•Us? 
 
 1234 
 U54 
 opy 1 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/claimsgrowingout03unit 
 
L234 
 54 
 
 sv 1 Congress, l H0 USE OF REPRESENTATIVES. { Report 
 
 »y * .Session. [ 1 No. 361. 
 
 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 October 7, 1919. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered 
 
 to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Dent, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 
 
 following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany H. J. Res. 80.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the joint 
 resolution (H. J. Res. 80) to correct an error in the wording of the 
 rojpriation of $71,000 made in the act approved July 9, 1918, and 
 to authorize the Secretary of War to pa}^ said sum to respective par- 
 ties entitled thereto, having considered the same, report. thereon with 
 inendation that it do pass. 
 
 House Committee on Military Affairs favorably reported a 
 
 measure during the session of the Sixty-fifth Congress. It is 
 
 intended by this resolution to include those persons wounded as well 
 
 >ply to those killed growing out of the late insurrection in 
 
 A copy of Report No. 1040, Sixty-fifth Congress, third 
 
 iion, is herewith appended and made a part of this report. 
 
 [House Report No. 1040, Sixty-fifth Congress, third session.] 
 
 The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the 
 oint resolution (S. J. Res. 175) to correct an error in the wording of 
 the appropriation of $71,000 made in the act approved July 9, 1918, 
 and to authorize the Secretary of War to pay said sum to respective 
 parties entitled thereto, having considered the same, report thereon 
 with a recommendation that it do pass. 
 
 The act referred to in the said Senate joint resolution reads as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Persons killed on Mexican border : To enable the Secretary of War to pay to 
 the heirs or the legal representatives of citizens of the United States killed on 
 American side of the line at El Paso, Texas; Douglas, Arizona, and other 
 s found and ascertained by the commissioners appointed pursuant to 
 the Joint resolution directing the Secretary of War to investigate the claims 
 of American citizens for damages suffered within American territory and 
 Lng out of the late insurrection in Mexico," approved August ninth, nine- 
 hundred and twelve, the sum of $71,000. 
 
 This provision is incorporated in the annual appropriation bill for 
 the support of the Army, approved July 9, 1918. 
 
 In support of the measure there is attached hereto and made a part 
 of this report letter of transmittal, together with report f commis- 
 sioners authorized under the law. 
 
\-IZ34- 
 454- 
 
 Letter of Transmittal. 
 
 War Department, 
 
 Washington, December 5, 1912. 
 The Speaker or the House of Representatives. 
 
 Sir: In response to Senate joint resolution No. 103, directing the 
 Secretary of War to investigate the claims of American citizens 
 damages suffered within. American territory and growing out of the 
 late insurrection in Mexico, etc., I have the honor to transmit here- 
 with reports of the commission appointed by paragraps 27, Special 
 Order No. 205, current series, War Department, to investigate sucr 
 claims. 
 
 Similar reports have been transmitted to the President pr tem- 
 pore, United States Senate. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Henry L. Stimson. 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 2 
 
 &• Of J. 
 OCT 2f 19|9 
 
CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 Washington, D. C, November 29, 1912. 
 The Adjutant General of the Army, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 *Sir: The commission appointed by paragraph 27, Special Orders, 
 No. 205, War Department, August 30, 1912, has the honor to submit 
 herewith its report, as required under the terms of joint resolution 
 No. 48, approved August 9, 1912, for submission to the Congress 
 through the Secretary of War. 
 
 For reasons of convenience and completeness the resolution and 
 order under which the commission acted are quoted in full : 
 
 JOINT RESOLUTION Directing the Secretary of War to investigate the claims of 
 American citizens for damages suffered within American territory and growing out of 
 the late insurrection in Mexico. 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
 America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, 
 aorized and directed to make, or cause to be made under his direction, a full 
 and thorough investigation of each and all claims of American citizens and of 
 persons domiciled in the United States which may be called to his attention by 
 claimants) or their attorneys for damages for injuries to their persons or prop- 
 received by them or by those of whom claimants may be the legal repre- 
 sentatives, within the boundaries of the United States, by means of gunshot 
 wounds or otherwise inflicted by Mexican Federal or insurgent troops during 
 the late insurrection in Mexico in the year nineteen hundred and eleven. 
 
 For the purpose of such investigation the Secretary of War is authorized to 
 appoint a commission of three officers of the Army, one of whom shall be an 
 inspector general. Such commission shall have authority to subpoena witnesses, 
 administer oaths, and to take evidence on oath relating to any such claim and 
 to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers 
 in any such proceeding by application to the district court of the United States 
 for the district within which any session of the commission is held, which 
 court is hereby empowered and directed to make all orders and issue all proc- 
 esses necessary for that purpose, and said commission shall have all the powers 
 conferred by law upon inspectors general of the United States Army in the per- 
 formance of their duties. Such commission shall report to Congress, through 
 the Secretary of War, as soon as practicable, its findings of fact upon each and 
 all the claims presented to it and its conclusion as to the justice and equity 
 thereof and as to the proper amount of compensation or indemnity thereupon. 
 
 Approved, August 9, 1912. 
 
 Special Orders, \ Wae Department, 
 
 No. 205. J Washington, August 30, 1912. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 ****** 
 27. Under the authority conferred by a joint resolution approved August 9, 
 1912, a commission to consist of Lieut. Col. Francis J. Kernan, adjutant general, 
 Maj. Eli A. Helmick, inspector general, First Lieut. Aristides Moreno, Twenty- 
 eighth Infantry, is appointed to meet in this city at the call of the senior mem- 
 ber of the commission for the purpose of making an investigation of all claims 
 
4 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION" IN MEXICO. 
 
 of American citizens and of persons domiciled in the United States for damages 
 suffered by them within the boundaries of the United States and growing out 
 of the insurrection in Mexico in the year 1911. 
 
 The proceedings of the commission will be conducted and its report made in 
 accordance with the provisions of the joint resolution cited and instructions 
 of the Secretary of War. 
 
 Lieut. Moreno is appointed special disbursing officer of the commission. 
 
 ******* 
 By order of the Secretary of War: 
 
 Leonard Wood, 
 Major General, Chief of Staff. 
 Official : 
 
 Geo. Andrews, 
 
 The Adjutant General. 
 
 Immediately after its creation the commission caused to be inserted 
 in three issues upon alternate days in the Douglas (Ariz.) Dispatch 
 and the El Paso (Tex.) Times the following advertisement: 
 
 Notice. 
 
 mexican revolution damage claimants take notice. 
 
 Whereas the Congress of the United States passed a joint resolution which 
 was approved August 9, 1912, and which authorized the Secretary of War 
 appoint a commission of three officers of the Army to make a full and thorough 
 investigation of each and every claim of American citizens and of persons 
 property within the boundaries of the United States by means of gunshot, 
 wounds or otherwise inflicted by Mexican federal or insurgent troops during 
 late insurrection in Mexico in the year 1911 ; and 
 
 Whereas a commission has been duly appointed by the Secretary of 
 as above authorized, consisting of Lieut. Col. Francis J. Kernan, adjiv 
 general, Maj. Eli A. Helmick, inspector general, and First Lieut. Aristides 
 Moreno, Twenty-eighth Infantry; now all claimants falling within the above 
 description are advised and requested to file their respective claims at the 
 earliest practicable date with the said commission, at its office, room 258, War 
 Department, Washington, D. C. 
 
