Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Meantime I had prepared and printed our memorial as required by the protocol, for presentation to the tribunal, wherein I took care to show that the Mixed Commission of 1868 had underestimated the amount of the Pious Fund, and so had failed to award us as large an amount as we were entitled to, by from $414,000 to over a million and a half, according to the proportions in which the court might decide to divide the interest between the two territories. It appears at the end

of Vol. I.

Then came the briefs or arguments in the case. I had long before learned the unwisdom of consuming the time, fatiguing the attention. and trying the patience of judges by the discussion of minor and subordinate points, and that the advocate does better who fastens on the turning point of the controversy and aims to demonstrate that in it he is in the right, leaving the smaller matters to be dealt with by the trained intelligence of the judges. Hence, as it was clear to me that the question of res judicata, as presented in the protocol, would control the decision here, and as I had in my arguments before the Mixed Commission of 1868 discussed to the best of my ability the origin, character and ownership of the Fund, succession of the prelates, etc., I passed them over and addressed myself exclusively to the question of res judicata, including the jurisdiction of the tribunal, dangerously assailed by Mexico because of the form in which the claim was presented to that commission in Mr. Casserly's letter to Mr. Secretary Fish, of March 30th, 1870; the terms of which I first learned from the printed record, or transcript (vol. I, page 8), on July 26th, 1902. Mr. Ralston, without any preconcert with me, seems to have taken the same view and discussed the same question from the point of view of the civil law, for which the unrivaled resources of the Congressional library and that of the State Department afforded him great facilities, while I looked at it from the common law side.

After our delegation had sailed for Europe, the department, at my request, through Mr. Siddons, reprinted the correspondence, arranged chronologically, and a copy of that edition has been substituted in Vol. I of this copy for the other. Mr. Ralston was appointed agent for the United States, to represent it before the tribunal, and was assigned by the Secretary a staff of stenographers, translators and typewriters, selected from the permanent employees of the department. The Secretary even consented to spare us Judge William L. Penfield, the solicitor and chief law adviser of the department, to personally support our case. A disbursing officer accompanied the party, which had very much the character of a diplomatic mission, and evinced clearly the interest in the case felt by the U. S. Government. Senator Stewart, my original associate, also went with them, and, as age and bodily infirmity forbid my undertaking such a journey, my son, Mr. W. T. Sherman Doyle, went in my place. He rendered services the value of which were acknowledged by Mr. Ralston in complimentary terms in his report (Vol. II, p. 13).

The arbitrators named by the United States were Sir Edward Fry of England and Professor F. de Martens of Russia. Those nominated by Mexico were Messrs. T. M. C. Asser and F. de Savornin Lohman, both of Holland, and these gentlemen promptly agreed on Professor Henry Matzen of Denmark as their President and Umpire. The case on the part of Mexico was managed by Señor Don Emilio Pardo, an eminent jurisconsult of the Mexican capital, who was accredited to Her

Majesty the Queen of Holland as Minister Plenipotentiary of his country. He associated with himself as counsel Messrs. Beernaert and Delacroix, local counsel of distinction, and Archbishop Riordan retained Mr. Descamps, also of the local bar. All the details of the proceedings are given in the proces verbal which accompanies Mr. Ralston's report (Vol. II, Part VII). Archbishop Riordan attended the sessions of the court in person, and Messrs. Stewart, McEnerney, Ralston, Descamps and Penfield addressed the court on the part of the United States, and Messrs. Bernaert, Delacroix and Pardo on the part of Mexico. Printed briefs were also submitted by each side. The court with little delay, and unanimously, decided that the whole controversy was controlled by the former decision, under the governing principle of res judicata, and consequently awarded us our whole demand of $1,420,682.67, being thirty-three annual installments of interest of $43,050.99 then in arrear, and adjudged that the last-named amount be paid to us annually thereafter in perpetuity (Vol. II, Part VI, p. 411; Tr., p. 13). These amounts were, however, made payable "en monaie ayant cours legal au Mexique."

