Señor Romero to Mr. Sherman.
Washington, November 15, 1897.
Mr. Secretary: I have had the honor to-day of receiving your communication No. 295 of the 13th instant, in which you tell me, in answer to the one I sent you the 28th of September, asking for the extradition of Jesus Guerra, accused of crimes committed in the assault at San Ignacio, Mexico, that according to the evidence presented in this case before the extradition commission at San Antonio, the Department has not found reason for granting the extradition; that said evidence shows that Guerra was a member of the expedition that perpetrated the assault at San Ignacio, but that it does not appear that Guerra took part as an author or accomplice in the commission [Page 500] of offenses against individuals, and consequently should not be considered responsible for offenses against individuals, and consequently should not be considered responsible for offenses in which it is not proven that he directly participated; and that since the said evidence shows that the assault was revolutionary in its origin and object, crimes committed by a member of the expedition are of a purely political nature, and in consequence exempted from extradition in conformity with the treaty between Mexico and the United States.
I can not refrain from expressing, Mr. Secretary, my regret at seeing that you have reversed the decisions given by your two predecessors in the high post that you occupy. Permit me to recall to you that the Hon. Walter Q. Gresham, Secretary of State of the United States, decided in a communication addressed to this legation on April 6, 1893, following the opinion of the then solicitor of the Department of State, that the assault at San Ignacio committed December 10, 1892, by a party of bandits organized in Texas to commit depredations against persons and property in Mexico was of a political character; but in view of the observations made to him in a communication of this legation dated April 7, 1893, and in a conference between us in the presence of the solicitor of the Department, he became convinced that the said assault was not of a character purely political, of a nature to warrant its exemption from extradition by the treaty of December 11, 1861, and revoked his decision in a letter of May 13, 1893. I think it proper to subjoin in the account given by the said Secretary of State in this letter, of the assault at San Ignacio, and of the reasons on which he relied in deciding that this assault was not of a purely political character:
Benavides was in charge of a party of bandits, numbering some one hundred and fifty, who, on December 10 last, passed over the Rio Grande from Texas into Mexico and assaulted a Mexican garrison of about forty men, stationed at San Ignacio, a ranch immediately on the Mexican border of the river. A number of the garrison were killed, a number wounded, and all the survivors made prisoners by the bandits. Benavides himself proposed that the prisoners be shot, but his purpose was frustrated, or at least not executed, and the members of the garrison who had been taken prisoners were released on the Mexican side of the river.
Several private citizens, noncombatants, were violently assaulted, but none were killed. All the horses of the garrison were taken by the bandits, and at least two belonging to private citizens. Several small sums of money were taken from women. The supplies and equipments of the garrison were also taken.
It further appears that the bandits in the course of the assault upon the garrison fired the barracks and also burned some buildings belonging to private parties.
The idea that these acts were perpetrated with bona fide political or revolutionary designs is negatived by the fact that immediately after their occurrence, though no superior armed force of the Mexican Government was in the vicinity to hinder their advance into the country the bandits withdrew with their booty across the river into Texas.
In view of this decision the Mexican consul at San Antonio, Tex., began proceedings for extradition, among other bandits who composed the company of Benavides, of Inez Ruiz, Jesus Guerra, and Juan Duque, and the commissioner, L. F. Price, decided that the evidence presented against these three prisoners was enough, according to the law, to consider them guilty of the said offenses, and declared that they should be retained in confinement awaiting the decision of the President of the United States. The accused then had recourse to habeas corpus before the Federal court of the western district of Texas, which granted it, giving as reason that the assault at San Ignacio was an offense of a political character. The Mexican [Page 501] consul at San Antonio, considering this decision unfounded, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decision of Judge Maxey, and that high tribunal, in a decision of March 16, 1896, revoked the decision of Judge Maxey, asserting that since Commissioner Price had had jurisdiction, recourse to habeas corpus could not be had, and that the offenses of which Inez Ruiz, Jesus Guerra, and Juan Duque were of a common order, and not of a purely political character. I think it proper to quote the following extracts from the decision of the Supreme Court:
The district judge entertained different views from those of the Secretary, and arrived at a different result from that reached by the commissioner on the evidence on which the latter proceeded, and so was induced to substitute his judgment for that of the commissioner, in whom was reposed the authority of decision unless jurisdiction was lacking.
Can it be said that the commissioner had no choice on the evidence but to hold, in view of the character of the foray, the mode of the attack, the persons killed or captured, and the kind of property taken or destroyed, that this was a movement in aid of a political revolt, an insurrection, or a civil war, and that acts which contained all the characteristics of crimes under the ordinary law were exempt from extradition because of the political intentions of those who committed them? In our opinion this inquiry must be answered in the negative.
The sentence of Judge Maxey having thus been revoked, the Mexican Government again asked, through a letter from this legation sent to the Department on the 18th of March, 1896, the extradition of Inez Ruiz, Jesus Guerra, and Juan Duque, and on receiving advices of the arrest of Ruiz and Duque the legation asked for their delivery in letters dated May 21 and July 2, 1896, respectively. The Hon. Richard Olney, Secretary of State of the United States, successor of Mr. Gresham, granted that of Inez Ruiz and Juan Duque, sending to this legation the orders for their delivery, with letters Nos. 137 and 138, of July 9, 1896. The delivery of Jesus Guerra was not insisted upon, because he had fled; but on receiving notice of his arrest I sent you the letter of September 28.
It appears from the above that your two predecessors as Secretary of State, and the Supreme Court of the United States, decided that the assault at San Ignacio was not an offense of purely political character. You now inform me that the evidence shows that the assault was revolutionary in its origin and purpose, and that consequently its character was purely political; and this decision, which is contrary to that expressed by your two predecessors and by the Supreme Court, reverses the decisions granted by them after mature consideration.
If the assault on San Ignacio was not of a purely political nature, as has been recognized by your predecessors and by the Supreme Court, the persons who took part in the same are responsible for the crimes committed, even if they did not personally commit them, inasmuch as the crimes were committed by the organization created by the assailant, and in virtue of the direct cooperation of all, although they may not personally have committed them. I therefore think it unnecessary to discuss the point of the direct participation which Guerra may have had in the commission of the crimes, since you have thought it best to revoke the decision of the Department in regard to the true character of the offenses.
Before closing I should recall to you that, as I have informed the Department, armed expeditions were organized for three years in Texas to attack the defenseless people of Mexico, with the object of assassinating and robbing individuals and of exercising personal vengeance, the chief incitement of such expeditions being the immunity [Page 502] which the said bandits enjoy in the United States, and that from the time that the authors were delivered to the Mexican Government to be tried for actions committed in Mexican territory the expeditions ceased.
It is also a fact that the persons delivered to Mexico by the United States Government have been tried with all impartiality by Mexican tribunals, and that in no case has the most severe punishment been decreed.
I beg, etc.,