 In filing claims the following rules should be observed : 
 
 1. To be in duplicate, properly dated and signed, and verified upon oath or 
 affirmation and setting forth: 
 
 2. The age. place of birth, present residence, post-office address, and occupa- 
 tion of ths claimant and his residence, nationality, and occupation at the tin^e 
 his claim had its origin. 
 
 8. The amount of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the kind 
 or kinds and amount of property lost, destroyed, or injured, or the kind and 
 degree of injury if the claim is founded upon damage to person, and the fa 
 and circumstances attending the loss or injury out of which the claim arisen 
 
 4. Whether the claimant was the sole and absolute owner of the prop- 
 damaged when the damage arose and whether he is now the sole owner o; 
 claim, or, if any other person is now interested therein, the name and address 
 of such other person and the nature and extent of his interest and how, when, 
 and by what means and for what consideration the transfer of interest- 
 rights, if such was made, took place between the parties. 
 
 5. Whether the claimant, his representative, or any person interested in the 
 claim, or any part thereof, has ever received any indemnification for the wl 
 
 or part of the alleged loss or injury ; and if so, the nature and amount of the 
 indemnification and when, from whom, and by whom the same was received. 
 
 6. Documentary evidence, if submitted, should be duly authenticated, and the 
 whole claim and its accompanying papers should be in the English language. 
 
 7. All claims hereunder must be submitted to the commission not later than 
 October 10, 1912. 
 
 Thereafter the commission met in Washington, D. C, on Septem- 
 ber 30, and after such preliminary work as could be done in 
 city proceeded, about October 10, to El Paso, Tex., where sessions 
 were held to hear evidence in the claims arising there and there- 
 abouts. Upon the completion of these hearings the commission pro- 
 
CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 5 
 
 ceeded, on November 1, to Douglas, Ariz., where similar sessions 
 were held to hear the evidence in support of the six claims having 
 origin in that city. Afterwards the commission returned to El Paso, 
 where two additional claims were presented and heard, and upon 
 the conclusion of these cases the commission returned to Washington, 
 D. C, where it arrived on the 14th instant. To complete the narra- 
 tive of its movements it may be added that members of the commis- 
 sion visited Indianapolis, Ind., Cleveland, Ohio, Atlanta, Ga., and 
 San Antonio, Tex., for the purpose of prosecuting inquiries incident 
 to the complete investigation of the claims in question. 
 
 Twenty-four claims in all were brought to the attention of the 
 commission. Of these, one, that of Mrs. Jennie W. Preston, had been 
 settled to the satisfaction of the claimant, through the Mexican 
 consul at El Paso, and was never pressed upon the commission, 
 while another, that of Miss Frances M. Keade, appeared upon its 
 face to be beyond the scope of the commission's authority, having 
 arisen in Mexico, and so was not investigated. 
 
 The remaining 22 claims were investigated as fully as practicable 
 and they divide themselves naturally into two classes. The first 
 class embraces two cases only, those of Converse and Blatt, and they 
 are founded upon the alleged kidnapping of the parties upon Ameri- 
 can territory and their subsequent harsh treatment. The other class 
 is that of injuries arising from bullet wounds and resulting in death 
 or some disability. And this latter class embraces two distinct 
 kinds of claimants, i. e., those claiming as American citizens and those 
 claiming as domiciled aliens. 
 
 The commission, in considering the form of its report, arrived at 
 the conclusion that it would conduce to clearness and to brevity if the 
 general situation out of which these claims arose and the general 
 considerations which should govern their disposition were treated in 
 one comprehensive report, leaving the particular facts and conclu- 
 sions as to each separate claim to be embodied in separate reports, 
 one for each claim. That plan has been followed, and this, which is 
 the general report, is accompanied by the several individual reports, 
 all taken together constituting the complete report of the commis- 
 sion as required by Congress. 
 
 It will be observed that the joint resolution requires the commis- 
 sion to report — 
 
 Its findings of facts * * * and its conclusions as to the justice and equity 
 thereof and as to the proper amount of compensation or indemnity thereupon. 
 
 n the execution of this part of this task the commission has become 
 convinced that in some cases, all the relevant facts and circumstances 
 being duly weighed, no compensation can be justly sought from or 
 through the Government of the United States, notwithstanding the 
 undoubted fact that injury was received; but as this report is ad- 
 visory only and not conclusive, the commission has in every case, 
 except in those of Converse and Blatt, assessed the amount of dam- 
 age believed to have been sustained. It follows from this procedure 
 that if the conclusions of the commission as to the justice, equity, or 
 propriety of the claims be not concurred in by the authority which 
 must make final disposition thereof, the reports will enable a 
 prompter settlement to be effected than might otherwise be the case. 
 
6 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 I. THE CASES OF CONVERSE AND BLATT. 
 
 The evidence and the circumstances of these two cases are sub- 
 stantially the same. These claimants are both young, native-born 
 American citizens. Early in 1911 Converse met an agent of the 
 Mexican revolutionary party, which party was acting under the 
 general leadership of Francisco Madero, in Los Angeles, Cal. The 
 two struck a bargain, under which Converse was to enter the service 
 of the revolutionary army in Mexico, to be commissioned therein, 
 and to receive a stated salaiy. Pursuant to this agreement Converse 
 entered that service and continued in it until the day of his kid- 
 naping, February 20, 1911. He was employed chiefly as a mes- 
 senger between the insurgents, operating near Juarez, Mexico, oppo- 
 site El Paso, Tex., and their agents in the latter city. On one of his 
 visits to El Paso he met Mr. Blatt, talked over the matter of his 
 service, and took Blatt to the revolutionary junta living in El Paso. 
 As a result Blatt went next day over into Mexico and joined the in- 
 surgent forces. He denies having made a definite bargain or re- 
 ceived a commission, but he admits meeting the junta, and as a 
 result he crossed into Mexico and identified himself with the forces 
 seeking the overthrow of the Diaz Government. He was assigned 
 to the duty of gathering supplies, by requisition or otherwise, from 
 the neighboring country for the insurgent forces. Converse had 
 been sent to carry correspondence to the revolutionary agents in 
 El Paso, and Blatt got permission to accompany him. Com 
 avows his intention to return and rejoin the insurgents, but 
 declares he had had enough and proposed to remain in the United 
 States, once safely there. The two were observed and followed by 
 Federal Mexican troops, but succeeded in crossing the Rio Grande 
 at a point where it is the boundary; and having achieved, as they 
 thought, a safe place, they rested near the river on the American 
 side. There they were set upon by Mexicans — undoubtedly sent by 
 the Federal Mexican officers — captured, and taken across the river 
 into Mexico. They were carried as prisoners from Guadalupe, Mex- 
 ico, to Juarez, Mexico, and incarcerated in the common jail for two 
 months. In passing from Guadalupe to Juarez the road crosses once 
 or twice into American territory. Converse called the attention of 
 his captors to this fact while on the United States side and demanded 
 release, but was refused. At the end of two months both prisoners 
 were released by the personal order of President Diaz. There were 
 circumstances of humiliation and discomfort connected with then 
 captivity. Upon these facts each claimant demands $50,000 by way 
 of damages. 
 
