Office of the Historian

Mr. Clayton to Mr. Hay.

Embassy of the United States,
Mexico, September 6, 1902.
No. 1567.]

Sir: Referring to the case of Nathaniel F. Bonsall and to my last dispatch upon the subject, No. 1413, of June 11, 1902, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a note and inclosure from the foreign office, with translations thereof, by which it will be seen that the suit for amparo brought by Bonsall against the sentence of the third circuit court of Mexico, which condemned him to eight months’ imprisonment for the offense of negligence, was decided against him by the supreme court of the nation.

As stated in my aforesaid dispatch, it appears that Bonsall has placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of Mexico by crossing into the United States.

I have, etc.,

Powell Clayton.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]

Mr. Marsical to Mr. Clayton.

Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico, August 31, 1902.

Mr. Ambassador: Referring to the note of the embassy of October 31, 1901, relating to the suit for amparo brought by Nathaniel F. Bonsall against a sentence of the third circuit court, I have the honor to transmit to your excellency herewith a copy of a note addressed to me by the said court in which it states that the supreme court of justice has denied the said amparo.

I renew, etc.,

Igno. Mariscal.
[Subinclosure.—Translation.]

Judge of third circuit court to the secretary of foreign affairs.

Third Circuit Court, Mexico.

The first district judge of this city, in a communication of the 22d instant, says to me as follows:

“In the suit for amparo brought by licentiates Eduardo Viñas and Rafael Icaza, attorneys of Nathaniel F. Bonsall, against the sentence of the third circuit court, under your worthy charge, which condemned the complainant to arrest for eight months for the offense of negligence, there is a final decision pronounced by the supreme court of the nation which in its decisory clause says:

“‘Mexico, May 15, 1902.

“‘Having examined—— —— for these considerations and based on articles 101 and 102 of the constitution, and 818, 819 and 828 of the Code of Federal Procedure, [Page 813] the decision under review is reversed and it is declared that the law of the union does not protect nor shelter Nathaniel F. Bonsall from the acts of which he complains.

“‘Let the proceedings be returned to the court in which they originated with certified copy of this decision, let it be published, and let the record be placed in the archives.

“‘Thus it was decided in full court by the president and ministers of the supreme tribunal of justice of the nation by seven votes against four, and they signed:

“‘Eduardo Castañeda,
“‘The President.

“Francisco Mz. de Arredondo,

“‘M. de Zamacona,

“‘Felix Romero,

“‘S. Moreno,

“‘Pudo. Dorantes,

“‘Macedo. Gomez,

“‘Eustaquio Buelna,

“‘M. Garcia Mendez,

“‘Andres Horcasitas,
“‘The Ministers.

“‘Arcadio Norma,
“‘Secretary.’

“of which I have the honor to duly inform you, returning the record transmitted to this court.

“Mexico, August 22, 1902.

“Juan P. de Leon.

“To the President of the Third Circuit Court, Present.”

As by virtue of the above superior final decision, by which the amparo is denied to the defendant, Nathaniel F. Bonsall, the sentence of this court of January 8 last, of which a certified copy was duly transmitted to the department, stands in full force and vigor. I have the honor to communicate the same to you for your information.

I renew, etc.,

M. Cervantes.

Mexico, August 27, 1902.