As to the sort of money which we are entitled to recover, the subject is so familiar to us in this country as to be obvious. It would need no argument in any court. I do not, therefore, blame any of my American associates (and not even myself very much) for ignorance of the different state of opinion on the continent of Europe, where they speak of money as l'argent and their money units the franc, the mark, the lire, the rouble are all silver, and, like our buzzard dollar, kept at par with gold by redemption in the latter metal. I was, however, not satisfied with this last mentioned condition. Sir Edward Thornton had awarded us 904,070" Mexican gold dollars," and as a judgment in such a case does not create a debt, but establishes judicially its previous existence, his judgment established judicially the existence of a debt to us of that many dollars of that particular kind. There are more than twenty different sorts of dollars in use in the world, and of different values, just as there are pounds sterling and pounds turkish, so that, in an international judgment, the word dollars, alone, expresses no definite value. A judgment for so many dollars is indefinite unless the sort of dollars is named. Mexico has gold dollars and silver dollars of different values. Hence, I consider the sort of dollars just as much res judicata as the number of pieces. The court having decided differently I presume I am to be deemed in error, and I submit. But I cannot help feeling like Galileo, who, when the key of his cell was turned on him, is said to have clapped his mouth to the keyhole and called out through it, "It turns round yet.”

MENLO PARK, CALIF., March 27th, 1903.

JOHN T. DOYLE.

We believe that it will conduce to the convenience of the Court, in examining the record of the Arbitration under the Convention of 1868, to be furnished with an orderly table of its material contents, and have prepared the following with that purpose.

Original presentation of the claim to the U. S. Government by
John T. Doyle, July 20th, 1859

Presentation thereof to the Mixed Commission by E. Casserly,

Page

5

(Spanish

March 30th, 1870 .....

Memorial thereof to same, December 28th, 1870.

(Spanish

).

(English version)..

Exhibit attached to Memorial; items of demand.

(English version)

[ocr errors][merged small]

Brief History of the Pious Fund of California.

(English version)

(Spanish " )...

8

9

54

15

60

17

61

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS.

Extracts from Historical works, viz.:

"Venegas California"

187

Storia della California (Clavigero).....
Nachrichten von der Amerikanischen Halbinsel Californien.. 199
Documentos para la Historia de México..

197

.. 202

Alegre's Historia de la Compañia de Jesus en Nueva España.. 211
Historia de los Tres Siglos de México

212

Duflot de Mofras, Exploration du territoire, &c.....
Informe of Sr. Mangino relativo al Fondo Piadoso, &c., to the
Viceroy.....

215

217

Informe último sobre los caudales del Fondo Piadoso
Extracts from report of D. Lucas Alaman, Secretary of State of
Mexico (1830)...

218

219

Account of money owed to the Pious Fund by the Public Treasury down to April 7th, 1842 ..

221

Copy of foundation Deed of the Marquis of Villapuente, and his

[blocks in formation]

Note to Deed, and Extract from Alegre's History, translated. 109 Extract from the Historia de la Real Hacienda, compiled by Urrutia and Fonseca at the request of the Viceroy RevillaGigedo. (Spanish version)

(English

)

124

135

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Appointment of J. S. Alemany, Archbishop..

Thadeus Amat, Bishop...

Extract Corporation Law of California..

Motion to Dismiss Claim on behalf of Mexico.

Argument in support of Motion to Dismiss, by Mr. Cushing

Brief of Messrs. Phillips & Wilson, in reply thereto.

Brief of John T. Doyle, in reply to same..

Argument of D. Manuel Aspiroz before the Commissioners, on the

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

EVIDENCE ON THE PART OF MEXICO, VIZ.:

Exhibits to the Argument of D. Manuel Aspiroz.

Exhibit No. 1 (Spanish version).

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »