Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Address of the President to Congress December 5, 1916
File No. 419.11D29/146
The Minister of the Netherlands to the Secretary of State
Washington, October 20, 1916.
Sir: Referring to your note of September 25, 1916,2 the last on the subject, I have the honor to forward herewith to your excellency my award determining the amount due by the Panaman Government to the American victims of the riot, which took place in the city of Panama on July 4, 1912.
Be pleased [etc.]
[Untitled]
Under the terms of the Protocol signed at Panama on November 27, 1915, by which the Governments of the United States and Panama agree to refer to the award of the undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands near the Governments of the United States and Panama, the decision as to the amount due by the Government of Panama on account of the death of one American subject and of injuries inflicted on 16 American subjects during the disturbances which took place in the City of Panama on July 4, 1912, the office of the umpire is strictly defined. For Article II of the said Protocol reads as follows:
His Excellency W. L. F. C. Van Rappard shall determine the amounts of such damages upon such papers as may be presented to him by the Secretary of State of the United States and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Panama at Washington, respectively within five months from the date of the signing of this agreement, but it is expressly understood and agreed that such papers shall relate only to the amount of damages to be paid.
The case shall then he closed unless his excellency shall call for further documents, evidence, correspondence, or arguments from either Government, in which event such further documents or arguments shall be furnished within sixty days from the date of the call. If such documents, evidence, correspondence or arguments are not furnished within the time specified a decision in the case shall be given as if they did not exist.
The entire case of each Government shall be presented in writing.
Therefore the umpire did not go into any examination of the facts which occasioned the regrettable incidents that occurred at Panama on July 4, 1912; he considered that the two Governments had admitted on principle that Ralph Davis, an American subject, was killed and Thomas, Stokes, Barnard, Winbrough, Freseritter, Roach, Lucas, Selby, Young, Arringtone, Graham, McDonald, Deleen, Hopkins, Yuhas and Grenier, American subjects, had been injured during the aforesaid disturbances and that the Government of Panama had declared its readiness to pay to the mother of the deceased and to the injured men an indemnity commensurate with the loss of her son to the first named and with the pain suffered by the last named.
[Page 919]ralph davis
In the case of Ralph Davis, the umpire holds that in determining the sum which must in full equity be awarded to Davis’s mother, the main point is to appraise as fairly as possible in the light of the documents offered in evidence the support given to his mother by the son while living. The umpire considers that no indemnity can be allowed the mother for the son’s suffering, for, in point of fact, such an indemnity would be tantamount to paying for injuries sustained by a third party. It is almost universally accepted and settled as a principle of law that pecuniary loss alone can be taken as a basis for the computation of the indemnity. Neither can mental anguish of the beneficiaries be indemnified; the umpire holds that a solatium for the loss of a member of the family and for the grief caused by that death, cannot be granted; compensation can only deal with pecuniary loss since, all being considered sentimental indemnities are not susceptible of money measurement.
Acting on that principle, the umpire referred to the documents placed before him by the two Governments litigant in order to arrive at the best possible ascertainment of the pecuniary loss sustained by Mrs. Davis on account of her son’s death.
In the American case the umpire found
1st. A statement of Fred O. Davis, a brother of the deceased, signed at Panama and reading as follows:
I, Fred O. Davis, state and affirm that my brother Ralph W. Davis visited the district known as Cocoa Grove about 5 o’clock July 4, 1912, and while in a cantina known as Anne Baker’s Place, abutting 20th Street, was killed by a member of the Panama police by a bayonet thrust into the stomach, dying almost instantly. The deceased had been working all day in Charlie Cantor’s Hotel Mexico as bartender and had just arrived in the Cocoa Grove district when he was set upon and killed.
Deceased formerly lived at 526 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California, in the sense of legal residence.
Deceased being the only unmarried child was the chief support of his mother, Mrs. Laura A. Davis, now at 526 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles.
Deceased never carried arms and was unarmed at the time of his death.
2d. A memorial dated January 10, 1914, addressed to the Department of State and containing among others the following statement:
That said Ralph W. Davis deceased was at the time stated in Panama in search of employment by the United States Government on the Panama Canal.
This claim is brought in behalf of Laura Anna Davis, mother of the said Ralph W. Davis deceased, who was entirely dependent on said deceased for her support.
3d. An affidavit sworn to by Mrs. Laura A. Davis before a notary public at Chicago on December 17, 1915, the tenor of which document is as follows:
Laura A. Davis being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she resides at No. 1356 LaSalle Avenue in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of Illinois; that she has heretofore filed a claim for damages against the Government of Panama for the killing of her son, Ralph W. Davis at Panama on July 4, 1912.