 Mr. Converse, testifying in his own behalf, said : 
 
 A. * * * I had no intention of joining the revolution until after I got 
 to Los Angeles. I met in Los Angeles a man who was connected with the 
 lution, and he offered me a position and a salary to drill the troops and to 
 instruct the troops. 
 
 Q. Did he profess to be an agent of Orozco or Madero or those connected 
 with this revolution? — A. He professed to be an agent of the Madero revolu- 
 tion ; I knew that he was, through a signed commission ; I afterwards identi- 
 fied the signature of Mr. Madero. 
 
 Q. And did you strike a bargain with him that you would become a drill- 
 master? — A. Yes, sir. (See p. 33, testimony in Converse case.) 
 
CLAIMS GEOWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 7 
 
 Mr. Blatt, testifying in his own behalf, said : 
 
 Q. When had you entered the service?— A. We went to the junta here in 
 Paso one evening; I met several of their emissaries here, and the next 
 morning— we stayed that evening— and the next morning we rode in a wagon 
 to Ysleta, which is about 12 miles down the valley— we passed it yesterday— 
 and stayed there that day; the following morning we rode on horseback to 
 the town of Zaragoza, Mexico, where we joined the forces there. 
 
 Q. Whose forces?— A. The Mexican forces— the revolutionists— the Ma- 
 deristas. 
 
 Q. What sort of an engagement had you made with the junta here in El 
 aso?— A. Nothing but to go over; I made my engagement merely to go over, 
 and did not ask anything of a reward, or what we would be paid, or anything ; 
 I just wanted to go over. 
 
 Q. What was your purpose in going over to the other side?— A. I often won- 
 der at it now myself; that is, it was wholly for the little excitement. 
 
 Q. Were you going over there on a hunting trip? — A. No, sir- £roin°- over 
 there to fight. 
 
 Q. Going for the purpose of joining the insurrectos, were vou not'— A Yes 
 sir. * ' 
 
 Q. You did join them? — A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did they accept your services?— A. Yes. (See testimony of Mr Blatt nn 
 15-16, Blatt case.) ' yy ' 
 
 Section 9 of the act approved March 4, 1909, provides that 
 
 Every citizen of the United States who, within the territory or jurisdiction 
 thereof, accepts and exercises a commission to serve a foreign prince. State, 
 colony, district, or people, in war, by land or by sea, against any prince, State' 
 colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, shall be 
 fined not more than $2,000 and imprisoned not more than three years. 
 
 Considering the testimony of the claimants in connection with all 
 the other facts and circumstances brought out in the evidence, the 
 commission is convinced that both these claimants were engaged, at 
 the time when their claims had their origin, in violating the neu- 
 trality laws of their own country. If this be so, they are barred from 
 asking that Government whose laws they were violating to take upon 
 itself the task of seeking compensation for any damage or injury 
 which may have come to them primarily as a result of their own 
 wrongdoing. 
 
 In the case of the Monitor, where a claim against the Japanese 
 Government was in question, Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, said : 
 
 Clearly, therefore, this department is precluded from pressing in any manner 
 upon the attention of a foreign government a claim growing out of transactions 
 obnoxious to the laws of the United States or possessing other features that 
 forbid its approval and promotion by the official representative of this govern- 
 ment. (Moore's Int. Law Digest, 6, p. 620.) 
 
 And again the same Secretary, in reference to the claim of one 
 Pelletier against Haiti, said : 
 
 On the general question of turpitude of cause of action as barring the pres- 
 ent claim, I am now prepared to give an emphatic, and, I trust, final decision 
 Even were we to concede that these outrages in Haitian waters were not within 
 Halt inn jurisdiction, I do now affirm that the claim of Pelletier against Haiti 
 on the facts exhibited must be dropped and dropped peremptorily and imme- 
 diately by the Government of the United States. "The principle of public 
 policy," said Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnston, Cowper's Rep., 343 "is 
 this : Ex dolo malo non oritur actio." No court will lend its aid to a' man' who 
 founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. * * * By 
 .innumerable rulings under the Ptoman common law, as held by nations holding 
 Latin traditions, and under the common law as held in England and the United 
 States, has this principle been applied. * * * 
 
 But even if it should be thought that the acts of Converse and 
 Blatt as shown by the evidence would not sustain an indictment 
 
8 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 under the penal statute above cited, it must still be held that their 
 admitted conduct estops them from asking the United States Govern- 
 ment to press their claim upon Mexico. They were both actively 
 engaged in the service of a revolutionary force whose avowed object 
 was to overthrow the established government of Mexico. As armed 
 revolutionists they took upon themselves the hazards of war. They 
 were liable to be killed in action ; and, on other other hand, they were 
 liable to kill in action soldiers of the Republic of Mexico. These 
 rights and liabilities could not flow from American citizenship If 
 slain in a fair fight, this Government would have no duty to demand 
 redress in the premises; if they killed, in like manner, their oppo- 
 nents, they could not do so as American citizens primarily, bu j only 
 as Mexican revolutionists. Otherwise such killing would be murder. 
 It is plain that these claimants, having taken upon themselves the 
 character of Mexican revolutionists, with a new set of duties, rights, 
 and liabilities, put in abeyance for the time being at least their dis- 
 tinctive rights, liabilities, and duties as American citizens. They 
 were fighting not as citizens of this country, but as Mexican insur- 
 gents, and they were pursued not as Americans, but as rebels in arms 
 against the established Government. The pursuit should have 
 stopped at the boundary, not because the crossing of the Rio Grande 
 divested Converse and Blatt of their hostile and capturable qualities, 
 but because to go further was to violate the sovereignty of a neigh- 
 boring country. Crossing the river did not reinvest these claimants 
 with any of those individual rights peculiar to American citizenship, 
 which they had voluntarily put aside by enlisting in the Mexican 
 revolution; on the contrary, the very character of their mission re- 
 quired them to cross to the soil of the United States, and in so do 
 they were carrying out an act of warfare against the Government of 
 the Republic of Mexico. The circumstances of their seizure consti- 
 tuted a clear and a grave violation of the sovereign rights of the 
 United States. 
 
