their donkeys, the loads, and trappings remained in the hands of the assailants. The note to Mr. Romero states, furthermore, that the “Constitution,” the official newspaper of the State of Sonora, contains a detailed report of the depredations committed by the Indian auxiliaries, in consequence of which a petition has been forwarded to the General Government, requesting that incursion of the Indian scouts upon Mexican territory be not allowed.

not at all satisfactory.

Washington, D. C., February 5.

[Special dispatch to the Globe-Democrat.]

The account given by a Mexican official regarding the affair of Captain Crawford, is considered by employés of the War Department as somewhat confusing and not at all satisfactory, although it is firmly believed that the attack was not made in the knowledge that the attacked party was a portion of the American troops. The charge made by the Mexican official that said troops had in their possession live-stock that had recently been stolen in the district, is explained by the fact that the hostile Indians had just fled, leaving behind them their animals and camp equipage in the hands of Captain Crawford, very shortly before the attack of the Mexicans. It was impossible for Captain Crawford to make himself immediately known, because he did not know the nature of the attack, and on account of the disorder and demoralization that followed it.

cavalry on the frontier.

Washington, D. C., February 5.

The Committee on Military Affairs, by a majority of 6 votes against 1, agreed to-day to form a project which Fill tend to protect the settlers of Arizona and New Mexico. It treats of the formation of a regiment of volunteers, to be composed of and to be commanded by actual residents in said Territory. Each officer and soldier will be furnished with two Mexican ponies, and should these not be sufficient for a vigorous pursuit of the raiding Indians, the quartermasters shall be authorized to take horses from any herd, without any delay, simply giving to the owners documents stating that their animals were impressed. The regiment is to be provided with pack animals for the transportation of subsistence stores, besides with a sufficient number of wagons.

uneasy feeling among the northeastern tribes increasing.

Saint Paul, February 5.

A telegram from Ada Mina states: The Indians of Red Lake Reservation present an alarming aspect. It has been learned that for some time they have been gathering arms, ammunition, and horses in the surrounding country. It is feared that they have been excited by emissaries from the northwest.

rural court of the mining district of dolores, mining town of dolores.

I, Rafael Armenta, rural judge of this place, certify: That Melquiades Vargas has completely proven his ownership of two donkeys, one gray and one grayish, which Commander Santana Perez during an armed conflict with the Indians took away from them. These donkeys had been stolen from here on the 27th of October last, by the savages that invaded this mining district. The proofs of Mr. Vargas consisted in the testimony of witnesses and in comparing the brands of his other donkeys, which he exhibited at this office, and through the courtesy of above-named commandant they were placed in the possession of Mr. Vargas. At the request of the interested party, I therefore make record hereof, at the mining town of Dolores, this 19th day of January, 1886.

RAFAEL ARMENTA.

This, the 11th day of February, 1886, I, Lieut. M. P. Maus, United States Army, state: Unexpectedly we were encountered at the river Haros Ca. by the force of Mexicans in pursuit of hostile Indians. We, being in camp, there was some trouble between us through not having been able to see each other in time.

• CAPTAIN SANTANA PEREZ.
• SERGEANT PEDRO PERESCANO.
• MARIUS P. MAUS,
  Lieutenant United States Army.

memoranda.

January 12, 1886.

Sir: To-night I will send for my papers. When you see them you will be satisfied. If you want anything else you will cause mischief if you do not send to Colonel Garcia for some Mexican soldiers. When I reach Nacori I shall give you provisions if you want them, but it is necessary for me to remain here in command of my men. The mules which I send you are sent only as a favor of me to you, and if it is all right, I shall go ahead to Nacori, or you might go on ahead. If you do more, you may cause much mischief. You must return them all to me. Be good enough to write me if you want anything more. My soldiers are friends to you and your men, and I will give my word that they shall always remain so.

All the mules, saddles, and blankets, and other articles belong to the United States Government. It is necessary to return them, and I want a receipt of you for all of them.

Your obedient servant,

MARIUS P. MAUS,
Lieutenant United States Army.

Sir: You would do well if you will have the goodness to put your name to this receipt. I am also going. It is best that we do not go at the same time, and I am glad of it. Good-bye.

Your obedient servant,

MARIUS P. MAUS, Lieutenant.

decree.

Chihuahua, February 12, 1886.

[Seal of the district court, State of Chihuahua.]

Upon summons of the district attorney (public prosecutor), the investigation referred to by the State government under date of yesterday will take place. Thus decreed and signed by Jose Maria Revilla, district judge of the State, before me, the Secretary. So certified.

• J. M. REVILLA.
• ANTONIO V. GUIROS, Secretary.

On the same date the district-attorney was notified and acknowledged himself as duly summoned.

JARIZON.

On the same date was issued a subpoena to Santana Perez to appear before the court. So certified.

GUIROS.

deposition of santana perez.

On the 13th instant appeared before the judge—the district-attorney (public prosecutor) being present—Mr. Santana Perez, who being duly sworn stated that his name is as above-written; he is a native of Tejolocatchie, Chihuahua; forty-five years of age; married; farmer; residing at Yepomel. Being examined as to the first question of aforestated interrogatory, he answered that he was commissioned by the State government, as a volunteer, to raise a small force, also of volunteers, to engage in the pursuit of hostile Indians that were invading the State; that in the discharge of this duty he raised a company of one hundred and twenty-eight men; that though the Government authorized and ordered the raising of one hundred and fifty men, the number was reduced to one hundred and twenty-eight, as stated, because a guard had to be sent back with the animals which they carried with them, as they could not go with the troops on account of the broken roads that could be traversed only on foot with great difficulty; that in said company his subaltern officers were Mauricio Corredor and Juan de la Cruz; that the company having been definitely organized, they started out on December 26 last, in the direction of the Sierra in pursuit of the Apaches, of whose presence thereabouts they had received notice; that from above date they marched, taking all precautions suggested by experience, expecting momentarily to encounter the enemy; that on January 9, at a point called Arroyo Seco, they struck an Indian trail, which they followed as far as Arroyo del Carrizal, where they encamped for the night; that on the following day they followed the same trail, until they arrived at Divisadero Mountain, whence they were able to see the rancheria or camp of the Indians; that they waited for nightfall with the object of attacking them on the following morning; that after sunset they took up the march, and next day at about 7 a.m., having taken up a convenient position, they opened fire upon the rancheria or camp of the Indians, after becoming aware that the Indians had noticed them and were calling to them with yells and clamors; that deponent and his companions were convinced that these were wild or hostile Indians, because they could well see them, being very near to each other, and because they heard them plainly call out, in their language, “Come on, ‘Nacayé’, here is your horse,” and they therefore kept up firing for an hour. A little more or less; that deponent is not certain whether his companions fired before the enemy did so, because the volleys were simultaneous; but that he has no doubt that the Indians discharged their rifles first at him, wherefore he saw himself compelled to answer in the same manner; that during the firing, Mauricio Corredor was killed by receiving a bullet in the breast, the same traversing his body diagonally from right to left; there were also killed Juan de la Cruz, who received 13 bullets at very close range, and Luz Estrada and Martiniano Madrid; that thereupon a beardless American came forth and gave us to understand that his party was on a campaign, i. e., that they were not hostile Indians, but in pursuit of Indians; that deponent then ordered the firing to cease; that meanwhile the Indians had commenced to flee; but afterwards the same Indians returned, being recalled by the same young American and by another lieutenant; that upon cessation of hostilities it was noticed that the young American was wounded in the right arm, and that the Captain of the Indians, also an American, was wounded in the head.

To the second question, he answered: That the Indians fired at him first; and he repeats that he does not know if this was also the case on the side whence Mauricio Corredor advanced, the latter having died without being able to speak.

Answer to third question: That at the place of the action he was not able to learn the name of the American commander.

Answer to fourth question: There were 7 Americans, and under their orders about two hundred and fifty or more Indians; that among them was a Mexican named Concepcion Aguirre, who stated to affiant that he was a captive of the Indians, who had taken him prisoner when he was very small.

Answer to fifth question: That the Americans had with them no military insignia; the young man who was wounded in the arm, of whom I have spoken, came forth in an overshirt, and the lieutenant wore a black sack coat without braid or any other distinctive mark.

Answer to sixth question: That he does not know.

Answer to seventh question: That the Apaches were of the hostile tribe, because their dress was in no manner different from that of the hostiles—they wore breechclouts, handkerchiefs tied over their heads, long hair, and moccasins, and that the Americans also wore moccasins.

Answer to eighth question: That, as proven, he brought with him three donkeys, one mare, six mules (four with pack saddles and two with riding saddles), and that he has placed them at the disposal of the State government; that he exhibits a certificate and some notes written with lead pencil from the American lieutenant, by which he proves whence he got the animals.

Answer to ninth question: That they (the animals) remained in the possession of the Americans, who refused to surrender them, protesting that they were engaged in a campaign, and that they were given those above mentioned only because they were needed for the transportation of the wounded.

Answer to tenth question: They stole animals at Las Varas, Yepome, and Dolores, and killed the owner of Las Veras, a native of the United States; and at Dolores they killed three persons. Affiant knew of these acts before starting on the campaign through reports made to the State government, and because it was of public notoriety.

Answer to eleventh question: The same Indians whom he attacked, because there are positively no others in the Sierra Madre. He stated that he has nothing further to say, except that the names of those of his command that were wounded are Marcos Gonzales, Herculano Coz, Apolinar Zapien, and Francisco Romero, who are under medical treatment at Guerreros, and that to the facts can also testify, as eye-witnesses, among others, Jose Antonio Varela, Pedro Rascon, and Eulalio Fierro. He confirmed his testimony, and it having been read to him he signed the same, together with the judge, the district attorney (public prosecutor), and the undersigned secretary, who hereby so certifies.

• J. N. RE VILLA.
• J. M. TARIZON.
• ANTONIO V. GUIROS,
  Secretary.
• SANTANA PEREZ.

decree.

Chihuahua, February 15, 1886.

Let the official communication just received from the State government be annexed hereto; let the testimony of Santana Perez be continued in compliance with the tenor of the afore-mentioned communication and report; and let José Antonio Varela, Pedro Rascon, and Eulalio Fierro be subpoenaed to take their depositions. This was ordered and signed by the district judge in my presence.

I so certify.

• REVILLA.
• GUIROS,
  Secretary.

Notice.—Thereupon the district attorney was so notified.

TARIZON.

continuation of the testimony of santana perez.

On the same day, in obedience to subpoena, appeared before the court, Santana Perez, whose previous evidence being before the judge, district attorney (public prosecutor), and undersigned secretary (clerk of court), he was duly sworn; and there was then shown to him a report that appears in the second, third, and fourth columns of the newspaper entitled El Fronterizo (The Frontiersman) No. 376, of date of 6th instant; and having seen the same, he stated: That the report, which was read to him, contains many incorrect and false statements; that it is absolutely untrue that Captain Crawford, his subalterns, and his troops, composed of native Apaches, had any encounter on January 10 with other hostile Apaches, as stated in the report; that he knows this because, he repeats, when he struck the trail of that camp, and when he was cautiously in position upon Divisadero Mountain he did not lose sight of them all that day, and he observed not a single movement among them, nor did he hear a single shot; but that on the contrary he took notice how quiet they were, this quietness enabling him to march on during the night of the 10th, and to take up a convenient position for attacking them early on the 11th, which in fact he did; that on said 11th, at the hour mentioned in his former testimony, some volleys were fired by both parties; that it is not true that the enemy was surprised by a shower of bullets; that the number of troops under his command was 128 men, who were not in uniform because they were all volunteers; that Crawford did not exhibit any handkerchief, it being a certain fact that a young American, who was wounded in the arm, came forth in midst of the bullets, asking that the firing be stopped, stating that “they were Americans, soldiers, and friends of Mexico;” but this was when the Indians under their command, knowing they were attacked by Mauricio Corredor and affiant, had already commenced a precipitate flight through their fear, because they (Corredor and deponent) are only too well known by all the Apaches, having been constantly at war with them; that it was well known that it was Mauricio, who, years before, killed the dreaded Victorio; that it is an untruth that—as stated in the report—the forces under deponent’s command knew that they were attacking American soldiers, because it is not true, nor could any one have known it, because with the Americans were 250 or more Indians who had neither flag nor uniform, and who, after the firing had ceased, did not produce any documents to prove them to belong to the regular military force; that, indeed, and notwithstanding this, deponent expressed his regret at the killing of Crawford, as did also the other party at the killing of Mauricio Corredor and his other companions; and that they exchanged some papers written in lead pencil, deponent having turned over those which he received to be annexed to these proceedings; that they did not request rations of the Americans, although they demanded some animals, as much because they needed them for transporting their wounded as because they had been stolen of residents of the country; and that the others delivered those mentioned above, a receipt being given for them; that the losses were greatest in deponent’s force, because his men made the attack with great intrepidity, and because the enemy was sheltered behind rocks: that there is another reason to believe that the account of the affair, as given in said report, is inexact, which is, that the Americans lost their presence of mind; excepting the young man who was wounded in the arm, who, in spite of the danger, came forth from between the rocks, requesting that the firing be stopped; that thereupon deponent ordered camp to be broken and report to be made of this affair to the State government, which he accordingly did; that it is also untrue that his force intended to again attack the Americans; because, if such had been the intention, it would have been easy to destroy them entirely, as they were greatly intimidated, and so also were the Indians under their command, the latter stopping in their flight only when their officers reassured them by crying out that they had nothing to tear; that deponent’s forces were armed with Remington rifles, caliber .50, and that each volunteer had sixty cartridges, of which they used about half during the fight on January 11; that this is all he has to say, and deponent declared it to be the truth, and signed the testimony.

• J. M. REVILLA.
• J. M. TARIZON.
• SANTANA PEREZ.
• ANTONIO V. GUIROS, Secretary.

testimony of pedro rascon.

On the 16th day of the same February there appeared before the district judge and attorney (prosecutor), a person who stated his name as Pedro Rascon, that he was of age, married, and resided in Canton Degollado; he was admonished to tell the truth, and he promised to do so, and was thereupon questioned as to the facts which took place on January 11 last, at the place called Teopar, in the Sierra de Bavis, Sonora. In reply he said: That he formed part of the force of State volunteers charged with the pursuit of the Indians under the command of Santana Perez; that they went forth in the latter part of last December with that object; that after having traveled some days through the Sierra Madre in search of the Indians who had committed misdeeds at Yeponessa in the mining district of Dolores, and at Las Varas, they struck the trail of the latter about January 9; that they followed them till the following day, when, having ascended a mountain, they saw the rancheria; that without making any noise or lighting any fires, and even lying down so as not to be seen, they remained in ambush (wait) by order of Mr. Perez until nightfall, when they put themselves on the road toward aforementioned rancheria, marching slowly and with great carefulness, so as not to make any noise or attract attention; that, nevertheless, at daybreak the Indians became aware of the approach of the force to which deponent belonged, and commenced to yell in a prolonged and excited manner, inviting the volunteers to fight, and immediately lighting great signal fires, which in the Indian customs means “the enemy is in our front;” that among the yelling could now and then be distinguished the words, “Come on, Nacayé,” which is equivalent to a challenge to fight; that the Indians fired a volley upon the volunteers, making it necessary to battle with them; that the firing from both sides continued a little less than an hour; and that while the volunteers were gaining ground, putting the Indians to flight, Mr. Perez gave orders to cease firing, which was done; that deponent saw the few Americans that were among the Indians, and that they wore no uniform; that of the Indians there were a great many, and that they were wild or hostile ones, which is proven by the fact that they had among them as captive a Mexican named Conception N_____; that the loss of the State forces consisted in having four men killed and four wounded, owing to the good position occupied by the other side; that he knows that on the other side a captain was killed and one American was wounded; that this is all he knows, it being the truth, and he so affirmed it. He did not affix his signature, being unable to write.

• J. M. REYILLA.
• J. M. TARIZON.
• ANTONIO V. GUIROS, Secretary.

testimony of eulalio fierro.

On the same date presented himself Eulalio Fierro, who being sworn to tell the truthy stated that his name is as above written, is a native and resident of Canton Degollado, is of age, married, farmer. Being examined in due form, he testified: That he was in, vited by Santana Perez to join in a campaign to be undertaken against the Apaches; tha-with the other companions he started out, after Christmas, and that on the day of startting they went as far as Las Varas, where they remained overnight; that on Januare 8, having crossed the river Satachic, when near Arroyo Seco, they struck an Apachg trail, which they concluded to follow, and did follow it; that on the 9th, without losiny the trail, they arrived at Arroyo del Carizal, where they rested; that on the 10th the-reached Divisadero Mountain, from which place they could very plainly see the rancheria or camp of the Indians; that at night they left the mountain and marched to within gunshot distance (of the Indians), and on the following morning, in view of the hostilities, or at least hostile attitude of the Indians, and of the shots which they fired at the nationals, they attacked them impetuously for about three-quarters of an hour; that the Indians at first resisted, but after a while commenced flight; having already retreated when their officers called out to them, saying, as deponent believes, that there was nothing more to fear, as the firing had already ceased at the instance of an American who came forth to request that no more firing be done, and said that they were engaged in a campaign; deponent stated that the Indians were not taken by surprise, because they had noticed the nationals long before firing began; that with the Apaches were about twenty Americans, who said they were in the military service of the United States; that this could not be known at first sight, as they wore no uniform or military devices, in place of which they wore moccasins and civilian dress; that the encounter resulted in the killing of four of the nationals and the wounding of four, as also in the killing of an American captain and the wounding of one man; that, camp having been broken, after recovering from the possession of the enemy some animals, the national force marched back as far as Yeponeras, where they disbanded on January 26; that he is cognizant of above statements, because, as he said, he was a member of the national force; that they are true and he so reaffirms, He did not affix his signature, being unable to write; the judge, district attorney, public prosecutor, and secretary placing their signatures below.

So certified.

• J. M. REYILLA.
• J. M. TARIZON.
• ANTONIO Y. GUIROS,
  Secretary.

testimony of josé antonio varela.

