Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, United States vs. Mexico, In the matter of the case of the Pious Fund of the Californias, Appendix II

deuxième séance.

15 septembre 1902 (après-midi).

L’audience est reprise à 2¼ heures de l’après-midi, sous la présidence deM. Matzen.

M. le Président. Je donne la parole d’abord à M. le Secrétaireé-Général, pour faire lecture des communications qui ont été adressées au Tribunal d’Arbitrage, par l’intermédiaire du Secrétaire-Général de la Cour Permanente.

M. le Secrétaire-Général. Voici la liste des communications reçues:

1°. Déposition notariée du 24 juillet 1902 de l’archevêque de San Francisco;

2°. Catholic Register de 1902;

3°. Annexe de la Réponse du Mexique “Pleito de Rada;”

4°. Deux copies certifiées conformes du compte-rendu en la cause de Alemany et al. vs. le Mexique, dans lesquelles setrouvent reliées: des copies certifiées conformes de la correspondance diplomatique entre les Hautes Parties, concernant l’affaire soumise au Tribunal, ainsi que le Memorandum de l’Amérique se rapportant à cette affaire et l’original du compte-rendu susmentionné;

5°. Deux enveloppes scellées, concernant les nominations de l’archevêque de San Francisco: Mgr. Riordan, et de l’évêque de Monterey; Mgr. George Montgomery;

6°. Lettre de l’agent du Mexique du 3 septembre 1902 avec une traduction anglaise de la réponse de Mexique du 6 août 1902 aux demandes Américaines.

7°. Lettre de l’agent d’Amérique du 3 septembre 1902 concernant la communication à l’agent du Mexique du volume contenant le compterendu en la cause Alemany et al. v. le Mexique;

8°. Lettre de l’agent d’Amérique du 4 septembre 1902 au sujet du discours à prononcer par M. le sénateur Stewart.

Communication addressée à M. Pardo à ce sujet.

9°. Des extraits assermentés de publications se rapportant à l’affaire soumise au Tribunal;

10°. Sept extraits assermentés de l’ouvrage intitulé “Noticias de la Provincia de Californias,” etc.

11°. Deux copies certifiées conformes du traité de Washington;

12°. Une copie certifiée conforme du document intitulé “Testimonio de la escritura de venta,” etc.;

13°. Une lettre de l’agent d’Amérique du 12 septembre 1902 faisant part d’une communication faite par lui le 12 septembre à S. E. M. Pardo, pour lui faire savoir que les documents déposés au Secrétariat-Général par Mr. Ralston peuvent étre consultés par l’agent du Mexique;

14°. Une lettre de l’agent d’Amérique du 13 septembre 1902 notifiant qu’il sera assisté en qualité de conseils par M. le juge William Lawrence Penfield, M. le sénateur W. M. Stewart, M. le Chevalier Descamps, sénateur du Royaume de Belgique, Secrétaire-Général de l’Institut du droit international d’Arbitrage; Mr. Charles J. Kappler, Mr. W. T. S. Doyle, Mr. Garret W. McEnerney.

15°. Une lettre du Ministre d’Amérique du 12 septembre 1902 pour transmettre au Tribunal deux enveloppes scellées contenant la déposition de Mr. John T. Doyle et les pièces justificatives dans l’affaire soumise au Tribunal;

16°. Une lettre du S. G. du 13 septembre 1902 au Tribunal portant à sa connaissance que Son Excellence Mr. Emilio Pardo qui sera assisté de Son Excellence Mr. Beernaert en qualité de conseil, a été nommé agent des Etats-Unis mexicains;

17°. Une lettre du chargé d’affaires d’Amérique communiquant que M. Jackson H. Ralston, qui sera assiste de M. William Lawrence Penfield en qualité de conseil, a été nommé agent des Etats-Unis d’Amérique.

M. le Président. Maintenant je demande aux Parties si elles ont encore des actes ou des documents à nous communiquer.

M. Delacroix. En l’absence de M. Pardo, qui va arriver, j’ai Phonneur de vous faire savoir que le Mexique a en effet encore des documents qui lui sont annoncés, qui devront être déposés et quin’ont pas été communiqués plutôt à raison de certaines circonstances qui seront exposées et qui expliquent le retard. Cependant, s’il convient au Tribunal d’entendre des plaidoiries, sous réserve de notre droit de déposer certains documents dès qu’ils nous parviendront, nous serions à la disposition du Tribunal.

Mr. Ralston. If I might speak in English upon that subject, we have made certain demands for discovery upon Mexico. Some of these demands have been met. The protocol, you will recall, permits one party to demand certain information from the other. The demands which have been made relate simply to the correctness of certain documents which are contained in the volume which you have before you, and I am correct in saying that while the Mexican Government has made certain corrections in the Spanish referred to, yet the English translation of those in question contained in the document is in substance correct.

We have also demanded from Mexico the production of a document known as the Escritura de Venta, in other words, the deed (in English) of a hacienda, or place, ranch, known as Cienega del Pastor. That discovery has been made by Mexico, and a copy of the deed has been placed in the hands of the secretary General, and in a moment I will furnish this tribunal with a translateafcopy.

Mexico has made certain demands upon us. We nave telegraphed to Washington and to San Francisca for suitable responses to those demands. We expect them to arrive almost daily. They will certainly, I think, reach here before Monday, but there will be nothing contained in them, I am satisfied, which will in any way interfere with the case proceeding immediately. I should add that we are ready to submit certain documents, arguments, and other papers which I think fully state our case, aside perhaps from the discoveries of which I have spoken. We are ready now to submit them in writing, and I will place them before the court and in a word explain exactly for what purpose they are placed before the court, with your permission.

Our memorial, which is in substance the claim of the United States, has already been filed with the secretary-general as a part of the volume before you. At the end of the volume is a copy in English of our memorial. The answer of Mexico, I understand, has not yet been filed.

M. Pardo. Elle doit être avec le dossier envoyé par le département d’Etat des Etats-Unis.

Mr. Ralston. Certainement non.

