In accordance with this instruction, a note was forwarded to the Foreign
Office on September 22, a copy of which is transmitted herewith for the
Department’s information and files.
[Enclosure]
The American Ambassador (Daniels) to the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Hay)
No. 1794
Mexico, September 22, 1936.
Excellency: I have the honor to refer to
Your Excellency’s note No. 5906 of July 13, 1936,98 concerning the murder of
an American
[Page 702]
citizen,
Antonio Sustaita, at Matamoros, Tamaulipas, on June 10, 1934. Under
instructions from my Government, I must again bring this case to
Your Excellency’s attention.
A brief review of this case is as follows: On June 10, 1934,
Sustaita, American born, about twenty-six years of age and a member
of the Brownsville, Texas, Fire Department, visited Matamoros with
his family and some friends for recreational purposes. Early in the
day he had a dispute with Rodríguez and blows were exchanged by the
two men. Later, while in a saloon in another part of the city,
Sustaita was accosted by Rodríguez, who in the meantime had armed
himself, and, after the exchange of a few words, the latter shot
Sustaita in the side, the bullet passing through the stomach. The
wounded man was taken to a local hospital and later in the day was
removed to the Mercy Hospital in Brownsville where he died on the
following day, June 11, 1934. Rodríguez, who was also known as
Valero, was tried in the Court of First Instance at Matamoros and
sentenced to imprisonment for twenty days, to count from the day of
his arrest on June 10, 1934, and the court records were transmitted
to the Supreme Court at Victoria for review. That Court apparently
affirmed the findings of the first instance court, as follows:
“1. There are grounds for the indictment. (Prosecution) (Acusación). 2. Miguel Valero
Rodríguez is criminally responsible as author of the crime
of homicide committed on the person of Antonio Sustaita. 3.
The penalty applicable to Miguel Valero Rodríguez, as author
of the crime of homicide is that determined by Article 183,
fraction IV of the existing Penal Code. 4. The accused is
favored by the extenuating circumstance of his former good
record and there is no aggravating circumstance (Article 39,
fraction I of the Penal Code). 5. The accused should be
admonished against repetition of the offense. (Debe amonestarse al acusado para que no
reincida).”
It appears that Rodríguez actually spent
approximately three months in prison, the jail records showing that
he was liberated on September 22, 1934.
Would Your Excellency kindly inform me whether Mexican law provides
for the reopening of the case against the murderer of Mr. Sustaita
which was apparently closed by the decision of the Supreme Court of
the State of Tamaulipas, following which the murderer was liberated
from prison on September 22, 1934, after spending approximately
three months therein.
The available data indicate that Rodríguez deliberately armed himself
and sought for Sustaita within a short period following their fistic
encounter for the express purpose of killing him; that Sustaita was
unarmed; and that he was shot down in cold blood. Considering the
circumstances, and the shockingly inadequate sentence imposed
[Page 703]
upon the murderer by the
trial court and affirmed by the State Supreme Court and the further
fact that the victim left a wife and two small children, it appears
that the Mexican Government should agree promptly to the payment of
a suitable indemnity for the family of the late husband and father.
It is felt that the sense of fairness and justice of the Mexican
Government will be satisfied by nothing less in a case where, as in
this one, there has occurred such a miscarriage of justice.
My Government would greatly appreciate an early settlement of this
case. I am authorized to inform Your Excellency that my Government
will consider the sum of five thousand dollars acceptable as
indemnity.
Please accept [etc.]