On the 17th of the same February appeared José Antonio Varela, who being duly sworn before the judge to speak the truth, answered to the questions put to him: That his name is as above written, he is a native and resident of Canton Degollado, of age, married, farmer. Being examined in due form he declared: That when the State government learned that the Apaches had committed murders and thefts at Yeponeras, Las Yaras, and Dolores, it concluded to raise a force of nationals to pursue them, and as all the cantons in the vicinity of the Sierra Madre are continually exposed to the depredations of the Indians, a force of one hundred and fifty men was soon collected under the command of Santana Perez and Mauricio Corredor; that to effectually pursue the Indians it is necessary to march very cautiously, without lighting fires or making the least noise; wherefore the nationals on a campaign are obliged to subsist only on pinole (parched corn, ground, and generally mixed with some sugar), of which they carry a very small quantity slung over the shoulder; that they started out from Yeponeras on December 26, and until the 8th of January they did not find any trail of the savages, but that when they did strike one they followed it until the 10th, on which day they could see the rancheria from Divisadero Mountain; that they remained at the latter place until night, when they resumed the march with the object of making an attack at daybreak of the following day, the 11th; that the Indians in the rancheria called out to the nationals, inviting them to fight, and yelling to them “to come on for their horses,” and thereupon discharging several volleys; that when the order was given to fire upon the Indians, firing was commenced, which lasted a little less than an hour; that the Indians were well sheltered behind the rocks and kept up a rapid fusilade, as a result of which four of the nationals were killed and four others wounded, among the killed being Mauricio Corredor; that thereupon an order was received to cease firing, which was done, deponent having learned afterward that this was done because an American had said that they were also on a campaign; that deponent saw from a distance a few Americans who wore sack-coats and moccasins and had no flags or other military distinctive signs; that they had with them animals stolen in the country, of which they gave several to Mr. Perez to transport his wounded; that affiant has nothing further to say, foregoing statements being true, his knowledge of the facts related being derived from having been an eyewitness to same. This evidence being read to him, he declared it correct. He did not affix his signature, being unable to write. This was signed by the judge, district attorney (public prosecutor), and undersigned secretary. So certified.

• J. M. REVILLA.
• J. M. TARIZON.
• ANTONIO V. GUIROS,
  Secretary.

decree.

Chihuahua, February 17, 1886.

Referred to the district attorney (public prosecutor).

So ordered and signed by the district judge in my presence. I so certify.

• REVILLA.
• GUIROS, Secretary.

public petition.

The Judge of the District:

The public prosecutor (district attorney) states that in the foregoing proceedings of the investigation (which the undersigned considers to be in due legal form) instituted at the instance of the governor of the State, to inquire into the circumstances attending the armed conflict which took place on the 11th ultimo between the nationals who were in pursuit of savages, and the hostile Indians commanded by American officers, at a place called Teopar, in the State of Sonora, he has noticed that the witnesses examined state, in general terms, that the savages had, before that occurrence, committed their customary depredations at Las Varas, Yeponeras, and the mining town Dolores, reference being made to the reports received by the Government for the details. Wherefore the undersigned is of the opinion, that the governor should be requested to furnish the respective reports, which must be on file in the office of his secretary, as also the record of the operations of the Commander Santana Perez, from the beginning of his campaign to their return, which record must also be among the archives of the secretary’s office: this for the purpose that, the court authenticating those documents, they may be annexed to these proceedings to make them complete; the original afterwards to be transmitted to the governor, for such use thereof as he may deem proper.

Chihuahua, February 19, 1886.

J. M. TARIZON.

decree.

Chihuahua, February 19, 1886.

Opinion of the public prosecutor is concurred in. With the insertion of the pertinent part of the petition, let a communication be addressed to the governor of the State, requesting him to transmit the papers referred to. So decreed and signed by the judge of the district, before me, and so certified by me.

• REVILLA.
• GUIROS, Secretary.

Notice.—On the same date the prosecutor was notified of above action, and he affixed his signature.

TARIZON.

Mem.—On the same date, above mentioned communication was forwarded to the governor.

So certified.

GUIROS, Secretary.

decree.

Chihuahua, February 23, 1886.

Let the documents accompanying the communication of yesterday’s date from the supreme government of the State, he annexed hereunto; and in compliance with the petition of the prosecutor let these original proceedings and the preceding judicial notice, be transmitted to the same supreme government.

So ordered and signed by the judge of the district, before me, the secretary.

I so certify.

• REVILLA.
• GUIROS, Secretary.

On the same day the public prosecutor was so informed, and he affixed his signature.

TARIZON.

On the same date these original proceedings, covering 43 leaves of manuscript, are forwarded to the State government.

So certified.

GUIROS, Secretary.

[Seal: Republic of Mexico, Government of the State of Chihuahua, No. 2512.]

I have the honor to enclose herewith No. 377 of the “Fronterizo” (Frontiersman) of Tucson (United States) of February 6, 1886, in which is inserted the official report rendered to the Government of the United States by Lieutenant Marius P. Maus, the second commander of the American force, regarding the encounter which it had at Teopar, in the Sierra de Bavis (Mexico) with the force of nationals under command of its chief, Santana Parez, in pursuit of wild Indians.

As this report contains assertions in conflict with the information heretofore received by this government, I shall thank you to direct your attention to the assertions which said report contains placing in doubt the facts referred to; and to extend as to said assertions the investigation instituted by this government.

Liberty and constitution.

Chihuahua, February 12, 1886.

• FELIX FRANCISCO MACEYRA.
• N. GAMERO, First Official

To the judge of the district in this capital, present.

[Seal: Republic of Mexico, government of the State of Chihuahua, secretary’s office, section of justice, No. 1.]

By direction from higher authority, I have the honor to transmit to you, in sixteen leaves of manuscript, the data on file in this office relating to depredations by the savage Indians; which data you requested in your communication No. 101, dated 19th instant, upon the petition of the prosecutor, made during the investigation held by your court concerning the acts that took place on the 11th of last January between national forces of the State and Indian forces under command of American officers.

Liberty and constitution.

Chihuahua, February 22, 1886.

N. GAMERO, First Official.

To the judge of the district in this capital present.

Yeponera, December 26, 1886.

[Seal: Republic of Mexico, government of the State of Chihuahua, secretary’s office.]

On this date I began the march of the campaign at the head of 150 men in the direction toward the Sierra Madre, and we arrived at Las Varas; Sunday, 27th, to Tascate; Monday, 28th, lost this day on account of bad weather; Tuesday, 29th, to Chuchupate; Wednesday, 30th, to Embudor; Thursday, 31st, to Bote; Friday, 1st, to La Candelaria, where I ordered the mules and saddle animals to be sent back under a guard of 22 men; 2d, lost this day at above place on account of a storm; 3d, we arrived at the Haciendita: 4th, to Guaynopu; 5th, to Arroyo Hondo; 6th, to Puertecitos; 7th, to the river Satachic; 8th, to Arroyo Seco, where we struck the trail of the Indians; 9th, we are following the trail, and arrive at Arroyo del Carizal; 10th, to Divisadero’ Mountain, whence was seen the rancheria; 11th, we attack the Indians, encountering there united the tame and the wild Indians and 22 Americans, the firing lasted about an hour and a half, and the battle was lost by them; they commenced to cry out that they were on a campaign; they caused us a loss of 4 killed and 4 wounded; 11th, the day was lost at above place; 12th, this day was also lost through the proposals of treaty made by them; 13th, we began the return march for this place, bringing with us 6 mules (4 with pack apparatus and 2 with saddles), 1 horse, 1 mare, and 3 donkeys; and we arrive on the Nacori road; 14th, to the Epinazo del Diablo (Devil’s Backbone); 15th, to the river Haros; 16th, to Arroyo de la Rancheria; 17th, to Arroyo de San Leon; 18th, to the mining town Dolores; we lost the 19th on account of a storm; 20th, also lost; 21st, to the river Tutuaca; 22d, to Calavera; 23d, to Sirupa; 24th, to Chiniea; 25th, to Casa Colorada (Red House); 26th, to Yeponera, where the force was disbanded. This is the diary of operations which I have the honor to deliver to you for your information.

Liberty and constitution.

Yeponera, January 28, 1886.

SANTANA PEREZ.

To the political chief. Canton Degollado.

A true copy.

Chihuahua, February 23, 1886.

N. GAMERO, First Official.

Copy of a communication of the commissary of police of the mining district of Sabinal, relative to Indian news, and reporting what measures were ordered to be taken by the political chief.

[Seal: Magistracy of Casas Grandes, Canton Galeana, No. 134.]

The rural judge of Corralitos, in a communication dated yesterday and received at 6 a.m. to-day, says as I copy verbatim:

“Just now, about 6 p.m. of this day, I have received a communication of the commissary of police of Sabinal, which I copy verbatim, viz:

“‘At about half past 6 to-day, this mining district was attacked by about eighteen or twenty Indians, roughly estimated. It is not yet known what mischief they have done; they have gone in the direction of the Alamos del Corral de Piedras. I communicate this to you that you may as quickly as possible assist me with all the men you can. Not being able to send this as quickly as I desired, I also inform you that I fear a misfortune may have happened to some charcoal burners, and I am just now sending twelve men to look for them. Be good enough to dispatch in haste a courier to Casas Grandes.

“‘Liberty and constitution.

“‘Sabinal, October 12, 1885.

“‘AUSTACIO VEGA.’

“The foregoing copy I forward to you that through you it may reach the proper authorities.”

And I have the honor to communicate this to you that you may forward it to the governor of the State, at the same time informing you that the above news was at once brought to the knowledge of the commander-in-chief of the line, and to the commander of the armed force at this place, which latter at once enlisted forty or fifty of the residents mounted and armed, subject to the orders of the commander-in-chief of the line, Col. Joaquin Terrazas, who is to arrive here within an hour or two.

Liberty and constitution.

Casas Grandes, October 14, 1885.

SANTA CRUZ MIRANDA,
Second Supervisor.

To the secretary of the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Republic of Mexico, office of the secretary of war and navy, 1st Sec, No. 17085.]

The President of the Republic has learned the contents of your communication of the 17th instant, in which you copy that of the political chief of the Canton Galeana, regarding the attack made by the hostile Indians on the 13th on the mining district of Sabinal, and the measures ordered to be taken in the premises.

Liberty and constitution.

Mexico, October 24, 1885.

Y. REYUELTAS,
P. O. D. S.

To the governor of the State of Chihuahua.

Report of the occurrences at a place called the Agua de la Yegua (Mare’s Water), where the Indians attacked superintendent of Ramos’s plantation, killing one of his herders.

[Seal: Magistracy of Casas Grandes, Canton Galeana, No. 130.]

On the 11th instant, at about 1 p.m., there appeared in the office of the political chief one Bernardo Quintanar, who reported that on the morning of that day “Mr. Alberto Magreum, the superintendent of the Ramos plantation, belonging to Corralitos, went out with 14 men to plow, and that about 10 a.m. they were attacked by the Indians at a place called the Agua de la Yegua; that at the first volley fired by the Indians Roberto Leyva fell wounded; that they at once took to high ground, whence Don Alberto sends him to ask for aid; that he did not know how many Indians there were; that he could see only 5, but to judge from the heavy firing there must have been quite a number. I sent at once word to the commandant of the armed forces at this place, who immediately sent us a reinforcement of 20 dragoons under an officer, and by this officer were sent at the same time some 22 mounted residents under the orders of Sebastian Garcia, to co-operate with the other force in affording aid and in pursuing the Indians, and a swift messenger was sent to Col. Joaquin Terrazas, commander-in-chief of the line, who was then in the valley of San Buenaventura, to notify him of the occurrence. At noon to-day the party of residents came back, their commander reporting that they joined the other force and Don Alberto, and that they all went to the place of the occurrence, where they took up the corpse of Roberto Leyva; that they searched the vicinity, having followed the trail of the Indians, who went into the Sierra; and they thereupon resolved to return.

Whereof I have the honor to inform you that you may forward the report to the governor of the State.

Liberty and constitution.

Casas Grandes, October 13, 1885.

SANTA CRUZ MIRANDA,
Second Supervisor.

To the Secretary of the Supreme Government of the State, Chihuahua.

Copy of a communication of the municipal president of Ascension, relating to Indians.

[Seal: Magistracy of Casas Grandes, Canton Galeana, No. 131.]

The municipal president of Janos, in a communication dated on the 9th instant, and received at about 5 p.m. of the 10th, reports to this office: “The (municipal) president of Ascension communicates to this office, in a note of this date, the following: ‘Just now, it being about 2 p.m., two American officers presented themselves in this office, and stated to me that they have come in pursuit of a party of Indians, composed of twenty-three or twenty-four, who had broken out from the Chiricahua Mountains, said Indians having murdered some persons there, and that their trail was followed by them as far as to the entrance of the Corral de Piedras, where they had to give up the pursuit, because their horses had given out. The foregoing I have the honor to communicate to you, foreseeing that the Indians may perhaps attack some of the settlements. I beg of you, Mr. President, that you will send this notification without delay to the office of the political chief.’ A copy whereof I send to you for your information and action.”

The above I have the honor to communicate to you, that you may forward it for the information of the governor of the State, to which I will add, so soon as above report was received here, I communicated its contents to the commander-in-chief of the line, and to the commandant of the armed forces at this place.

Liberty and constitution.

Casas Grandes, October 13, 1886.

SANTA CRUZ MIRANDA,
Second Supervisor.

To the secretary of the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Magistracy of Casas Grandes, Canton Galeana, No. 136.]

Transmittal of news given by the commissary of police, Sabinal, Mr. Austacio Vega, in a communication dated on the 17th instant. He states that the party under command of Sixto Vega returned on the 15th, after scouting the country in the direction taken by the Indians who had attacked that mining district and then gone off in the direction of Santa Maria Lake. He also states that he recovered three horses left behind by the Indians, one a bay, one a chestnut, and the other a grayish color, two of which he left in the possession of Sebastian Gonzalez and Julian Terrazas, of whom the Indians had stolen them.

The foregoing I have the honor to communicate to you, that through you it may be forwarded for the information and action of the Governor.

Liberty and constitution,

Casas Grandes, October 21, 1885.

SANTA CRUZ MIRANDA,
Second Supervisor.

To the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Magistracy of Casas Grandes, Canton Galeana—No. 135.]

Communicates news of the expedition of Col Joaquin Terrazas against the Indians.

From the Sierra de San Joaquin, near Arroyo Seco, under date of yesterday, Col. Joaquin Terrazas, commander in chief of the line, sends a report to this office, which states: “Capt. Alberto Rodriguez not having made his appearance with his force at the appointed place, it is indispensable, in order to continue the campaign according to the plan decided upon by me, that I should request of you the assistance of fifteen men to serve as an escort for the subsistence stores that will leave that settlement on the evening of Wednesday, the 21st instant. Should the above-named captain arrive at that settlement to-morrow, the 20th, or Wednesday, the 21st, be pleased to tell him that he is to march with his force, escorting the subsistence stores mentioned by me, and in that case I shall not need the fifteen residents; but I shall want Bendito Cabrera to serve as guide. I also recommend that with those who conduct said stores you will send word what has been learned, reliably, about Indians. To judge from the trails thus far encountered by me all along Arroyo Seco, the Indians must now be in the deep ravines that come down from the Sierra Alta de San Joaquin, or about the Ancon del Rucio y Palaganas, in which direction I am following.”

The above I have the honor to communicate to you, that through you it may be brought to the knowledge of the governor, stating, in addition, that about 6 p.m. to-day Captain Rodriguez came back to this place, and that he will leave to-morrow, in obedience to the colonel’s orders.

Liberty and constitution.

Casas Grandes, October 20, 1885.

SANTA CRUZ MIRANDA,
Second Supervisor.

To the secretary of the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Telegram.]

Given at Guerrero, October 31, 1885; received at Chihuahua, 10.40 a.m.

To the Governor of the State:

Last night I received from the political chief of Degollado, copy of report of rural judge of Dolores, I send this extract: “An attack made by the Indians on the mining town Dolores, at 11 o’clock on the 27th, when they threatened to besiege the town. Until last night (of said day) three men were killed: Juan Wilson”, Ascension Hernandez, Procopio Celeyandia. During the firing Indians occupied part of the huts and several eminences. The people took to shelter, were able to repulse them, but could not take the offensive. In opinion of Dolores residents besieging savages are in great number, but they expect to defend themselves without great danger.” Will soon send copy of whole report.

R. GONZALEZ,
Political Chief.

[Seal: Office, Political Chief of Canton Degollado.]

By a swift messenger sent to-day I state to the political chief, district of Guerrero, the following: “From two letters addressed to Mr. Santana Perez, it is known to this office that on the 17th instant the Apaches murdered, near the Cerro de los Borregos (Sheep Mountain) a person named Luis Soto, that there are 15 of the Apaches; and that on the 18th instant they murdered at Las Varas two Americans. I communicate this to you, that you may report these facts, in the most expeditious way to the executive of the State.” I send you a copy of the foregoing for the executive itself.

Liberty and constitution.

Temosachic, October 20, 1885.

To the secretary of the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Office, Political Chief, District of Guerrero, State, of Chihuahua, Mexico, No. 109.]

That you may inform the Governor, I have the honor to state that, at about 3 p.m. to-day, this office received a report from the political chief of the Canton Degollado, recounting that he had news, from letters addressed to Mr. Santana Perez, that on the 17th instant, near the mountain called Los Borregos, the hostile Indians killed a person named Luis Soto, and that on the 18th instant they killed, at the place Las Varas, two Americans; adding, that the number of the Indians seems to be fifteen.

Liberty and constitution.

Canton Guerrero, October 23, 1885.

R. GONZALEZ.

To the secretary of the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Office Political Chief, Canton Degollado.]

This very day this office ordered and carried into effect the departure of twenty-five men under the orders of Commandant Teodoro Remirez, with the object to aid the inhabitants of the mining town Dolores, which, as I stated in yesterday’s report, was attacked by the Apaches; they were also instructed on the way from here to Dolores to make an inspection, that it may be known with some certainty whence the Indians came, in what direction they went, their attitude, number, &c. When above mentioned commandant renders his report to the office, I shall give an account to the Government.

It is a satisfaction to me to communicate this to you for the information of the State executive.

Liberty and constitution.

Temosachic, October 30, 1885.

SERGIO QUESADA.

To the secretary of the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Office, Political Chief, District of Guerrero, State of Chihuahua, Mexico, No. 112.]

In a communication of the 27th instant, the’ political chief of the canton Degollado reports to this office as follows: “The rural judge of the mining town Dolores, under date of the 27th instant, gives me the following news which I have just received and which I copy verbatim: ‘At 11 a.m. to-day, this town was attacked by the hostile Indians, and only by good fortune many were saved from falling victims; until this hour (7 p.m.) the following have been killed: A Frenchman, Juan Wilson; Procopio Celeyandia, and Ascension Hernandez; and these seem to have been killed because they did not take to shelter, as did Pedro Urquidi, who was in their company. It has been extremely difficult to inspect the ground so as to learn the number of Indians, as they have occupied dominant points, and it is open daylight; to judge by the tracks that have been seen by some persons, according to verbal report, there must be many Indians, wherefore they keep up a fire from different points and have already occupied some of the huts at the upper part of the gulch. It would be tedious to give all the details; I confine myself only to telling you that I do not think the inhabitants are in imminent danger, but deem it my duty to make this report. It is to be believed, or rather to be expected, that we shall be besieged, and we have too few people to dislodge them and to pursue them with the plunder which they have with them; so we had to decide to exclusively defend our homes.’ The above copy I forward to you that, using the wire from your place, you may communicate the occurrence to the State executive.”

The above I send to you for the information of the governor.

Liberty and constitution.

Canton Guerrero, October 31, 1885.

