Mr. Mariscal, you will see, takes refuge in a re-assertion of the statements
in his note of November 13, 1886, inclosed in Mr. Manning’s No. 22, of the
18th of that same month to you, and adds emphatically:
I simply submit the case to you for further instructions, if any be
necessary.
[Inclosure in No.
284.—Translation.]
Mr. Mariscal to Mr.
Connery.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico, December 5,
1887.
Sir: It is not till to-day that I have the
honor to answer the note from your legation, dated April 21 last,
relative to the murder of the American citizen Walter Henry, at
Zaragoza, State of Coahuila, in August, 1878, and to which your dispatch
of September 5 refers, for it became necessary to submit to a fresh and
careful examination the numerous documents relative thereto on file in
this department.
In the said note of April 21 honorable Mr. Manning said that the
Government of the United States was unable to concur in the conclusion
that there had been no miscarriage of justice in the matter of the
murder of Walter Henry and in the case of the subsequent seizure of his
effects by the Mexican customs officials, and he requested that further
investigation be set on foot concerning certain points set forth in the
findings and the decision of the superior tribunals of justice of
Coahuila, to wit, that in said decision it was admitted that the local
judge, J. M. Delgado, by granting freedom contrary to law to the persons
charged with the crime, permitted one of them, Catarino Marquez, to
escape; that it therein appears that a part of the property effects of
Mr. Henry was distributed and sold among the people of Zaragoza, and
that only the remaining part was seized for a violation of the customs
law. The said note ascribes to this fact grave import, but regards as
still more serious the statement that the seizure of the goods, which
are said to have paid full duty, was not entered on the custom-house
records. In continuation, it transcribes a part of the court’s decision
referring to the investigation of these points, an investigation which
was in progress in November, 1885, though for some years it lay dormant,
retarding thus the ultimate clearing up of the serious charges against
the said employés, by whom, adds Mr. Manning, were meant the persons who
accompanied Mr. Henry at the time of his murder, and who were charged
with the crime, and he closes by saying that the State Department is
unable to see the connection between the conduct of the officials, as such, and the murder of Walter Henry.
The note addressed by this department to your legation on November 13,
1886, inclosed a copy of the complete decision of the supreme court of
justice of Coahuila in the case of the murder of Walter Henry. It seems
that the honorable Secretary of State only fixed his attention on the
seventh “considering,” which, in referring to the conduct of Judge
Delgado, declares him responsible for releasing Catarino Marquez
contrary to law, and that he did not take into account the third part of
the summing up of the sentence, which declares Delgado exempt from that
responsibility by virtue of the reasons set forth in the seventh
“considering.”
The eighth “appearing also shows that the customs employés were not even
suspected of any participation in the murder. The charges therein
appearing are those
[Page 1098]
made
against the employés for the seizure and sale of the effects of the
deceased, which are said to have paid full duty, and to the clearing up
of these latter charges does that “appearing” refer, when it says that
the investigation ordered had laid dormant. The note I have now the
honor to answer was therefore mistaken in sustaining that these employés
were regarded as having accompanied Walter Henry at the time of his
murder, and as having been charged with the crime.
It is not strange, therefore, that the State Department at Washington is
unable to find any connection between the two incidents. They are
entirely distinct, and, as can be seen by the sixth “considering” of the
sentence, a separate investigation was instituted concerning the seizure
of the effects.
The issues of the Diario Oficial of March 22, 24, and 25, 1879, published
the statement of the treasury department concerning the accusation
brought by the United States consul at Piedras Negras against the
collector of customs at that place, charging him, alter receiving the
amount of the duties on the effects of Henry, with denying it, for the
purpose of declaring the goods as smuggled. This statement of the
treasury department, as well as the copy of the sentences pronounced by
the district court of Coahuila and the circuit court of Monterey,
inclosed to your legation by me in a note dated July 27, 1882, evince
that this matter was closed by the vindication of the employés of the
Piedras Negras custom-house.
The reasons advanced render impossible further investigations in the case
of Walter Henry. This case was thoroughly tried and the final sentence
was executed. If it was communicated to your legation, it was simply in
order to inform the same of the final solution of the question, in which
complete justice had been administered, and not for the purpose of
revision of the case; for not even the federal authorities of Mexico can
exercise such revisory powers, in view of our form of government, which
in this regard resembles that of the United States.
I protest, etc.,
