« PreviousContinue »
said Schedule A is a full, true, and correct copy of said original. I have also car fully compared the foregoing document marked Exhibit B" in English with the said original letters of appointment in Latin and find that the said Exhibit B is a full, true, and correct translation of said original letters of appointment. I have also carefuly compared the foregoing document in Latin marked "Exhibit C" with the original letters of Pope Leo XIII dated May 6, 1896, accepting the resignation of Rt. Rev. Francis Mora as bishop of said diocese, and find said Exhibit C to be a full, true, and correct copy of said original. I have also carefully compared the foregoing document in English marked "Exhibit D" with the said original document in Latin, and find the same to be a full, true, and correct translation in the English from the Latin of said original.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of October, A. D.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Los Angeles, ss:
I, the undersigned, George Montgomery, bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles, being duly sworn, depose and say: I have read the foregoing declaration and statement and know the contents thereof, and the same are true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on my information and belief, and as to these matters I believe it to be true.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Los Angeles, ss:
On this 13th day of September, A. D. 1896, before me, William R. Burke, a notary public in and for said Los Angeles County, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared George Montgomery, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument, and also known to me to be the Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles, otherwise called the diocese of Monterey, a religious corporation sole, that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation sole executed the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of Monterey, 88:
WILLIAM R. BURKE.
I, J. D. Kalar, county clerk of said Monterey County, and ex officio clerk of the superior court in and for said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of the original letters of succession, etc., relating to the succession of Rt. Rev. George Montgomery to the office of bishop of the diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles as successor of Rt. Rev. Francis Mora, resigned, as the
same appears on file and of record in my office, and the same has been compared by me with the original.
Witness my hand and seal of said court this 10th day of July, A. D. J. D. KALAR, Clerk,
(Endorsed:) No. 159. Original. Documents relating to the succession of Rt. Rev. George Montgomery to the office of the diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles, as successor of Rt. Rev. Francis Mora, resigned. Recorded at the request of Wells, Fargo & Co., Oct. 17th, 1896, at 22 minutes past 9 a. m., in vol. 50 of deeds, page 36, records of Monterey Co., Cal. W. H. Pyburn, county recorder, by -, deputy. Recorder's fees, $4.50. Filed Jul. 9, 1902. J. D. -, deputy. Filed Nov. 8, 1899. C. W.
Kalar, clerk, by
Bell, clerk, by Sam Kutz, deputy.
DEPOSITION OF THE MOST REVEREND PATRICK WILLIAM RIORDAN, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
State of California, City and County of San Francisco, ss:
Be it remembered that on the 24th day of July, 1902, before me, John P. Cashin, a notary public in and for the said city and county of San Francisco, in the State of California, United States of America, personally appeared Patrick William Riordan, Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, who, being by me first duly sworn, according to the laws of the State of California, deposed and said as follows:
My name is Patrick William Riordan; I was born in New Brunswick, Canada; my age is nearly sixty-one years; my residence is in the city of San Francisco, California, of which archdiocese I am the Roman Catholic archbishop.
I have no personal interest in the claim in support of which my testimony is taken; but I am the actual incumbent as the corporation sole which will doubtless be one of the recipients, for the purpose of administration, of any sum collected in this case.
Joseph S. Alemany was my predecessor as archbishop of San Francisco aforesaid, and remained such down to the 28th day of December, 1884, when he resigned this archbishopric, and was afterwards translated to the diocese of Pelusium.
I had been his coadjutor with the right of succession from the 16th of September, 1883, and on his resignation succeeded to the office. He went to Spain and remained there until his death.
I have been charged with the administration of the affairs of the archdiocese of San Francisco since the 28th day of December, 1884. Before that date I assisted Archbishop Alemany in such administration. I know from my own knowledge that since I became connected with the administration of this archdiocese and from my intimate acquaintance with the archives of the said archdiocese antecedent to that time that no money whatever has been received from the Government of Mexico on account of the interest of the Pious Fund of the Californias accrued since the year 1868.