R. GONZALEZ.

To the secretary of the supreme government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Office Political Chief, Canton Degollado.]

This day I forward to the political chief of the district of Guerrero a copy of the following report, which I have just received from the commissary of police of the mining district of Dolores:

“At 11 a.m. to-day this settlement was attacked by the hostile Indians, and it is only by good fortune that many were saved from tailing victims. Until this hour (7 p.m.) there have been found killed: The Frenchman Juan Wilson, Procopio Celeyandia, and Ascension Hernandez; and they seem to have been killed, it seems, because they did not take to shelter as did Pedro Urquidi, who was in their company. It has been extremely difficult to inspect the ground so that the number of Indians might be learned, as they have occupied dominant positions and it being broad daylight; but to judge from the tracks that have been seen by some persons, according to verbal report, there must be many Indians. They are keeping up firing from different points, and have already occupied part of the huts of this town at the upper end of the gulch. It would be tedious to go into the details, so I shall confine myself to informing you that while, in my judgment, the inhabitants are in no imminent danger, yet I deem it my duty to make this report, &c. It may be believed, or rather expected, that we shall be besieged, and we have too few people to dislodge them and to follow them with their plunder, so that we shall be forced to remain exclusively on the defensive in protection of our homes.”

Foregoing copy I send you for the information of the governor, and request you will state to him that from the frequency with which news like the above is received here, I am led to believe that the number of hostiles that have actually invaded this locality must be large; that said Indians, according to their customary tactics, are divided into small, scattered bands, by which means they can with impunity commit thefts and murders without number; finally, please call his attention to the fact that last year, by order of the governor of the State, the arms, ammunition, and other stores that had been issued to this canton for its protection had to be returned. To-day I have sent out twenty-five or thirty men to give some, perhaps ineffectual, assistance to inhabitants of above mentioned mining town. Be pleased also to state to the governor himself that I permit myself to suggest the means by which the evils that I have mentioned may be avoided, and that is that without delay a campaign be begun by a force of men who are well acquainted with the mode of warfare among the Apache Indians.

Liberty and constitution.

Temosachic, October 27, 1885.

Sergio QUEZADA.

To the Secretary of the Supreme Government of the State, Chihuahua.

[Seal: Office political chief, Canton Degollado.]

To-day returned to this county seat the twenty-five men who, under orders of Teodoro Ramirez, were sent to assist the mining town Dolores. In the report made by said Ramirez to this office, he states that on his march, at a point called Los Jacales, three Indians were seen at a distance, who fired several times at him and his force; that his men returned the fire until they managed to dislodge the Indians from the place where they had intrenched themselves, in doing which he expended fifty-rounds of the ammunition belonging to the State, which had been issued to him by the political chief. He also states that he recovered three horses that had been abandoned by the Apaches, of which he turns over to this office one only, because he was unable to bring the other two on account of their being broken down. He states, finally, that upon his arrival with his force at aforesaid mining town, the attacking Indians, who were still keeping up a slack fire, retreated in the direction of the River Haros; that there must have been, by his estimate, thirty warriors. Be pleased to bring this to the knowledge of the governor.

Liberty and constitution.

Temosachic, November 11, 1885.

Sergio QUEZADA.

To the Secretary of the Supreme Government of the Stale, Chihuahua.

First court of first instance of the canton Degollado.

Temosachic, February 16, 1886.

In order to comply with orders from superior authority, dated 15th instant—copy where of transmitted by the political chief of this canton—let the following persons be subpoenaed: Eutiquio Vargas, Santana Munoz, Pablo Trujillo, Julian Vega, Ricardo Varela, Juan Varela, Pablo Miramontes, Tiburcio Jurado, Luis Macias, and Augustin Munoz; this for the purpose of taking their testimony as to the facts that occurred during the action at Teopar, January 11, last. That being concluded, the further necessary orders will be given. Celso Rascon, the first judge of the first instance of this canton has thus decreed, ordered, and affixed his signature in presence of his court witnesses.

So we certify.

• CELSO RASCON.
• A. FRANCO. GARCIA.
• A. B. AGUIREE.

Temosachic, February 17, 1886.

The citizens named in foregoing decree appeared before the court and were duly sworn. They stated that their respective names are as above set forth, that they are of age, residents of this canton, eight of them married, two of them bachelors, all of them farmers. Being examined as to the facts occurred in the armed conflict above referred to, and being requested to state what they knew about the same, as having seen the affair, they testified: That on January 10 last, at about 11 or 12 o’clock of the day, they descried the Indians from a place called Divisadero; that the latter were at considerable distance, so far that they could be seen only through a spy-glass; that affiants remained for the rest of that day at that place; that so soon as it became dark the column was put in motion in the direction of the Indians, who were not suspected to be a regular expedition, as affiants had never seen the like; that they arrived at said point at about 7 a.m., on the 11th of the same month, and they being ordered to attack, the action began; that they advanced to where the enemy was; that before they could see the latter they were already within the lines where the Indians had taken shelter, when the Indians gave a yell and at the same time fired a volley, which the Mexicans answered; and that the firing was then kept up so hotly, that affiants thought they would have to succumb, as they perceived that the hostile force was superior; so that at last they decided they would have to die or to conquer in order to be safe; that they rushed over the Indians’ breastworks and managed to dislodge the Indians and to put them soon to flight, without noticing during all that time that there were any Americans, until the Indians were fleeing, when they became aware of the Americans, who were making signals of peace, entered into negotiations with their officers, and made all necessary arrangements; that on inspecting the camp, they found two donkeys that the Indians had taken from the mining town of Dolores during the attack on that place, and which were the property of Melquiades Vargas; that they also found a mare belonging to Mr. Escandon, which, when they demanded it on the following day, was found killed; they also found one other mare that had been taken from that canton; that the Americans gave up the latter and the two donkeys; that they also recognized another grayish horse, which the Indians had taken at Las Varas during the month of June, and which belonged to the Americans who live at that place. Finally, deponents declare that the Indians delivered the first fire, and that the Americans themselves stated during the parley with the Mexican commanders that they had known of the expedition of the Mexicans three days previous.

Deponents declared that above is all they have to say, that their testimony—which was read to them—is true; whereupon those who were able to do so, affixed their signatures, together with me the judge, and the court assistants. So we certify.

• CELSO RASCON.
• LUIS MACIAS.
• EUTIQUIO VARGAS.
• JUAN VARELA.
• RICARDO VARELA.
• A. B. AGUIRRE.
• A. LUIS MASCARENO.

Temosachic, February 19, 1886.

Let these proceedings be turned over to the political chief for such use as he deems fit to make of the same. So certified.

CELSO RASCON.

[Seal: Republic of Mexico, government of the State of Chihuahua.—No. 57.]

In compliance with telegraphic orders of the Secretary of War and Navy, dated 6th instant, I have the honor to transmit herewith, in forty-three folios manuscript, the proceedings of an investigation instituted by the judge of the district, in this capital, to ascertain the occurrences that took place at Teopar, Sonora, on the 11th of last January.

Liberty and constitution.

Chihuahua, February 24, 1886.

• FELIX FRANCO MACEYRA.
• N. GAMERA, First Official.

To the Secretary of War and Navy, Mexico.

[Seal: Republic of Mexico, government of the State of Chihuahua, Section 2, War Branch, No. 26.

The political chief of the canton Degollado, in a communication dated on the 19th of last month, reports to this office as follows:

“I inclose herewith the proceedings of the judicial investigation that was requested by you under date of the 8th instant, relative to the encounter that residents of this canton and of that of Guerrero had with the forces of Americans and savage Indians at Teopar, that by you it may be brought to the knowledge of the governor for the necessary action.”

The foregoing I have the honor to quote, and to transmit the original proceedings therein mentioned.

Liberty and constitution.

Chihuahua, March 1, 1886.

• FELIX FRANCO MACEYRA.
• N. GAMERO, First Official.

To the Secretary of War and Navy, Mexico.

[Seal: Office, political chief, canton Degollado.]

The first official of the secretary of government, in a communication dated February 8, this year, states to me as follows:

“The minister of war and navy, by a telegram dated 6th instant, states to the governor:

“‘Referring to the official communication, No. 50829, of last month, the interests of the republic require that you hold an investigation, taking, before competent authority, testimony regarding the fact that residents of the cantons Degollado and Guerrero were attacked at Teopar by a troop of Americans and Indians before the volunteers used force of arms against said troop; also regarding the fact that in the American camp were found animals stolen by savage Indians. I request that you will send to this office the proceedings of such investigation as soon as possible.’

“I quote the foregoing by orders from higher authority, that you may, with all possible speed, institute the investigation referred to.”

I have the honor to send you a copy of foregoing, with the object that you will take the testimony often citizens of greatest veracity, selected in your judgment; and that, when this is done, you will send the proceedings to me for legal action.

Independence and liberty.

Temosachic, February 15, 1886.

JOSE DE LA LUZ KAMIREZ.

To the 1st Judge of the Court of 1st Instance of the Canton Degollado.

A true copy.

Mexico, May, 1886.

EDUARDO GARAY,
Chief Clerk.

Appendix No. 2.

[Translation.]

[Seal: State of Chihuahua, court of justice of the peace, district Guerrero.]

Investigation of the occurrences which took place at Teopar, instituted at request of Adjutant-Major Francisco I. Boza, by order of the general commanding the second military zone.

Interrogatory for the examination of the following witnesses: Ramon Chavarria, José Maria Romero, Herculano Coz, Jesus Campos, Agapito Romero, Francisco Araiza, Apolinar Zapien, Fabian Martinez, Trinidad Calderon, Laureano Corredor, Roque Ramos, Enriquez Gonzalez, Juan I. Enriquez, Anastasio de la Cruz, Marcelino Ramos, Martin de la Cruz, Enrique Techoné, Juan José Ramos, Ignacio de la Cruz.

After a statement of their age, residence, etc., they will be required to say:

1. Which side made the first attack?

2. Was Captain Crawford wounded after a parley was requested?

3. Was he wounded after he had turned his back on retiring from the conference with the Mexican commander?

4. Did he wear uniform during the combat?

5. Did the Mexican officers order the attack, knowing that their opponents were not hostile Indians?

6: Did the Americans give you to understand that they had defeated hostile Indians, and that they held them prisoners together with their plunder?

7. Let them state how they came to know what they testify to.

City Guerrero, February 23, 1886.

FRANCISCO I. BOZA,
Adjutant-Major.

Citizen justice of the peace of the district of Guerrero:

I, Francisco I. Boza, senior adjutant-major of infantry, appear before you, and in compliance with the orders which I have received of the general commanding the second military zone, of which this State forms a part, which orders are to hold an exact and complete investigation regarding the occurrences that on January 11 last, took place at a place called “Teopar,” and regarding the other facts to which the accompanying interrogatory refers, I beg you will be pleased to subpoena, without delay, the following citizens: Ramon Chavarria, José Maria Romero, Hercnlano Coz, Jesus Campos, Agapito Romero, Francisco Araiza, Apolinar Zapien, Fabian Martinez, Trinidad Calderon, Laureano Corredor, Roque Ramos, Ignacio de la Cruz, Marcelino Ramos, Martin de la Cruz, Enrique Techoné, and to take their testimony in accordance with said interrogatory; and that said proceedings take place in the presence of the agent of the public minister.

City of Guerrero, February 23, 1886.

FRANCISCO I. BOZA,
Adjutant-Major.

City of Guerrero, February 24, 1886.

In conformity with the directions of the supreme tribunal of justice of this State, as per telegram of this date, received at 11 a.m. to-day, at the solicitation of the presenter, let the inquiry take place as requested, and the proceedings delivered to the party concerned, the public agent being cited to be present.

Notice.—The justice of the peace in this district has thus decreed, and affixed his signature in presence of his court assistants.

So we certify.

M. RUBIO.

Witness: {

SALVADOR GONZALES.

R. CASAVANTES.

The petitioner and the public agent being present, they stated that they have heard and are satisfied. They affixed their signatures together with me, the judge, and the court assistants. So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, Public Agent.

FRANCISCO I. BOZA, Adjutant-Major.

Witness: {

SALVADOR GONZALES.

R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of the witness Ramon Chavarria.

In the city of Guerrero on the 27th day of February, 1886, appeared in this court the witness Ramon Chavarria, who, being duly sworn, promised to answer and relate truthfully to the questions put, and stated: That his name is as above written, he is thirty-six years of age, bachelor, miner, native and resident of this place. Thereupon he was informed of the penalties awaiting false testimony, as given in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the penal code. Being then questioned in accordance with the foregoing interrogatory, which was carefully read to him, he made answer:

1. That the first to attack on January 11 last, at a place called Teopar, were the Apache Indians, who were there in ambuscade among some rocks.

2. That Captain Crawford, whose name he has just heard, did not ask for a parley, much less was he wounded after the cessation of the firing.

3. That said captain was not wounded from behind when he retired from the conference with the Mexican commander, because he whom they say was Captain Crawford, and whom he believes to have been an American, had a bullet wound in the head, a little above the forehead, and the affiant believes he (the captain) was killed.

4. During the combat none of the Americans, the wild and the tame Indians, wore any uniform whereby they might have been recognized as belonging to the Army of the United States; that the former were dressed in civilian clothes, and the latter had generally only moccasins and were bareheaded, with hair so long that it fell over their shoulders; that among them was found to be a Mexican who said his name was Concepcion, witness having forgotten his surname.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack, because they only replied to the firing from the ambuscade, of which he spoke in his answer to the first question; which firing led to the supposition that it was from “wild,” and not from “tame” Apaches.

6. That the Americans did not intimate that they had defeated hostile Indians; neither did they mention that they held such as prisoners, together with their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of this knowledge of the foregoing, he replied that he knows it from having been one of those engaged in the encounter at Teopar on January 11 last.

The foregoing was read to him and he declared it to be correct, and affixed his signature, together with myself, the agent of the public minister, and the court assistants. So we certify.

RUBIO.

RAMON CHAVARRIA,

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, Public Agent.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Testimony of José Ma. Romero.

On the same date appeared José Maria Romero in obedience to subpoena, who being duly sworn to make truthful answer and relation, stated: That his name is as above written, he is twenty-two years of age, bachelor, day laborer, native and resident of Guadelupe, of this jurisdiction. Thereupon he was informed of the penalties for false testimony, as fixed in the Penal Code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3. Being questioned as to what he knows, in accordance with the preceding interrogatory, which was read to him, he made answer:

1. That the force which attacked first consisted of some Apaches, who prematurely opened fire upon the column when it was among some rocks.

2. That the captain whose name is mentioned was not wounded after he asked for parley, because from the time the parley was accorded not one of their column fired a single shot; and that it was not said captain who asked for the parley.

3. He repeats that said person was not the one who held a conference with the Mexican commander, and that the captain could not well have been wounded from behind when the bullet which he received was above the forehead.

4. That neither the captain nor any one else was seen in uniform during the combat; that the Americans were dressed like the generality of persons, and the Apaches were nearly naked.

5. That the Mexican officers did not give any orders to attack; that they only fired to defend themselves against the Apaches, who opened fire from an ambuscade which they had not noticed.

6. That the Americans did not make explanations of the sort mentioned in the question; and that furthermore, this is the first he has heard of it.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of the foregoing, he stated: That his knowledge is derived from his having been an eye-witness to the occurrences that took place at Teopar on January 11, last.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not affix his signature, being unable to write, this being signed by myself, the public agent, and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, Public Agent

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Testimony of the witness Herculano Coz.

Thereupon appeared the witness Herculano Coz, who, being duly sworn to make truthful answer and relation, stated: That his name is as above written; he is of age; bachelor; day laborer; native and resident of this place. He was informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in the penal code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3. Being then questioned as to his knowledge in accordance with the preceding interrogatory, which was read to him, he made answer:

(1) That they who first attacked were some Apache Indians, who were in ambush among some rocks, so that scarcely parts of their heads could be seen.

(2) That the captain, whose name he has just heard, did not ask for a parley, nor was he wounded after the cessation of the firing; that he believes the one who is now said to be named Crawford was the one whom the lieutenant that held the parley said was his commanding officer; that the one who seemed to be dead was an American, and had a wound in the forehead.

(3) That the captain could not well have been wounded from behind when he received the bullet wound in the place above mentioned; that said captain did not hold a conference with the Mexican commander, because when the firing ceased he was already hors de combat.

(4) That neither the captain nor any one else wore a uniform during the combat.

(5) That the Mexican officers did not order the attack, and they only replied to the fire upon them from aforementioned ambuscade; which circumstance led to the presumption that they were being fired upon by “wild” Indians.

(6) That the Americans said nothing about having defeated some wild Indians or their holding such as prisoners, together with their plunder.

(7) Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of the foregoing, he replied that he knew it from having been an eye-witness to the facts.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it to be correct. He did not affix his signature, together with that of myself, the agent of the public minister, and the court assistants, because he cannot write.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, Public Agent

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Testimony of the witness Jesus Campos.

Thereupon, on the same date, appeared Jesus Campos, to give his testimony, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is thirty-three years of age; married; day-laborer; native and resident of this place. He was made acquainted with the penalties for false testimony, as laid down in the penal code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3.

Being then questioned as to his knowledge in relation to the interrogatory, which was read to him, he testified:

(1) That they who opened fire on January 11 at Teopar were some Apaches, who were found in ambush on-extremely broken ground.

(2) That the captain to whom this question refers did not ask for a parley, nor was he wounded after the firing had ceased.

(3) That the captain was not wounded from behind; that the same, whose name is said to be Crawford, and whom he believes to be an American, appeared to have been killed by a bullet wound which he had received near the hair above the forehead.

(4) That during the combat neither the Americans nor the Apaches wore uniform.

(5) That the Mexican officers did not give orders to attack, but they only answered the fire directed upon them by the Apaches in ambush.

(6) That the Americans did not say anything regarding the point in this question, but that, from the unrestrained liberty in which the Apaches were going about, affiant judged that there were no prisoners.

(7) Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of foregoing, he explained that it is derived from his having been, as he has already said, one of those who took part in the affair at Teopar.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not affix his signature, together with myself, the agent of the public ministry, and the court assistants, because he declared himself unable to do so.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, Public Agent.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Testimony of the witness Francisco Araiza.

On the 1st day of May, 1886, appeared before this court Francisco Araiza, in obedience to subpoena; who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is twenty years of age; bachelor; day-laborer; native and resident of this place. Hereupon he was informed of the penalties for false testimony, as stated in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the penal code. Thereupon, being questioned in accordance with the interrogatory, which was shown to him, he stated:

(1) That the force which made the attack at Teopar on January 11, last, was one consisting of some Apaches apparently hostile, who were found hidden among some rocks.

(2) That he does not yet know the name of the captain, but it is certain that the captain was not wounded after the parley, because when that was granted the (Mexican) campaigners did not fire another shot.

(3) That, as he said before, after the parley not a single shot was fired, nor was above-mentioned captain wounded after it; because, as affiant believes from what was said on the battle-field, it was an American who, during the firing, received a wound above the forehead, which wound left him apparently dead.