M. Pardo. D’après le protocole, cette réponse devait être déposée par le Département des Etats-Unis.

Mr. Ralston. J’ai des copies en espagnol, mais cela ne vaut rien je pense devant ce Tribunal.

However, I have been able to place before the gentlemen of this tribunal an English copy of the Mexican answer—a translation. I have presumed that Mexico would file here its own pleadings, therefore I have not filed a Spanish copy. I want to say, and I should explain to Mr. Pardo, that I am about to place before the tribunal again a copy of the English translation. Some little inaccuracies were noted in the translation submitted to Mr. Pardo. Some little corrections have been made in the English turns of expression. The translation, in other words, is, I think, a little better. We have adhered with as great fidelity as has been possible to the Spanish original; but I have thought it proper to call Mr. Pardo’s attention at this moment that, word for word, the translation which will now be submitted is not identical with the translation already submitted, while I do not believe there is any departure of any possible moment. I think it is simply perfected, not changed.

With this explanation, I desire to submit to this honorable court, first, what I have taken the liberty of terming, in accordance with the law to which I am accustomed, a replication; that is to say, en Francais, “réplique,” to the answer—to the response—of Mexico to our memorial. I have discussed the points which have been raised by Mexico in her answer, and I have undertaken to answer them. To this réplique I have added, as exhibits, certain documents. The first is the English translation of the answer of Mexico, with footnotes in the way of corrections, which it seemed to me proper to make. There were various manifest errors which crept into the answer of Mexico, mistranslations perhaps in some cases of the documents referred to, references to wrong pages, and to matters of that sort which the court will find corrected in the footnotes of the document about to be submitted. I have added a further exhibit, which is entitled “Résumé of litigation relating to the de Rada property,” referred to in the answer of Mexico. The secretary-general has placed before the court the volume entitled “Pleito de Rada,” which is entirely in Spanish, and I might say, very ancient Spanish; but we have undertaken at considerable toil to extract the substance of that volume, I think correctly, and we have added a statement in Exhibit B of the effect of that volume, and copied entirely the decree upon which Mexico relies, and which is found at its end, giving an English translation parallel with the Spanish.

We have also added as Exhibit C a statement taken from a work of authorhyy, tending to show the amount of the Indian populations of Lower California. You gentlemen, and honorable members of the court, will understand the difference between Lower and Upper California, as it will be termed in the discussions; Lower California being a peninsula, as will be pointed out, and Upper California, or as we say simply California, now being a part of the United States. We have concluded the exhibits with a copy in Spanish, with parallel English translation, of the document of which I have already spoken, the Escritura de Venta, the deed of a property formerly belonging to the Pious Fund of Mexico, and of which we asked discovery from Mexico. That discovery was given, and, as I take the liberty of saying, the document so discovered, has been translated and is added as an exhibit to our replication. In addition, I desire to present at this time for the convenience of this court, and I trust for the convenience of Mr. Pardo as well, and ourselves, a translation of the law of Mexico relating to the Pious Fund, the matter out of which the present dispute arises. In some of the briefs and memoirs which will be submitted, this honorable court will find references to various laws, but the translation was made many years ago, and in one or two instances, in our judgment, not made with sufficient care, and we should much prefer, and I believe on examination Mr. Padro, the agent of Mexico, will agree with me, that the translation of these laws, which is now submitted, is much more carefully and accurately done.

I shall also desire to submit a statement and brief of the counsel and agent of the United States. I may say that this is designed to embrace practically all of the points, which we believe will call for the consideration of this court, and while its length may alarm you, I trust that it may, nevertheless, prove somewhat useful.

At the same time, in submitting all of our papers to this honorable court and to the inspection of our friends upon the other side, I desire to add a brief, which has been prepared by Senator Stewart and Mr. Kappler on behalf of the United States, and also a similar brief prepared by Messrs. Doyle and Doyle, the senior of these gentlemen having been connected with the litigation, of which this is an outgrowth, from its very commencement. (I shall at this moment take the liberty of asking the secretary to hand to the court several of these documents.)

M. le Prséident. Est-ce que l’un des délégués a encore des documents à produire?

M. Emilo Pardo. Avec la permission de la Cour. Quand nous sommes venus ici pour la première fois, je me suis addressé officiellement à Mr. Ralston pour lui proposer de demander au Tribunal ou à son Secrétariat-Général la permission de nous renseigner sur le dossier qui avait été envoyé par le Département des Etats-Unis. J’ai renouvelé cette démarche auprès de Mr. Ralston; mais peutêtre à cause de ce que les correspondances respectives étaient écrites en espagnol il ne m’a pas bien compris, et au lieu de répondre à ma démande de faire une démarche collective pour permettre aux Parties et aux conseils de voir les dossiers, il m’a répondu en m’envoyant le volume imprimé que Messieurs les Arbitres connaissent. Ce n’est qu’au dernier moment, c’est à dire hier, que nous avons pu nous expliquer devant l’honorable Président du Tribunal, et que Mr. Ralston a manifesté son bon vouloir de nous permettre de nous renseigner sur le dossier. Il est bien vrai qu’on nous a dit que dans le volume imprimé qui se trouve entre les mains de Messieurs les Arbitres, et dont Mr. Ralston a bien voulu nous envoyer des exemplaires, se trouve tout le dossier, c’est-à-dire toutes les pièces qui ont été présentées à la commission mixteqai a siégé à Washington, les allégations des Parties, la correspondance diplomatique échangée entre les deux Gouvernements, et même une annexe qui contenait les divers traités qui sont pertinents dans l espèce; mais je viens d’apprendre de la bouche de M. Ralston que la réponse du Gouvernement Mexicain ne se trouve pas dans le dossier. Cependant dans le protocole du 22 mai dernier se trouve le passage suivant que je veux tâcher de traduire en français:

• Art. 5. Tout témoignage oral qui ne se trouve pas dans les archives du premier arbitrage pourra être déposé par l’une ou l’autre des Parties, pourvu que le témoignage soit rédigé par écrit, qu’il soit signé par le temoin et légalisé par le fonctionnaire devant lequel il aura été rendu. Il devra être dirigé vers le Tribunal étant scellé. Il sera confié au Département des affaires étrangères du Mexique pour qu’il soit remis au Tribunal qui est établi quand eelui-ci sera réuni.
• Art. 7. Dans le délai de 40 jours après la deposition du mémorial, l’agent ou l’avocat du Mexique fera part à son Département de la même façon avec les monies références, de ses allégations et arguments pur réfuter à la réclamation.