The moneys due by Mexico for interest on said Pious Fund under the award of the mixed commission created by the convention of July 4, 1868, had been paid to the extent of several installments prior to my connection with the archdiocese, and the practice had been adopted after the payment of expenses to apportion or distribute the same to the various dioceses and apostolic vicariates within the territory understood to be included in the term Upper California as used when the Crown of Spain held sovereignty over the country, having regard to the population, number of missions, churches, and missionaries in each. Concerning the statistics of the Catholic Church in America.
There is a publication called the Catholic Directory published annually. It is accepted as authentic, and is, I believe, correct, saving casual trifling errors incident to all publications.
I present a copy of the issue of it for the year 1902, which the notary marks"Exhibit Number One," and I have identified by my signature. Its statistical information is undoubtedly correct.
In the event that the bishop is absent from his diocese, the vicargeneral fills his place.
PATRICK WILLIAM RIORDAN,
And therefore I, John P. Cashin, a notary public in and for the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing deposition made by Patrick William Riordan, Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, was reduced to writing by me personally, and was thereafter carefully read by me to the said deponent, and was signed by him in my presence.
I further certify that I am not the attorney for either of the parties in the above-entitled suit, and have no interest in the claim before the court, nor am I the attorney for any person having any such interest. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written.
JOHN P. CASHIN,
Notary Public in and for the City and County of
DEPOSITION OF MR. JOHN T. DOYLE, WITH EXHIBITS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
State of California, County of San Mateo, ss:
Be it remembered that on the 26th day of August, 1902, before me, Jas. T. O'Keefe, a notary public in and for the county of San Mateo, State of California, United States of America, personally appeared John T. Doyle, who, being by me first duly sworn according to the laws of the State of California, deposed and said as follows:
My name is John T. Doyle, age eighty-two and a half years, residence Menlo Park, near San Francisco, California. I was born in the city of New York. I was admitted to the bar in May, 1842, in New York; afterwards I practiced law in San Francisco for very many years, but ceased to do so about 1889. Since then I have been a person of leisure. I am and have been from the time this claim was first presented to the Government of the United States one of the counsel
for the bishops of California in the demand for the interest of the Pious Fund. I am interested personally in the case to the extent of any fee I may receive for my services, and have the natural interest a lawyer feels in the success of a case to which he has devoted much time and attention. If such things could bias my testimony (which I do not believe they could) I must be accounted a biased witness.
My first connection with this business resulted from being professionally employed by Bishop Joseph S. Alemany, then bishop of Monterey, and the immediate successor of Francisco Garcia Diego, the first bishop of the Californias, to recover from the Government of the United States the mission buildings, churches, graveyards, vineyards, and orchards belonging to twenty-one missions within the State of California, and one or two ranches claimed under grants from Mexico. The decision in that case was in favor of the claimant, and patents were afterwards issued in pursuance of the adjudication of the land commission for these properties. During the course of that proceeding Bishop Alemany called on me, I should say from memory, about the summer of 1854, though it may have been earlier, and showed me a bundle of papers which he had found in the archives of the diocese, transmitted to him from his predecessor in office, from which it seemed to him he had some claim perhaps against the Government of the United States as successor of Mexico in the sovereignty of California. He wished me to read the papers over and tell him what I thought of it. The papers consisted of five small pamphlets printed in Mexico and the collection of letters (copies) constituting a correspondence between Don Pedro Ramirez (the apoderado of Bishop Diego) and General Gabriel Valencia, appointed by the Mexican Government to administer the Pious Fund under a decree of February 8, 1842, and some other papers which were put in evidence on the first arbitration.