(4.) That neither the captain nor the other Americans nor the Apaches wore uniforms during the combat; that the former were dressed like the generality of persons, and the others had breech-clouts and moccasins and long hair, and were bareheaded—were dressed like savages.

(5) That the Mexican officers did not order an attack; that their action consisted in replying to the firing from the ambush of which he made mention in the first question put to him.

(6) That, neither the lieutenant who made the treaty nor any other Americans mentioned that they had defeated any hostile Indians, and that they held them as prisoners, together with their plunder.

(7) Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of the foregoing, he stated that it results from his having been present at the occurrences referred to, because he was one of those who were at Teopar on January 11, last.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. Not being able to write, he did not affix his signature, as did I, together with the public agent and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN,

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Testimony of Apolinar Zapien.

On the same date appeared Apolinar Zapien, for the same purpose as preceding witness, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is of age; widower; farmer; native of Morelos, and resident of this canton. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as stated in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the penal code. Thereupon, being questioned as to his knowledge of the points covered by above interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That they who first attacked at Teopar on January 11 last were some Apaches who were found in ambush, almost entirely hidden among some rocks, parts of whose heads could only now and then be seen, as besides the ground being favorable to them they had also made trenches and parapets, the better to hide themselves.

2. That neither Captain Crawford (whose name he just now hears), nor anyone else, was wounded after the parley, because not a single shot was fired after that.

3. That said captain could not well have been wounded from behind on going back from the conference with Commander Santana Perez, as he did not speak with the latter, because he who made the treaty was another American, said to be a lieutenant who acted as commander because his captain had been killed during the battle, having received a wound above the forehead.

4. That neither said captain, nor he who was called lieutenant, nor any one else, was dressed in uniform to indicate that they were soldiers—the Americans were in civilian dress, and the Apaches had mostly only breech-clouts, moccasins, and were bareheaded, the above-mentioned lieutenant appearing in military dress on the day after the treaty was made.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; that it could not be supposed that those who from said ambush attacked the column were civilized beings, because such are acts indicating plainly the class of persons who in such a cowardly manner attempted to assassinate the campaigners.

6. That the Americans said nothing on the point covered by this question, and that to-day for the first time he hears any talk of such circumstance.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of above evidence, he stated that his knowledge is derived from his having been a witness to the occurrences which he related, and he affirmed them to be true. He did not affix his signature to this testimony (which I certify that I read to him) because he is unable to write. I then sign, together with the agent of the public minister and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Testimony of Fabian Martinez.

Thereupon, and on the same date, appeared Fabian Martinez, in obedience to subpoena, who being duly sworn, promised to speak the truth. He then stated that his name is as above written; he is of age, day laborer, native, and resident of this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony prescribed in the Penal Code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3. Being then questioned as to his knowledge on the points covered by the interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That the force which attacked first was one composed of some Apaches who were found hidden.

2. That the captain, whose name had just been told him, was not wounded after requesting a parley, because it took place when he was already killed.

3. That the captain was not wounded from behind, nor did he have a conference with the Mexican commander, because when the parley was requested by the Apaches and Americans, said captain was already hors de combat from a wound above the fore-bead, which apparently killed him.

4. That the captain did not wear a uniform, but a common dress; affiant remembers that the captain’s pantaloons were black.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the combat; that their detachment only replied to the fire opened upon them from said ambuscade.

6. That the Americans said nothing that could lead to the belief that they had defeated “wild” Indians, and that they held such as prisoners, together with their plunder; that far from this, all the Apaches whom they saw were walking about with perfect liberty.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of the above, he said: That it comes from his having been one of those who took part in the occurrences that took place at Teopar on January 11th, last.

The foregoing testimony being read to him, he declared it to be correct. He did not affix his signature, together with myself, the agent of the public minister, and the court assistants, because he was unable to write.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon appeared Trinidad Calderon, who being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is thirty years of age; married; farmer; native of Yepomera, and resident of this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed by the Penal Code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3. Being questioned as to his knowledge in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, with which he was made acquainted, he stated:

1. That the force that made the first attack at Teopar on January 11, last, consisted of some Apaches, who were found in ambush among some rocks.

2. That the captain, whose name he has just heard, did not request a parley, and that he was not wounded after the firing ceased.

3. That he was not wounded from behind on returning from a conference, because he had received a wound in the head, above the forehead, during the combat, which apparently occasioned his death; and that after this accident the other Americans and some Apaches from between the rocks exhibited rags or handkerchiefs as a signal for a parley, which was immediately granted.

4. That neither he nor any of the other Americans wore uniform, neither did the Indians; the former were in civilian dress and most of the latter wore breech-clouts and moccasins, with hair falling over their shoulders.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack, and that they only responded to the firing from the ambuscade, by which they were surprised.

6. That the Americans did not intimate that they had defeated hostile Indians, nor that they held them prisoners together with their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of foregoing, he stated that his knowledge is derived from his having been present at above said occurrences.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not affix his signature, as was done by myself, the public representative, and the court assistants, because he is unable to write.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon, on the same date, appeared Laureano Corredor, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is a native (i. e., of Indian descent); thirty-six years of age; married; farmer; born and resides in Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction. Thereupon the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed by the Penal Code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3, were explained to him in detail. Being questioned as to his knowledge in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, he stated:

1. That it was a force of Apaches, who were in ambush on the right of the direction taken by the detachment that went out from this canton and the canton Degollado, who made the first attack and whose firing caused the death of his brother, the commandant.

2. That the captain, whose name is mentioned, and whom he supposes to have been an American, who received a wound in the forehead, did not request a parley, because that took place after the killing of the Commandant Mauricio and of said Crawford, the latter of whom the Americans stated was their commander, although they did not mention his name.

3. That, as he has already stated, said American did not have a conference with any One of their column, and that said captain could not well have been wounded from behind, his wound being in the place above mentioned.

4. That neither that American or any of the others were in uniform; that the Apaches wore only breech-clouts and moccasins.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack, and that they could not know they were fighting against Americans and tame Indians, because the Americans did not show themselves until the firing had ceased, and the Apaches within sight were dressed like the hostile Indians in whose pursuit the Mexicans were engaged.

6. That he did not hear the few Americans whom he saw and with whom he spoke say that they had defeated hostile Indians and held them prisoners together with their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to how he came to know the foregoing, he stated that he knows it from having seen it, because he was one of those who were at Teopar on January 11 last.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not affix his signature together with me, the judge, the public representative, and the court assistants, because he is unable to write.

So we testify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date appeared Roqué Ramos, to give testimony in accordance with the subpoena received. He was duly sworn, and promised to make truthful answer and relation, and then stated: That his name is as above written; he is of age; a native; married; farmer; was born and resides at Arieiachic, in this jurisdiction. He was informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed in the Penal Code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3. Being then questioned as to his knowledge, in accordance with the foregoing interrogatory, with which he was made acquainted, he stated:

1. That the force which made the first attack consisted of some Apaches, who were found in ambush to the right of some of their trails; the result of the first shots fired being the killing of the Commandant Mauricio Corredor.

2. That Captain Crawford was not wounded after requesting a parley, because the latter took place when said captain was already apparently dead, after a combat having lasted about an hour and a half, at a time when some of the Apaches were abandoning their possessions and were jumping in, mocasins and all, into the river; that it was at this time, when from some of the positions occupied by the Apaches were seen some white rags or kerchiefs as a signal, that a parley was desired, for which reason the firing ceased; that then, from between the rocks, came forth some Americans, who had not allowed themselves to be seen before, and that with some of these Commander Santana Perez held the conference.

3. That the captain, whose name is to-day made known to him, was not wounded from behind, because the only shot which he received, and which apparently caused his death, he received above the forehead.

4. That neither the captain nor any of the other Americans or Apaches that were encountered at Teopar wore any uniform; the former wore civilian dress, and the latter mostly wore only breech-clout and moccasins and were bareheaded.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; that they did not suppose that in said ambush would be found Americans and somewhat civilized Indians.

6. That none of the Americans nor the Mexican with whom they spoke said anything about having defeated hostile Indians and holding them as prisoners, together with their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of what he has stated, he replied that his knowledge is derived from having been present at the occurrences, as he was one of the campaigners in the encounter at Teopar on January 11 last.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not affix his signature, together with the subscribers., because he is unable to write.

So we certify.

RUBIO,

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the 2d of March, 1886, appeared before this court Juan J. Enriquez, who was duly sworn, and promised to make truthful answer and relation. He then stated that his name is as above written; he is of age; a native; married; farmer; was born and resides at Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction. Thereupon he was informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being then questioned as to his knowledge, in accordance with foregoing interogatory, he stated:

1. That the force which first attacked, on January 11 last, at Teopar, consisted of some Apaches, who were in ambush between some rocks.

2. That the captain, whose name he has just learned, was wounded during the combat, and that therefore it was not he who requested the parley, because when that took place said captain was already apparently dead.

3. That the captain did not hold a conference with the Mexican commander, nor was he wounded from behind, because the shot which he received was in the head above the forehead.

4. That during the combat the captain did not wear uniform, neither did those who accompanied him.

5. The Mexican officers did not order the attack, and it was not to be supposed that they who from said ambush opened fire upon the column could be other than hostile Apaches.

6. That they said nothing about it to the Mexicans.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of the above, he stated that his knowledge is derived from having been present at said occurrences.

Foregoing testimony was then read to him and he declared it correct. He did not affix his signature, being unable to write. This was signed by me, the judge, the public representative, and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SLAVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date appeared Anastasio de la Cruz, who being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is a native; twenty-one years of age; farmer; was born and resides at Ariciachic. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being then questioned as to his knowledge, in accordance with the foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That the force which first attacked consisted of some Apaches, who were hidden and opened fire upon the column, and who, after firing some shots, killed the commandant, Mauricio Corredor.

2. That he supposes that the captain, whose name has just been told him, was an American, who seemed to have been killed by a bullet wound in the forehead; but that the same did not request a parley, because he was put hors de combat during the firing.

3. That he was not wounded from behind, because he received a bulletin the head above the forehead; and that, as witness said before, said captain did not have a conference with any of the campaigners.

4. That the captain did not wear uniform during the combat, nor did the others with whom they fought wear such.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; they seeing themselves obliged, however, to reply to the fire opened upon them from said ambush, which caused them to suppose that they had to do with hostile Apaches.

6. That the Americans said nothing about having defeated hostile Indians and holding them as prisoners, together with their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the Source of his knowledge of the above, he stated that he derives it from having been present there.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not affix his signature, because he is unable to write. This was then signed by myself, the representative of the public ministry, and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Immediately thereupon appeared Agapito Romero, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is 20 years of age; bachelor; native, and resident of this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the penal code. Being then questioned as to his knowledge, in accordance with the above intorrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That the force which on January 11 last attacked first at Teopar was composed of some Apaches, who were found to be in ambush.

2. That the captain, whose name had just been mentioned, was wounded and placed hors de combat before a parley was requested, which was done just when said captain appeared to have, been killed, and when many of the Apaches were in great disorder, they throwing themselves, mocasins and all, into the river, which is very near to that place; that these circumstances caused several of those who were among the rocks to hoist above their heads white rags or kerchiefs as a signal for a parley, which was immediately granted, and was held by an American, who was said to be a lieutenant.

3. That the captain was not wounded from behind, because the bullet wound which he received was in the forehead, nor did he confer with the Mexican commander.

4. That the captain did not wear uniform during the combat, neither did any of the other Americans or Apaches wear such.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; that their column was surprised by a fire unexpectedly opened upon it from said ambush, the attack being very sudden, and causing, after some shooting, the death of the commandant, Mauricio Corredor.

6. That the Americans whom he heard speak said nothing about having defeated hostile Apaches and holding them as prisoners, together with their plunder; that this is the first he hears of that.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of the above, he stated that it is founded on his having been at Teopar on said day when above-mentioned acts took place.

Foreging testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct; He did not sign together with me, the judge, the representative of the public ministry, and the court assistants, because he is unable to write.

So we certify,

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date appeared Juan J. Ramos, in obedience to subpœna, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is of age; native; farmer; married; was born and resides at Ariciachic in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being then questioned as to his knowledge, in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That the force which made the first attack consisted of some Apaches who were hidden between some rocks to the right of the direction taken by the column.

2. That he supposes that it was an American who had received the bullet wound in the head, of which, in his opinion, the same died, and who to-day is said to have been named Captain Crawford; but that gentleman did not request a parley, because long before that was done said American was hors de combat; and this one, after the conclusion of the treaty, was said by the other Americans to have been their commander.

3. That the captain was not wounded from behind, certainly not after the conference with the Mexican commander; that he could not have received the wound from behind, as it was above the forehead; and when the treaty was made he was already apparently dead.

4. That the captain did not wear a uniform during the combat, but wore civilian dress and his pantaloons were black.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; that they only replied to the fire opened upon them from said ambush.

6. That he heard nothing said at Teopar regarding the point in this question. The foregoing testimony being read to him he declared it correct. He did not sign this, because he was unable to write. It was then signed by myself and assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon appeared Ignacio de la Cruz, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is of age; a native; was born and raised at Ariciachic in this jurisdiction; is married and a farmer. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being then questioned as to his knowledge, in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That they who opened the fire on January 11 at Teopar, were some Apaches that were found hidden in very broken ground.

2. That the captain, to whom this question relates, did not request a parley, nor was he wounded after firing was suspended.

3. That the captain was not wounded from behind, because affiant believes that it was the American whose name is said to have been Crawford, who received a bullet wound in the forehead, and who was said by the other Americans after the negotiation to have been their commander.

4. That neither the captain nor the other Americans nor the Apaches wore any uniform.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; that it could not have been supposed that the Apaches and others who fought from ambush were other than hostiles; that besides their being in ambush their dress consisted only of breech-clout and moccasins, and they were bareheaded; that is, they looked precisely as the hostiles whom he had sometimes seen on the war-path.

6. That the Americans said nothing on that point; that, therefore, he cannot say anything about it.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of above statements, he replied that it was derived from the relator having been present there.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not sign, because he was unable to write. This was then signed by myself, my assistants, and the agent of the public ministry. So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARÍA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date appeared Marcelino Ramos, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is twenty-one years of age; a native; married; farmer, and was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being then questioned as to his knowledge, in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, with the contents of which he was made acquainted, he stated:

1. That a force of Apaches who were found in ambush to the right of the direction taken by the column, was the first to attack, and that the shots fired by them soon caused the death of the commandant, Mauricio Corredor.

2. That the captain, whose name is mentioned—he believes him to have been the American who was wounded in the forehead—did not request a parley, nor did he have a conference with any of the campaigners; that the parley took place after the apparent death of said Captain Crawford, whom the Americans said to have been their commander, although they did not give his name.

3. That, as has been stated, Crawford did not have a conference with any of the campaigners; that he could not have received the wound from behind, because he received it in the forehead.

4. That neither the said American nor any of the others wore uniform; that the Apaches wore only breech-clout and mocasins, had long hair, and were bareheaded.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; nor did they know they were fighting against Americans and “tame” Indians, because the Americans did not let themselves be seen until after fifing had ceased, and the Apaches whom they had seen were dressed the same as the hostile Indians of whom they were in pursuit.

6. That he did not hear the few Americans with whom he spoke say that they had defeated hostile Indians and held them prisoners together with their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of foregoing statements, he replied that it is derived from his having been present at Teopar, as he has already stated.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not sign it, not being able to write. This was then signed by myself—the judge—together with the agent of the ministry and my assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the third day of the same month, March, 1886, appeared before this court Martin de la Cruz, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above given; he is of age; a native; farmer; married; was born and resides at Ariciachic in this jurisdiction. He was then fully informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in the Penal Code, chap. 7, title 4, book 3. Being questioned as to his knowledge of the points in foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That some wild Apaches who were at Teopar opened fire first.

2. That he is not aware that the captain, whose name is mentioned, was wounded after requesting a parley; he supposes that could not have been the case, because after the parley took place not another shot was fired.

3. That if said captain was the American whom the lieutenant that made the treaty called his commander, he was not wounded from behind, because he had a bullet wound in the forehead.

4. That no uniform was worn during the combat.

5. That the attack was not ordered by the Mexican officers, because the firing was commenced by said Apaches, who were mostly clad like the savages.

6. That they did not state that they had defeated hostile Indians, nor that they had taken from the latter their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of his statements, he replied that it is derived from his having been one of the combatants, and he knows said occurrences as facts.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not sign it, being unable to write. This was then signed by myself—the judge—together with the public representatives and my assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon appeared Enrique Techoné to testify, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful relation, and stated that his name is as above given; he is twenty-three years of age; unmarried; a native; farmer; was born and resides at this place. He was then fully informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in the Penal Code, chap. 7, title 4, book 3. Being questioned as to his knowledge of the points in foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That some Apaches who lay in ambush were the first to attack.

2. That it was not Captain Crawford who requested a parley, but another American, said to be a lieutenant; that the former was wounded and apparently killed before the parley was held.

3. That he was not wounded from behind, because the bullet wound which he had, he received in the forehead during the combat.

4. That he did not wear uniform, nor did any of the others with him wear such.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack, because the Indians who were in ambush opened the fire.

6. That the Americans did not make it known that they had fought and defeated the hostile Apaches, or that they had taken from the latter their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of his statements, he replied: That it is derived from his having been one of the campaigners who fought at Teopar.

Foregoing testimony being read to him, he declared it correct. He did not sign, because he cannot write.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Be it stated, that on the same date appeared the adjutant-major, who stated that he has been able to induce the following to come here: Fermin Chavez, and the natives Esteban Vidal, Jesus Leonardo, Jesus Ramos, Francisco Soliz, Valentin Gonzales, Ramon Gonzales, Alejandro Ramon, Reyes de la Cruz, and Manuel de la Cruz, stating that these also took part in the occurrences at Teopar, and he requests that the court will cause them to appear to testify in accordance with foregoing interrogatory. The court saw fit to grant the request, and ordered the above named to be immediately summoned for said purpose, and this was signed by the judge, the petitioner, and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

FRANCISCO J. BOZA, Major.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Immediately thereupon appeared Fermin Chavez, who being duly sworn promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above given, he is 35 years of age, widower, farmer, was born and resides at Basuehil, in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in the Penal Code, chap. 7, title 4, book 3. Being questioned as to his knowledge on the points in foregoing interrogatory, which was carefully read to him, he stated:

1. That the Apaches, being intrenched, opened fire upon the column, which suddenly found itself surrounded in a place where they were fired upon from all sides.

2. That according to what the Americans themselves said, the captain to whom this question refers was placed hors de combat during the firing, and that therefore it could not have been he who requested a parley; that the one who did make the request was a young American about 20 years old, who was wounded in one arm.