 The commission believes their capture on American soil to have 
 been deliberate and to have been instigated by the military author- 
 ities of Mexico, a part of whose forces were drawn up on the southern 
 bank of the river, to receive the two captured Americans, and which, 
 in fact, did receive and hold them immediately after those e eeting 
 the seizure had brought them to the Mexican side. The whole pro- 
 cedure was an international wrong done to this country; but the 
 individuals captured were captured not as American citizens, but as 
 active insurgents in the very act of carrying out a hostile mission. 
 The case would have been the same if the parties captured had bean 
 native-born Mexicans instead of Americans. In either case the pur- 
 suit should have stopped at the boundary: in either case the capture 
 on this side was internationally wrong, but in both cases the injury 
 is a public one directed against the sovereignty of the United States. 
 It was open to our Government to demand the release of those c 
 tured, the punishment of those involved in the capture, and such 
 further international redress as might be deemed proper by those 
 charged with that phase of public duty; but as to these claim ;uv;b. 
 capture was one of the fates they challenged when they embarl 
 in their Mexican insurgent enterprise, and the time and place of 
 capture, while making for an offense to this Government, grounds 
 in them no claim for pecuniary damages which this Government 
 
CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 9 
 
 should undertake to press. If they have any just claim for compen- 
 
 on it should be directed by them to the conscience and gratitude 
 
 of the present Government of Mexico, whose cause, they made their 
 
 The principle here set out is not novel. It was acted upon in the 
 case of Capt. John Clark, who took out letters of marque from 
 Uruguay and cruised against the vessels and property of Spain and 
 Portugal upon the high seas. A part of his booty was taken by a 
 public-owned vessel of Colombia, and his heirs came in time to press 
 a claim growing out of this seizure before mixed commissions ap- 
 ited by the United States and New Granada, Venezuela, and 
 ador, these States being a part of that Eepublic of Colombia 
 which had made the original seizure. In all cases the claims were 
 finally disallowed, and the grounds upon which this action was had 
 were, in principle, those above outlined. One of the commission said : 
 
 I grant that the conduct of the Venezuelan squadron and the decisions of the 
 Venezuelan prize court were unjustifiable upon any principle of international 
 and that a great outrage was committed on the sovereign rights and inter- 
 of Uruguay: but what is that to the United States? Whatever losses and 
 damages Capt. Clark sustained in the premises he sustained, not in his char- 
 acter as a citizen of the United States, but as an officer in the service of the 
 Banda Oriental Republic (Uruguay), cruising under her flag, for her benefit, 
 and against her enemies. If, therefore, the spoliations committed by the 
 Venezuelan Navy, and sanctioned by the Venezuelan courts, entitle him to 
 indemnification, this indemnification must be claimed by the Banda Oriental 
 Republic, now the Republic of Uruguay, and not by the United States — the 
 war was with Uruguay and Spain and Portugal ; the United States were neutral ; 
 nor so Capt. Clark. Although a native citizen of the United States, he had 
 identified himself with one of the belligerents in violations, as I shall presently 
 ^liow, of the laws and treaties of his own native country. He was cruising 
 under the Uruguay flag against the commerce of two nations with which the 
 country of his birth was at peace. He must, therefore, abide by the conse- 
 quences * * *. A party who asks for redress must present himself with 
 clean hands. His cause of action must not be based on an offense against the 
 very authority to whom be appeals for redress * * *. He who engages in 
 an expedition prohibited by the laws of his country must take the consequences. 
 He may win or he may lose. But that is his own risk ; he can not, in case of 
 loss seek indemnity through the instrumentality of the government against 
 which he has offended. (Moore's Int. Arbitrations, pp. 2734—2739.) 
 
 Other commissioners expressed similar views, and one of them, 
 Mr. Findlay, in the course of his opinion, quoted from Mr. Justice 
 Taney in Williams v. Gibbes, where, having reference to a claim 
 founded on a contract to furnish advances and supplies to a military 
 expedition fitting out against Mexico, then belonging to Spain, the 
 justice said: 
 
 Of course it was their duty [the commission's] not to allow any claim for 
 services rendered to Mexico or money advanced for its use by American citizens 
 olation of their duty to their own Government or in disobedience to its 
 laws. For the Government would have been unmindful of its own duty to the 
 United States if it had used its powers and influence to enforce a claim of that 
 description, or had sanctioned it by treaty. 
 
 Col. Young's case, reported in Moore's International Arbitrations, 
 pages 2752-2753, is almost exactly in point. Col. Young accepted a 
 commission in the Mexican Army in its war against Spain, and was 
 killed. The commissioners say: 
 
 Col. Young, by accepting a commission in the Mexican service and actually 
 engaging in the war then in progress, forfeited all claim to the protection of 
 his own Government. He lost, for the time being at least, and so far as he 
 
10 CLAIMS GEO WING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 was connected with that service, the character of an American citizen, A r 
 turn to the United States might have restored his national character ; but while 
 he was in Mexico, engaged in her service as an officer in her army, he 
 to be a citizen of "his native country and could claim none of the bent 
 suiting from that character. 
 
 So in Green's case, the umpire declares that — 
 
 the claimant must be considered to have been actually employed by and in the 
 service of the Mexican Government, and pro tanto a Mexican citizen during the 
 time of his services. ^ 
 
 The grievance of the United States against Mexico in these cases is 
 not that the particular persons — Converse and Blatt — should have 
 been captured as they were, but that anybody should have been kid- 
 napped upon our soil by agents of a foreign government. 
 
 IT or the reasons stated the commission does not recommend any 
 amount as due these claimants from or through this government. 
 The commission visited in person the scene of this kidnapping, and 
 from this inspection, from the evidence adduced in the case, and 
 from consulting the treaties between Mexico and the United States 
 bearing upon the boundaries of the two countries, it is satisfied that 
 Converse and Blatt were seized upon United States territory. 
 
 II. THE CASES ARISING IN EL PASO, TEX., AND DOUGLAS, ARIZ., FROM GUN- 
 SHOT WOUNDS INFLICTED FROM THE MEXICAN SIDE OF THE BORDCR. 
 
 To understand how these injuries were received, some <. 
 description of the situation of El Paso and Douglas and of the 
 of May 8, 9, and 10, 1911, at Juarez, Mexico, and of April 13 and IT, 
 1911, at Agua Prieta, Mexico, is necessary. 
 
 El Paso, Tex., lies directly on the Rio Grande River op; 
 Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The river between these two cities is 
 spanned by several bridges, railroad and others, and at some sei 
 is nearly if not quite dry. Both cities grow down close to the river 
 banks so that between the two municipalities the distance ^s not 
 great. El Paso claims some 30,000 inhabitants, and the greater num- 
 ber of these is to be found in the more compact part of the city 
 and within about two miles of the dividing river. Its situation with 
 reference to the bounding river and to Ciudad Juarez will be better 
 understood from the map hereto attached as Appendix A. Some 
 of the principal streets of the city will be seen to run nearly p< 
 pendicular to the river front. 
 
