You will continue to remonstrate on all proper occasions against the
delay in discharging or bringing to trial Americans charged With
responsibility for such accidents, and you will lose no opportunity to
impress upon Mr. Mariscal the proposition that the preventive and
remedial objects of Mexican legislation in respect to railway accidents
would be no less well—and perhaps better—subserved by following the
general rule of law in that regard in other countries.
The policy of protecting the public against loss of life or physical
injury in railway travel, through the criminal negligence of railway
employees, is enforced by penal legislation in the United States, and we
should not, of course, indicate any opposition to that policy in Mexico,
although keeping on the alert to remonstrate against abusive procedure
thereunder. But, while not shifting criminal accountability from the
shoulders of the employee, the same laws hold the employing company
responsible in damages for injury to life, person, or property through
the acts of its agents. As the case now stands, it is not easy to see
how the family of a person killed or the owners of property destroyed in
such cases may be materially benefited by the prolonged imprisonment of
a mere railway subordinate while the sufferers remain without recourse
against the company. An equitable division of responsibility in such
matters would, it is thought, tend to the prevention of accidents and
remove, to a considerable extent, the causes of complaint we are so
often called upon to make in view of the needless and protracted
confinement of our citizens in Mexico, besides distinctly inuring to the
benefit of sufferers by such accidents.
A copy of the Department’s letter to the El Paso Chamber of Commerce,
informing that body of the substance of your report and stating the
action taken thereon, is herewith inclosed for your information.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Hay to
Chamber of Commerce, El
Paso.
Department of State,
Washington, July 16,
1901.
Sir: Referring to your letter of the 11th
of last April, communicating certain resolutions adopted by the
board of directors of the El Paso Chamber of Commerce on the 10th of
that month, concerning the character of Mexican judicial procedure
in respect to accidents occurring upon railway lines in Mexico, I
have the pleasure to inform you that the ambassador to Mexico, to
whom the matter was appropriately referred, has submitted to the
Department, under date of June 27, 1901, a full and comprehensive
report on the subject.
It appears from Mr. Clayton’s statements that the publications upon
the subject which from time to time appear in the press of this
country are greatly exaggerated. * * *
Following up the investigation, Mr. Clayton addressed letters to the
presidents of all of the railway companies operating roads in
Mexico, requesting to be informed of the number and nationality
(Mexican included) of all of their employees engaged in the movement
of trains, and to be furnished with a list giving the names and
nationality of each one who had been arrested and imprisoned during
the past year on charge of negligence, causing accidents,
endangering life or property. He had at the time of writing received
replies from the principal companies representing 7,365 miles of
road out of a total Mexican mileage of 7,912.
From these it appeared that out of a total of over 400 employees of
all national ties, 20 Mexicans, 32 Americans, and 1 of unknown
nationality have been arrested or imprisoned during the year. Most
of these appear to have been soon released on
[Page 412]
bond, or on the guarantee of the
company that the man should appear to answer a charge whenever
called upon. Others, upon trial, have been acquitted. So far as
these replies show, none of the men so arrested was convicted. In
some few instances prolonged delay and detention had followed
arrest. While nearly all companies disclaim all ground of complaint
touching the treatment of their employees by the Mexican judicial
authorities, their answers are not explicit as to the time of
detention, and the Sonora Bail way Company merely reports the names
of 17 employees (8 Americans, 8 Mexicans, and 1 unknown) who had
been imprisoned on account of railway accidents from June 1, 1900,
to June 1, 1901, a singularly large showing, it may be remarked, for
a road having only 268 miles in operation and but 62 men employed in
the actual movement of the trains. The eventual disposition of these
cases is not stated.
The embassy is accustomed to exert itself actively to secure the
prompt disposal of the cases of arrested American railway employees,
but not all such arrested are brought to its notice. During Mr.
Clayton’s incumbency of over four years, but 12 complaints of this
character have been under consideration.
They are as follows:
F. H. Anderson, engineer on the Sonora Railroad, charged in August,
1897, with running over and killing a Mexican; detained on his own
recognizance; discharged after hearing August 23, 1897.
J. N. Bradt and Jack Preston, conductor and engineer, respectively,
on the Mexican Southern Railroad, imprisoned April 1, 1897, charged
with the death of a fireman and the injury of three or four others;
sentenced January 3, 1898, to one year imprisonment.
E. Hohne and C. N. Gaines, conductor and engineer, respectively, on
the Inter-oceanic Railroad, imprisoned April 15, 1899, charged with
slightly injuring two or three persons in a collision; released May
8, 1899, on $800 bail; discharged November 24, 1899.
