"I have received your No. 23, of the 14th instant, touching the invasion of American territory at Eagle Pass, Texas, by Mexican troops from Piedras Negras. It appears that the Mexican Government laments the incident, has ordered the arrest and trial by courtmartial of the persons concerned in the affair and promises that full justice shall be administered in the case.

"This preliminary action on the part of Mexico is viewed with satisfaction as is also the further promise of Mr. Mariscal that the ' questions related to this case will receive merited consideration from the Government of Mexico.'"

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bragg, min. to Mexico, April 26, 1888,
MS. Inst. Mexico, XXII. 189.

On March 3, 1888, a squad of Mexican soldiers, under the command of a lieutenant, who was evidently acting under the orders of his superior officer, made, without the assent of the Government of the United States, an incursion from Mexico into the city of Eagle Pass, Maverick County, Tex., for the purpose of seizing one Antanicio Luis, who was alleged to be a deserter from the Mexican army, but who was at the time engaged in lawful labor at Eagle Pass. The soldiers seized Luis and were in the act of beating him, when they were observed by Shadrack White, deputy sheriff of Maverick County, who, in the exercise of his powers, commanded them to desist and notified them that he would arrest them. They resisted arrest and inflicted upon White serious wounds, from which his right hand was permanently disabled. The Mexican Government expressed regret at the incident and stated that it had ordered the arrest and trial by court-martial of the offending parties. The United States argued not only that the offenders should be punished, but also that an indemnity should be paid for the injuries to White. The Mexican Government subsequently stated that the officers concerned in the affair had been punished and expressed readiness to confer on the question of indemnity. It was agreed that White should be examined by a joint commission of surgeons, and upon their report the Government of Mexico settled the claim for the sum of $7,000.

For. Rel. 1889, 591, 605, 607, 608, 611; For. Rel. 1890, 632, 635, 642; For.
Rel. 1894, 418.

3. BREACHES BY CIVIL AUTHORITIES.

§ 211.

Peter Martin, a naturalized citizen of the United States, was tried at Laketon, British Columbia, for an assault on an officer in the execution of his duty, prison breach, and escape from custody; and, having been found guilty, was sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment at Victoria,

Case of Peter
Martin.

in the same Province, there being no jail or secure place of confinement at Laketon. He was accordingly placed in the custody of constables to be conveyed to Victoria. A part of the route taken lay through Alaska, and was traversed by canoe, via the Stickine River, near the mouth of which, and within the Territory of Alaska, the party made a landing for the purpose of cooking food. While they were thus engaged the prisoner obtained possession of a loaded gun and made a deadly assault on one of the constables, but was overpowered and conveyed to Wrangle Harbor, from whence he was taken by steamer to Victoria.

It having been reported that Martin would be tried at Victoria for this assault, Mr. Fish, on the 2d of November, 1876, wrote to the British minister at Washington, Sir Edward Thornton, and after reciting the facts substantially as above stated, said:

"It further appears from what has been intimated to the consul [of the United States, at Victoria] that Martin will be fully committed for this assault, and that his case will be given to the grand jury, where a true bill will most likely be found against him, and that the case then will come up in the supreme court some time during the present month.

"From the facts presented in the case, it is suggested that the person in question should not be tried for the offense with which he is charged, it having been committed, as is reported, within the jurisdiction of the United States, and that, such being the case, he should be set at liberty.

"I will, therefore, thank you, at your earliest convenience, to call the attention of Her Majesty's proper authorities to the matter, in order that a thorough examination of the facts in the case may be made." a

On the 10th of January, 1877, Mr. Fish addressed another note to Sir Edward Thornton, informing him that a despatch had been received from the consul at Victoria, stating that Martin had been tried there before the Hon. P. P. Crease, a justice of the supreme court of the Province for the assault committed on the Stickine River, and had been found guilty and sentenced to one year and nine months imprisonment at hard labor, to take effect after the expiration of the term of fifteen months to which he was sentenced at Laketon. The consul's despatch further stated that as the evidence at the trial was conflicting as to the precise distance of the scene of the assault from the mouth of the Stickine, and as the boundary line between the British and American territory was not definitely marked the judge charged the jury that, under these circumstances, the court had either jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction, and that the proceedings were

a Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, Brit. min., Nov. 2, 1876, For. Rel. 1877, 266.

just and proper. To this line of argument Mr. Fish answered, first, that if the colonial officers, in transporting Martin from Laketon to Victoria conducted him at any time within and through the unquestioned territory of the United States, they committed, in so doing, a violation of the sovereignty of the United States, which rendered his further detention unjustifiable. And in respect to the question of jurisdiction of the assault he said:

"I must not allow this question to pass without entering an explicit dissent from the doctrine which seems to be advanced by the learned judge who presided at the trial of Martin, that jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction vests in her Her Majesty's colonial authorities or courts over offenses committed within any part of the territory of Alaska, even though so near to the treaty-line that uncertainty or doubt may exist on which side of such line the offense is committed. It cannot, I think, be necessary to argue this point, or to do more than record this dissent and denial of a doctrine which, I have no doubt, Her Majesty's Government agrees with me in repudiating." On the 25th of September, 1877, the British chargé d'affaires at Washington addressed a note to Mr. F. W. Seward, Acting Secretary of State, saying:

a

"I have the honor to inform you that I have just learned from the deputy governor of Canada that the Dominion Government has concluded the inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and has decided upon setting Peter Martin at liberty without further delay."