 On May 8, 1911, some of the subordinate leaders under Mr. Maclero 
 began an attack on Juarez, moving down under shelter of the river 
 bank and so getting close to the heart of the city without much ex- 
 posure. At the same time they thus became interposed between El 
 Paso and Juarez in such fashion that a fire from the Federal 
 son of the town, directed at the assailants along the river fr< 
 must needs be in the direction of El Paso. It is hinted by some of 
 the attorneys that the United States, having formally warned the 
 garrison of Juarez not to fire in the direction of United States ter- 
 ritory — and this fact being known to the assailants — they purposely 
 attacked the river front so as to embarrass the defense. However 
 this may be, the defense for the better part of thrive days, May 8, 9, 
 and 10, did fire in such direction as to cover the greater part of 
 El Paso with a flight of bullets, resulting in numerous casualties. 
 
 Douglas, Ariz., and Agua Prieta, Mexico, face each other across 
 the international boundary line, which here runs across a flat plain. 
 
CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 11 
 
 They are separated by an open strip about one-quarter of a mile 
 wide. An assault on Agua Prieta by insurgents occurred April 13, 
 1911, and was made from a line near the boundary, so that in firing 
 upon the assailants in the Federal garrison was bound to fire toward 
 and into Douglas. Again on April 17, when the Federal force un- 
 dertook to recapture Agua Prieta, the assault was directed from the 
 southeast so that the bullets in their flight to the northwest were 
 certain to fall into and about Douglas. On each occasion there were 
 resulting casualties on the American side, upon which are founded 
 six claims presented to this commission. There is appended hereto, 
 and marked B, a map of Douglas, Ariz., which will further illustrate 
 its inevitable exposure. 
 
 The modern high-power military rifle has a maximum range of 
 approximately 3 miles. Upon the maps of El Paso and Douglas 
 herewith there are drawn in red ink circles having their centers 
 approximately near the center of the defense in Juarez and Agua 
 Prieta, respectively. It will be seen that these circles embrace, in 
 the case of El Paso, the greater part of the inhabited town and in 
 the case of Douglas practically the whole city. Appended also to 
 this report and made a part hereof is some general testimony taken 
 by the commission and detailing the events of those days in El Paso 
 and in Douglas when the battles upon the adjacent Mexican terri- 
 tory gave rise to wounds upon xlmerican soil. Afternoon papers 
 of El Paso published on the 8th, 9th, and 10th days of May, 1911, are 
 also appended to further illustrate, by contemporaneous reports, 
 the happenings of those days as they relate to the subject of these 
 claims. 
 
 The brief submitted by Col dwell and Sweeney, attorneys for the 
 claimants, Griffiths and Chandler, is also made an appendix hereto. 
 This brief was adopted by the other attorneys as expressing their 
 view of the law and the reasoning applicable to all the El Paso 
 claims in so far as its citations and its arguments are of general 
 application. 
 
 In this brief the argument is advanced that Mexico was wholly 
 unjustified in carrying on active warfare when its natural result 
 would be to endanger life on our soil by the falling of bullets thereon. 
 And the conclusion is sought to be drawn that since Mexico's action 
 is indefensible from the standpoint of international law the damages 
 allowed should be great, including not merely compensation but 
 something beyond to deter for the future. 
 
 It seems plain, however, that the right of a State to defend itself 
 is fundamental and inferior to no other. In the case now under 
 consideration the established government was threatened and in 
 danger. On the one hand it was fighting in self-defense for its con- 
 tinued existence, while on the other was a revolutionary party striv- 
 ing to overthrow it. The right of a State to change its government 
 when it is alleged to be oppressive or otherwise unresponsive to the 
 needs of the people is also a well-established dictum in the law of 
 nations. Both parties to the conflicts at Juarez and at Agua Prieta 
 were therefore engaged in a contest about the theoretical right of 
 which, in an international sense, there can be no doubt. Both of 
 these places were important to the combatants, as both lie at the 
 gateway of railroads penetrating the country and both have custom- 
 nouses where revenue is to be collected. It was highly important 
 
12 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 to the rebels to take and hold these towns; it was of the utmost im- 
 portance to the Diaz Government, fighting for its life, not to permit 
 this. The commission, in view of these facts, has no doubt that 
 Mexico must be held within her sovereign rights when she fought 
 to retain possession, as against armed rebellion, of both Juarez and 
 Agua Prieta. If the situation as between Mexico and the United 
 States were reversed and this Government found itself assailed by 
 armed rebels avowing the purpose of overthrowing the established 
 order of things, and its border cities were besieged, nobody can 
 doubt that attack would be met by defense, let the bullets fall where 
 they might. What we should undoubtedly claim for ourselves 
 right we must admit as right in our neighboring States. But when 
 a State in the exercise of its sovereign rights of self-defense has been 
 compelled to inflict injuries as incidental thereto upon a neighbor- 
 ing and friendly power, prompt expressions of regret and proi 
 atonement in so far as money indemnity can atone are to be expected. 
 
 It is believed that the views just expressed are in accord with our 
 own diplomatic history, as several incidents illustrate. When the 
 Caroline, in the year 1837, was attacked and destroyed in a harbor 
 of New York State by agents of Great Britain, the case was much 
 less urgent than at El Paso or Douglas and all the attendant circum- 
 stances less calculated to justify the territorial invasion. But in the 
 subsequent correspondence we find the plea of self-defense as the 
 only one, and its force in an appropriate case apparently admit 
 by our Government, though not in the particular case. 
 
 Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, said of this transaction : 
 
 The President sees with pleasure that your lordship fully admits those great 
 principles of public law applicable ~to cases of this kind, which this Govern- 
 ment has expressed, and that on your part, as on ours, respect for the in- 
 violable character of the territory of independent States is the most essential 
 foundation of civilization. And while it is admitted on both sides that tl i 
 are exceptions to this rule, he is gratified to find that your lordship adi 
 that such exceptions must come within the limitations stated and the terms 
 used in a former communication from this department to the British pi en 
 tentiary here. Undoubtedly it is just that, while it is admitted that except 
 growing out of the great law of self-defense do exist, these exceptions sh< 
 be confined to cases in which the " necessity of that self-defense is inst 
 overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." 
 
 Understanding these principles alike., the difference between the two Goven 
 ments is only whether the facts in the case of the Caroline make out a case of 
 such necessity for the purpose of self-defense. 
 
 On our side practically the same principle was asserted when Gen. 
 Jackson, in 1819, invaded Florida, then a dependency of Spain. Th 
 ground broadly stated was that such invasion was the only practicable 
 way to put an end effectively to the Indian depredations on t 
 frontier. 
 
 And in reference to the Mexican boundary itself our Government 
 has taken the position in times past that if the only effectual waj 
 stop Indian raids upon our people and their property was to pursue 
 them across the border into Mexico, that course would be followed, 
 unless the Mexican Government took effective measures to prevent 
 its soil from being made a base of operations against us and a haven 
 of refuge in case of pursuit by our forces. 
 
 The ground upon which this position rests is simply that the right 
 of self-defense rose superior in the particular circumstances to the 
 right of territorial inviolability. 
 
CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 13 
 
 The commission, therefore, believes that Mexico, while justified by 
 the extreme circumstances in fighting upon the immediate border, is 
 bound to feel regret and make amends to those particular individuals 
 who incidentally suffered from her action. And as to the sufferers 
 who are American citizens, the commission believes it to be clearly 
 the duty of their Government to urge the justice of a prompt and 
 liberal settlement upon the Government of Mexico. It seems super- 
 fluous to make citations or undertake argument with the purpose of 
 justifying this conclusion. The duty of Governments to see that 
 their citizens when damaged by foreign governments should be given 
 justice is too well established in our own diplomatic history and 
 through the long list of international claims commissions to be now 
 questioned. Mexico herself has impliedly admitted her liability by 
 offering compensation, after its own investigation, in a number of 
 these cases. These offers were rejected in all cases except one for the 
 reason that the amount offered seemed to the claimant too small. 
 But the fact that an attempt at settlement was thus made by the 
 accredited agent of the Mexican Government is here cited as an ac- 
 knowledgment by that Government of its liability for the injuries 
 arising from its military operations at Juarez and Agua Prieta. In 
 the one case actually settled — that of Mrs. Jennie M. Preston — the 
 amount paid the claimant may be taken as in some degree a measure 
 by which other amounts could be assessed. But in all cases the com- 
 mission has endeavored to take into consideration the age, state of 
 th, earning capacity, and degree of permanent disability, if any, 
 in arriving at the amount of the damage assessed. 
 
 There is some evidence that the Mexican Government took the 
 ground, in its own investigation through its consular agents, that the 
 doctrine of contributory negligence might be invoked as going to 
 lessen the amount of compensation, or, perhaps, to defeat the claim 
 altogether. 
 
 There can be no doubt that many spectators on the American side 
 were drawn by curiosity to points of advantage from which to view 
 the conflicts on the other side. But curiosity is a human quality and 
 criminal, and not even censurable in many cases. The sight of 
 a battle is one not often presented to the citizen in his own home and 
 amidst his usual daily vocations. That he should pause to see so 
 strange and so rare a sight, or even that he should seek an advanta- 
 geous point from which to view it, is not surprising. It must be 
 le in mind, too, in this connection, that few if any of these people 
 lad any realizing sense of the danger to which they were exposed by 
 flying bullets. The commission concluded, therefore, that these spec- 
 tators were where they had a right to be in their own country, that 
 7 did not fully, if at all, understand their danger, and that it does 
 not lie in the mouth of the responsible foreigner to present this phase 
 of the matter by way of escaping or mitigating his accountability. 
 tty much any person anywhere about El Paso and Douglas was 
 ixposed to danger on the days when these adjacent fights were under 
 way, and it is too nice a question ever to be determined satisfactorily 
 as to whether or in what degree a particular wound might be as- 
 cribed to the indulgence of curiosity. Upon this point, however, the 
 views of the commission are not unanimous. 
 
 In regard to the claims brought before the commission by domi- 
 ciled aliens it will be seen that all have been heard as required by tho 
 
14 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 terms of the joint resolution, and the amount of damage assessed will 
 be found for each case in the special report devoted to that case. 
 
 The commission, however, does not believe that these claims are of 
 a class to be presented to the United States Government for settle- 
 ment, or through that Government to Mexico. These claimants are 
 not citizens of the United States. Their paramount allegiance is 
 not to this Government. It is conceivable that the country of their 
 origin might call them home, arm, and require them to fight against 
 the United States. Nowhere is it suggested that the injuries out of 
 which these claims spring are attributable to the United States Gov- 
 ernment or to acts or omissions of its agents. The United States, 
 therefore, can not be appealed to as to the party responsible for t < 
 injuries. In what capacity, then, can this Government be called upon 
 to entertain these claims? Evidently only as the Government owing 
 a duty of protection to the claimants as the victims of wrongs in- 
 flicted by another nation. Upon this point it seems clear from the 
 weight of authority that this duty of protection is reciprocal with 
 the obligations of allegiance and service. These domiciled aliens 
 (all but one being of Mexican origin) owe no duty of service to this 
 Government, and such allegiance as is due from them to the United 
 States is of a qualified and subordinate character. Their claim to 
 compensation, if any, is upon Mexico; and the naked question pre- 
 sented here is whether the duty of pressing those claims upon Mexico 
 for settlement devolves upon the country of domicile or that of citi- 
 zenship. Upon this question the great weight of authority and of 
 reason seems to this commission to be against the country of domicile 
 and hence we feel precluded from recommending them favorably. 
 
 Some of these claimants had filed their declaration of intention b 
 become naturalized citizens of the United States, and one has, since 
 the injury was received, completed his naturalization and is now < 
 citizen. But the claim relates back to the status existing at the time 
 of the injury. The proposition, as the commisison understands it, 
 is for this Government to intervene between these domiciled aliens 
 and (except in the case of one Chinese) their own Government for 
 the purpose of securing justice as between those parties. 
 
 Upon the general proposition that citizenship is prerequisite to 
 such intervention reference is made to the general practice of 
 State Department and to the cases cited in Moore's Digest of Iin 
 national Law, sections 979 and 980, volume 6, pages 628 to 636. 
 citations from our diplomatic correspondence, made in section 981 
 of the same work, are particularly apposite to these claims. 
 
 In declining to present a diplomatic claim to the Government of 
 Austria, Mr. Marcy said: 
 
 The wrong you complain of was done more than six years before you we 
 citizen of the United States, and while you were a subject of the Emperor of 
 Austria. The application you make seems to require this Government to inter- 
 pose in a matter between the Austrian Government and one of its subjects. 
 That was the practical relation when the act complained of took place. It can 
 not, therefore, be said to be an injury done to one of our citizens, but only 
 person who several years afterwards became a citizen of the United States. 
 (Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, Aug. 26, 1856.) 
 
 By adopting a foreigner, under any form of naturalization, as a citizen, this 
 Government does not undertake the patronage of a claim which he may have 
 upon the country of his original allegiance or upon any other government. To 
 admit that he can charge it with this burden would allow him to call upon i 
 dozen governments in succession, to each of which he might transfer hi£ 
 allegiance, to urge his claim. Under such rule the government supposed to be 
 
CLAIMS GKOWING OUT OF ISTSURKECTIOlSr IN MEXICO. 15 
 
 indebted could never know when the discussion of a claim would cease. All 
 governments are therefore interested in resisting such pretensions. (Mr Fish, 
 Secretary of State, May 16, 1871.) 
 
 Where a person, who was naturalized in the United States in 1874, asked for 
 diplomatic intervention in order to obtain the restoration of his property which 
 
 as embargoed in Cuba in 1871, the Department of State said: "When your 
 alleged injuries took place you were not a citizen of the United States, and 
 
 .refore, under well-established canons of international law, it is not within 
 the province of this Government to inquire whether your property was wrong- 
 fully or rightfully taken. It would be a monstrous doctrine, which this Gov- 
 
 , . ment would not tolerate for a moment, that a citizen of the United States 
 - lo might deem himself injured by the authorities of the United States or of 
 any State could, by transferring his allegiance to another power, confer upon 
 these powers the right to inquire into the legality of the proceedings by which 
 he may have been injured while a citizen." (Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, 
 Apr. 8, 1874.) 
 
