File No. 419.11H23/33.

The Secretary of State to Minister Price.

[Extract.]
No. 58.]

Sir: The Department has received your despatch numbered 115 relative to the case of William T. Harrington, transmitting copies and a summary of the testimony taken by the Government of Panama concerning this matter. The Department observes that this testimony comprises none other than that previously furnished the Legation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his note of January 20, 1911, and forwarded to the Department with the Legation’s despatch No. 74 of January 30, 1911, after a thorough examination of which the Department issued its instruction No. 40 of February 27, 1911.

Reverting now to the Legation’s despatch No. 507 of September 26, 1913, and the copy of a note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Panama enclosed therewith, the Department desires again to review the facts of this case for your information and guidance in taking the action indicated herein.

The Department observes that the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his note of September 20, 1913, above referred to, cites the conflict of the evidence obtained by his Government with that brought to the attention of this Department, and states that, in view of this conflict, the equitable procedure would be to “place in the scales of justice the integrity” of the respective witnesses. This he then proceeds to do with the result that, in his opinion, the evidence which this Government has received tending to show that Harrington’s death resulted from maltreatment received by him at the hands of the Panama police authorities is completely outweighed by that of witnesses examined [Page 1248] by the Panaman authorities, and therefore the Minister gives expression to his feeling of confidence “that the Government of the United States will desist from demanding from the Panaman Government any indemnity whatever for the death” of Mr. Harrington. Needless to say, this Government cannot acquiesce in this finding of the Panaman Government.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs seems to base his conclusion that Harrington’s death in no way resulted from the treatment suffered by him at the hands of the Panaman police officers, while he was serving his term of imprisonment, principally upon the testimony of five witnesses; namely, Benigno Andrion, José F. Navas, Carlos Vetonti, Charles de Rueter and George Comiz. Without attempting to attack the credibility of the testimony of these witnesses, though given for the most part by persons whose interests in the matter were sufficient to have prejudiced their statements, it is, in the Department’s opinion, of small value for the reason that it has but very little bearing upon the facts of the case, is not inconsistent with the evidence indicating maltreatment and is wholly insufficient to support the conclusions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, above referred to.

An analysis of this evidence shows that: [etc.]

It will therefore be seen that in all of this evidence there is a total absence of any direct statement in contradiction of the allegation that Mr. Harrington was, while serving his sentence, subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment at the hands of the Panaman police authorities, and that, as a consequence, he suffered both mental and physical impairment of health and subsequently died. The Department is confident therefore that upon a reconsideration of this evidence it will be fully appreciated by the Panaman Government how untenable is its position in this matter.

The United States Government does not rely wholly upon the evidence of the witnesses pronounced incredible by the Minister for Foreign Affairs because fellow prisoners with Harrington, to establish the facts of the cruel and inhuman treatment complained of. That evidence is merely corroborative of facts otherwise indisputably determined. The Department has on file a copy of the medical certificate of a life insurance company with which the deceased was insured, together with affidavits of those who were co-workers with him just before his departure from the United States, all of which indicate that he was in perfect health at that time; also a copy of the medical certificate of the District Physician of the Isthmian Canal Commission, who examined Mr. Harrington after his arrival on the Isthmus. This latter certificate, dated April 20, 1910, states that there was at that time apparent in the applicant’s condition no evidence of disease or abnormal functions of nervous system, cerebrospinal or sympathetic; that there was no indication of any disease of the heart, blood vessels, digestive system, or any of the abdominal organs, and that he was in fit physical condition to engage in work on the Isthmus of Panama as an engineer. This, therefore, when considered together with the evidence of Benigno Andrion, upon whom the Panaman Government relies, seems to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the fact that Mr. Harrington was, at the time he began to serve his sentence, in sound health, both mental and physical.

Just three days subsequent to this examination by such District Physician the deceased was tried by the Panaman authorities on the [Page 1249] charge of “petit larceny” and sentenced to sixty days imprisonment. His physical and mental condition thereafter became such that on June 3, approximately forty days from the date of his sentence, he was admitted to the hospital at Colon.

