« PreviousContinue »
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
1. Report of agent, with English translation of award.
(6) Answer of Mexico in Spanish and translation into French, prepared by the Mexican agent;
(c) Replication of the United States, with exhibits consisting of English translation of Mexican answer with notes, résumé of de Rada litigation, statement as to Indian populations of Lower California, and copy of deed of Ciénega del Pastor;
(d) Conclusions (rejoinder on behalf of Mexico).
3. Appendix to record, containing copies of treaties between the United States and Mexico, rules of procedure before the Mixed Commission of 1868 and The Hague Peace Convention of 1899, with index.
4. Briefs submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration on behalf of the United States :*
(a) Statement and brief of agent and counsel of the United States; (6) Brief of Senator William M. Stewart and Mr. C. J. Kappler; (c) Brief of Messrs. Doyle & Doyle; (d) Brief of Mr. Garret W. McEnerney;
(e) Supplemental brief of Messrs. Doyle & Doyle. (This came too late for formal submission to the tribunal.)
5. Exhibits submitted by the United States:
(6) Translation of extracts referred to in the brief history of the Pious Fund of the Californias, and to be found on pages 187-221 of the record in the case of Alemany ws. Mexico;
(c) Powers of attorney from the bishops of Sacramento and Monterey to the Archbishop of San Francisco;
(d) Proof of succession of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, Archbishop of San Francisco;
*No briefs were submitted on behalf of Mexico, except the printed argument prepared by the Mexican agent and embodied in the record of proceedings, commencing on page 252.
+ The exhibits noted herein include all presented by the United States, except maps, of which there were two, one being copy of the map attached to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the other a map showing the Indian reservations of the l'nited States. No exhibit was submitted by Mexico, except the Pleito de Rada, a book of about 1,000 pages, a summary of the contents of which is to be found as Exhibit B, on page 37 et seq. of the replication of the United States,
(e) Proof of succession of the Right Rev. George Montgomery, Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey;
(f) Deposition of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, dated July 24, 1902.
(8) Affidavit of Mr. John T. Doyle, dated August 26, 1902, with exhibits;
(h) Affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, Archbishop of San Francisco, dated September 16, 1902;
(i) Answer to Mexican call for discovery with relation to the Indian populations of California;
(j) Mexican call for discovery, dated August 12, 1902, and supplemental affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan with relation thereto;
(k) Letter of the Mexican legation at Rome to the Holy See, dated April 6, 1840, and affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan with relation thereto;
(1) Papal Bulls relating to the Bishopric of California; (m) Extracts and translations from “ Noticias de Californias,"etc.;
(n) Translation of motion and argument of Señor Avila, not submitted to the tribunal, but inserted to render more complete the record of the former case of Alemany vs. Mexico.
6. Record of proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration under The Hague Convention of 1899 in the matter of the Pious Fund of the Californias, including copy of the official minutes, or procès-verbaux, with index and table of citations. *
*All of the arguments delivered before the tribunal were revised by the speakers, save that as to a small part of Mr. Pardo's, the Mexican agent, he unfortunately lacked opportunity of revision, and some errors may exist therein.
REPORT OF JACKSON H. RALSTON, AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND OF COUNSEL, IN THE MATTER OF THE PIOUS FUND CASE.
WASHINGTON, D. C., November 10, 1902. Hon. JOHN HAY, Secretary of State of the United States,
Washington, D. C. Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report as agent of the United States in the matter of the claim of the Pious Fund of the Californias, submitted to arbitration by the United States and the Republic of Mexico under the terms of the protocol between the Hon. John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States, and Señor Don Manuel de Azpiroz, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the United States of America for the Republic of Mexico, concluded at Washington on May 22, 1902, and ratified by the Mexican Senate May 30, 1902.
Before entering into an account of my own duties in connection therewith, it may be proper to recall some of the circumstances attending the claim in question.
As early as the year 1697 certain members of the Order of Jesus, with the permission of the King of Spain and upon the condition that they should not have power to draw against or from the royal revenues for such purpose, undertook the conversion of the Indians of the Californias, and to effect this end collected considerable sums of money and entered upon their work. From time to time large contributions were made to assist the development of the missions established or designed to be established by them or by their successors, the total of such contributions down to the year 1731 reaching $120,000. In 1735 properties valued at about $400,000 were deeded for the same purpose, and in 1747 an additional contribution, finally amounting to the sum of $120,000, was made. Later, and about the year 1784, some $400,000 reached the fund from another source.
These moneys, to which were added various smaller contributions from time to time from other sources, constituted what became known as “the Pious Fund of the Californias," which, during the earlier portion of its existence, was entirely managed and controlled by the Order of Jesus. Later, and upon the expulsion of that order from the dominions of the King of Spain, that Monarch acted as trustee, delivering the charge of the missions of Upper California to the Franciscans, and of Lower California to the Dominicans. When Mexico threw off her allegiance to Spain, the Mexican Government, through a junta, managed the fund for the pious uses intended by the founders. On September 19, 1836, Mexico enacted a law looking toward the establishment of a bishopric for the two Californias, and providing that the person selected therefor should receive from the public revenues $6,000 per annum, with certain additional allowances, and further providing that “the property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias shall be placed at the disposal of the new bishop and his successors, to be by them managed and employed for its objects or other similar ones, always respecting the wishes of the founders of the fund."
The Mexican legation to the Holy See, on April 6, 1840, notified the Papacy that “the Mexican Government had taken all proper measures so that the new prelate may not lack a decent income, which is necessary to sustain the expenses and respect and the dignity of a bishop, and in addition, according to a decree of Congress, the Pious Fund destined for the support of missions in the Californias is to be placed at his disposal."
Immediately after receiving this notification, and in consequence thereof, on April 27, 1840, the bishopric of the Californias was created, and Francisco Garcia Diego, last president of the missions, appointed thereto, he assuming his office in the latter part of the year.
On February 8, 1842, by decree of that date, the Mexican Government repealed the law of September 19, 1836, placing the management of the Pious Fund in the hands of the bishop of the diocese, and reassumed its direction as the decree said “for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the donors in the civilization and conversion of the savages.”
On October 24, of the same year, a further decree was passed, formally incorporating the properties of the Pious Fund into the national treasury, and directing the sale of the real estate and other property for the capital represented by their annual product at 6 per cent per annum, and acknowledging an indebtedness of 6 per cent per annum on the total proceeds of the sale, at the same time pledging the revenue from tobacco to the payment of the income corresponding to the capital of said fund.
After the purchase of Upper California by the United States from Mexico in 1848, Mexico failed to pay any part of the income to the proper recipients in Upper California, and as a consequence,