 Subsequent naturalization does not alter the international status of a claim 
 \~Mch accrued before naturalization. (Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, Apr. 
 1S86.) 
 
 The case of Santangelo, reported in volume 3, Moore International 
 Arbitrations, is exactly in point with the Chinese case here, and if 
 this precedent is followed the United States will refuse to urge this 
 case as well as those of the other domiciled strangers of Mexican 
 ligin. It is true that Santangelo's injury occurred in Mexican ter- 
 Mory, while this happened upon our soil; but in neither case is there 
 - y imputation of laches or wrongdoing upon the part of our Gov- 
 
 tment, such as might fasten upon it a special obligation to see the 
 w vong repaired. 
 
 Upon the other side of this question may be cited the cases of Jarr 
 and Hurst, one a native of Denmark, the other of Norway, who had 
 
 ;ome domiciled in the United States and had declared their inten- 
 tion to become citizens of the United States. In this condition they 
 shipped as sailors on an American vessel and the injuries of which 
 they complained were received in the Port of Acapulco, Mexico. 
 I fader a convention which authorized the claims of American and 
 Mexican citizens only to be considered by the commission, the claims 
 i these parties were heard, though subsequently dismissed upon 
 other grounds. Here it will be observed that the claims were not 
 against the country of origin. But in any case the decision of the 
 : mmission, while conclusive in those cases, appears to run against 
 the great current of authority. 
 
 In addition to what has been said, it may be well to point out that 
 inconvenient precedents might be made if our Government should un- 
 
 rtake to champion the cause of domiciled strangers in a question 
 primarily between themselves and the Government of their origin 
 ir d paramount allegiance. It will hardly be maintained that these 
 parties have the option of looking to either the Government of their 
 domicile or that of their citizenship as they may select for protection 
 and compensation in circumstances like these. If it is our duty as a 
 Government to look after these damages it can not be Mexico's at the 
 same time and in the same sense. Now, we have many American 
 citizens domiciled in Mexico, doing business there, living there, and 
 the number promises to increase indefinitely. Will it do for the 
 
 lited States to take, in these current cases, a position which may 
 be cited in the future as throwing upon the country of their domicile 
 the ultimate duty of protecting these citizens and by strong implica- 
 tion forbidding the exercise of that function to our Government ? 
 
16 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 From every point of view, then, it is believed that the United 
 States, not being responsible for these injuries through any omissions 
 or acts of its own, should not take upon itself the duty of settling 
 these claims or of urging their settlement upon Mexico. 
 
 In assessing the amount of damage, the commission has endeav- 
 ored to arrive at compensation only ; exemplary or punitive dam; 
 being regarded as not called for in view of all the circumstances 
 rounding the injuries. It can never be shown with absolute certainty 
 that these injuries were inflicted bj^ bullets from the Mexican s 
 but the weight of probability is so overwhelmingly in support of i 
 view, when all the attendant circumstances are considered, as to c 
 pel its adoption and justify our Government in acting upon it a^ 
 established fact in each of these cases. The commission visited 
 locality where each wound was alleged to have been received 
 found the place in every instance to be within the field of fire 
 otherwise so situated as to make the infliction of the injury easily 
 possible. 
 
 There follows a table showing the names of claimants, nationality, 
 amount claimed, amount assessed, and the amount recommended as 
 being, in the opinion of the commission, justly due the claimant. 
 
 F. J. Kernan, 
 Lieutenant Colonel and Adjutant Genera 
 Eli A. Helmick, 
 Major and Inspector General. 
 A. Moreno, 
 First Lieutenant, Twenty -eighth United, States Infantry 
 
 After the foregoing report had been completed, as well as all ihe, 
 special reports upon the particular claims therein referred to, and 
 about 10 a. m. on November 29, Mr. Richard Brown, accompar 
 by his attorney, Mr. R. V. Bowden, came before the commission and 
 asked to have his case heard, saying that all the evidence was imme- 
 diately available. Accordingly, it was heard, and the special report 
 thereon is herewith added to those already completed. 
 
 The commission tried to verify the existence of certain original 
 affidavits said to be on file in the State Department, copies of which 
 are herewith attached to the claimant's petition, but it was found t 
 the originals had been forwarded to the City of Mexico. 
 
 Taking this claimant's statement of facts in his case, as set out 
 in his petition and as amplified under oath before the commission as 
 correct and complete, we are convinced that he has no claim which 
 the United States, should undertake to settle or to urge upon the 
 Mexican Government for settlement. The considerations advanced 
 for rejecting as valid the Converse and Blatt claims apply here. The 
 original capture and detention by Mexican Federal authorities of this 
 claimant at Guadalupe, Mexico, was entirely justified under the laws 
 of war. The claimant had no credentials upon his person to exer 
 him from capture. He wore a brassard, but any spy or enemy may 
 resort to such a ruse, and it is by no means conclusive proof of the 
 party being what he may claim to be. To hold otherwise would put a 
 combatant wholly at the mercy of an enemy who saw fit to assume, 
 the better to carry out a hostile purpose, any innocent garb and 
 character. The fact that the claimant was unarmed is unimportant; 
 
CLAIMS GROWING OUT OP INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 17 
 
 the fact that he was carrying letters from the public enemy was cir- 
 cumstances so suspicious as alone to justify his arrest and a full in- 
 vestigation into his character and present purposes. 
 
 That he was subjected to harsh treatment may excite sympathy in 
 view of the humanitarian motives under which he was acting in 
 Mexico, but those who enter a foreign country must always run some 
 risk of finding in the customs, judicial and otherwise, of that country 
 many things unlike what they are accustomed to expect at home. 
 The fare and the filth of the jails may be deplorable, but it was the 
 jail of the country, in which native Mexicans as well as foreigners 
 were alike imprisoned. 
 
 Much emphasis is laid upon the fact that in carrying this prisoner 
 from Guadalupe to Juarez the rurales passed along a road which at 
 times wanders over the border and pursues for short distances its 
 route upon American soil. Let it be conceded that for armed 
 Mexicans to cross into our territory without the permission of our 
 Government is to affront our sovereignty, it is still the fact that the 
 wrong is a public one, and that it does not per se ground in this 
 claimant a claim for damages. The public wrong would be the same 
 if the armed party had carried no prisoner with it. By undertak- 
 ing a horseback journey of 80 miles alone and without proper cre- 
 dentials, through the theater of hostile operations, and bearing 
 letters of msurrecto origin, this claimant opened the way for his own 
 arrest and detention until those who held him were fully satisfied of 
 his conduct and purposes, and this commission does not believe the 
 rovernment of the United States rests under any obligation to fur- 
 er consider his claim. If compensation may be thought due him, 
 t should arise, not as an international obligation, but as a debt of 
 gratitude and good conscience from the present Government of 
 Mexico to Mr. Brown because of his services in behalf of the forces 
 and the people of that country. 
 
