You will observe that he has taken the matter under advisement, and promises
to furnish a reply, which will be forwarded to you as soon as received.
[Inclosure 1 in No. 308.]
Mr. Connery to Mr.
Mariscal.
Legation of the United States,
Mexico
,
February 13,
1888.
Sir: Under specific instructions, just received
from my Government, I have to pray your excellency’s special attention
to the claim of Mr. Howard C. Walker, a citizen of the United States,
against the Mexican Government for wrongful imprisonment and cruel and
unwarranted treatment by the Mexican officials at Minatitlan, State of
Vera Cruz, for a period covering nearly four years.
Though this case was in the year 1884 a subject of diplomatic
correspondence with your excellency’s Government, still I take the
liberty of recounting its history, in order to aid a sound judgment in
the matter.
By the inclosed memorial, duly supported as it is by official affidavits
and documents, your excellency will observe that Mr. Howard C. Walker, a
native of Charleston, S. C, has resided at Minatitlan since 1881, being
employed there as shipping clerk of Mr. R. H. Leech, a lumber merchant;
that on March 19, 1883, while thus employed, he was arrested by order of
Mr. Carlos Molina, judge of first instance at that port, on the charge
of stealing wood from one José R. Teran and shipping the same as the
property of Mr. Leech; that after four days’ imprisonment, during which
he was treated with much indignity, he was brought for a hearing before
Judge Molina; that he was not, however, admitted to bail, but was, after
the hearing, remanded to jail, where he was kept until the following
day, when a violent attack of hemorrhage of the lungs compelled his
removal to his own house; that there, during his illness and recovery,
he remained under guard for several months; that in November, 1883, his
case was called for trial before Mr. R. M. Sousa, and he was promptly
acquitted; that the case was appealed to the superior court of Vera
Cruz, from which, after three months’ delay, it was remanded for a new
trial; that Mr. Walker was thereupon again imprisoned on February 12,
1884, not being permitted to give bond, and confined for three months
and eleven days in one room, with fifty-five prisoners of the lowest
sort, in a jail which, from the description given of it by the claimant,
would seem to have been utterly unfit for human habitation; that he was
treated with marked insult, and at one time an attempt was made by
Mexican officials to have him shot; that his wife and friends, and even
the American consul, were denied access to him; that at length, on May
23,1884, his health having completely failed, he was released on $40,000
bail, although it is on record, according to a statement dated July 30,
1884, of Mr. J. D. Hoff, then United States consul at Vera Cruz, that
the property alleged to be stolen “is not worth more than $2,500 and
never was;” that, on March 20, 1885, Mr. Walker was again tried before
the court of first instance, Judge Rosaldo presiding, and again
acquitted. From this decision the prosecution again appealed, and, on
January 22, 1887, the supreme court of Vera Cruz rendered its final
decision, acquitting and vindicating Mr. Walker from all the charges
brought against him.
It thus appears that Mr. Walker was compelled to rest for nearly four
years under the stigma and charge of theft; that his trial was unduly
delayed; that, at the first, he was [Page 1138] not allowed to give bail; that while imprisoned
among the vilest criminals and with persons infected by contagious
diseases, he was also subjected not only to insult and ill-treatment,
but even to attempted assassination; that when, finally, released on
bail, he was required to give a most excessive bond, and that, by this
treatment, great mental and physical suffering was inflicted upon him,
to the extent that his health, previously so good, was then seriously
and, as he alleges, irreparably injured.
It further appears that Mr. Walker made direct efforts, through his
attorney, to obtain from your excellency’s Government pecuniary redress
for the injuries done to him, but without success.
Allow me to add that, in my humble judgment, the only bar which your
excellency’s Government seemed to advance in 1884 against this claim,
questionable as that bar would be at any time, namely, the fact that the
complainant had not been matriculated in your office as an American, can
not now obstruct the consideration of this ease, as he holds a
certificate of his nationality, issued October 25, 1886, No. 129.
I have purposely gone into the details of this matter, as my Government
is very much impressed with the gravity of the complaint, and desires to
express the conviction that the Government of Mexico will afford prompt
and adequate redress. Therefore, I would respectfully submit the case to
your excellency’s consideration, and would pray for a subsequent
conference to treat on the reparation to be given.
I take, etc.,