THE PIOUS FUND CASE between MEXICO and THE UNITED STATES Decided October 14, 1902 Syllabus The case on trial was known as the "Pious Fund of the Californias." It originated in donations made by Spanish subjects during the latter part of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth centuries for the spread of the Roman Catholic faith in the Californias. These gifts, amounting approximately to $1,700,000, were made in trust to the Society of Jesus for the execution of the pious wish of the founders. The Jesuits accepted the trust and discharged its duties until they were disabled from its further administration by their expulsion in 1767 from the Spanish dominions by the King of Spain and by the suppression of the order by the Pope in 1773. The Crown of Spain took possession of and administered the trust for the uses declared by the donors until Mexico, after her independence was achieved, succeeded to the administration of the trust. Finally, in 1842, President Santa Anna ordered the properties to be sold, that the proceeds thereof be incorporated into the national treasury, and that six per cent annual interest on the capitalization of the property should be paid and devoted to the carrying out of the intention of the donors in the conversion and civilization of the savages. Upper California having been ceded to the United States in 1848 by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Mexican Government refused to pay to the prelates of the Church in Upper California any share of the interest which accrued after the ratification of the treaty. The latter presented their claims therefor to the Department of State and requested the interposition of the Government. A mixed commission for the settlement of the cross claims between the two Governments was formed under the Convention of July 4, 1868.1 On the presentation and hearing of the claim the United States and Mexican commissioners divided in opinion. The case was accordingly referred to the umpire, Sir Edward Thornton, who rendered an award2 in favor of the United States for twenty-one annuities of $43,050.99 each, as the equitable proportion to which the prelates of Upper California were entitled of the interest accrued on the entire fund from the making of the treaty of peace down to February 2, 1869. The Mexican Government paid the award, but, asserting that the claim was extinguished, refused to make any further payments of interest for the benefit of the Church in Upper California. Again the prelates appealed to the 1Post, p. 12. 2 Post, p. 48. Department of State for support, and in 1898 active diplomatic discussions between the two Governments as to the merits of the claim were begun and carried forward until they culminated, on May 22, 1902, in a formal agreement1 to refer the case to the determination of the Hague tribunal, to be composed of five members, none of whom were to be natives or citizens of the contracting Parties. Only two issues were presented by the protocol, namely: 1. Is the case, as a consequence of the decision of Sir Edward Thornton, within the governing principle of res judicata? 2. If not, is the claim just? The tribunal was authorized to render whatever judgment might be found just and equitable. As judges the United States selected Professor Martens of Russia and Sir Edward Fry of Great Britain; Mexico chose Dr. Asser and Jonkheer de Savornin Lohman of Holland; and these judges selected as president of the tribunal, Dr. Matzen of Denmark. All were members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The sessions of the tribunal began September 15, 1902, and ended October 1, 1902. The material part of the unanimous award of the tribunal in favor of the United States, rendered on October 14, 1902, was as follows: 1. That the said claim of the United States of America for the benefit of the Archbishop of San Francisco and of the Bishop of Monterey is governed by the principle of res judicata by virtue of the arbitral sentence of Sir Edward Thornton, of November 11, 1875; amended by him, October 24, 1876. 2. That conformably to this arbitral sentence the Government of the Republic of the United Mexican States must pay to the Government of the United States of America the sum of $1,420,682.67 Mexican, in money having legal currency in Mexico, within the period fixed by Article 10 of the protocol of Washington of May 22, 1902. This sum of $1,420,682.67 will totally extinguish the annuities accrued and not paid by the Government of the Mexican Republicthat is to say, the annuity of $43,050.99 Mexican from February 2, 1869, to February 2, 1902. 3. The Government of the Republic of the United Mexican States shall pay to the Government of the United States of America on February 2, 1903, and each following year on the same date of Feb. ruary 2, perpetually, the annuity of $43,050.99 Mexican, in money having legal currency in Mexico.2 1Post, p. 7. 2Post, p. 6. AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL Award of the tribunal of arbitration constituted in virtue of the protocol signed at Washington, May 22, 1902, between the United States and Mexico for the adjustment of certain contentions arising under what is known as the "Pious Fund of the Californias."-The Hague, October 14, 1902.1 The tribunal of arbitration constituted by virtue of the treaty concluded at Washington, May 22, 1902,2 between the United States of America and the United Mexican States: Whereas, by a compromis (agreement of arbitration) prepared under the form of protocol between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, signed at Washington, May 22, 1902, it was agreed and determined that the differences which existed between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, relative to the subject of the "Pious Fund of the Californias," the annuities of which were claimed by the United States of America for the benefit of the Archbishop of San Francisco and the Bishop of Monterey, from the Government of the Mexican Republic, should be submitted to a tribunal of arbitration, constituted upon the basis of the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, signed at The Hague, July 29, 1899, which should be composed in the following manner, that is to say: The President of the United States of America should designate two arbitrators (non-nationals), and the President of the United Mexican States equally two arbitrators (non-nationals); these four arbitrators should meet, September 1, 1902, at The Hague, for the purpose of nominating the umpire, who at the same time should be of right the president of the tribunal of arbitration. Whereas the President of the United States of America named as arbitrators: The Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, LL.D., former member of the Court of Appeals, member of the Privy Council of His Britannic Majesty, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and His Excellency Mr. de Martens, LL.D., Privy Councilor, member of the Council of the Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Rus 1Report of Jackson H. Ralston, Agent of the United States and of Counsel, in the matter of the Case of the Pious Fund of the Californias, etc., pt. 1, p. 13. For the original French text, see Appendix, p. 429. 2 Post, p. 7. sia, member of the Institute of France, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Whereas the President of the United Mexican States named as arbitrators: Mr. T. M. C. Asser, LL.D., member of the Council of State of the Netherlands, former professor at the University of Amsterdam, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin Lohman, LL.D., former Minister of the Interior of the Netherlands, former professor at the Free University at Amsterdam, member of the second chamber of the States-General, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; which arbitrators at their meeting, September 1, 1902, elected, conformably to Articles 32-34 of the Convention of The Hague of July 29, 1899, as umpire and president of right of the tribunal of arbitration; Mr. Henning Matzen, LL.D., professor at the University of Copenhagen, Counselor Extraordinary to the Supreme Court, President of the Landsthing, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and Whereas, by virtue of the protocol of Washington of May 22, 1902, the above-named arbitrators, united in tribunal of arbitration, were required to decide: 1. If the said claim of the United States of America for the benefit of the Archbishop of San Francisco and the Bishop of Monterey was within the governing principle of res judicata by virtue of the arbitral sentence of November 11, 1875, pronounced by Sir Edward Thornton, as umpire1; 2. If not, whether the said claim was just, with power to render such judgment as would seem to them just and equitable. Whereas, the above-named arbitrators having examined with impartiality and care all the documents and papers presented to the tribunal of arbitration by the agents of the United States of America and of the United Mexican States, and having heard with the greatest attention the oral arguments presented before the tribunal by the agents and the counsel of the two parties in litigation; 1Post, p. 48. |