Edward Turner and G. S. Clark, engineers on the Mexican (Vera Cruz)
Railroad, imprisoned April 1, 1899, charged with negligence in
causing a needless collision that resulting in killing a fireman.
Turner died in prison January 28, 1900, before termination of his
case. Clark was convicted and sentenced to fourteen months’
imprisonment less the eight months spent by him in prison during his
trial; pardoned by President Diaz August 1, 1900.
Henry Pike, engineer on the Mexican Interoceanic Railroad, imprisoned
May 5, 1899, charged with causing a collision, resulting in no
personal harm, but damaging rolling stock; convicted and sentenced
August 4, 1899, to one year imprisonment from May 8, 1899.
T. W. Lewis, engineer on Mexican Central Railroad, imprisoned
September 25, 1900, charged with running over a Mexican; acquitted
December 8, 1900; discharged December 20, 1900.
Albert Trask, conductor on the Tehuantepec Railroad, imprisoned
November 9, 1900, charged with causing a collision, resulting in no
personal injury and causing but little damage to rolling stock;
acquitted and released February 9, 1901.
A. K. Jones, engineer on the El Oro and Mining Railroad, imprisoned
February 13, 1901, charged with causing a wreck, resulting in two
deaths and the injury of rolling stock; released May 11, 1901, on
$300 cash bond; case still pending.
L. L. Granville, brakeman on the Mexican National Railroad,
imprisoned March 18, 1901, for causing the death of a laborer by
running over him; trial of case still pending.
It appears from the foregoing statement that out of 12 Americans
arrested, 4 were convicted of the offense charged and were sentenced
to short terms of imprisonment, 5 were discharged, 2 cases are still
pending, and 1 man (Turner, whose case occasioned protracted
correspondence) died in jail after nearly nine months’ imprisonment
while still awaiting trial.
Although the period of detention of such arrested persons prior to
release on bail or discharge has in many instances been brief, there
remain enough cases of protracted imprisonment, especially when the
accused is held for trial, to warrant the repeated protests of this
Government against the delays of Mexican justice. In addition the
ambassador has strongly pointed out that the difference between
Mexican and American laws in respect to railway accidents works
hardship to the employees in Mexico, in that the agent, not the
principal, is held responsible.
As to this, the ambassador says: “The trouble seems to lie in the law
itself, more than in its execution. In a conversation with Mr.
Mariscal upon the subject he informed me that he did not know of a
single case, under Mexican law, where railway companies had been
held responsible for accidents; that the policy of their law seemed
to be to hold their employees responsible. I explained to him how,
in the United States, the opposite principle obtained, resulting in
the railway companies
[Page 413]
exercising the greatest care as to the efficiency and carefulness of
their employees engaged in the movement of trains; that I believed
if the same principle were adopted in Mexico the railway companies
would pursue the same policy, which would result in a higher class
of employees being employed, and less accidents.”
Mr. Clayton reports that Señor Mariscal has in mind the issuance of a
circular letter upon the subject to the different judicial officers
under whose jurisdiction such cases come, and that he will give the
matter his very careful attention, with the view of bringing about
the expedition of such cases and the prevention of just causes for
complaint.
I have instructed Mr. Clayton to continue to remonstrate upon all
proper occasions against the delay in discharging or bringing to
trial Americans charged with responsibility for accidents on Mexican
railway lines, and to lose no opportunity to impress upon Señor
Mariscal the proposition that the preventive and remedial objects of
Mexican legislation in respect to railway accidents would be no less
well, and perhaps better, subserved by following the general rule of
law in other countries. The policy of protecting the public against
loss of life or physical injury in railway travel through the
criminal negligence of railway employees is enforced by penal
legislation in the United States, and we should not, of course,
indicate any opposition to that policy in Mexico, although keeping
on the alert to remonstrate against abusive procedure thereunder.
But while not shifting criminal accountability from the shoulders of
the employees, the same laws hold the employing company responsible
in damages for injury to life, person, or property through the acts
of its agents. As the case now stands, it is not easy to see how the
family of a person killed or the owners of property destroyed in
such cases may be materially benefited by the prolonged imprisonment
of a mere railway subordinate, while the sufferers remain without
recourse against the company. An equitable division of
responsibility in such matters would, it is thought, tend to the
prevention of accidents and remove to a considerable degree the
causes of complaint we are so often called upon to make in view of
the needless and protracted confinement of our citizens in Mexico,
besides distinctly inuring to the benefit of sufferers by such
accidents.
Yours, etc.,