Ainsi done, e’est le Département d’Etat des Etats-Unis qui est chargé de présenter à la Cour le dossier des réclamations; ce dossier comprend l’ancienne instruction faite devant la commission mixte et. la réponse du Gouvernement mexicain, parcequ’elle a été communiquée au Département des Etats-Unis.

Je viens done d’apprende de la bouche de Mr. Ralston que cette réponse ne se trouve pas dans le dossier. Alors nous avons de quoi nous étonner, et e’est pourquoi j’ai insisté tant sur la prétention de connaître le dossier, d’être en mesure de nous renseigner sur les pièces qu’il renferme.

Si cette réponse ne se trouve pas dans le dossier, le Tribunal sera forcé de nous admettre à la présenter; cette réponse est d’ailleurs déjà traduite en français; le Tribunal en effet ne peut pas juger l’espèce actuelle sans connaître la réponse du Gouvernement Mexicain.

Nous avons entendu que, d’après diverses clauses du protocole, même après cette espèce d’instruction préalable, l’agent des Etats-Unis du Mexique avait le droit de présenter de nouveaux arguments, de nouvelles défenses ou exceptions à la demande, et tous les documents ou pièces qu’il jugerait convenable. Ainsi done le Gouvernement mexicain par mon conduit s’est réservé expressément le droit de présenter ses pièces, et il les présentera sans délai, c’est-à-dire à la prochaine audience.

Il y avait un point sur lequel la difficulté était un peu plus grander e’est au sujet du livre imprimé dont MM. les agents américains connaissent le texte et qui fut annexé à la réponse du Gouvernement mexicain. Cependant on dit que cette réponse ne se trouve pas dans le dossier, alors que cependant le livre s’y trouve à ce qu’il paraît! Nous étions forcés de faire les démarches nécessaires pour obtenir l’authenticité de ces documents, notamment de la partie qui contient la décision rendue dans le procès entame entre les héritiers de la principale donatrice des biens qui constituent le Fonds pieux de la Californie. Sur ce sujet, heureusement, M. Ralston et moi nous sommes d’accord, et cette question peut être considérée comme écartée. Nous pouvons admettre—je prie Monsieur l’agent des Etats-Unis de prendre note de mes paroles—nous pouvons admettre comme prouvé et établi le jugement prononce dans le procès dont je viens de parler et qui se trouve a la fin du volume imprimé presénté avec la réponse du Gouvernement Mexicain.

Quant aux exhibitions qui viennent d’être faites par l’agent des Etats-Unis, le Tribunal ne peut pas s’étonner si nous nous réservons le droit de voir tout cela, le droit de voir quelles sont ces pièces, quelle est leur opportunité dans ce procès, et le droit aussi de présenter des preuves à l’encontre des documents et des pieces produits par le Gouvernement de Etats-Unis.

Enfin je crois que notre conseil, M. Delacroix, a déjà dit au Tribunal que nous étions tout à fait disposés à ce que la plaidoirie d’un des avocats américains soit entendue tout de suite, sous réserve, d’après les termes exprès du protocole, de produire les documents qui font partie intégrale de la réponse du Gouvernement mexicain, parce que autrement le procès serait jugé sans preuves, et le Gouvernment mexicain se trouverait dans une situation tout-à-fait pénible parcequ’il serait jugé vraiment sans être entendu.

Je renouvelle done la réserve de droits qui vient d’être faite par M. Delacroix, et je prie le Tribunal de vouloir bien prendre note de ces réserves, sous la réserve de présenter des documents à la prochaine audience.

M. Delacroix. Ou plutôt à une des prochaines audiences: il y a des documents qui ne sont pas encore reçus.

M. Pardo. C’est toujours compris dans les termes du protocole.

M. le Président. Alors après-demain nous aurons la réponse du Gouvernement Mexicain?

M. Pardo. Je denlande la permission au Tribunal de mous permettre de connaître le dossier pour savoir si la réponse du Gouvernement mexicain s’y trouve ou non; parce que c’est une découverte tout-à-fait extraordinaire que nous venons de faire, à savoir quele Gouvernement américain chargé de présenter un dossier n’a pas voulu consigner la réponse du Gouvernement mexicain!

M. Beernaert. Je n’ai demandé la parole que pour appuyer ce que vient de dire M. Pardo. Nous sommes dans une situation assez extraordinaire; il a été entendu et stipulé que le dossier commun serait déposé à Washington; il semble que rien n’etait plus naturel que de nous mettre à même de vérifier ce dossier; or c’est en vain que M. Pardo d’un côté et M. Delacroix envoyé par moi a La Haye pour cela, ont demande a prendre connaissance de ce dossier.

Il est done indispensable que le dossier soit mis à notre disposition et puisse être vérifié. C’est une besogne à laquelle nous pourrons nous mettre dès demain, mais il est indispensable qu’elle soit faite. C’est une réserve à ajouter à celles qui viennent d’être exprimées.

Mr. Ralston. I wish to confirm what has been said by the agent of the Mexican Government upon the question of the authenticity of the Pleito de Rada, the printed document presented by Mexico. We cheerfully admit that it is an authentic copy of the proceedings of which it purports to be a copy. There is no question between us. I think there are perhaps some misunderstandings of no great moment, if I have carefully followed the address of the agent, and which may be speedily explained. The provisions erf the protocol say, on page 50, section 3:

All pleadings, testimony, proofs, arguments of counsel, and findings or awards of commissioners or umpire, filed before or arrived at by the mixed commission above referred to, are to be placed in evidence before the court hereinbefore provided for, together with all correspondence between the two countries relating to the subjectmatter involved in this arbitration, originals or copies thereof duly certified by the Department of State of the high contracting parties being presented to said new tribunal.