I examined these papers and advised the bishop that he had no claim against the Government of the United States, but I thought he had a valid claim against the Republic of Mexico, which at some time or other might be recoverable whenever a claims convention might be agreed upon between the two Governments. After that--but I can not fix the date--he spoke to Mr. Casserly and myself about employing us in the effort to recover whatever was due to him from the Pious Fund, and in the spring of 1857, as I was then about to remove to New York, he pressed us to enter into a contract with him and Bishop Amat for professional services in the case for a percentage of the amount collected. We assented, and as I was leaving before the contract could be executed, I asked Mr. Casserly to draw it up and sign for me. Some time in June or July, 1857, I learned from Mr. Casserly that he had signed such a contract, but I never saw the text of it nor knew its exact terms till long afterwards, I received a power of attorney from Bishop Alemany who had by that time been translated to the newly created see of San Francisco, as well as one from Bishop Thadeus Amat, who had succeeded him in the diocese of Monterey, authorizing me to represent them in the demand on Mexico for whatever they were entitled to from the Pious Fund and to request the interposition of the United States Government to that end. In July, 1859, on their behalf, I addressed a letter to the Hon. Lewis Cass, then Secretary of State of the United States, outlining in a general way the right of the bishops to the Pious Fund and asking his interposition with Mexico for redress.
My object in presenting the claim at that time to him was to have it on the files of the Department of State so that if afterwards a claims. commission were constituted it might be included. Not knowing what view of the claim might be taken by the United States authorities or what the terms of the possible future convention, the claim was stated in a very general way, the facts given, and the aid of the Government asked. Thereafter I continued to search for information concerning the Pious Fund, concerning which all I had learned so far was what was shown by the papers the bishop showed me. I read all the Mexican history and politics I came across, and everything that held out any hope of information on the subject. The political condition of Mexico at that time, and for many years thereafter, was so disturbed that the prospects of a claims convention seemed very remote, and my study of the case was rather a matter of duty, and to a certain extent for historical interest, than with any immediate hope of being able to present it judicially. I returned from New York to San Francisco and resumed practice there in the summer of 1863.
In 1868 Mr. Casserly was elected to the United States Senate and took his seat in Washington in 1869. On the 27th of March, 1870, I learned of the convention of July 4, 1868, between the United States and Mexico and having examined it, sent, on the 28th of March, a telegram to Mr. Casserly, who was in Washington, of which I now hand. the notary a copy transcribed from one made by me at the time. It is marked by him "Exhibit No. 1" to this deposition. I was not then on good terms with Mr. Casserly, and as Archbishop Alemany was absent from the State, I thought it judicious to have my telegram confirmed and countersigned by the vicar-general of the diocese, Reverend James Croke, as coming authentically and by authority, which was done. I learned afterwards from him that Mr. Casserly wrote him that he had received it seasonably and had presented the claim, but I had no answer from Mr. Casserly himself. I never knew till after the case was decided the form in which Mr. Casserly had presented the claim to the commission. I learned, however, that he had employed Mr. Nathaniel Wilson, in Washington, to act with him in the case, at or about the time of receiving my telegram, and after vain efforts to obtain from them a copy of the rules of the commission, I was finally fortunate enough to obtain a copy of them in the city of San Francisco from Don Juan Robinson, and drew up the memorial of the claim for the commission. It was printed, signed, and sworn to by Bishop Alemany, who had by that time returned, and sent to Mr. Wilson seasonably to file with the commission within the time allowed by law. Somebody there I presume Mr. Casserly and Mr. Wilson-detached the last leaf of the memorial, containing a few lines of the text, viz., beginning with the word "estrangeros" and ending with the words "page 516," and the signatures and jurat, printed my concluding lines with two additional paragraphs, added my name to it, and had it verified by Reverned Hugh Gallagher, who was in Washington and held a power of attorney from the bishops, and in that altered condition, as shown on page 15 of the printed transcript, it was filed. I state these facts because Mr. Avila in his argument of the case suggests that my memorial was an ingenious effort to change the form of the claim from that adopted by Mr. Casserly; but that is an error on his part, as will be seen from the above.
FR 1902, PT 3-26