 F. J. Kern an, 
 Lieutenant Colonel and Adjutant General. 
 
 Eli A. Helmick, 
 Major and Inspector General. 
 
 A. Moreno, 
 First Lieutenant, Twenty-eighth United States Infantry. 
 
 ADDENDUM TO CASE OF WONG KONG. 
 
 In this case the commission recognized a difference in the facts 
 is compared with the other cases involving domiciled Mexican 
 
 *. Z S S ' • P resented a situation where not onlv were the American 
 and Mexican Governments concerned, but China"' as well. The claim- 
 int, Wong Kong, long before the commission was created, had 
 ■eturned to his native land and was residing there during this investi- 
 gation and since. If the United States, through acts of its agents 
 or its people, had been in any way responsible for this man's iniurv 
 a duty to make reparation would be plain ; but since the damage was 
 me to acts committed by Mexicans and originating in Mexican 
 erntory, the commission was of the opinion that this Government 
 vould have discharged its full duty in the premises if, after ascer- 
 taining the facts as has been done, they were brought to the attention 
 H. Rept. 361..66-1 2 
 
18 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 
 
 of the Chinese Government. There was no doubt about the claimai 
 injury or of his entire innocence in respect thereto; but the com- 
 mission believes that the duty of seeking indemnity for Wong 
 Kong's wrong rests primarily upon the country of his citizenship 
 and allegiance and present residence rather than upon the country 
 in which he happened to have received his injury, but to which no 
 direct responsibility is imputed. 
 
 F. J. Kernan, 
 Adjutant General, for the Commission. 
 
 Statement showing the claims examined by the commission organised pursuant 
 to joint resolution of Congress, approved Aug. 9, 1912. 
 
 Name and nationality. 
 
 Nature of claim. 
 
 Date and place. 
 
 Amount 
 claimed 
 
 A mount 
 of dam- 
 age as- 
 sessed 
 by the 
 commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Amo 
 
 of in- 
 deim 
 
 reco 
 mended 
 
 by the 
 commis- 
 sion. 
 
 Lawrence F. Con- 
 verse, American. 
 
 Edward M. Blatt, 
 American. 
 
 Adolfo Varela, Amer- 
 ican. 
 
 Virginia Moorhcad, 
 American. 
 
 Abundio Soto, Amer- 
 ican. 
 
 Edwin Q. TTeaton, 
 American . 
 
 Celia Griffiths, Amer- 
 ican. 
 
 A. R. Chandler, 
 American. 
 
 Rita Garcia, Mexican. 
 
 Francisco Portillo, 
 Mexican. 
 
 Evarista Alarcon, 
 Mexican. 
 
 Isabel Lara de Gar- 
 cia, Mexican. 
 
 Francisca Arredando 
 (Encarnacion Arre- 
 dando), Mexican. 
 
 Dolores Dominguez, 
 Mexican. 
 
 Barnardino Hernan- 
 dez, Mexican. 
 
 Wong Kong, Chinese. 
 
 Emma Larson, Amer- 
 ican. 
 
 Elmer E. Crowe, 
 American. 
 
 Francis F. Williams, 
 American. 
 
 John W. Keate, 
 American. 
 
 Joseph W. Harring- 
 ton, American. 
 
 William R. White, 
 American. 
 
 Kidnaping in United 
 States territory 
 and detention in 
 Mexico. 
 
 do 
 
 Tomillo, Tex., Feb. 
 20, 1912. 
 
 .do. 
 
 Gunshot wound to 
 
 daughter. 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through body. 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 to wife. 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through leg. 
 Death of husband 
 
 by gunshot wound. 
 Death of son by 
 
 gunshot wound. 
 Death of husband 
 
 by gunshot wound 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through arm. 
 Death of husband 
 
 by gunshot wound 
 Death of daughter 
 
 by gunshot wound 
 Gunshot wound to 
 
 Francisca Arre- 
 
 .dando. 
 Death of brother by 
 
 gunshot wound. 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through hand and 
 
 arm. 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through jaw. 
 Personal injuries. . . 
 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through body. 
 do 
 
 El Paso, Tex., May 
 
 9, 1911. 
 El Paso, Tex., May 
 
 8, 1911. 
 
 El Paso, Tex., May 
 
 9, 1911. 
 
 El Paso, Tex., May 
 
 8, 1911, 
 ....do 
 
 ....do 
 
 .do. 
 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through foot. 
 Death of brother by 
 
 gunshot wound. 
 Gunshot wound 
 
 through leg. 
 
 El Paso, Tex., 
 
 10. 1911. 
 El Paso, Tex., 
 
 9, 1911. 
 El Paso, Tex., 
 
 10, 1011. 
 El Paso, Tex., 
 
 9, 1911. 
 
 El Paso, Tex., 
 
 10, 1911. 
 El Paso, Tex., 
 
 9, 1911. 
 
 El Paso, Tex., 
 
 10, 1911. 
 Douglas, Ariz. 
 
 17, 1911. 
 Douglas, Ariz. 
 
 13,1911. 
 Douglas, Ariz. 
 
 17,' 1911. 
 do 
 
 May 
 May 
 May 
 May 
 
 May 
 
 May 
 
 May 
 Apr. 
 Apr. 
 Apr. 
 
 Douglas, Ariz. 
 
 13, 1911. 
 do , 
 
 Apr. 
 
 $50,000.00 
 
 50,000.00 
 15, 000. 00 
 15,000.00 
 6,000.00 
 10,614.78 
 50, 000. 00 
 50,000.00 
 25, 000. 00 
 15,000.00 
 40,000.00 
 12,000.00 
 25,000.00 
 
 20,000.00 
 20,000.00 
 
 20,000.00 
 2,500.00 
 20,000.00 
 50,000.00 
 5,000.00 
 30,000.00 
 50,000.00 
 
 Nothing. 
 
 Nothing. 
 
 $3, 000. 00 
 3, 000. 00 
 4, 000. 00 
 2,000.00 
 
 15,000.00 
 
 12,000.00 
 6, 500. 00 
 2, 000. 00 
 
 3,500.00 
 6, 500. 00 
 3,000.00 
 
 6, 500. 00 
 4,000.00 
 
 5,000.00 
 1,000.00 
 5,000.00 
 5,000.00 
 4,000.00 
 15,000.00 
 2,000.00 
 
 Not! 
 
 Nothing. 
 S8,0f».0fl 
 
 3,000.00 
 
 4,000.00 
 
 2,000.00 
 
 115,000.00 
 
 '12,000.00 
 
 Nothing. 
 
 Nothing. 
 
 Nothing. 
 
 Nothing. 
 
 Nothing. 
 
 Nothing 
 Nothing. 
 
 Notr 
 1,00 
 
 5,000.00 
 5,000.00 
 4,000.00 
 
 315,000.00 
 2,000.00 
 
 581,114.78 111,000.00 
 
 71,00 ' 
 
 i $32,000 recommended bv one member. » $22,000 recommended by one member. 
 
 » $25,000 recommended by one member. 
 
 o