Reference to that paragraph will show, I think, to the court that it has no regard whatever to the proceedings before the present tribunal, but refers entirely to everything which happened be’fore the tribunal of some thirty years ago. All of the proceedings before that tribunal, absolutely everything, is to be found in the printed volume at the disposal of this honorable court, and which has been filed here now some two weeks, and there have also been deposited with this court two copies of that same record duly certified, as provided by this article. More than that the United States was not obliged to do in that respect. We have filed at the same time our original memorial, and according to the practice with which we have any familiarity, it is the duty of the defendant to file his own answer to the complaint which is made by the complainant (le demandeur). However, if the agent of Mexico so desires, and if I catch his point correctly, there is no possible objection on the part of the United States to file with the secretary-general of this court a copy of the Mexican answer in Spanish. We certainly want to have no delay, because on our part we have misapprehended our duty, although to our mind the view taken by the agent of Mexico is extraordinary. There has been some correspondence between the agent of Mexico and myself relative to what is termed in Spanish the “expediente,” a word with which we are not familiar in English, and these technical words always present some difficulty of translation. We understood the “expediente” to relate to all the papers in the old case. They are filed here and are before this court in the printed volume.

Sir Edward Fry. I would like to put a question. Do you propose to file a replication; that is to say, a reply to the Mexican answer? It appears to me that if you refer to the compromis, that provides for two pleadings. By the language of Section VI, the United States, through their agent or counsel, shall prepare and furnish to the Department of State aforesaid a memorial in print of the origin and amount of their claim, and Section VII provides for the delivery by Mexico of its memorial or statement of the case, but it makes no provision for a replication by the United States to the pleadings of Mexico. It seems to me if we allow that we must allow a reply by Mexico, and we would go on ad infinitum.

Mr. Ralston. That perhaps is correct. There is no express provision in the protocol.

Sir Edward Fry. There is not.

Mr. Ralston. It is quite possible, but perhaps I have in mind the usual practice in our cases at law.

Sir Edward Fry. This is the code [referring to the protocol].

Mr. Ralston. I submit to that.

M. Asser. Monsieur le Président; je voudrais m’associer a l’observation de mon honorable collègue, et je me permettrais d’ajouter ceci: M. l’agent et les conseils des Etats-Unis du Mexique ont entendu ce qui vient d’être dit; d’après le compromis il n’y a que deux mémoires, un mémoire du demandeur et un mémoire du défendeur; maintenant, nous trouvons dans les documents qui viennent de nous être produits un deuxième mémoire du demandeur. La question est de savoir si le défendeur permet que ce deuxième mémoire reste au dossier, ce que j’espère on permettra, mais si dans ce cas on ne demandera pas aussi d’avoir l’autorisation de répondre par un mémoire.

M. Beernaert. Cela est évident. Nous ne faisons pas objection à ce qu’on produise une seconde fois les documents de l’adversaire, mais à la condition d’y pouvoir répondre.

M. Ralston. C’est chose entendue.

With the permission of Mexico, if I correctly understand, we may present this replication. I have your permission?

M. Pardo. Nous sommes d’accord d’avoir l’occasion de connaître ce mémoire.

M. Beernaert. Nous y répondrons d’une manière complète lorsque nous aurons été à même de prendre connaissance du dossier, que nous n’avons pas encore vu.

M. le Président. Est-ce que l’agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains admet de faire le Statement des Etats-Unis d’Amérique?

M. Beernaert. En effet, mais sous la condition expresse, à laquelle adhère le représentant des Etats-Unis, que de même qu’il a eu le droit de faire une réplique nous avons le droit de faire une réponse.

Sir Edward Fry. Ecrite?

M. Beernaert. Bien entendu.

M. le Président. Nous sommes d’accord que c’est admis sous réserve d’y répondre par écrit.

Mr. Ralston. May it please your honors, if it is understood, and I suppose it will be, that the filing of this replication, so called by us, does not involve any unusual delay to the case, I will cheerfully agree to the reservation made by the agent of Mexico. Otherwise it seems to me to be simply this: That we would change the title of “replication” to that of “argument,” and submit an additional argument at this moment; so I think that we may assume that the agent of Mexico will have as much time to reply to this as to anything else, no more, no less. We have wished to place our case fully before the court, absolutely to put the court in possession of everything which might be of any assistance to it in reaching a just conclusion, and it is for that reason that we have thought it convenient at this moment to put our additional considerations upon the answer of Mexico in the form of a replication. If the name be objectionable, we will change it to an argument.

M. de Martens. Je crois, si j’ai bien compris, qu’il n’y a pas de malentendu sur le fond de la question. Tout le monde est d’accord que d’après le protocole de Washington il n’y a qu’un mémorial et une réplique écrite; maintenant, si une des parties présente au Tribunal encore une réplique ou un mémoire—* * *

M. Beernaert. C’est fait.

M. de Martens. Sans doute alors l’autre partie a le droit de donner sa réplique; seulement je ne vois aucune nécessité que la réplique soit écrite.

M. Beernaert. Si, elle sera écrite: nous y tenons.

M. de Martens. Je crois que dans ce cas l’autre partie a le droit de faire d’autres réponses devant le Tribunal et de réfuter ce que l’autre partie a dit oralement ou par écrit.

M. Beernaert. Nous répondrons par écrit: il est préférable que la même forme soit toujours observée.

M. Descamps. Il est entendu qu’en ce qui concerne les plaidoiries qui auront lieu ultérieurement, si celui qui a plaidé désire remettre une conclusion écrite de ce qu’il aura dit il pourra le faire?