3. That, as he stated before, it was not said captain who held a conference with the commander of the column, and that the same was not wounded from behind, because they learned of an American, who was said to be a lieutenant, and of a Mexican named Concepcion Aguirre, that the person who is now said to have been named Crawford was apparently dead of a wound which had passed through him above the forehead, from right to left.

4. That he saw no one at Teopar in military dress; that the Apaches mainly wore only high mocassins, breech-clout, and long hair, and here and there one had his head covered by a red handkerchief.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order them to fire until they saw themselves compelled to do so by the shots which the Apaches in ambush directed upon the column.

6. That the Americans said nothing upon this point.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of the foregoing statements, he replied, that it is derived from his having been at Teopar on said day, when he was present at the occurrences above related.

The foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, and signed it, together with me, the judge, the agent of the ministry, and my assistants.

So we certify.

FERMIN CHAVEZ.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

,lb/>

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date appeared Estéban Vidal, who being duly sworn promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is of age, a native, married, farmer, was born and resides at Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction. He was then fully informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code.

Being asked to state what he knows on the points of the interrogatory, which was read to him, he replied:

1. That some persons who were hidden were the ones who first opened the fire upon the column.

2. That he is sure that the person who is now named to him was not wounded after requesting a parley, because he did not ask for it; that, besides, when once the firing had ceased not another shot was fired.

3. That, as already has been stated, it was not he who held the conference, and it is not to be supposed that he was wounded from behind, because the wound passed through the forehead, from one side to the other.

4. That none of the combatants at Teopar wore uniform.

5. That the attack was not ordered by the Mexican officers, who did not know that there were any Americans with the Apaches, as the Americans did not show themselves until after the firing ceased.

6. That the Americans said nothing regarding the subject of this question.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of his statements, he replied, that it is derived from his having been at Teopar on January 11th, last, where said occurrences took place.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. He did not sign this because he is unable to write. This was then signed by myself, the judge, together with the agent of the public ministry, and the court assistants.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date appeared Jesus Leonardo, who being duly sworn promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That he is a native, 50 years of age, married, farmer, was born and resides at Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction, He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned as to what he knows on the points of foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated.

1. That the force which at Teopar first fired on January 11 last was composed of some persons who were found between some rocks, and of whom only the heads could now and then be seen.

2. That the captain, whose name is given, was not wounded after requesting a parley.

3. That he was not wounded from behind, nor was it he who held a conference with the Mexican commander; that when the parley took place he was already hors de combat.

4. That he wore civilian dress, as did also the other Americans; that the Apaches were dressed as he has always seen the savages dressed whenever he has gone out in pursuit of them; and that for that reason he believes that those who were at that place were “wild” Apaches.

5. That it was when the column was forced to defend itself against the galling fire opened upon them on the very broken ground, that the Commanders Santana Perez and Mauricio Corredor fired upon the Apaches that could be seen; but that they did not at all suppose that the latter were accompanied by Americans, whom they did not perceive until after the firing was suspended.

6. That the Americans said nothing about having defeated the hostile Indians, and that they held them as prisoners, together with the plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of foregoing statements, he replied, that it is derived from his having been present at said occurrences.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign it, he being unable to write. This was then signed by myself, the judge, together with the agent of the public ministry, and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon, on the same date, appeared Jesus Ramos, to give testimony, who being duly sworn promised to make truthful statement, and said: That his name is as above given, he is a native, 40 years of age, married, farmer, was born and resides in this canton. He was thereupon informed of the penalties for false testimony, as expressed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being then questioned as to his knowledge on the points in foregoing interrogatory, the contents of which were made known to him, he stated:

1. That it is public and notorious that the force which attacked first was one composed of some Apaches who were found hidden among some rocks.

2. That he was not wounded after requesting a parley, because when that took place, said captain was already apparently dead.

3. That he was not (wounded from behind), nor did he hold a conference with the Mexican commander.

4. That he saw absolutely not one of the combatants at Teopar in uniform.

5. That the Mexican officers did nothing except order to answer the attack made upon them from said ambuscade.

6. That he did not hear the Americans say anything on this point.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of what he has stated, he replied that it is derived from his having been, as above stated, present at all the occurrences.

The foregoing having been read to him, he declared it correct but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself, the public representative, and my assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date appeared Francisco Soliz, who being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as aforesaid; he is a native, thirty-two years of age, married, farmer, was born and resides in this municipality. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code, which was duly explained to him. Thereupon he was questioned as to what he knows on the points of foregoing interrogatory, and he stated:

1. That some Apaches who were in ambush were the first to attack.

2. That it was not the captain whose name is mentioned who requested a parley, but another American, who was said to be a lieutenant, for the reason that the former was already apparently dead when the firing was suspended.

3. That is not true that he held a conference with the Mexican commander, nor that he was wounded from behind; because the bullet wound which he received passed through the upper part of his forehead, from right to left.

4. That he wore civilian dress, as did also the other Americans, and that most of the Apaches wore only high moccasins, breech-clout, and the hair very long.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack, because, as he has before stated, the attack was commenced by the Apaches, whose dress, as has been stated, was the same as used by the savages.

6. That the Americans did not say that they had fought the hostile Apaches, or that they had taken from them any plunder.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of what he has stated, he replied that he derives it from having, as one of the campaigners, participated in the occurrences at Teopar.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign because he cannot write. This was signed by myself, together with the public agent and the court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the 4th of the same month, March, 1886, appeared Valentin Gonzales, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and statement, and said that his name is as above stated; he is 22 years of age, a native, married, farmer, was born and resides at Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being questioned as to what he knows on the points in foregoing interrogatory, the contents of which were made known to him, he stated:

1. That the first to open fire on the 11th of last January, in the Sierra de Bavis, at a point called Teopar, were some Apaches, who were found between some rocks to the right of the direction taken by the column.

2. That said captain was not wounded after requesting a parley; that the firing lasted about an hour and a half, during which firing the captain whose name is given was killed.

3. That the captain having died before the firing was suspended, could not well have requested a parley after the firing ceased; and as to the wound, affiant does not believe that he received it from behind, because it passed through his forehead from side to side.

4. That during the combat he saw no one in military uniform; that he who made the treaty said that he was a lieutenant, who wore no uniform then, but did wear a jacket with red lining on the following day, although the rest of his dress was that of a civilian.

5. That the attack was not ordered by any of the Mexican officers, and that, as before stated, the Apaches first fired upon the column, taking advantage of the ambush in which they were.

6. That he heard no ne of the Americans with whom he spoke say anything regarding the point in this question.

7. Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge of above statements, he replied that it is derived from his having been one of those who fought at Teopar on January 11 last.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself, the judge, together with the public agent and court assistants.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon appeared Ramon Gonzales, who being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is a native; 40 years of age; married; farmer; was born and resides at Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned as to what he knows in relation to the points in the preceding interrrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That when the column which went out in pursuit of the Apaches arrived at a point in the Sierra de Bavis called Topar, having that far followed the trail which they had struck a few days before, and where on the preceding day they had seen the Apaches encamped, the latter opened fire from some positions at close range where they were hidden, upon the arrival of the column on very bad ground; that the first to be killed was the commandant, Mauricio Corredor, after the latter had already compelled some of the Indians to flee from the positions held by them, to do which the Mexicans had to storm the positions, arriving so near to said Apaches that one of the soldiers, Herculano Coz, whose rifle became unserviceable, had to make use of his knife.

2. That he supposes that the captain, called Crawford, was the American who during said firing was apparently killed, and who afterwards was said by the Americans to have been their commander; that the death of said individual and the flight of some of the Apaches who, with moccasins and all, jumped into the river near by, obliged some of the persons among the rocks further away (from the river) to raise white handkerchiefs or rags above their heads as a sign that they requested a parley, which was granted immediately, and after which not another shot was fired; that when the firing had ceased they saw with surprise that many of those who had waved the rags were Americans, one of whom, calling himself a lieutenant, held the conferences.

3. That said captain was not wounded from behind, because the bullet wound received by him passed through his forehead from one side to the other; and that, as he has said, it was not the captain who held the conference with the Mexican commander.

4. That neither he nor the other Americans and Apaches wore any uniform on said day; but on the following day he who said he was lieutenant wore a military jacket.

5. That the Mexican officers were not the ones who ordered the attack; that while the column was on the march in pursuit of the Apaches they were suprised by the fire of the latter when they least expected it, owing to their not knowing the ground; that furthermore they never supposed that Americans were among the Apaches, as those did not allow themselves to be seen until the firing had ceased.

6. That he absolutely did not hear the Americans say anything on this subject.

7. Being asked to tell the source of his knowledge of above statements, he replied that it is founded on the truth of the occurrence and on his having been present at Teopar on January 11 last.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ MARIA RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Immediately thereupon appeared Alejandro Ramos, who being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above given, he is a native, twenty-one years of age, married, farmer, was born and resides at Ariciachic. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being questioned as to his knowledge on the points in the foregoing interrogatory which was read to him, he replied:

1. That some hostile Apaches were the ones who made the first attack.

2. That the captain whose name is mentioned was wounded long before a parley was requested; that when the parley took place said captain was already apparently dead.

3. That the bullet wound which he had was through the forehead above the temples, from side to side, which circumstance proves conclusively that he was not wounded from behind.

4. That he did not wear uniform during the combat.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack; that they were compelled to attack through the firing from the ambuscade into which they had fallen.

6. That the Americans did not say that they had defeated the Indians and had taken their plunder from them.

7. Being; questioned as to how he knows what he has stated, he replied, because the foregoing are actual facts, which affiant witnessed.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself (the judge), the public agent, and the court assistants.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon appeared Reyes de la Cruz, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above given; he is a native, 32 years of age, married, farmer; was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned as to what he knows on the points of foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he replied:

1. That when the column was just coming out of a small ravine on to very bad terrain they were surprised by the fire opened upon them by some Apaches, who, behind some rocks and parapets built by them, lay in ambush.

2. That the captain to whom this question refers did not request a parley, because when the firing was suspended he was already dead.

3. That he does not know whether the captain was wounded from behind, but the bullet wound received by the latter was from side to side of the head, above the forehead.

4. That the captain did not wear uniform, nor did affiant on that day see any of the other Americans or the Apaches in uniform; that it was on the day following the parley when he saw the one who made the treaty going about in military dress.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack, nor did they suppose that with the Apaches were some Americans, because these did not let themselves be seen till after the firing had ceased.

6. That he did not hear any person at Teopar say anything on this point.

7. Being questioned as to how he knows what he has stated, he replied: That his knowledge is derived from his having been one of the combatants at Teopar on January 11, last, and he was therefore witness to the occurrences there.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN

A. SALVADOR GONZALES.

Thereupon on the same date, appeared Hilario de la Cruz, to give testimony, who being duly sworn promised to make truthful statement, and stated: That his name is as above written, he is a native, thirty-five years of age, married, farmer, was born and resides at Ariciachic in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned as to what he knows in relation to foregoing interrogatory, he stated:

1. That the force which attacked first at Teopar consisted of some Apaches who, from behind breastworks, in ambush opened fire upon those forming the column.

2. That neither the captain, whose name is stated, nor any one else was wounded after the parley.

3. That the captain could not have been wounded while at conference with the Mexican commander, because he had no talk with the latter; nor could he have been wounded from behind because the bullet passed through the upper part of his forehead.

4. That he did not notice any of the Americans and Apaches whom he saw at Teopar wearing uniforms.

5. That the officers of the column did not order the attack, nor did they have any idea that civilized people were with the Apaches.

6. That the Americans did not state that they had defeated hostile Indians, or that they held such as prisoners, together with their plunder.

7. Being questioned as to how he came to know what he has stated, he replied, that his knowledge is derived from his having been present at the occurrences mentioned.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself, the public agent, and the court assistants.

So we certify,

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

Immediately thereupon appeared Manuel de la Cruz, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and statement, and said: That his name is as above written, he is 22 years of age, married, a native (i. e. of Indian descent), farmer, was born and resides at Ariciachic. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned as to what he knows on the points in foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. That some wild Apaches were the ones who first opened fire.

2. That said captain was not wounded after the parley took place.

3. That the captain did not hold a conference with the Mexican commander, nor was he wounded from behind.

4. That he did not wear uniform during the combat.

5. That the Mexican officers did not order the attack.

6. That the Americans said nothing on the subject of this question.

7. Being questioned how he came to know what he has stated, he replied that it is derived from his having been one of the campaigners who were ordered to go out in pursuit of the Apaches and from his having been present at Teopar on that day.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign because he cannot write. This was then signed by the public agent, the court assistants, and myself.

So we certify.

RUBIO.

JOSÉ M. RICO, P. A.

Witness: {

M. IRIGOYEN.

SALVADOR GONZALES.

On the same date it is certified that these proceedings being completed, they are delivered to Adjutant, Maj. Francisco J. Boza, their being twenty-four folios manuscript.

RUBIO.

A true copy.

EDUARDO GARAY,
Chief Clerk.

Mexico, April, 1886.

Appendix No. 3.

[Translation.]

Investigation held by order of the supreme tribunal of justice of the State, to clear up the occurrences at “Teopar” on January 11, 1886.

[seal. Republic of Mexico, supreme tribunal of justice of the State of Chihuahua, secretary’s office, No. 304.]

In consequence of a communication from the executive of the State, who therein inserted a telegram addressed to him by the secretary of war, the supreme tribunal of justice, under date of the day before yesterday, ordered as follows:

“With transcript of foregoing communication, let an order be issued, to the justices of the peace at Bravos and Guerrero and to the first alcalde (mayor) of Galeana, that they, without unnecessary delay and with scrupulous diligence, hold an investigation into the matters to which the transcribed note refers. The justice of the peace of Guerrero will proceed to the Canton Degollado for the purpose of carrying out this order. Let the executive be informed of this procedure, that he may issue the necessary orders for the requisite assistance for the journey to Degollado.”

The communication to which the foregoing refers is as follows:

“The secretary of war, in a telegram of yesterday, says to this Government: Today I say to the commander-in-chief of the second military zone: ‘Providing an attorney-at-law of experience and ability as assistant, you will commission some intelligent person to proceed before the respective authority, for the purpose of holding an investigation, taking the testimony of witnesses, in a detailed manner, regarding the depredations that were committed on our frontier by an American force that lately fought at Teopar with the national guard of this State; examining at the same time into the causes leading to the collision, and into the other circumstances of which you have been heretofore advised. For this purpose you will instruct them to go with a proper escort to all the towns, plantations, and ranches at which the offences may have been committed. Upon conclusion of the investigation you will transmit the proceedings with all possible speed to this office.’ I forward an official copy that you may be pleased to order another similar investigation, the proceedings to be forwarded to this office with all possible speed, because it is a matter of great importance to the Government of this Republic. I have the honor to insert the above for the information of the supreme tribunal, that you may be pleased in your discretion to order the investigation referred to in the cantons Bravos, Galeana, Degollado, and Guerrero, without delay.”

The foregoing copy I transmit to you by superior orders and for your information and compliance therewith.

Liberty and constitution.

Chihuahua, February 8, 1886.

JOSÉ M. MARQUEZ,
Secretary.

To the Justice of the Peace of Guerrero.

[Seal: State of Chihuahua, court of justice of the peace, District of Guerrero.]

Interrogatory prescribed by this court for the examination of the persons cognizant of the occurrences which happened at Teopar on January 11, last.

1. State your name, age, residence, business, &c.

2. Do you know what class of Indians were those who fought against the column which went out from here, Temosachic, during the encounter that took place at Teopar on said day?

3. If you know the cause of the combat, state it and give all the details.

4. Do you know to what reservation those Indians belonged?

5. Were they accompanied by civilized persons?

6. Do you know the name of the American officer who led them, and to what corps or force he belonged?

7. If you know that those Indians committed any depredations upon national territory, state so, giving all the details.

8. State, if you know, whether the Americans or Indians wore a dress or any insignia that could make them known as being in military service.

9. Give the source of your knowledge of what you have stated.

Canton Guerrero, February 13, 1886.

MANUEL RUBIO.

Decree ordering the investigation referred to in foregoing order.

Canton Guerrero, February 13, 1886.

Foregoing order having been received from superior authority let the investigation be made immediately, as directed; and for this purpose, with previous notification to the agent of the public ministry, let the persons who have any knowledge of the occurrence referred to and which is to be cleared up, be examined in conformity with the accompanying interrogatory drawn up by this court. Upon conclusion of the investigation at this place, let it be continued in the canton Degollado, as directed by superior authority.

The justice of the peace of this district has thus decreed, in the presence of the court assistants.

MANUEL RUBIO.

M. IRIGOYEN.

J. M. CASAVANTAS ROSAS.

Let the agent of the public minister be duly notified of preceding decree.

RUBIO

.

Thereupon Jose Maria Rico, agent of the public ministry, being present, was notified of foregoing decree, which notification he acknowledged as received, and in witness thereof affxed his signature, together with myself and the witnesses. So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSE Ma. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• J. M. CASAVANTES ROSAS.

Affidavit of Silviano Gonzales.

Thereupon appeared Silviano Gonzales, for the purpose of giving testimony in conformity with the foregoing decree, he being in very high standing at this place, and his reliability being well known. He was duly sworn and promised to make truthful answer and relation; whereupon he stated: That his name is as above given, he is of age, widower, farmer, native of Teocaltiche (State of Jalisco) and resident of this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed in-chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned in accordance with preceding interrogatory, he said:

1. He has already answered above.

2. As he has heard, the Indians encountered at said point were part of them somewhat civilized, and the remainder what is commonly called “wild.”

3. He knows that the cause of the fight was as follows: The (Mexican) column had arrived at the place mentioned, called Teopar, on the morning of January 11 last, where it saw a certain number of Indians in a hostile attitude upon the side of the mountain to their right. This party of Indians the officer second in command, Mauricio Corredor, tried to “corral,” and was making a signal to the commander, Santa-Ana Perez, to begin operations with his force from his side. While this maneuver was going on, Commander Mauricio was first fired upon from some parapets to their left, at which points were entrenched in ambush 20 or 22 Americans, together with many Indians, with whom they began at once a hot fight lasting about an hour and a half, during which were killed Commander Mauricio, Juan de la Cruz, an officer of the scouts, and two other soldiers. Affiant also knows that after the combat had lasted about an hour and a half, a white flag was put forth from the place whence the Americans and the Apaches were firing, and they were called upon to hold a parley by one of the Americans who came towards the campaigners.

4. He does not know, because he did not hear, to what reservation the Indians belong nor from which they came.

5. He knows that the Americans and Apaches had with them a Mexican, who also took part in the ensuing parley.

6. He knows that the name of the person who was the American commander there was Crawford, because he has seen it so written in the newspapers that occupied themselves with that news, in which it was also said that he belonged to the command of General Crook.

7. That it must be supposed that the Indians who were encountered in the battle had committed depredations upon national territory, because at that place were found the animals (horses and donkeys) which they stole when they lately attacked the mining town Dolores.