It is admitted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that during this time Mr. Harrington had been placed in the “stocks” for a period of “some ten or twenty minutes” and that on one occasion the Chief of Police “gave him two lashes on the shoulder”; that in doing so the official was excessive in his punishment and was consequently removed from his position. It is perfectly evident, however, that a confinement of “ten or twenty minutes” in the stocks could not alone possibly produce the physical injuries from which Mr. Harrington was suffering at the time of his admission to the hospital at Colon, for according to the superintendent of that hospital he was at that time “mildly insane and had a fever of 103.10 degrees. Both legs from knee to ankle were greatly swollen and inflamed, and on the right was an area of pressure necrosis 4ʺ x 2½ʺ on the anterior surface. On the left leg was corresponding necrosis, but not as severe. * * * The wounds on the legs could only have been caused by long continued and severe pressure, and the man’s condition and high fever were apparently due to infection and suffering.” This statement was corroborated by the District Physician at Porto Bello who attended Mr. Harrington before he was taken to Colon and who states that he was then “suffering with traumatic cellulitis, left leg; temperature 103 degrees. Left leg oedematous, oedema extending into foot; just above ankle was the mark of some constricting instrument, the skin at this point was broken and discolored, depressed below the surrounding oedema discharging a small amount of pus and serum. The wound had the appearance of having been under pressure for some time. * * * Mentally the man seemed mildly insane.”

The fact that Mr. Harrington’s condition when he was admitted to the hospital was due to the cruel and inhuman treatment to which he had been subjected, including his confinement in the stocks and exposure to the tropical sun, is abundantly supported by the statements of the other attending physicians and by those who came in contact with him while on his way to the hospital. The fact of this maltreatment was so well known that on June 2, 1910, a mass meeting of American citizens was held at Porto Bello to give expression to the sense of indignation felt by them concerning this case, and as a result a petition was drawn up and signed by 108 American citizens which stated that it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in their minds, that Harrington’s dangerous condition was a “result of injuries received at the hands of the Panaman police while being punished by an instrument of torture known as ‘the stocks.’” This petition, drawn up prior to the admission of Harrington to the hospital, relates to his condition while he was still in the custody of the Panaman police officials, being transferred from Porto Bello to Colon, and would seem to be sufficient to demonstrate clearly that during the interval of forty days since he had been found to be in sound health he had endured more than ordinary imprisonment and confinement in the stocks for a period of “ten or twenty minutes.”

Moreover, at the instance of this Department the Secretary of War, who has jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone, directed that a [Page 1250] thorough investigation be made concerning Mr. Harrington’s condition while he was in the Government hospital at Colon and the causes of his death. As a result, a board of investigation composed of three reputable physicians was appointed for this purpose which, after taking voluminous evidence in the matter, stated in its findings upon the case that:

This testimony shows, beyond a doubt, in the opinion of the Board, that his physical condition was due to cruel treatment received by him while in prison. * * * Furthermore, the Board is of the opinion that such privation and inhuman treatment was sufficient to cause the mental disease from which Mr. Harrington was suffering. * * * The Board is of the unanimous opinion that the treatment received by Mr. Harrington, evidenced by affidavits and other papers in the file and borne out by the testimony of reliable physicians who treated him for injuries, * * * was the exciting factor in causing not only the inflammation and ulcers on his legs but his psychosis as well, and that there was a relation between such treatment and the diseases from which Mr. Harrington suffered. The Board is also of the opinion that such treatment, acting as a contributory factor, had an important causal relation to his subsequent death.

This Government cannot view complacently such cruel and inhuman treatment of its citizens by the authorities of any government. Neither can it admit that the mere discharge from his position of an official who is guilty of such shocking misconduct can atone for the suffering endured by an American citizen who was unfortunately for the time being under the authority of an official of this character. There is no doubt in the mind of this Department that, in the first place, the penalty imposed upon Mr. Harrington was excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of his offense; and that, second, the cruel treatment to which he was admittedly subjected, and which would seem to be sufficient in itself to lead the Panaman Government to proffer suitable reparation, was a factor which contributed very materially to the death of the prisoner and the consequent loss to his widow of the benefit of his support.

You are instructed, therefore, to present this case again to the Panaman Government in the general sense of the foregoing and express the feeling of hope and confidence which this Government entertains that the Government of Panama will recognize in this case an opportunity to demonstrate its abiding sense of justice and equity and its refusal to condone such acts as those complained of by acknowledging its duty to make adequate reparation for the suffering and losses consequent upon this unfortunate occurrence.

You will request a reply from the Panaman Government concerning this matter as soon as possible, promptly advising the Department of any further developments in the case.

I am [etc.]

W. J. Bryan.