M. Beernaert. Parfaitement.

M. Descamps. Sous ce rapport je ne comprends pas bien la situation qui nous est faite. Les Etats-Unis ont déposé autant de pièces qu’ils ont pu en déposer; d’autre part il n’y en a pas d’autres.

M. Beernaert. Il y a eu une mission commune.

M. Descamps. Nous avons fourni à nos adversaires un très grand nombre de documents; évidemment cela présente une très grande importance; ils pourront y répondre; seulement il doit être bien entendu qu’en ce qui concerne les plaidoiries qui auront lieu on pourra remettre sous forme de conclusions les éléments essentiels permettant au Tribunal de se rendre un compte absolu et par écrit de l’opinion du défenseur.

M. Beernaert. Nous sommes tout à faint d’accord.

Mr. Ralston. I suppose that the answer to the replication, if we may be permitted so to term it, will come within ample time, within the thirty days, and that the presentation of the replication will not be a cause for delay beyond that time; otherwise I will withdraw the title at any rate.

M. Pardo. Je dois appeler l’attention du Tribunal sur le point que l’agent des Etats-Unis a eu l’occasion de connaître la reponse du Gouvernement mexicain depuis le 12 du mois dernier, c’est-à-dire qu’il a eu tout le temps nécessaire pour préparer la réplique que l’on vient de nous distribuer. Nous sommes d’accord sur la necessité de faire marcher la procédure pour finir le plus tôt possible, mais je crois qu’il est d’équité, de justice, de nous permettre de disposer au moins du temps nécessaire pour nous renseigner sur ce mémoire. Pour le dire en très peu de mots, l’agent du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis mexicains est tout-à-fait d’accord que tous les documents, toutes les pieces, toutes les argumentations qui seront présentés des deux côtés, soient mis a la disposition du Tribunal, parceque le but que poursuit le Gouvernement mexicain est que cette question soit résolue en pleine connaissance de cause. Tous les documents de nature à éclairer la religion de la Cour doivent done être admis. Le gouvernement Mexicain ne s’y oppose pas du tout, mais il demande, car e’est la justice et l’equite, d’avoir les mêmes droits que ceux qui ont été exercés par l’agent des Etats-Unis.

Mr. Ralston. I wish to add one word with reference to the testimony. There are in the volume submitted to you certain extracts from Spanish works, commencing about page 187 or 189, and running to page 221. The translations into English of these Spanish works were not made before the old tribunal. We have caused them to be prepared for the use of this tribunal, and with your permission, and under such reservations as the agent of Mexico may agree to make with regard to our translations, we shall desire to submit them, but the printing will not be completed before Wednesday morning.

Before presenting Senator Stewart, whom we will ask to make the first speech, with your permission, there is one question which has arisen between the agent of Mexico and myself upon which I should be pleased to have the court pass, as it may determine the course of the arguments somewhat. According to English, I think, and I know to American, practice the complainant (demandeur, so to speak) has the right to open and to close the case; to make the opening argument and the closing argument. The defender may make two or three or more intervening arguments, or if there be a large number of counsel the counsel should arrange it in such manner the closing speech is made on the part of the plaintiff (demandeur). I know that this practice is an absolutely uniform one.

Sir Edward Fry. Not in England.

Mr. Ralston. It is with us. I want to submit the question of the order of debate at this time to the decision of the court.

M. le Président. Est-ce que vous demandez une décision du Tribunal sur cette question?

Mr. Ralston. S’il vous plaît.

M. le Président. Est-ce que l’agent des Etats-Unis mexicains est d’accord?

M. Pardo. La remarque faite par l’agent des Etats-Unis d’Amérique prouve ce que je m’étais permis d’indiquer dans une réunion préalable de la Cour: la nécessité absolue de fixer la procedure a suivre. Le protocole n’a pas pu comprendre tous les details de cette procédure; il faut absolument, pour éviter une discussion à chaque pas, que le Tribunal daigne fixer une bonne fois au moins les éléments d’une procédure régulière, autrement nous serons à chaque instant l’une et l’autre partie aux prises pour savoir combien de fois chacun des avocats peut parler, si les documents peuvent être produits pendant l’audience ou en dehors. Il faut je crois que le Tribunal daigne fixer une bonne fois la procédure qui doit être suivie devant elle, autrement le procès sera embrouillée d’une façon telle que nous ne nous entendrons jamais.

J’adhère done à la proposition de M. l’agent des Etats-Unis, et je demande au Tribunal de fixer une bonne fois la procédure a suivre devant lui.

(MM. les arbitres se concertent à voix basse.)

M. le Président. Le Tribunal en délibérera après la cloture de la séance et prendra une décision sur les questions que les agents ont relevées.

Mr. Ralston. If the court is prepared at this moment, or as soon as the court will be prepared, Senator Stewart is ready to proceed to address the court whenever the court desires.

(Discussion between the members of the court as to order of debate.)

Mr. Ralston. If you will, the Senator will wait until the court shall decide the question before it.

M. le Président. Alors Monsieur le conseil das Etats-Unis de l’Amérique du Nord peut commencer à discuter; nous nous retirerons après.

M. Beernaert. Il est bien entendu, Messieurs, qu’en entendant Mr. Stewart nous n’abandonnons pas les questions préalables, et que c’est sous le bénéfice de nos réserves que nous écouterons Mr. Stewart.

M. le Président. La question n’est pas décidée maintenant, nous la déciderons plus tard. Je donne la parole à Mr. Stewart, avocat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique.