8. They did not exhibit any insignia indicating that they were a military force.

9. That the source of his knowledge is as above indicated.

Thus he declared and affixed his signature, together with myself (the judge), the public agent, and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• S. GONZALES.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• J. M. CASAYANTAS ROSAS.

Affidavit of Francisco Ji Amaya.

On the same date appeared Francisco J. Amaya, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written, he is 32 years of age, unmarried, a public employé, was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, he replied:

2. The Indians to which this question relates were “wild” and “tame” ones.

3. A (Mexican) column having gone out from this canton and that of Degollado against the hostile Indians, they were, after some days, already well into the Sierra, when the column was noticed by the enemy whom they were pursuing, the latter also having been seen by the campaigners. They being aware that it would be impossible to take the Indians by surprise, continued their pursuit openly (with open breasts), arriving at 8 o’clock a.m., January 11 last, at a place called “Teopar,” where the Indians were encamped, and had even burned the grass, and had an ambuscade prepared for them. The firing then began in open daylight. The campaigners had arrived so far as to storm the positions of the enemy, from which position they had already dislodged them, when, after the death of their commander, the enemy began to wave white handkerchiefs as a sign that they wished a parley. The tiring lasted about an hour and a half, during which were killed, on the side of the enemy, the aforementioned commander and four Indians besides, and, on the side of the campaigners, the commandant, Mauricio Corredor, Lieut. Juan de la Cruz, and two soldiers. Some men were also wounded on both sides. During the parley held with the American lieutenant, the latter told them that his force had known of the presence of the (Mexican) column since the night before. After this, Commander Santana Perez requested of them animals for the transport of their wounded, and haying been given some in very bad condition, he would not accept them, stating that he should be given either good horses or he had rather take none. The lieutenant thereupon ordered some to be brought that were in very good condition.

4. He does not know anything in regard to this question.

5. The Indians were accompanied by twenty-two Americans, who were in civilian dress.

6. He knows nothing in regard to this question.

7. It is beyond doubt that those Indians were the same who have inflicted many injuries on the state, particularly at the mining town Dolores, which they recently attacked, murdering there a Frenchman and two Mexicans, besides taking away with them several animals, part of which the commander of the column recovered on the field of battle, and which he delivered partly at Dolores, and three donkeys at Yemopera, places where the owners of the same were found. Affiant repeats that those Indians committed said depredations, because otherwise it is inexplicable how said animals could be in their possession.

8. Neither the Americans nor the Indians wore any insigna to show that they were in the military service.

9. His knowledge of foregoing is derived from having heard the campaigners themselves say so.

Further deponent said not, and he signed, together with myself, the agent of the ministry, and the witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSE MA. RICO, P. A.
• FRANC’O J. AMAYA.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• J. M. CASAYANTAS. ROSAS.

Testimony of José de la Luz Armenta.

On the 15th of the same month appeared José de la luz Armenta to give his testimony in accordance with foregoing decree, he being a person in high standing at this place and of well-known reliability. He was duly sworn and promised to make truthful answer and statement, and testified: That his name is as above given; he is 66 years of age; bachelor; miner; was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, he stated:

1. Has already answered above.

2. That according to what he has learned, the Apaches were “wild” and “tame” ones, as they are commonly styled.

3. That the reason why the combat took place was following: The column that went out in pursuit of the hostiles, having marched several days and then following the trail of the Indians, on January 10 last suddenly descried an Apache about 1,000 yards distant, which circumstance caused them to take precautions that the latter should not see them. The Apache began to reconnoiter the ground, and arrived as far as the track made by the column in its march; noticing the fresh trail made by them he made off with great speed. Their commander at once gave orders that they should follow in the direction taken by the Indian, when upon reaching, the summit of a mountain ridge they saw the group of the hostile Indians. They then remained there until nightfall, when they continued their march, arriving at said camping ground at about 8 a.m. on the following day, when, from an ambush prepared for them, a fire was immediately directed upon thorn, killing Commandant Mauricio Corredor, his son-in-law Juan de la Cruz, and Luz Estrada. The firing lasted about an hour and a half, during which time the enemy was dislodged from his position; and when their commander-in-chief was killed, the Americans who were with the Indians requested a parley, by waving a white rag, whereupon the column immediately suspended firing and entered into negotiations.

4. He has heard it commonly said that the reservation to which the Indians belonged was the San Carlos reservation.

5. Said Indians were accompanied by some Americans.

6. He knows nothing regarding this question.

7. That it must be supposed that those same Indians were the ones who shortly before attacked the mining town Dolores, where they killed a Frenchman and two Mexicans, and stole some animals and cattle; that such supposition is strongly founded in the fact that several of the stolen animals were found in their possession, among which were some donkeys, that were immediately taken from them by Commander Santa Ana Perez, who afterwards delivered the same to their owners; and some of the campaigners recognized others of the animals, the surrender of which was demanded of the officer who made the treaty and who promised to turn them over on the following day; instead of which they were found at daybreak to have been killed.

8. Neither the Americans nor the Apaches wore any military insignia.

9. He derived his knowledge from the fact that, as captain of the detachment of volunteers who went out from this city, he went to bring the wounded to Canton Degollado shortly after said occurrences had taken place, and that the wounded men, as well as the other campaigners, related to him all that had occurred just as he has stated it.

Foregoing testimony being read to him, he declared it correct, and signed the same, together with me, the public agent, and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• J. LUZ ARMENTA.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of Rogue Ramos.

Immediately thereupon appeared Roque Ramos, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and statement, and testified: That his name is as above given; he is of age; married; farmer; was born and resides at Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in the Penal Code, chap. 7, title 4, book 3. Being examined according to foregoing interrogatory, he replied:

2. The Indians with whom they fought at Teopar numbered about 300, most of them being “wild,” while some of them were somewhat civilized.

3. The reasons for the combat were, as follows: The column which went out in pursuit of the Indians, having seen them on January 10 last, was on the march, when it was seen by a hostile Apache whom they could not capture. The commander of the campaigners, supposing that the Indian would naturally raise the alarm among his companions, gave orders to immediately follow the latter, which they did until they arrived at the point where they met the enemy. They arrived there on the 11th of the same month, at about 8 a.m., and found the grass had been burned and the Indians were securely in an ambush prepared by them. Then the undersigned, in company with his commander, Mauricio Corredor, and the troop that went out from this place, immediately attacked a group of Apaches who were about fifteen yards in front of them and were “firing at them. They arrived at the foot of the parapets, stormed the same, and put to flight those who were sheltered behind the parapets. The commandant, Santa Ana Perez, operating from a different point, contributed to make said Apaches, who saw themselves driven from their positions and their commander and several other soldiers killed, wave some white rags as a signal that they demanded a parley, which demonstration was immediately acceded to, and the firing was suspended. The firing lasted about an hour and a half, during which time were killed on the side of their column, Commandant Mauricio, Juan de la Cruz, and two others, whose names he does not remember. Some were also wounded. On the other side they could only perceive killed (and these only because they were left behind the parapets which they carried by storm) their late commander, who was an American, and three Indians besides. While the parley was going on, they noticed among the many Apaches about twenty or twenty-two Americans, and one of the latter, who said he was a lieutenant, made said treaty, and gave the commander, Santa Ana Perez, a written paper, the contents of which the affiant does not know. He also gave Perez some mules for the transportation of the wounded. Finally, affiant states, they did not grant the parley on account of the superior numerical force of the enemy, but because they had already been several days in the Sierra, and were out of rations, and had at the same time very little ammunition left.

4. He knows nothing in regard to this.

5. The Apaches, as already stated, were accompanied by some twenty Americans, who did not show themselves until the negotiations had commenced.

6. He knows nothing regarding this.

7. He is almost sure that the Apaches with whom they fought were the same ones who shortly before attacked the mining town Dolores, killed there several persons, and at the same time stole the greater part of the animals and beef cattle at said place. This is to be believed, because Commandant Santa Anna took upon the battlefield some of the animals stolen from said mining town, which were returned to their owners. Several of the campaigners from Temosachic also recognized several of the animals, the return of which was demanded of the lieutenant who acted as chief commander, and who promised to deliver them, in place of doing which the animals were killed during the night, and the piece of the skin containing the brand was cut off of most of them.

8. Neither the Apaches nor the Americans wore any military dress nor any devices showing them to be in the military service.

9. His knowledge of above statements is derived from his having been one of the campaigners.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it to be as given by him. He did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself (the judge), together with the public agent and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of Estévan Vidal.

Thereupon, on the same date, appeared Estévan Vidal to give his testimony, who being duly sworn promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above given; ho is of age, married, farmer, and a resident of Ariciachic, in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being examined according to the foregoing interrogatory, he stated:

2. The Indians with whom they fought at Teopar were mostly wild Apaches.

3. The reason why the combat referred to in the question took place is as follows: The column having struck the trail of the Apaches, of whom they were in pursuit, they were following it, when suddenly they noticed an Apache who was apparently hunting; which circumstance caused the Commander Santa Ana Perez to recommend to the campaigners to use every caution so as not to allow said Apache to see them. But the Indian immediately afterwards saw the fresh track made by the column and began to run off rapidly. When the commander of the column saw this he felt certain that the Indian would give the alarm to his companions, and he decided to continue the march with all possible speed and without taking further precautions, so as to give no time for the enemy to take flight. This was done, and going a short distance further, when they came to the summit of a mountain ridge, they perceived a great number of Apaches, and about mid-day they noticed a signal fire where the Indians were; this demonstration made them comprehend that the enemy was already aware of the presence of the column, because said signal is only made by the Indians to notify their companions who are roaming about, of immediate danger menacing them. In view of this the campaigners tried with great eagerness to see if it would be possible to make the attack during the night, but they did not arrive at the indicated site until 8 a.m. of the following day, when the officer second in command, Mauricio Corredor, at the head of his company entered the center of a canyon, in which a certain number of Indians had already been seen in warlike attitude; the latter he tried to “corral,” for which reason he signaled to the chief commander, Santa Ana Perez, to co-operate with his force. In effecting this maneuver, they were surprised by a heavy fire directed upon them by some Apaches behind parapets about fifteen yards distant, whom they fought in the open (with breasts uncovered) until they succeeded in making them abandon their positions, in which positions Mauricio killed the commander of the enemies, who was an American. These circumstances obliged the Apaches to wave some white rags as a sign that they wanted a parley, which was granted by them because they were short of rations and ammunition. During the firing which lasted about an hour and a half, there were some wounded and killed on both sides, among the latter on the side of the Mexican column being aforementioned Mauricio Corredor, who fought heroically; the lieutenant of the spies, (Trailers?) Juan de la Cruz, who was son-in-law of the former, and Luz Estrada; on the other side were also some killed and wounded, but as the enemies were in number of 300, they hid with great care some of them. The parley was immediately granted, and then were seen among the Apaches about 20 or 22 Americans, one of whom, calling himself a lieutenant, held the conference with the commander of the column, and it was he who gave them the animals upon which they carried their wounded, and he also gave Santa Perez a written paper, the contents of which are not known to affiant.

4. He knows nothing in regard to this question.

5. The Apaches, as already stated, were accompanied by several Americans, who were not noticed until the parley took place.

6. He does not know anything about it.

7. He believes that the Apaches with whom they fought committed the depredations upon the national territory, and he grounds his supposition in his having seen in their possession several animals that were recognized by many as having been recently stolen from the mining town Dolores when it was attacked by the savages. A demand was made upon said lieutenant for all the animals that were recognized, and he declared that he would deliver them on the following day. In place of this being done, they were found killed and skinned, so that neither color nor brand could be distinguished.

8. Neither the Apaches nor the Americans wore any distinctive mark to indicate their being in the military service.

9. His knowledge of above is derived from being cognizant of it, as he was one of the campaigners.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was was then signed by myself, the public agent, and witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of Gabriel Casavantes.

On the same date appeared Gabriel Casavantes (the father) to give testimony, he being in high standing at this place, and a person of well-known integrity. He was duly sworn, and promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: His name is as a Dove given; he is of age, married, farmer, and resides here.

He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed by the Penal Code, chap.7, title 4, book 3. Being examined in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he testified:

2. They were mostly Apaches.

3. The reason why said combat took place, was as follows: A column had gone out from this place and Degollado, for the purpose of pursuing the savages, in consequence of the depredations committed by them; it had entered the Sierra, and after marching several days, struck the trail of the enemy, following the same until they came within sight of the enemy; but this was not done without their being also aware that the savages were apprised of the presence of the column, because on the day before they caught sight of an Apache, who made off and very likely gave the alarm to the Indians. In consequence of this, they made a forced march all that night, and succeeded in attacking them, in broad day-light, in the positions where they were found sheltered by parapets.

4. It is commonly said that they came from San Carlos, and that they were “tame” and “wild” Apaches.

5. They were accompanied by Americans to the number of 18 to 23.

6. Regarding the name of the American commander, the campaigners did not impress it upon their minds, wherefore he cannot tell. Through newspapers he learns that his name is Crawford.

7. It must be supposed that those Apaches are the same who recently attacked the mining town Dolores, because Commander Santa Ana Perez took with him some donkeys, which he delivered to their owners at said mining town, and he has furthermore learned of several of the campaigners with whom he has spoken, that there were some other animals which they recognized, and which were demanded on the day following the action; but that at daybreak of the next day some of these had been killed, the skins containing the marks (brands) having been destroyed.

8. No uniforms or other signs were seen, to indicate that the Indians or Americans belonged to any organized corps.

9. That the source of his knowledge of above statements is derived from what has been narrated to him by several of the campaigners themselves, who had also told him that the reason why the firing was suspended after the combat had lasted about an hour and a half, was because the Americans had announced their presence by a white flag, or rather a rag that looked somewhat like white; and that thereupon the agreement was drawn up, report of which he supposes the commander of the column has made.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct and signed the same, together with me (the judge), the agent of the public ministry, and witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• GAB’L. CASAV’S.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of Felipe Ochoa.

On the 16th of the same month appeared Felipe Ochoa, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above given; he is twenty-nine years of age; married; farmer, and resides here. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed by the Penal Code, chap. 7, title 4, book 3. Being examined, in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, he testified:

2. The Apaches numbered about three hundred, most of them being “wild” ones.

3. The reason why the combat took place was as follows: The column that went out in pursuit of the Apaches, after a march of several days, struck their trail and followed it a day and a half, when they were surprised on their way by an Apache, whom they were unable to catch, a circumstance that caused the commanders, Santa Ana Perez and Mauricio Corredor, to make a forced march, because they feared that said Indian would give the alarm to his companions, and which he undoubtedly did, because on that same day they saw a sign al-fire, leaving them no doubt that their fears were realized, as such a signal is made by the savages only to make known to each other the approach of imminent danger. Then the column, laying aside all precautions, desirous only to prevent the savages from taking flight, which would make the sacrifices of the campaigners a matter of ridicule, marched all night, resting only a moment at break of day to plan the attack. They soon continued their march, and at about 8 a.m., January 11 last, they arrived at the point called “Teopar,” where they found the Apaches already sheltered behind parapets and in attitude of offense, whereupon Commandant Mauricio, at the head of his natives (i e., of Indian descent), whoso captain he was, with yells of “Viva Mexico” and “Viva Guerrero,” threw themselves upon a group of Apaches, who, from the moment when the column arrived within gunshot directed a hot fire upon them. But they were surprised by an ambuscade which had been prepared on their left, which circumstance made said Mauricio direct his troop against the ambuscade, the troop fighting with such intrepidity that the Apaches, confounded, abandoned the post which they were defending; leaving behind them one American killed, who was afterwards learned to have been the commander of the adversaries; when the latter was killed and a considerable number of the savages were in flight some, white handkerchiefs were waved as a signal that a parley was wanted, to which the commander of the column, Santa Ana Perez, immediately acceded. The firing lasted about an hour and a half, during which the brave Mauricio was killed, after he had stormed the enemies’ positions, actually placing his breast against the muzzles of the rifles of the enemy, who in a cowardly manner fled. When the parley was granted they saw, with surprise, among the Apaches a Mexican and about twenty-three Americans. One of the latter, acting as commander and calling himself lieutenant, concluded the treaty, and declared that it had all been a mistake, giving the commander of our column a paper, the contents of which are not known to affiant. They remained two and a half days on the battlefield and did not leave until the Apaches and Americans had gone off.

4. He knows nothing about it.

5. As already stated, the Apaches were accompanied by a Mexican and about twenty-three Americans, all of them wearing civilian dress.

6. He knows nothing about it.

7. He supposes that they committed depredations upon national territory; he grounds his supposition on the fact that they found in the possession of the Indians several of the animals that shortly before had been stolen by the Indians at the mining town Dolores when they attacked the same and murdered several of its inhabitants. This presumption is the more probable, as the commander of the column took from them, when above-mentioned treaty had been concluded, some donkeys, which he delivered to their owners at said mining town.

8. Neither the Apaches nor the Americans nor the Mexican wore uniform or any insignia by which they might be presumed to belong to the military service.

9. His knowledge of foregoing statements is derived from the fact that he was one of the campaigners who were present at all the forementioned occurrences.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSE MA. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of Ramon Chavarria.

Immediately thereupon appeared Ramon Chavarria, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed by the Penal Code, chap. 7, title 4, book 3. Being examined in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. His name is Ramon Chavarria; he is 36 years of age; bachelor; miner; was born and resides in this city.

2. The Indians with whom the column fought at Teopar were mostly “wild” Apaches, as they are generally called.

3. The reason why said combat took place was as follows: The column that went forth from this canton and Canton Degollado in pursuit of the savages who recently committed so many depredations within the State, and particularly at the mining town Dolores, at which latter place they committed some murders, had already marched several days and was well into the Sierras when the campaigners struck the enemy’s trail and followed it until the 10th of the same January, on which day they were suddenly surprised by the appearance of an Apache, who, notwithstanding the precautions taken, saw the column. Although they could easily have given chase, their commander did not allow them to fire, fearing that the other Apaches might be apprised. He gave orders to try to catch the Indian in some other way, but it was found impossible to do so, because the latter, having espied the column, rapidly fled. This circumstance caused the commanders, Santa Ana Perez and Mauricio Corredor, to order the march to be hastened, because they believed said Indian would go and notify his other companions of what he had seen. This supposition was confirmed, because on the same day they noticed a signal-fire, a characteristic signal whereby a savage gives the alarm and calls together his people. This demonstration left the column in no doubt that the enemy was aware of their presence, and with the greatest effort they redoubled their speed, arriving at sunset at the summit of a mountain ridge, whence they could plainly see (by aid of a spy-glass) at a distance of about 5 leagues (15 miles), at the farthest, the Apaches to the number of about three hundred in camp. They marched all that night, but on account of the rough road were unable to reach the place where the Indians were until about 8 a.m. of the following day, when, ascending a very steep slope (hill), they saw some Indians in a warlike attitude behind parapets, whom Commander Mauricio Corredor tried to “corral,” for which purpose he made a signal to Commandant Santa Ana Perez that he in his turn should execute the necessary maneuver. At a short distance could be seen the herd of horses of the Indians, placed there as a means of tempting them, while hidden, in a great circle, were a great many Apaches in ambush. Firing was opened when they were ascending said hill, and the savages abandoned the first parapets of their ambuscade, which position remained in the possession of the troops from Temosachic, the troops from this canton pushing on ahead. The Indians having been driven from their positions, and an American, who was afterwards learned to have been their chief commander, having been killed, ran in haste to cross the river, which they did cross without taking off their moccasins or other clothes. While this demoralization was taking place several white rags were seen waving from between some rocks as a signal that a parley was requested; whereupon the commander of the column immediately ordered the firing to cease. The firing had lasted about an hour and a half, during which were killed, on the side of the campaigners above-mentioned, Mauricio Corredor, the lieutenant of the scouts, Juan de la Cruz, Maximiano Madrid, and Luz Estrada, and four soldiers wounded. On the other side, even though they also had several killed and wounded, it was not possible to state the number, because they hid them.

