File No. 412.11/132.
The American Consul at Nogales to the Secretary of State.
Sir: I have the honor to report that Mr. Antonio Lozano arrived at Douglas July 29, 1912, and placed a notice in the local papers the same day asking the claimants to meet him the next day, July 30, 1912, at the offices of Richardson and Doan, between the hours of 2 and 8 p.m., to receive the amounts which had been awarded them as damages by the Mexican Government.
[Page 965]None of the claimants, however, came to claim the awards. Mr. Lozano, however, had been informed by Mr. G. W. Cass, of the firm of Cass and Sames, attorneys for the claimants, that the amounts awarded were not satisfactory to the claimants.
The procedure followed by the Mexican Government in dealing with these claims has apparently been as follows: After the investigation and cross-examination of the claimants and their witnesses, formerly [formally?] conducted by Mr. Antonio Lozano and his attorney, Mr. D. A. Richardson, a brief was prepared of each case, which was signed jointly by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Lozano and forwarded to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations at Mexico City.
Yesterday Mr. Lozano placed in my hands for perusal original signed copies of all these briefs. I have had copies made of those of the cases of R. H. Harrington and F. F. Williams, and submit herewith two copies1 of each brief as showing the manner in which the cases have been prepared and presented to the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs. The others are prepared along the same lines, quote the same authorities, and vary only in the circumstances of the individual case and in the citation of former cases which are considered as precedents of the case in hand.
In all the other cases, as in the two submitted herewith, the damages are considered as arising from purely accidental causes, the Mexican Government is considered as the defendant, the claimant as the plaintiff, and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is brought forward as a sufficient reason why no damages should be awarded.
In the other cases, as in these two, it is suggested, however, that while the claimant has no legal rights in the matter, if the Mexican Government desires to make him a present, such and such a precedent should be followed as to the amount of damages awarded. In each case the amount of damages which was eventually paid in the case cited as a precedent is the same amount which the Mexican Government is now offering to each claimant. This fact and the published statement2 of Attorney Richardson (newspaper clipping of which is herewith enclosed) makes it evident that for all practical purposes the Mexican Government has left the settlement of these claims up to the present time entirely in the hands of Mr. Richardson.
However, it is also apparent from his entire conduct of the case that Mr. Richardson has approached the matter not in the spirit of an impartial investigator seeking to secure absolute equity in the cases, but rather in the spirit of a lawyer who is seeking to secure every advantage for his client and to reduce the amount of damages which his client must pay to as low a sum as possible.
As a consequence, practically all that seems to have been accomplished thus far is the presentation of clashing interests, possibly excessive amounts asked for on the one hand and on the other an effort to reduce these amounts to as low sums as possible.
Upon his arrival Mr. Lozano made public the amount of the awards and seemed much chagrined and surprised that not only were the amounts not accepted but that much adverse criticism appeared in the local press.
[Page 966]In this connection it would perhaps be well to state that I have made perfectly clear to all parties that I have no official connection with this matter whatever.
I have [etc.]