Mr. Stewart. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: This controversy grows out of donations made by pious persons in the eighteenth century to create a fund for the civilization and conversion of the natives of the Californias, and for the maintenance and support of the Catholic religion in that country. The fund created by such donations was covered into the Mexican treasury by the decree of October 24, 1842, with an undertaking on the part of Mexico to pay interest thereon for the purposes intended by the donors. After the sale of California to the United-States the Mexican Government failed to pay the agreed interest on that part of the principal belonging to the missions of Upper California. The questions as to the amount of the principal and the amount of the interest due thereon, with all collateral questions necessary to be decided for the determination of those questions, were submitted to arbitration by the United States and Mexico by the convention of July 4, 1868. The commissioners of the United States and Mexico failing to agree, Sir Edward Thornton, the British minister at Washington, made the decision as umpire, and found that the principal, which was a permanent investment, amounted to $1,435,033; that the part to be apportioned to Upper California was 1717,516.50; and that the interest then payable amounted to $904,070.79. He therefore rendered judgment for such interest against Mexico and in favor of the bishops of California. Mexico thereupon paid the judgment, but she has paid no interest on the principal since October 24, 1868. The present proceeding is to determine what interest, if any, is now due and payable to the bishops of California.

I. The United States contend that all questions relating to the principal investment and the annual interest due thereon, and all questions of the rights of the bishops of California thereto, were determined and became res judicata by the decision in the former arbitration.

I will not now discuss the question of res judicata, as that subject will be fully treated in the argument to be made by the agent and counsel of the United States. I will, however, venture the assertion that no tribunal of recognized authority, whether national or international, having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, has ever held that any question, either of law or fact, which it was necessary to decide to reach the final judgment was not res judicata and binding upon the parties and their privies in all subsequent proceedings involving the questions thus put in issue and decided. This principle is especially important in international courts of arbitration, because if matters decided by them are not finally settled, such courts will naturally fall into disuse.

II. The United States are now confronted with the denial by the representative of Mexico that anything became res judicata by the judgment in the former arbitration, except the duty of Mexico to pay the sum of $904,070.79 awarded, and also with his contention that every matter of law and fact upon which such judgment was founded and which was necessarily decided to reach the final conclusion, is still open to investigation and decision. I confess my surprise at the position taken by the representative of Mexico. But without waiving the question of res judicata, and being desirous of treating respectfully any argument the representative of Mexico may advance, I will make the following statement of the case:

The Californias consisted of the Peninsula of California and the western part of the Spanish dominions in North America (indicating on map). The harbors of San Diego, Monterey, San Francisco, and numerous other harbors and landings were visited and the rivers and streams connected therewith explored a considerable distance inland by Spanish navigators and adventurers. The explorers had penetrated and described the country sufficiently to show that Upper California was a vast region, blessed by nature with a salubrious climate and boundless resources. It was occupied by numerous tribes of Indians, furnishing an almost unlimited field for the work of the Christian missionaries in converting the natives to the Catholic religion.

As early as 1697 donations were made, and thereafter continued to be made from time to time down to 1765, by the Christian people of Spain to the fund now known as the “Pious Fund of the Californias,” to be used for the civilization and conversion of the natives of the Californias. These donations were made for the avowed purpose of civilizing and converting the natives to Christianity and for the maintenance and support of the Catholic missions in the Californias. In 1735 a large donation was made by the Marchioness de las Torres de Rada and the Marquis de Villapuente. The object and desire of the donors were then fully set forth and particularly descrioed. The habendum of their deed, which is denominated the foundation deed, proceeds as follows:

To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be founded, in the Californias, as well for the maintenance of their religious, and to provide for the ornament and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the native converts and catechumens with food and clothing, according to the destitution of that country; so that if hereafter, by God’s blessing, there be means of support in the “reductions” and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their lands, thus obviating the necessity of sending from this country provisions, clothing, and other necessaries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new missions to be established hereafter in the unexplored parts of the said Californias, according to the discretion of the father superior of said missions; and the estates aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that, even in case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic faith, the profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their support; and in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should abandon said missions of the Californias or (which God forbid) the natives of that country should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being, to apply the profits of said estates, their products and improvements, to other missions in the undiscovered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, according as he may deem most pleasing to Almighty God; and in such ways that the dominion and government of said estates be always and perpetually continued in the reverened Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or secular, shall exercise any control thereon, or intervene in or about the same; and all such rents and profits shall be applied to the purposes and objects herein specified—i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. And by this deed of gift we, the said grantors, both divest ourselves of, and renounce absolutely all property, dominion, ownership, rights and actions, real and personal, direct and executive, thereover, and all others whatever, which belong to us, or which from any other cause, title, or reason may belong, appertain to us; and we cede, renounce, and transfer the whole thereof to said reverend Society of Jesus, its missions of Californias, its prelates and religious, under whose charge may happen to be the government of said missions and of this province of New Spain, now and at all times hereafter, in order that from the profits of said estates, and the increase of their cattle, large and small, their other gains, natural or otherwise, they may maintain said missions in the manner above proposed, indicated, defined, and laid down forever. (Transcript, p. 106.)

Sir Edward Fry. May I interpose a question?

Mr. Stewart. Certainly.

Sir Edward Fry. If you take this deed, you will find that it provides on page 106 for the expulsion and abandonment of the missions by the Jesuits, and then it proceeds in these terms:

And in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should abandon said missions of the Californias, or (which God forbid) the natives of that country should rebel and opostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain, for the time being, to apply the profits of said estates, their products and improvements, to other missions in the undiscovered portions of this North America.

Now, that event has happened. The Jesuits have been compelled to abandon the missions. Therefore the contingency has happened. Then it is left with the Society of Jesus to do as they think fit. How can that deed help you?

Mr. Stewart. It helps us very much if the whole document is considered. The fund was to be used in the Californias unless the reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus of this New Spain ordered it to be used elsewhere. He never did so order. On the contrary, the fund was used in the Californias from the time of the-expulsion of the Jesuits until the cession of Upper California to the United States. It makes no difference what reason the reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus had for not acting. It is sufficient for the purposes of this case that he did not act. The reverend father and every member of the Jesuit order were expelled from the Spanish dominions by the King of Spain and suppressed by the bull of the Pope. The King then assumed the management of the fund as trustee and proceeded to carry out the designs of the donors. He first divided the Californias into two provinces, Upper and Lower California. He assigned the Dominicans to Lower California and the Franciscans to Upper California to continue the work of converting, civilizing, and educating the Indians at the missions and the creation of new missions. He appointed a royal commission to manage the estates of the Pious Fund, collect the proceeds, and deposit the same in the treasury, and assigned the duty to certain officers of the treasury department to transmit the same to the missions in the Californias.

III. The above quotation, and, in fact, the entire deed, shows a very clear conception on the part of the donors of the magnitude of the undertaking to convert the natives of the Californias. It devotes the entire fund to the civilization and conversion of the natives, and the maintenance and support of the Catholic religion in that country, and provides particularly that after the civilization and conversion of the natives the proceeds of the fund are to “be applied to the necessities of said missions and their support” in the Californias. The language is as follows:

And the estates aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable and shall never be sold, so that, even in ease of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic faith, the profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their support. (Transcript, p. 106.)

The donors state in what events the proceeds of the Pious Fund may be diverted to the support of missions other than those in the Californias. This exception is so important in fixing the Californias as the place which the donors intended the proceeds of their gifts to be employed that I quote the language:

And in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should abandon said missions of the Californias, or (which God forbid) the natives of that country should rebel and apostatise from our holy faith, or in any other such contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being to apply the profits of said estates, their products, and improvements to other missions in the undiscovered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, according as he may deem most pleasing to Almighty God, and in such ways that the dominion and government of said estates be always and perpetually continued in the reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or secular, shall exercise any control thereon, or intervene in or about the same; and all such rents and profits shall be applied to the purposes and objects herein specified, i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. (Transcript, p. 106.)

The natives did not rebel or apostacise, and there is no pretext for claiming that exception as an excuse for the use of the Pious Fund elsewhere than in the Californias. The reverend Society of Jesus did not voluntarily abandon the missions, but was expelled by the King of Spain. The reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain did not order the fund to be used elsewhere, because he was also expelled and deprived of his functions, so that he could not control the fund or order its use elsewhere. The royal decree of February 27, 1767, declares:

Therefore, by virtue of the supreme authority vested in me by the Almighty for the protection of my subjects and maintaining the respect due to my crown, I have decided to order the banishment from out of all my dominions in Spain, the Indias, Philippine and other islands of the regulars, both priests and laymen, of the Order of Jesus; also such as may have taken up vows and the novices who may desire to follow the calling; and that all the temporalities belonging to the order within my dominions be taken possession of; and for the uniform execution of the same I have given full powers and instructions to Count Arrauda, president of my council, to immediately proceed to take the necessary measures, as set forth by my other royal decree of the 27th of February. (Transcript, p. 410.)

The Pope, after the expulsion of the Jesuits by the King, suppressed the order of Jesuits, which deprived them of the control of the Pious Fund and of the missions for which it was established. In his bull of July 21, 4773, he said:

But as regards the religious missions, we desire to extend and include all that has been decreed concerning the suppression of the society (of Jesuits), reserving (at the same time) the privilege of providing the means by which not only the conversion of the infidels, but also the peaceful settlement of dissensions may be obtained and secured with greater facility and stability. (Transcript, p. 335, par. 32.)

The Jesuits having thus been excluded and deprived of all participation in or control of the properties of the Pious Fund or the distribution of the proceeds thereof, the King of Spain assumed to himself the trusteeship of the Pious Fund and the management of the properties belonging thereto. The Franciscan Fathers were substituted in the place of the Jesuits as to Upper California, to continue the work inaugurated by them in establishing missions and in educating and converting the natives. The King appointed agents to manage the properties of the Pious Fund and to collect the proceeds thereof, and authorized the officers of the Spanish treasury to transmit the same to the fathers in the Californias.

IV. On acquiring her independence Mexico, as we shall hereafter see, followed the policy of Spain and provided by law for the management of the properties of the Pious Fund and the collection and transmission of the proceeds thereof to the fathers conducting the missions in the Californias. In 1836 she made an important change. On the 19th of September of that year she passed a law petitioning the Pope to create the Californias into a diocese and to appoint a bishop therein. The Pope appointed as such bishop the Right Rev. Francisco Garcia Diego, who was consecrated on the 27th of April, 1840. (Transcript, p. 182.) The residence of the bishop was located at Monterey, in Upper California, about five hundred miles northerly from the north line of Lower California, and in what was then about the center of the population of the missions in the Californias. The bishop of Monterey remained in office during his life.

The bishop of a diocese has charge of the Roman Catholic Church and all missions, charities, and Christian establishments in his diocese. He also has charge of all the temporalities and the receipt and disbursement of all moneys to be used or distributed within his jurisdiction. The creation of the Californias into a diocese and the appointment of the Right Reverend Francisco Garcia Diego bishop thereof conferred upon him and his successors in office the control of the temporalities of the church, and the right to collect, receive, and disburse all moneys belonging to the church, the missions, and all Catholic establishments in such diocese. When upon the petition of Mexico a bishop was appointed for the Californias, it became the duty of such bishop to receive and distribute the proceeds of the Pious Fund in his diocese.

V. I will now consider the action of Mexico in her dealings with the Pious Fund as successor of Spain.

On the 25th of May, 1832, Mexico passed a law providing for the renting and management of the properties of the Pious Fund, and created a board for that purpose. The sixth paragraph provides that:

The proceeds of such properties (of the Pious Fund) shall be deposited in the treasury of the Federal city, to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions of the Californias. (Laws of Mexico, p. 2.)

And by the tenth paragraph, under subdivision nine, the board was required:

To name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each one of the Californias, in accordance with their respective expenses and available funds. (Laws of Mexico, p. 3.)

Thus it will be seen that Mexico commenced the discharge of her duties as successor of Spain by adopting a system entirely similar to the one established when the Jesuits were expelled.

A change of policy was adopted, as we have already shown, by Mexico on the 19th of September, 1836, when she applied to the Pope for the appointment of a bishop for the Californias. In the sixth article of that application it is provided that:

The property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias shall be placed at the disposal of the new bishop and his successors, to be by them managed and employed for its objects or other similar ones, always respecting the wishes of the founders. (Laws of Mexico, p. 5.)