Case of Arresures.

"I transmit herewith copies of papers received by this Department, in relation to the kidnapping of Francisco Arresures, in Texas, on the evening of the 26th of July last, and his forcible transportation to Mexico, where he was killed on the morning of the 28th of the same month by Mexican officials in whose custody he had been placed.

"It is unnecessary to make, at the present time, a critical analysis of all the statements contained in the annexed papers. Such an attempt would not only consume time uselessly, but would involve the discussion of impertinent matters and obscure the main issue of the

case.

"It is admitted on all hands that Arresures was arrested in Eagle Pass, Texas, on the 26th of July last, without authority of law. At that time, as the evidence shows, he had been residing in Eagle Pass, with his family, between three and four months, and had been in the employ of Mr. John O. Williamson, as driver of a stage, for about

a Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Sir Edward Thornton, Brit. min., Jan. 10, 1877, For. Rel. 1877, 268.

For. Rel. 1877, 271. The correspondence in the case of Martin is also printed in 68 Brit. & For. State Papers, 1223.

six weeks. On the day named, near the hour of eight o'clock in the morning, he was seized by three deputy sheriffs of Maverick County, Texas, named, respectively, Diaz, Van, and Latimer, on an order of extradition issued by Judge Hoffstetter, a judge of the court of that county. It is conceded that this order, which appears to have been based on statements of a Mexican police officer, named Mondragon, was improperly and irregularly obtained.

Immediately after his arrest, Arresures was taken over the Rio Grande and into Mexico, and was left in the custody of Mondragon, above referred to, he being an officer of the force of public security of the district of Rio Grande, State of Coahuila. Whether the delivery of the prisoner to Mondragon was in Texas or in Mexico is uncertain. The three deputy sheriff's state that Mondragon and another Mexican came over into Texas. On the other hand, Mr. John O. Williamson states that Diaz, one of those deputies, told him that Mondragon had promised to come over, but failed to do so, and that Arresures was taken over to Piedras Negras, Mexico, and delivered to Mondragon at his house in that town. This statement is confirmed by the appeal of Arresures to Mr. Linn, U. S. consul at Piedras Negras, for his intervention, in the first of which Arresures said: 'I was taken from my work by armed men who crossed me to this side, and delivered me to the captain of the rangers,' meaning Mondragon.

"It is not disputed that at least two of the Texan deputies went over with Arresures into Mexico. But, in the view that the Department takes of the case, it is not conceived to be material whether the Texan officials who were parties to the kidnapping went over with their prisoner into Mexico, or whether the Mexican officials who were parties to the same transaction came over the Rio Grande into Texas to receive him.

"On the 27th of July, the day following the kidnapping, Arresures appealed to Mr. Linn, U. S. consul at Piedras Negras, for protection, and Mr. Williamson, Arresures' employer, who had come over to look after the case, joined in the application. Mr. Linn, accompanied by Mr. Williamson and a Mr. Schuhardt, then called on Mondragon and asked for Arresures' release. This request Mondragon refused, saying that the case had been placed in the hands of the Zaragoza district court.

66

Intending to apply to this court for the prisoner's release, Mr. Linn learned, early the next morning that Arresures had been killed by members of Mondragon's force.

"This fact is undisputed, and, while the circumstances of the killing have been differently stated, there are the strongest reasons to believe that Arresures' violent death was brought about by Mon

dragon's orders. The plea of the Mexican authorities, stated in Mr. Linn's despatch of September 3, 1886, that the guards acted in selfdefense, is incompatible with many of the circumstances. Unarmed, as the prisoner certainly was, and in charge of three armed men, it scarcely seems possible that there was necessity for resort to the extreme measure of homicide to control him. The hurried burial, the condition of the body when exhumed, the enmity of Mondragon towards Arresures, as evidenced by his own statements, by the fears expressed by Arresures, in his appeal to Mr. Linn, as well as by the conspiracy to kidnap, in which, as the papers before the Department show, Mondragon was the prime mover, all lead to the grave conclusion that the violent killing of Arresures was premeditated.

"The question yet to be considered is that of Mexico's liability. "The Department holds it to be clear that Arresures was, at the time of his forcible removal to Mexico, under the protection of the United States. He had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States; and the reasonable inference from the evidence is that when kidnapped he was domiciled in Texas, where his family resided and continue to reside. But, admitting that he was not so domiciled, and that he had not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, the fact that he was, at the time of his arrest and abduction, residing on the soil of the United States, would entitle this Government to call upon Mexico for redress. Had the case been presented to this Department in time, it is not doubted that Mexico would have admitted the right of this Government to ask for the prisoner's return; and as that has become impossible, it may be reasonably expected that she will not now deny the only reparation that may be made.

"It is no palliation of Mondragon's guilt that his co-conspirators in the abduction were officials of Texas, who wrongfully used the process of that State to effect the abduction. It may be said that in the case of a person regularly extradited, the demanding Government is held bound to exercise the utmost care and good faith. So anxious have Governments been to ensure to those who come within their jurisdiction, even when they are fugitives from justice, the protection of the laws, that it is not uncommon to find in treaties of extradition a provision that persons extradited thereunder shall not be tried for any other offense than that for which the surrender was made.

"In respect to the custody of persons surrendered, it is never expressly provided, because it is always assumed, that they will be treated humanely and protected from violence. No stipulation is needed to enforce this obligation, which is fundamental and selfevident.