Mr. Hay to Mr. Clayton.

No. 540.]

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 998, of the 27th ultimo, containing a very exhaustive report on the arrest and imprisonment in Mexico of American citizens employed on Mexican railroads for criminal negligence in causing accidents to the trains in their charge.

[Page 411]

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.

I am, etc.,

John Hay.
[Inclosure.]

Mr. Hay to Chamber of Commerce, El Paso.

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.,

John Hay.