This article recognized the authority of the bishop of the Californias to manage the properties belonging to the Pious Fund, which were situated outside of his bishopric, and to use the proceeds thereof for the benefit of the missions in the Californias, which he accordingly did, and appointed Don Pedro Ramirez his general agent in Mexico, who received the rents, paid the expenses, and attended generally to the business of the Pious Fund.

On the 8th of February, 1842, President Santa Anna repealed Article VI of the law of 1836, above quoted, and Mexico again assumed the management of the properties of the Pious Fund (Laws of Mexico, p. 5); but she did not attempt to deprive the bishop of the right to manage the temporalities of the church and receive whatever money and property which might be for the use of the missions and the Catholic Church in his diocese.

VI. The officers of the Mexican Government then demanded a statement of the properties belonging to the Pious Fund from Ramirez, the general agent of the bishop of the Californias, which, after protest, he furnished. The properties embraced in the inventory, as computed in the memorial of the United States, amount to $1,853,361.75. (Memorial, p. 11). Thereupon the Mexican Government, by the decree of October 24, 1842 (having the force of a legislative enactment), ordered the real estate and other property of the Pious Fund sold, and the entire fund reported by Ramirez covered into the treasury, which was accordingly done. In the same decree Mexico undertook to pay interest on the capital so turned into the treasury at the rate of six per cent per annum, and pledged the revenue from tobacco for the payment of such interest. The following is the language of the decree:

The revenue from tobacco is specially pledged for the payment of the income corresponding to the capital of the said fund of the Californias, and the department in charge thereof will pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said fund is destined without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or otherwise. (Laws of Mexico, p. 9.)

The revenue thus pledged was abundantly sufficient to pay the interest. Sr. Juan Rodriquez de San Miguel delivered a speech in the Mexican Congress on 28th of March, 1844, in which he said that this revenue (from tobacco) was merely nominal, so far as the missions were concerned, but that the officers of the Government received from tobacco with the greatest punctuality the sum of $35,000 monthly. (See Mexican Pamphlets about the Pious Fund of the Californias, Nos. 24, 25, p. 12.).

The failure of Mexico to pay to the bishop of the Californias the interest due him from the revenue on tobacco was not because she did not know to whom the same ought to be paid, for we find in the Mexican archives an entry, ordering $8,000 from such revenue transmitted to the bishop of the Californias. The following is the entry:

Minister of the treasury sec. 2° 297. His excell. the President has been pleased to order me to inform your excell., as I now do, to give an order on the maritime custom-house of Guymas, which shall be payable to Sr. Juan Rodrigues de San Miguel, as the representative of the rt. rev. bishop of the Californias, for the sum of $8,000, on account of the income belonging to the Pious Fund of California, the properties of which were incorporated into the national treasury; and let this be done with the greatest punctuality although it may be paid in partial payments. And let this order be obeyed with all exactness, notwithstanding my communication of yesterday to your excells. under No. 277 that the former order of Jan. 30 should be without effect. Contracted in order that the quantity mentioned in it might be paid by the aforesaid custom-house; and without injury to the assignment of the $500, monthly made upon the product of tobacco from the state of Zacatecas. (Transcript, p. 149.)

Mexico also recognized the right of the bishop to receive the property of the Pious Fund by decreeing on April 3, 1845, that—

The credits and other properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias which are now unsold shall be immediately returned to the reverend bishop of that see and his successors, for the purposes mentioned in article 6 of the law of September 29, 1836, without prejudice to what Congress may resolve in regard to the property that has been alienated. (Laws of Mexico, pp. 7, 8.)

This decree would not have been made unless the bishop, as such, was entitled to receive the property referred to. The fact that no property was actually transferred does not affect the designation of the bishop as the proper official to receive any property that might be transferred.

I call attention to the treatment by Mexico of a fund contributed by the pious people of Spain for the establishment of missions in the Philippines, which is a precedent for the claim of the bishops of California.

In 1844, eight years after the independence of Mexico was acknowledged by Spain, a treaty was entered into for the settlement of a claim of the missions in the Philippines against Mexico. The property out of which the claim of the missions arose consisted of two haciendas, the Chica and the Grande, both situated in Mexico. By the latter convention Mexico agreed to pay, and did pay, $115,000 as principal and $30,000 in addition thereto as interest or rent. The money was paid to Father Moran, the representative of the Philippine missions. (Transcript, p. 25.)

The fact that Mexico recognized the bishop of the Californias as the proper officer to receive the proceeds of the Pious Fund proves that she did not agree to pay interest, intending at the same time to avoid such payment for want of a person to receive the same.

The United States appreciate the honor of Mexico too highly to suppose for a moment that she would promise to pay interest on the Pious Fund, knowing her promise was nugatory for the want of a payee, and we hope that no one, will hereafter accuse Mexico of such insincerity. But suppose that Mexico intended to confiscate the fund which she covered into her treasury, and to deny that anyone had a right to receive the interest which she agreed to pay; she has now made ample amends for such unfair conduct. She has agreed that this honorable tribunal, if it finds that the former judgment is not res judicata, shall determine “whether the claim be just,” and “render such judgment or award as may be meet and proper under all the circumstances of the case.” (Protocol, p. 3).

M. Pardo. Nous présenterons à la Cour avant l’ouverture de la prochaine audience la réponse du Gouvernement mexicain en espagnol, avec sa traduction en français et avec les documents cités à l’appui.

M. le Président. M. l’agent des Etats-Unis a été assez bon de dire tantôt qu’il mettrait à la disposition du Tribunal le Code Civil de Californie; je le prie, s’il le veut bien, de nous le fournir.

Mr. Ralston. Je le denmnderai par le télégraphe.

(L’audience est levée à 3 h. 45 et la suite des débats renvoyée au mercredi 17 Septembre, à 9½ h. du matin.)