Mr. Clayton to Mr. Hay.

No. 1215.]

Sir: I have the honor to report that on the 2d instant in an interview with Minister Mariscal, I adverted to the controversy between the two Governments growing out of the claim of the Roman Catholic Church of California, known as the “Pious Fund,” and the manner of settling said controversy. After some discussion it was agreed that the matter should be submitted to arbitration. Mr. Mariscal suggested that the question could be submitted either to The Hague Tribunal or to a tribunal created by the International Conference of American States now in session at this capital, should one be created, and I suggested that in case neither should be acceptable to both parties, the two Governments might agree upon a special board or tribunal for the purpose, to which he assented. In view of the nonexistence of the second tribunal referred to, we finally agreed to leave the selection of the tribunal open to future consideration.

On the following day, in order that there might be no misunderstanding between us as to the questions and evidence to be submitted to such tribunal when selected or created, I addressed a note to Mr. Mariscal, copy inclosed, stating my understanding of the results of our conversation of the previous day and embodying in it the exact language of your instruction No. 543, of July 18, 1901. I have the honor to inclose a copy and translation of the minister’s reply, dated the 6th instant, from which it will be observed that my understanding of said conversation, as expressed in my note, is accepted by him as “exact.”

I await the further instruction of the Department regarding the question of the arbitral tribunal, and after receiving the same I shall endeavor to come to a definite understanding with the minister upon that subject, as well as to the form of the agreement, which, when agreed upon, I will promptly submit to the Department for approval.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

Powell Clayton.
[Page 779]
[Inclosure 1.]

Mr. Clayton to Mr. Mariscal.

Mr. Minister: Referring to our conversation of yesterday concerning the manner of settlement of the controversy between our two Governments growing out of the claim of the Roman Catholic Church of California, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, I desire to say that I accepted your excellency’s proposition that the claim should be settled by arbitration, with the understanding that all the evidence, proceedings, record, and decision in the former case shall be laid before the new tribunal, which shall be empowered and required to decide on the questions:

1.
Is this claim, as a consequence of the former decision, within the governing principle of res adjudicata?
2.
If not, is this claim just? and to render such further judgment or award as may be meet and proper under all the circumstances of the case.

The agreement for submission to arbitration should also stipulate that either Government, on its own motion or on the motion of counsel for claimant, shall produce any further evidence within its possession or control which may be seasonably called for, and the agreement should give to the tribunal the power to adopt such procedure as may be necessary to attain all the ends of justice.

My understanding of our conversation also is that the question as to the formation and composition of the contemplated tribunal shall be left open for future consideration.

I respectfully request, at your excellency’s early convenience, that I may be informed whether the foregoing is in accordance with your excellency’s understanding.

I have the honor to renew to your excellency the assurance of my high consideration.

Powell Clayton.
[Inclosure 2.]

Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Clayton.

Mr. Ambassador: I had the honor to receive the note, dated yesterday, in which, referring to our conversation on the day before, relating to the controversy between the two Governments in the matter of the claim of the Roman Catholic Church of California, and to the end that there may be no misunderstanding, your excellency is pleased to accept my proposition that the matter be settled by arbitration, with the understanding that the evidence, proceedings, antecedents, and decision in the former case be placed at the disposition of the new tribunal, which shall be empowered to decide and which ought to decide the following questions:

1.
Is this claim, as a consequence of the former decision, governed by the principle of res judicata?
2.
And if not, is this claim just? and to render such further judgment or award as may be meet and proper under all the circumstances of the case.

Your excellency adds that in the agreement to submit the matter to arbitration it should be stipulated that either Government, on its own motion or on the motion of counsel for claimant, shall produce any evidence in its possession or control which may be seasonably called for, and that the agreement should give to the tribunal power to adopt such procedure as may be necessary to attain the ends of justice.

Your excellency also understands that the question of the form and composition of the proposed tribunal shall be left open for future consideration.

It gives me pleasure to say to your excellency that the understanding expressed in your excellency’s esteemed note is exact.

I renew, etc.,

Igno. Mariscal.