Affiant further states that said Ralph W. Davis was her son, and was her only support; that he was twenty-nine years of age, strong and robust in health; that he was a carpenter by trade; that as such carpenter he earned from five to six dollars per day, depending upon the place of his employment; that during the time of his employment he contributed to your affiant such amounts as states; that he was unmarried; that he made his home with your affiant at the various places where she had resided.
Affiant further states that she knows nothing of the circumstances surrounding the killing of the said Ralph W. Davis, except as heretofore stated in the memorial now on file in the Department of State, Washington, D. C.; that she understands and alleges the fact to be that the case has been the subject of governmental investigation; that the only evidence she can offer is as was therein stated; except the conditions of said Ralph W. Davis’ health, his habits for sobriety, his earning capacity, and his contributions to your affiant for her support.
4th. A letter addressed on March 2, 1916 to the Department of State by McGavin, counsel for Mrs. Laura A. Davis, reading as follows:
In, regard to the claim of Laura A. Davis against the Government of Panama for the killing of her son, Ralph W. Davis at Panama City on July 4, 1912, I desire to supplement the information heretofore filed by a brief argument directed to the question of damages, without reference to the circumstances affecting the riot.
Davis was not engaged in the riot. He was an innocent bystander; that, on account of his youth, his robust health, his vigor and his earning capacity of from 5 to 6 dollars per day, his death was of great consequence to the surviving mother. Even if we figure the lesser sum of 5 dollars per day and 5½ days per week, it would amount to 27 dollars and 50 cents per week, and at 52 weeks in the year it would run up to 1,230 dollars per year. At his age (29) and, considering his splendid physical condition, his expectancy would not be less than 25 years of earning capacity, which would amount to (multiplying the yearly income of 1,230 dollars by 25, his expectancy of earning capacity) 30,750 dollars.
But even if we assume that Davis, during his life time worked only 8 months per year, or two-thirds of the time at his trade, he would have earned in that time 20,490 [Page 920] dollars. This is calculating the life of a man in cold dollars and cents. It does not take into account what his companionship means to his mother nor the sorrow and suffering she endured by reason of his death, which even private corporations always consider.
The case delivered to the undersigned by the agent of the Republic of Panama contains:
1st. A statement of Fred C. Davis, brother of the deceased reading as follows:
My name is Fred C. Davis; I live at Los Angeles, California, my mother’s address being South Figueroa street, Los Angeles, Cal. I am not employed anywhere but have been engaged in prospecting in the interior of the Republic. My brother and I arrived in Balboa together on the steamer City of Sydney from San Francisco on the 30th of April of this year. We were both engaged in prospecting in the vicinity of the city of Panama along the Prieta river about a day’s walk from Juan Diaz. We set out about a month ago.
I saw my brother at the San Tomas hospital after he had been killed at about half past eight that evening. I come from there now. I saw nothing of the fracas and knew nothing of it until somebody told me my brother had been injured. I then went to the San Tomas hospital and found him dead.
My brother was single. He had been married but divorced. Our mother lives at Los Angeles the above given address. Our father is dead. My brother had no children.
2. In addition, in a letter addressed to the umpire by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Panama on March 30, 1916, Mr. Lefevre declares that Davis was unemployed at the time of his death and had neither wife nor children.
The umpire finds that the various information which has been furnished to him as to Ralph Davis’s resources is more or less conflicting.
Fred O. Davis in his statement found in the American case says that his brother Ralph on the day of his death was a bartender at the Hotel Mexico while his statement in the Panama case speaks of his brother and himself being engaged in prospecting in the vicinity of Panama. The memorial of January 10, 1914, says that at the time of his death Ralph Davis was at Panama in search of employment by the Government of the United States in the Canal Zone, and in her affidavit of December 17, 1915, Mrs. Laura A. Davis declares that her son was a carpenter by trade and as such earned from 5 to 6 dollars per day. On the other hand the Panama authorities assert that Ralph Davis was unemployed at the time of his death.
The umpire must take into account these conflicting opinions when he first has to find as closely as possible how much Ralph Davis earned approximately per day. Even granting that Ralph Davis might earn from 5 to 6 dollars a day when plying his trade as a carpenter, it seems to the umpire that the facts show that Ralph Davis was changing his trade, was looking for work elsewhere and that under those conditions there were several days in the year when he did not earn from 5 to 6 dollars.