4. He does not know.

5. They were accompanied (according to the report of several campaigners who saw them) by about eighteen to twenty-three Americans.

6. He does not know.

7. It is beyond doubt that those Apaches were the same that attacked the mining town Dolores, because in their possession were found several of the animals that had been stolen at said point, of which Commander Santa Ana was able to recover three donkeys, which he delivered to Melquides Vargas. Several other animals were recognized and demanded of them, but instead of delivering the animals they killed them during the night. Among other cases, affiant can cite what happened to one of the campaigners from Temosachic, named Petronilo, who, having recognized a mare belonging to him, demanded the same of above-mentioned lieutenant; on the next day the mare was found killed. These acts, then, led to the belief that said Apaches were the ones who inflicted so much damage in the State.

8. During the day of the fight they did not wear uniform nor any device that might make them appear as being in the military service. On the next day the American who made the treaty, and who called himself a lieutenant, appeared in uniform.

9. The source of his knowledge of above-stated facts consists in his having been second sergeant of the troop from this canton, wherefore he has positive knowledge of the facts.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, and signed the same, together with myself, the public agent, and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• RAMON CHAVARRIA.

Testimony of Herculano Coz.

On the same date appeared Herculano Coz, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above given; he is thirty-eight years of age; bachelor; day-laborer; was born at Pachera, and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being examined according to foregoing interrogatory, he stated:

2. The Indians with whom they fought at Teopar were mostly “wild” Apaches, with whom were some that were a little civilized, there being altogether about three hundred.

3. The reason why the combat took place was as follows: The column that went out in pursuit of the Apaches, after some days marching, discovered their trail and followed it two and a half days, when they succeeded in ascertaining at what place the Apaches were located. This happened on January 10, last, on which day the campaigners saw an Indian about 1,000 yards distant, whom they were unable to apprehend, which circumstance made the commanders, Mauricio Corredor and Santa Ana Perez, presume that the Indian whom they had just sighted would give the alarm to his other companions, which in fact did happen, because on that very same day they noticed a signal fire, a characteristic signal of which the savages make use to warn each other of some imminent danger. Then the campaigners, without precaution of any kind, only desirous of reaching those whom they supposed to be their enemies, increased the speed of their march, and at about 8 a.m. arrived at the point where the Indians were intrenched. The latter opened fire upon the campaigners, who had no way of sheltering themselves, because the Apaches, besides holding a very advantageous position, had even burned the grass, which circumstance made the ambush more aggravating, as it showed that it was premeditated. Nevertheless, the Commandant Mauricio and his force fought with such intrepidity that they dislodged the Indians from behind their parapets (which were stormed) when the Indians took to flight, being so demoralized that they threw themselves into the river in their moccasins and clothes. When the other Indians saw this, they began to wave some white rags as a sign that they wished a parley. The commander of the column acceded to the request at once. The firing had lasted about an hour and a half, during which the campaigners lost the brave Mauricio and three other comrades, besides which four were also wounded, affiant being one of the latter (and I, the judge, certify that I see three wounds upon said deponent). It was an American, who said he was a lieutenant, that made the treaty, after which they noticed about 20 other Americans and one Mexican. Under the conditions agreed upon during the parley, Commander Santa Ana Perez was enabled to take from the Indians some donkeys which he delivered at the mining town Dolores; among the animals belonging to the Indians were also seen several animals that had been recently stolen from said mining town. A demand was made for the latter, but they were found next morning killed and some of them skinned. The campaigners remained on the field two days, when they left, after the departure of the Apaches and Americans.

4. He does not know.

5. As he has already stated, the Apaches were accompanied by a Mexican and about eighteen to twenty-three Americans.

6. He does not know.

7. It must be supposed that those Apaches were the same ones who attacked the mining town Dolores, murdering three persons and stealing animals, because, as already stated, these Apaches had many of said animals with them, although the campaigners were only able to recover the three donkeys, which at said mining town Dolores were returned to Melquiades Vargas.

8. Neither the Apaches nor the Americans wore uniform or any devices that might lead to the supposition that they were in the military service.

9. His knowledge of foregoing statements is derived from the fact that, as he has already stated, he was one of the campaigners.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but he did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself, the agent of the public ministry, and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of the witness Agapito Ramos.

On the same date appeared Agapito Ramos, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: His name is as above written; he is nineteen years of age; bachelor; day-laborer; was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed by the Penal Code, chapter 7, title 4, book 3. Being examined in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, he said:

2. The Apaches with whom they fought at Teopar were “wild” and “tame” ones, but the greater number were of the former.

3. A column had gone out from this canton and the canton Degollado to operate against the savages who had inflicted so many evils upon this State. After having marched several days, having suffered innumerable privations, they succeeded in striking the trail of the Apaches; they followed that for two and a half days, and were on the last day surprised by an Apache whom they were unable to catch and who gave notice to his companions. When the column on the morning of January 11 arrived at the point called Teopar they found that the grass or pasture had been completely burned off, and the Indians had taken positions where they were completely sheltered. The column immediately received the enemy’s fire, and they had no other recourse than to engage openly in the combat, during which the Commandant Mauricio Corredor and his troop conducted themselves with so much bravery that, storming their positions, the Indians in a cowardly manner fled from them, leaving behind them one man killed, an American, who was afterwards said to have been their commander. This circumstance caused the Apaches from various parts to wave white handkerchiefs or rags as a signal that they wished a parley. When this was observed by the commander of the column he ordered the firing to cease, not through any fear, hut because the volunteer force was very much short of provisions and ammunition. The firing had lasted about an hour and a half, during which on both sides some were killed and wounded. After the treaty was concluded they noticed that about twenty-three Americans and one Mexican were with the Apaches.

4. He does not know.

5. As already stated, there were some Americans and one Mexican with the Apaches.

6. Ho can say nothing about it, as he does not know.

7. It is without doubt that those Apaches were the same ones who lately have committed so many depredations on national territory, and particularly at Dolores (canton Degollado), where they murdered a Frenchman and two Mexicans and took away with them several animals, part of which the commander of the column recovered on the battle-field and which he returned to the owner when he touched at said mining town Dolores. Affiant repeats that he believes that aforementioned Apaches were the authors of said murders and thefts, because in no other way can it be explained how said animals could be found in their possession.

8. Neither the Apaches nor the Americans wore any uniform or other device that would make them appear during the combat as being in the military service.

9. His knowledge of above is the result of his having been one of the campaigners, and he knows what he has stated, and the “wound which he has (and I, the judge, certify that I have seen the same) he received at Teopar.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself (the judge), the public agent, and the court witnesses

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of the witness Francisco Araiza.

On the 17th of the same month appeared before this court Francisco Araiza, who, being duly sworn, promised to make a truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is twenty years of age; bachelor; day laborer; was born at Pahuisachic, and resides in this city. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code now in force. Being examined in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. He has already answered above.

2. The Indians whom the column fought at Teopar were mostly “wild” Apaches.

3. The reason why said combat took place was as follows: A column went out from this canton and canton Degollado, by order of the supreme government of the State, in pursuit of the savages that lately committed so many depredations, particularly at the mining town Dolores, where they committed some murders. After having marched several days, when these campaigners were well into the Sierra, they struck the enemy’s trail and followed it until January 10, when they were suddenly surprised by the appearance of an Apache, who, notwithstanding the precautions taken by them to prevent it, saw them. They could have given chase, but the commander would not allow it, fearing that the other Apaches might hear the firing. Orders were given to try to capture the Indian by some other means, but that was found impossible, because said Indian immediately took to flight. This circumstance caused the commanders Santa Ana Perez and Mauricio Corredor to give orders that the speed of the march should be increased, because they naturally supposed that the Indian would go and make report to his companions. This supposition was soon confirmed, because on the same day they saw a signal fire, which is a characteristic signal by which the savages give the alarm and call together their people. In view of this plain demonstration, the campaigners were left in no doubt that their presence was known to the enemy. The march was hastened with the greatest effort, and at sunset they arrived at the summit of a ridge, whence they could plainly see (by aid of a spy glass) the Apaches, numbering about 300, at distance of 5 leagues (15 miles) at the farthest. They marched all that night, but the road was so broken that they were unable to arrive at the point, where the Indians were until 7 or 8 a.m. of the following day. While they wore ascending a very steep slope they saw some of the Indians well intrenched and in a hostile attitude. Commander Mauricio Corredor intended to “corral” these, and signaled to Commandant Santa Ana Perez to operate accordingly. At a short distance from there was the herd of horses belonging to the Indians, which the latter had surely placed there to serve as a temptation, and near which they were in great number hidden in ambush. When the campaigners were ascending said hill the firing was commenced, and the Apaches abandoned the breastworks of their first ambuscade, which were occupied by the troops from Temosachic, the troops from this canton pressing forward. When the savages had been ejected, from their positions, and after an American (who was afterwards known to have been their chief commander) had been killed, the Indians began to ran away with great clamor, and crossed the river in their clothes, not even taking off their moccasins. While this demoralization was in progress it was observed that from between some rocks were exhibited some white rags or wrappers, as a signal for a parley; whereupon the commander of the column immediately ordered the firing to cease. The firing had lasted about an hour and a half, during which time on the side of the campaigners Commander Mauricio Corredor, lieutenant of scouts Juan de la Cruz, Maximiano Madrid, and Luz Estrada were killed, and the following four soldiers were wounded: Herculano Coz, Agapito Romero, Apolinar Zapien, and one other whose name he does not at this moment remember. Although there were some killed and wounded on the other side also; their number could not be learned, because they were hidden away.

4. He does not know.

5. They were accompanied by twenty-two or twenty-three Americans.

6. He does not know.

7. Those Apaches surely were the ones who attacked the mining town Dolores, because among their animals were found some of those that had been stolen from said mining town, and Commander Santa Ana recovered three asses which he delivered to Melquides Vargas. Several other animals were also recognized and demanded, but, instead of delivering them, the Indians during the night killed them, as happened in the case of one of the campaigners, named Petronilo, of Temosachic, who, having recognized a mare belonging to him, requested it be delivered to him, and on the next day found it had been killed. These acts gave sufficient grounds for the belief that said Apaches are the ones who caused so many evils to this State.

8. On the day of the combat they wore absolutely no dress or insignia by which they might have been known to belong to some organized army, but on the following day the American who made the treaty and who said that he was a lieutenant appeared in uniform.

9. His knowledge of above is derived from the fact that he was an eye-witness of the acts related, because he was part of said column.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him he declared it correct, but did not sign because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself (the judge) together with the public agent and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• SALVADOR GONZALES.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Testimony of the witness Apolinar Zapien.

Thereupon appeared Apolinar Zapien, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is twenty-eight years of age; day laborer; bachelor; was born at Morelos, and resides in this city. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code now in force. Being questioned in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. He has already answered above.

2. The Indians whom they fought were “wild” and “tame” Apaches.

3. The reason why it took place was as follows: The supreme Government of the State ordered that a column should go out from this, canton and canton Degollado, in pursuit of the savage Indians, on account of the great depredations and harm caused for a long time past by them. The column struck the trail on the 10th of last month and followed it; the column, of which affiant formed a part, suddenly saw an Apache who was apparently hunting. The commander Santa Ana Perez gave orders that they should be prudent and not allow themselves to be seen, and directed at the same time that said Apache should be apprehended; but this was not possible to do because he took immediately to flight. When the commander saw this, he was certain that the Indian would go to inform his companions, and he gave immediately, orders that the column should hasten its speed; by doing so, they managed to reach there on the following day at about 8 a.m. They found the pasture burned and the Indians in ambush, which doubtless had been prepared for them previously. Having arrived at the point indicated, they attacked a certain number of Apaches in their front that were firing upon them, and whom they succeeded in putting to flight. Santa Ana, operating from another direction, had succeeded in dislodging the Apaches and obtained as a triumph, that they exhibited some white rags as a signal for a parley. The firing must have lasted about an hour, during which time, on the side of the campaigners, Commandant Mauricio Corredor, Juan de la Cruz, and two other companions perished; and four men were wounded, of whom deponent was one, and for this reason he cannot with certainty state anything further except what he heard his companions say, on account of his subsequent illness.

5. Affiant knows that there were some Americans, without being able to specify their number, for the reason above stated.

6. He does not know.

7. He understands that the Apaches whom they fought are the same ones who attacked the mining town Dolores, because with these were found some of the animals that had been stolen from said mining town.

8. Neither the Apache nor the Americans wore any dress nor insignia to show that they were in the military service.

9. His knowledge of above facts is derived from his having been one of the campaigners, he being one of those that were wounded.

(I, the judge, certify to the last statement.)

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself (the judge), together with the public agent and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• SALVADOR GONZALES.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Affidavit of the witness José M. Romero.

Thereupon appeared the witness José M. Romero, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is twenty-two years of age; bachelor; day-laborer; was born and resides at Guadalupe, in this jurisdiction. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code now in force.

Being questioned in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. He has already answered above.

2. The Indians whom the column fought at Teopar were nearly all what are commonly called “barbarous” (savages), the remainder being more or less civilized.

3. A column had gone out from this canton and canton Degollado in pursuit of said Indians, and on the 10th of last month they sighted an Apache at a short distance (whom they could perfectly recognize by aid of a spy-glass). The measures adopted to apprehend said Apache proving futile, the commanders, Santa Ana Perez and Mauricio Corredor, gave orders to increase the speed of the march, following the trail of the enemy, who was now already aware of their presence. They marched rapidly all that night, and on the following day, while ascending a very steep slope, they found some Apaches well intrenched and in a warlike attitude; owing to the skill of Commander Mauricio, they succeeded in dislodging the Indians, and the soldiers from Degollado remained here, Having pushed onward, at a short distance further they encountered the enemy in force, and fought about an hour and a half, until the combat stopped on account of some white cloths or handkerchiefs that were seen produced by the enemy from behind the rocks as a signal for a parley. As a result of said combat there were killed Commander Mauricio Corredor, Juan de la Cruz, and two other companions, and of the other side affiant, who was one of those that were wounded in the column, learned that the principal commander had been killed, as well as several others that they were unable to count, because the same had been hidden.

4. He does not know.

5. He does not know.

6. He did learn the name of the commander, but does not remember it.

7. He is almost sure that they are the same Indians who since a long time are committing thefts and depredations in the State. He believes this, because with them were found the animals that were recently stolen from the mining town Dolores, which they would not give up when they were demanded by the owners, with the exception of some three asses, which were recovered by Commander Santa Ana Perez.

8. According to what he heard said by those who were nearer to the enemy there were among said Indians from twenty to twenty-three Americans, but that they did not wear any dress or insignia that could lead to the supposition that they belonged to the Army. On the day after the combat, however, one of them wore a military dress.

9. His knowledge of above statements is set forth in the same.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself (the judge), together with the public agent and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• SALVADOR GONZALES.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Affidavit of the witness Jesus Campos.

Thereupon appeared Jesus Campos, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer in relation, and stated: His name is as above written; he is thirty-three years of age, married, day-laborer, was born and resides in this city. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Oode. Being questioned in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. He has already answered above.

2. In his opinion the Indians whom the column fought at Teopar were “wild” or “barbarous,” as they are commonly called.

3. Affiant being one of the soldiers that formed the column can truthfully say that on the 10th of last month they encountered an Indian who showed himself at a short distance, and whom it was not possible to capture because he immediately took to flight; the commander, Mauricia Corredor, did not permit them to fire upon the Indian, as he feared that the enemy would become aware of their presence. The campaigners immediately hastened their march, but could not arrive at said place until 8 or 9 a.m. on the following day. Then, while they were ascending a steep slope, they found that the Indians were sheltered behind breastworks, the herd of horses belonging to the latter being left alone and to one side as a means of tempting them. The firing was commenced by the enemy, whom they dislodged from behind the parapets and then pushed on, when a short distance further they found the whole band of Indians, who received them with a fire. The firing lasted about an hour and a half, during which, among his companions, the commander, Mauricio Corredor, and three others were killed, and some were also killed on the other side, while on both sides some were wounded.

4. He does not know.

5. He does not know.

6. He has heard the name of the American, but cannot pronounce it.

7. There can be no doubt that those Indians are the same ones who are causing so many injuries to the State, and that the most evident proof of that is that with them were found the animals that had been stolen from the mining town Dolores, and which they would not deliver to the owners who demanded them. In place of doing that, they killed some of those animals to eat them, taking the others away with them, except some asses, which Commandant Santa Ana Perez took away from them and which he delivered to their owner, Melquides Vargas, of Temosachic.

8. They wore no military insignia.

9. His knowledge, as above expressed, came from his having been an eye-witness to the facts, as he was one of the campaigners.

Foregoing testimony being read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself (the judge) and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA. RICO, P. A.
• SALVADOR GONZALES.
• R. CASAVANTES.

Affidavit of the witness Vicente Gandara.

On the 20th of the same month appeared Vicente Gandara, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated: That his name is as above written; he is forty-nine years of age, married, farmer, was born and resides in this city. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code now in force. Being questioned in accordance with foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. He has already answered above.

2. In his opinion all the Indians were “wild” ones.

3. The column on the 10th of last month had arrived at a point which he cannot name, but which is very near to the place called Teopar, when they struck the trail of the enemy whom they were pursuing; among others an Apache was seen whom they were unable to apprehend. They then hastened their march until the following day, about 8 a.m., when they encountered some Indians who were well entrenched and in hostile attitude, and who immediately commenced to open fire upon the campaigners. The latter were able to dislodge the Indians from their parapets, and continued onward to where the Indians were all united then; these continuing to fire upon them, to which they replied in a proper manner. The combat lasted about an hour and a half, until the other side began to put up some white handkerchiefs as a signal for a parley. As a result of the combat Commandant Mauricio Corredor, Juan de la Cruz, and two others were killed, and four men were wounded, while on the other side were also some killed and wounded, and among them an American who was said to have been their principal commander.

