File No. 419.11H23/29.
It will be noted that as stated in Señor Lefevre’s note the evidence
collected by the two Governments does not agree, and the question
appears to have produced conflicting testimony with regard to the extent
of the punishment inflicted upon Harrington by Lieutenant Hernandez, who
was in charge of the prisoners at Porto Bello, as well as with regard to
the mental condition of Harrington previous to his arrest. Emphasis is
laid by Señor Lefevre upon the fact that the testimony given in behalf
of the Panaman Government is corroborated by the sworn statements of
Panamans and also of two American citizens. The note closes with a
request that the Government of the United States, after having received
the information given in the present note, may desist from demanding of
the Panaman Government any indemnity whatever for the death of the
American citizen, William T. Harrington.
[Inclosure—Translation.]
The Secretary for Foreign
Affairs to Chargé Wicker.
No. S–2105.]
Foreign Office.
Panama,
September 20, 1913.
Sir: Owing to the investigations which
this office conducted concerning the claim contained in the note No.
307 of March 14 last, addressed to the undersigned by Mr. H.
Percival Dodge, ex-Minister of the United States, I have been
somewhat delayed in making reply to that note. I hasten to do so
to-day, after having carefully studied each one of the records of
the proceedings of investigation made by the Panaman and American
Governments, in connection with this unpleasant case.
I have to inform you, first of all, that the evidence collected by
the two Governments does not agree. The investigation made by the
American authorities
[Page 1245]
finds that William T. Harrington, respecting whom the claim is made,
was cruelly maltreated by Panaman police officers stationed at Porto
Bello and was placed in the stocks, in consequence of which he lost
his reason and died in the hospital raving about the instrument of
torture applied to him. But the investigation made by the Panaman
Government proves everything to the contrary; that is, that
Harrington—already demented when he came to Porto Bello—always did
as he pleased in jail and outside thereof with the knowledge and
permission of the police officers who guarded him; that he never
worked, because he did not want to; that he was rude toward the
guards and that, on a certain occasion when the Panaman Lieutenant
of Police Luis Hernandez wanted to compel Harrington to occupy
himself in some useful task, the latter vilely insulted him,
whereupon Lieutenant Hernandez in his obligation of having the
dignity of authority respected, took a small thin rod or switch and
with it lightly punished Harrington, who was also placed in the
stocks for a period of ten minutes while he
was in a fit of rage.
Confronted with this conflict in the testimony, the just, the
equitable thing to do, what the criminal law of all nations
prescribes, is to place in the scales of justice the integrity of
the persons who acted as witnesses, in order to agree with those
which have the greater weight. To this end I am going to make an
examination of each one of those persons, using for that purpose the
record of the proceedings.
The witnesses who give weight to the investigation conducted by the
American authorities are Samuel Douglas, Albert Brown, Melburn
Watson, John Winte and Seimoure Jones, persons whose bad conduct
also brought them to the jail at Porto Bello, as they themselves
state in their frank declarations on pages 23 and 24 of the
respective record of proceedings, declarations which—may it be said
by the way—lack the requisite of being under oath which takes away
from them a large part of their value. The Panaman witnesses are:
Benigno Andrión, ex-Alcalde of the District of Colon, José F. Navas,
Foreman of the prisoners at Porto Bello, Carlos Vetonti, police
officer, Charles de Reuter and George Comiz, honorable American
citizens who resided at Porto Bello during that period. The three
first named, Andrión, Navas and Vetonti, are persons known for their
integrity, industry and honesty; of the last two, Mr. de Reuter is a
competent engineer engaged in his work, and Mr. Comiz is a sincere
and honest man.
This fact established, I do not doubt that you, as would any
impartial person, will place more credence in the statement of the
Panaman witnesses, especially so when their testimony is
corroborated, as it happens to be in the present case, by the sworn statement of two respectable American
citizens.
I have the firmest confidence that after having given the detailed
facts of the case as I have, the Government of the United States
will desist from demanding of the Panaman Government any indemnity
whatever for the death of the American citizen William T.
Harrington, who as the reading of the various documents composing
the record of the investigation shows, was demented a considerable
time prior to the date on which he was punished for the offense of
larceny.
I avail [etc.]