The Umpire thinks that in setting Ralph Davis’s income at an average of 4 dollars per day, there is surely no injury done to his memory.
The amount of Ralph Davis’s income thus settled there remains to decide how much of his earnings he could turn over to his mother whose chief support he was, according to his brother Fred O. Davis’s statement.
The memorial of January 10 goes so far as to say that Davis’s mother was entirely dependent on said deceased for her support, while Mrs. Laura A. Davis confirms this in her affidavit of December 17, 1915, in which she says her son Ralph was her only support.
In that same document of December 17, 1915, Mrs. Davis adds that when her son earned from 5 to 6 dollars per day, he gave it all to her and lived with her at the various places where she had resided.
The papers in the case, however, show that Ralph Davis did not always live with his mother. There is nothing in the papers laid before the umpire to show where Davis spent his married life. In the statement found in the case of Panama, Ralph Davis’s brother asserts that his brother had been married, but divorced.
In any event, the one fact that Ralph Davis on July 4, 1912, was at Panama and had arrived in company with his brother at Balboa on the preceding 30th of April while Mrs. Laura A. Davis resided at Los Angeles, shows that Ralph Davis had no regular residence at his mother’s home.
In order to provide for himself while traveling and meet the expenses of such travels, it cannot have been possible for Ralph regularly to turn over all of his earnings to his mother, though he surely would have done so willingly. The umpire taking into account the date with which he has been furnished sets at $2.50 per day the average amount Ralph Davis was able to turn over to his mother. On the further ground that at the time of Ralph Davis’s death [Page 921] his mother was 62 years old, and guided by the general tariff’s of life insurance companies, the umpire declares that the Government of Panama shall pay to the mother of Ralph Davis, killed during the riot of Panama City of July 4, 1912, the sum of 9,000 dollars.
isaac j. thomas
Isaac J. Thomas’s injury though not fatal was serious. It appears, in particular, from the statement of Mr. A. B. Herrick, addressed to the chief surgeon of the hospital at Ancon that Isaac J. Thomas’s recovery would take about five months, that the injured leg would be weak for several months and that permanent disability might result from the injury. On the other hand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama, in his letter of March 30, 1916 to the Umpire says:
As for the injuries suffered by various American citizens, it appears from a perusal of Dr. C. E. Philip’s report that they were slight and did not cause life long injuries or deformities to the sufferers; the case of Isaac J. Thomas is the only one where the sufferer had to Quit his daily occupation, his right femur having been broken, but the others suffered no disability worth mentioning.
On the ground of the foregoing statements the umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to the said Isaac J. Thomas, injured during the disturbances in Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 1,200 dollars.
george f. stokes
Mr. George F. Stokes stayed at the hospital of Ancon from the 4th to the 21st of July 1912 and complains that on the following 29th of July walking still caused him trouble. The physicians expected him to feel the effects of his injury for six or eight weeks after his discharge under those conditions, the Umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to the said George F. Stokes, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 750 dollars.
fred barnard
Upon the statements concerning Mr. F. Barnard as found in the documents, particularly that of Dr. Herrick who declares that the injury may be attended later with a slight effect the umpire decided that the Government of Panama shall pay to the said Fred Barnard, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 500 dollars.
john young
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to John Young, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 100 dollars.
gordon winbrough
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Gordon Winbrough, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 24, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
dan fresenritter
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Dan Fresenritter, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
l. a. roach
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to L. A. Roach injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
james lucas
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to James Lucas, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
[Page 922]joseph a. selby
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Joseph A. Selby, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
lane arringtone
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Lane Arringtone, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
samuel graham
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Samuel Graham, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
matthew mcdonald
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Matthew McDonald, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 75 dollars.
carl j. deleen
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Carl J. Deleen, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 50 dollars.
allan F. hopkins
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Allan F. Hopkins, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 50 dollars.
andrew yuhas
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Andrew Yuhas, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 50 dollars.
frank a. grenier
The umpire decides that the Government of Panama shall pay to Frank A. Grenier, injured during the disturbances at Panama City on July 4, 1912, the sum of 50 dollars.
Lastly, the umpire decides that the above-mentioned indemnities shall be paid to the interested parties within sixty days from the date of the award, if not so paid, the Government of Panama shall owe over and above each indemnity interest reckoned at six per centum per annum from the 20th of October to the day of payment.
Washington, D. C., October 20, 1916.
Minister of the Netherlands at Washington and at Panama City
- Not printed.↩