Mr. Clayton to Mr.
Hay.
Embassy
of the United States of America,
Mexico, December 16,
1901.
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,
[Page 779]
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Clayton to
Mr. Mariscal.
Embassy of the United States,
Mexico, December 3, 1901.
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.
[Inclosure 2.]
Mr. Mariscal to
Mr. Clayton.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico, December 6, 1901.
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.,