4. He does not know.

5. There were about eighteen to twenty-three Americans.

6. He does not know.

7. According to his understanding they are the same Indians who committed thefts at the mining town Dolores, because they had with them the animals that were taken from said mining town.

8. The aforementioned Americans did not carry any military insignia.

9. That his statements are grounded in reasons above set forth.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct. This was then signed by myself (the judge), together with the public agent and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• JOSÉ MA RICO, P. A.
• SALVADOR GONZALES.
• R. CASAVANTES.

At 12 o’clock m., on the 20th instant, it is hereby certified that the proceedings in this city, to which preceding order from higher authority refers, are concluded, except that the affidavits of some persons who are not at this place, have been omitted.

Record is made thereof and the signature, by sign-flourish (rubric), affixed, and the required report made to superior authority on this date.

(Signed by Rubric.^*)

A true copy:

Eduardo Garay

,
Chief Clerk.

May, 1886.

Appendix No. 4.

[Translation.]

[Seal: State of Chihuahua, court of justice of the peace, district of Guerrero. Stamp 50 cents, canceled.]

Proceedings of an investigation concerning the occurrences at Teopar, held at the instance of Colonel of Cavalry Pedro Artalejo, who was commissioned for that purpose by the general commanding the second military zone.

To the Justice of the Peace:

I, Pedro Artalejo, colonel of cavalry, of the federal army, now being in this city, appear before you and make statement: To comply with the mandate entrusted to me by the general commanding the second military zone.

I request that you, the judge, will be pleased to cause to be subpoenaed those citizens who took part in the encounter at Teopar, for the purpose that as eye-witnesses to the occurrences they may give testimony in accordance with the following interrogatory:

1. Is It certain that Lieutenant Maus was detained as a prisoner by the Mexican force?

2. Was, as asserted by Lieutenant Maus, the interpreter, Concepcion Aguirro, also detained as prisoner?

3. Incase such detention is a fact, how long did it last, and under what conditions, or what treatment was accorded to the prisoner?

4. Were the mules that Lieutenant Maus delivered, after the detention to which he refers, some of those previously stolen by the Indians, or is there no doubt that they belonged to the Government of the United States?

5. Did the Mexican force exact that Lieutenant Maus should present papers to prove that he at that time belonged to the Regular Army of the United States; and if so, what was the result of such exaction?

When said proceedings, with all the formalities required by law, shall have been concluded, the court will please to deliver to mo the original papers; as the result of my commission, which latter I duly exhibit.

Submitted with assurance of respect, &c.

City of Guerrero, April 21, 1886.

PEDRO ARTALEJO, Colonel

Mem.—The persons to whom I refer as to be examined are the following: Santana Perez, Ramon Chavarria, Apolinar Zapien, Fabian Martinez, Jesus Campos, Agapito Romero, Jesus Maria Romero, Felipe Ochoa, Herculano Coz.

City of Guerrero, April 22, 1886.

Received above at 11 a.m. of its date. Let the investigation solicited by the petitioner be held, in accordance with the orders received by this court from the supreme government of the State in its communication of the 19th instant. When the proceedings are concluded, let them be delivered to the petitioner, as he solicits. Hereof take notice; the justice of the peace of this district has so decreed, in presence of the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• MANUEL RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• REFUGIO LECHUYA.

On the same date appeared Col. Pedro Artalejo, who, being informed of foregoing decree, stated that he hears and is satisfied therewith. This was signed by myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• PEDRO ARTALEJO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• REFUGIO LECHUYA.

Affidavit of the witness Apolinar Zapien.

On the 24th of the same month appeared Apolinar Zapien to give his evidence, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is twenty-eight years of age, bachelor, day laborer; was born at Morelos and resides here. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being asked to state minutely what he knows in relation to foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he said:

1. That it is not true that Lieutenant Maus was detained as a prisoner by the Mexican forces.

2. Neither was he whose name was said to be Concepcion Aguirre.

3. Already answered by the preceding answers.

4. The mules given to Commandant Santana Perez were, in his opinion, property of the American Government, because no one there present recognized those animals, as they did many others, which latter were asked for; but instead of their being delivered, they were killed, and the parts of the skin containing the brands cut off.

5. Yes, they did demand of said Maus the documents to prove the authority with which he claimed to be invested; but he presented none, because he stated that he had left them at a point the name of which affiant does not remember. The lieutenant then drew tip a paper, which he gave to the commander of the campaigners, hut the contents of which affiant does not know.

Being asked to state how he came to know what he has stated, he said that his knowledge is the result of his having been an eye-witness of the occurrences.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because ho cannot write. This was then signed by myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• REFUGIO LECHUYA.

Affidavit of the witness Jesus Maria Romero.

Immediately thereupon appeared Jesus Maria Romero, who, being duly sworn, stated that his name is as above given; he is twenty-three years of age, bachelor, day laborer; was born and resides in this canton. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being asked to state what he knows relating to the interrogatory, which was read to him, he said:

1. It is certain that he who was said to be Lieutenant Maus, who was several times together with the commander of the column, Santana Perez, and who made the treaty, was not detained one moment.

2. This man, a Mexican (interpreter), was several times with the wounded, as well as the other campaigners, but neither was he detained or imprisoned.

3. As already stated, neither of the two was detained, and on the divers occasions when they were in the Mexican camp they were treated with the greatest consideration.

4. Some campaigners recognized several beasts that had been stolen by the Apaches from the canton Degollado, and these were demanded of said lieutenant to carry the wounded; but instead of their being delivered, they were killed during the night, said lieutenant then giving for the purpose mentioned some mules which he said belonged to the American Army.

5. Yes, a demand was made upon Lieutenant Maus to present the documents that would prove him to be an officer of the Army of the United States, but he could not present any, stating that he did not carry them with him.

Being asked how he came to know the foregoing, he said that he was one of the campaigners that had the encounter at Teopar, and there he witnessed what he has related.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• REFUGIO LECHUYA.

Affidavit of the witness Herculano Coz.

On the 25th of the same month of April appeared Herculano Coz, who, being duly sworn, stated that his name is as above related; he is of age, bachelor, day laborer; was born and resides in this city. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being asked to relate minutely what he knows in relation to preceding interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. He learned that Lieutenant Maus was detained about half an hour, pending the delivery of some mules offered by him for carrying the wounded, in place of animals recognized by several campaigners having been stolen by the Apaches from Degollado, and which, when they were demanded of said lieutenant for carrying the wounded, were killed, the part of the skin showing the brand having been removed from several of them.

2. As said lieutenant did not speak Spanish, and was always accompanied by the interpreter, Concepcion Aguirre, the latter was also detained with him during the time mentioned in the foregoing answer.

3. That the time is already stated during which the detention lasted at the longest, and during it they were treated with all possible consideration.

4. He knew that said mules belonged to the United States, because the animals stolen by the Apaches, as already stated, were killed by the latter when a demand for them was made, Commander Santana Perez having succeeded only in obtaining some donkeys, which he left with the owners in the mining town Dolores, whence they had been stolen.

5. Yes, documents were demanded of said lieutenant to accredit him and the other Americans and Apaches as being a regular force of the United States; but as he could not show any, he wrote out a paper, which he handed to Commander Santana Perez, but of the contents of this the affiant knows nothing.

Being questioned as to the source of his knowledge as above set forth, he said that he was told what he has stated in answer to the first three questions, and that he was a witness to what is contained in the other two answers.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• REFUGIO LECHUYA.

Affidavit of the witness Ramon Chavarria.

Continuing, there appeared Ramon Chavarria in obedience to subpoena, who being duly sworn promised to speak the truth, and stated, that his name is Ramon Chavarria; he is thirty-six years of age, bachelor, miner, was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being questioned in accordance with the interrogatory, which was read to him, he said:

1. Lieutenant Maus was detained about half an hour, he having promised them some American animals for the transport of the wounded.

2. For the same period said interpreter was with Maus, because the latter could not speak Spanish; but no one detained him.

3. The first part of this question affiant has already answered; as for the second part, he remembers that Maus was treated with utmost civility; he only heard from others that Maus was detained, but saw no one guarding the latter, nor any demonstration to indicate that the latter was a prisoner, and the latter took his leave in a very friendly manner after delivering the mules for which he had sent to transport the wounded.

4. The animals stolen by the Indians were killed by the same and by the Americans accompanying them; for which reason Maus had to give some mules which he said belonged to the American army, and which none of the campaigners knew.

5. Commander Santana Perez requested of said lieutenant the papers to prove that he and the persons accompanying him formed part of the army of the United States; but the latter presented none, excusing himself by stating that they were with the packtrain in the rear; and although they remained together three days, he never did furnish the proof, only giving said Commander Perez a document attested by him.

Being questioned how he came to know the foregoing he stated that his statements are grounded in the fact that he was one of the participants in the occurrence at Teopar.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him he declared it correct and signed the same, together with myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• RAMON CHAVARRIA.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• REFUGIO LECHUYA.

Affidavit of the witness Felipe Ochoa.

On the 26th of the same month appeared Felipe Ochoa, who being duly sworn promised to speak the truths and stated that his name is as above given; he is thirty years of age, married, day laborer; was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being asked to state minutely what lie knows in relation to the interrogatory, which was read to him, he said:

1. That is true that Lieutenant Maus was detained for following reason: He had with him several of the animals stolen by the Apaches, and these were demanded of him; he promised to deliver them that the wounded might be transported upon them, but instead of fulfilling such promise they killed the animals during the night, removing from some of them the portion of the skin that contained the brands. For that reason the lieutenant offered to give some mules in good condition, and he was therefore detained until the arrival of said mules, because it was feared that, as the people accompanying him were about to go off, he would go without fulfilling his promise, breaking his word as he had done after promising to deliver the stolen animals for which a demand had been made.

2. This man was not detained but remained voluntarily in company of Maus, because, as that gentleman cannot speak Spanish, the man was always with him.

3. The detention lasted but some minutes; not a quarter of an hour had passed when the mules, which he who called himself lieutenant had ordered brought were delivered and he as well as the interpreter were treated with all manner of consideration, so that when they took their leave they did so in a friendly manner.

4. Affiant supposes that the mules delivered by Maus belonged to the United States, because no one there knew the animals.

5. Yes, a demand was made for him to prove the legality of the character which he claimed to represent, but he did not furnish the proof, stating that he did not carry with him the respective documents.

Being questioned as to how he came to know what he has stated, he said that his knowledge is founded on the facts related.

Foregoing statement having been read to him he declared it correct, but did not sign because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself, (the judge), and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• VIDAL P. y PALLARES.

Affidavit of the witness Jesus Campos.

On the same date appeared Jesus Campos to give his testimony, who, being duly sworn, promised to make truthful answer and relation, and stated that his name is as above written; he is thirty-three years of age, married, day laborer, was born at Jesus Maria, and resides at this place. He was thereupon informed of the penalties for false testimony as prescribed by the Penal Code in chapter 7, title 4, book 3. Being questioned in conformity with the interrogatory, which was read to him, he stated:

1. Lieutenant Maus having promised to give up several animals that had been stolen by the Apaches from canton Degollado, the Indians or the Americans killed the animal by reason of which said lieutenant delivered only some donkeys, that were returned to the owners of the same. He also promised to give them some mules for the transportation of their wounded, and he remained with the Mexican commander until the said mules were delivered.

2. If the foregoing may be called a “detention,” then the interpreter, Concepcion Aguirre, was also detained, as the latter always accompanied said lieutenant, who could not speak any Spanish.

3. It did not exceed half an hour, during which time, as on several other occasions when he had been with them, he was treated with all civility.

4. Affiant supposes that they were American (animals), as none of the campaigners knew them.

5. Although a demand was made upon said lieutenant for the documents to prove that he belonged to the Army of the United States, he only presented a bill or invoice of a Sonora merchant for goods for the people accompanying him, which did not specify whence they came.

Being questioned as to how he came to know what he has related, he replied that his knowledge is founded on the facts related, to which he was witness.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign because he cannot write. This was then signed by myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify

• RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• VIDAL P. y PALLARES.

Affidavit of the witness Fabian Martinez.

On the 26th of April, 1886, appeared Fabian Martinez, who being duly sworn, promised to speak the truth, and stated: That his name is as above given; he is thirty-five years of age, married, day laborer; was born in canton Rayon, and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties tor false testimony as prescribed in chapter 7, title 4, book 3, of the Penal Code. Being asked to state minutely what he knows in relation to the interrogatory, which was read to him, he replied:

1. Lieutenant Maus not having complied with his offer to turn over the animals that had been requested of him by Commander Santana Perez, but on the contrary they having been killed, he afterwards offered to give others in their place; and as it was feared that he might not fulfill his promise, he was detained till the delivery of said mules.

2. This man was not in any way detained. He only remained in company of Lieutenant Maus as his interpreter.

3. At the most, it was but half an hour during which said lieutenant was detained, and during this time he was treated with great consideration.

4. It is probable that they belonged to the Government of the United States, as they were not known to any of the campaigners.

5. A demand was made upon him for documents to prove that they belonged to the Army of the United States; but all the proof that he did present was a paper which he drew up himself and which he handed to Commander Santana Perez.

Affiant being asked how he came to know what he has stated, replied that he was eye-witness of the facts related.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but being unable to write he did not sign, as did I and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• VIDAL P. y PALLARES.

Affidavit of the witness Agapito Romero.

On the same date the undersigned judge and the witnesses went to the residence of Agapito Romero, who is sick, and who was duly sworn and promised to make truthful answer and relation. Affiant then stated his name to be as above; he is — years of age; bachelor; day-laborer; was born and resides at this place. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap. 7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being asked to state clearly what he knows in relation to foregoing interrogatory, which was read to him, he said:

1. It is true that Lieutenant Maus was detained, but not as a prisoner.

2. Said Aguirre was not detained; it is true he accompanied said lieutenant during the moments of Ms detention, because the latter could not speak Spanish, and was always accompanied by Aguirre in capacity of interpreter.

3. The detention did not last half an hour, because said lieutenant remained in absolute liberty so soon as he had delivered the mules which he had promised for the transportation of the wounded as a compensation for the Mexican animals that had been demanded of him and which he was under obligation to deliver, but which were killed during the night, with the exception of some donkeys that Commander Santana Perez was able to obtain.

4. The animals given by aforesaid lieutenant were, in affiant’s opinion, American, because all the stolen Mexican animals that had been demanded were, as already stated, killed, the part containing the brand having been cut off from many of them.

5. Although a demand was made upon him for the documents accrediting him to the military service of North America, he presented none, stating he did not carry them with him.

Being asked for the source of his knowlege, he replied that it was derived from the fact of his having been present at the occurrence; and he added that during the short detention of Maus the same was treated with all politeness.

Foregoing testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, but did not sign, because he cannot write. This was signed by myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• M. IRIGOYEN.
• VIDAL P. y PALLARES.

On the 2d of May, 1886, it was possible to obtain the presence in court of Santana Perez, and as the completion of these proceedings is urgent, he was, although on a holiday, duly sworn to make truthful answer and relation. The witness then stated, That his name is as above given; he is forty-five years of age, married, farmer, was born and resides in Canton Degollado. He was then informed of the penalties for false testimony, as prescribed in chap.7, title 4, book 3 of the Penal Code. Being questioned to state minutely what he knows in relation to preceding interrogatory, which was read to him, he said:

1. It is not true that said lieutenant was detained or a prisoner. The same was at various times in conference with affiant, both being the chief commanders of the forces which they respectively commanded; but he was not detained a single moment, and they were conversing in perfect harmony till the moment when the mules Upon which he carried his wounded were delivered. After that occasion they did not see each other again, as said lieutenant went to his camp, while affiant remained in his own camp, and both broke camp about twelve or fourteen hours after this last conference.

2. Neither was said interpreter detained as a prisoner; the only occurrence was as follows: Affiant and some others of his companions recognized several animals that had been stolen by the Apaches from Degollado; a demand for these was made upon Lieutenant Maus, who promised to deliver them, that the wounded might be transported upon them, for which purpose they were wanted; but far from delivering them, the animals were killed during the night by the other side, and the part of the skin containing the brand was removed. Thereupon said lieutenant bound himself to give some of their own animals; but as he was about to go off without doing so, affiant sent for Concepcion Aguirre, and requested him to tell the lieutenant not to be ungrateful and to give the promised animals. Mans was then called, and he ordered the mules referred to to be brought; after which they took leave of each other, as already stated, in a friendly manner, deferring the breaking of camp till the following day.

3. Already answered by foregoing.

4. Said mules were not part of those stolen at Temosachic; but neither did they belong to the United States Army, because they did not have the brand by which they generally mark their herds.

5. Yes; documents were demanded, and he promised to present them, by reason of which they lost three days waiting their arrival from Nacori, from which place he said he had ordered them brought; but they never did arrive, nor did he prove in any other manner that he and his people belonged to the North American Army. The only papers which he did give were those written with lead pencils upon leaves torn from his pocket-book, stating, in the first, that through a mistake the two columns had an encounter with each other; in. the second, that he would send to Nacori for the documents to prove that they were part of the United States Army; and in the third, taking leave of him (written from his own camp). Said papers are in the possession of the governor of the state, to whom personally affiant handed them. He remembers that the political chief of this place made a copy of the first paper.

Being asked to state how he came to know what he has stated, he answered that his knowledge was derived from his presence at the occurrence, where he was chief commander of the column that went out in pursuit of the savages by the direction of the governor of the State from this canton and Canton Degollado. Affiant added to his foregoing statements, that the presence of his column was already known on the day before the combat at Teopar, because he and his other companions knew that scouts were observing the column; they also took notice of the fact that the pasture had been burned at the place where they were surprised; they observed the parapets behind which they were posted; the request of Lieutenant Maus for a parley after his captain had been killed and when the Indians, jumping into the river with moccasins and all, abandoned the Americans who accompanied them; the total lack of display of any military insignia during the firing. Affiant states that after the combat said lieutenant put on a military jacket, but wore no cap or other device. Lastly, they observed the animals stolen from the mining-town Dolores, of which they were able to recover three donkeys that at said place were delivered to Melquiades Vargas, who owned two of them.

This testimony having been read to him, he declared it correct, and affixed his signature, together with myself and the court witnesses.

So we certify.

• RUBIO.
• SANTANA PEREZ.
• PEDRO DOMINGUEZ.
• M. IRIGOYEN.

On the same date these proceedings, consisting of nine folios manuscript, being concluded, they were delivered to the colonel of cavalry, Pedro Artalejo.

(Signed by rubric of Rubio.)

A true copy.

EDUARDO GARAY,
Chief Cleric.

Mexico, May 19, 1886.

1. In Spanish countries the custom survives, that officials, instead of signing their names to documents, may affix a certain flourish adopted by each to stand for his name, and which is called a “rubric,” the same being legally recognized as his signature. This custom originated centuries ago, when many of the authorities were unable to write.—F. C. Pratz, Translator.