GJomell iCatu ^djunl iOibranj 
 
.„ _ Cornell University Library 
 
 JX 238.P6 1902 
 
 United States vs. Mexico. 
 
 3 1924 017 521 869 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 92401 7521 869 
 
Cornell University Law Library. 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 LILLIAN HUFFCUT 
 
 BINGHAMTON, N. Y. 
 
 November 27, 1915 
 
 9181 
 
57th Congress, ) SENATE. ( Document 
 
 2d Session. f ( No. 28. 
 
 UNITED STATES vs. MEXICO. 
 
 REPORT OF JACKSON H. RALSTON, 
 
 Agent of the United States and of Counsel, 
 
 IN THE MATTER OP THE CASE OF THE 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOMIAS, 
 
 HEARD BEFORE A TRIBUNAL OF THE 
 
 PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION UNDER THE HAGUE CONVENTION OP 1899, 
 
 SITTING AT THE HAGUE SEPTEMBER 15, 1902, TO OCTOBER 14, 1902, 
 
 WITH PLEADINGS, APPENDIX, EXHIBITS, BRIEFS, AND 
 
 RECORD OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 December 9, 1902. — Read, referred to the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations, and ordered to be printed. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1902. 
 
The Senate: 
 
 In response to the Senate resolution of the 4th instant, I transmit 
 herewith a report from the Secretary of State forwarding the report 
 of the agent of the United States in the case of the United States v. 
 Mexico before the Permanent Court of Arbitration under The Hague 
 Convention." 
 
 Theodore Roosevelt. 
 White House, 
 
 December 9, 190%. 
 
 The President: 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of the 
 Senate of December 4, 1902, requesting the President, "if not incom- 
 patible with the public interest, to send to the Senate the report and 
 accompanying papers of the agent of the United States in the case of 
 the United States v. Mexico before the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
 tion under The Hague Convention," has the honor to lay before the 
 President a copy of the agent's report with pleadings, appendix, 
 exhibits, briefs, and record of the entire proceedings. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 John Hat. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, December 6, 190%. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 1 . Report of agent, with English translation of a ward 9 
 
 2. Pleadings: 
 
 (a) Memorial of the United States 21 
 
 (6) Answer of Mexico in Spanish and translation into French, prepared 
 
 by the Mexican agent 30, 43 
 
 (c) Replication of the United States, with exhibits consisting of English 
 
 translation of Mexican answer with notes, resume^ of de Rada liti- 
 gation, statement as to Indian populations of Lower California, and 
 copy, of deed of Cienega del Pastor 56 
 
 (d) Conclusions (rejoinder on behalf of Mexico) 102 
 
 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 1 899, with index 113 
 
 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 197 
 
 (6) Brief of Senator William M. Stewart and Mr. C. J. Kappler 245 
 
 (c) Brief of Messrs. Doyle & Doyle , 262 
 
 Id) Brief of Mr. Garret W. McEnerney 283 
 
 (e) Supplemental brief of Messrs. Doyle & Doyle. (This came too late 
 
 for formal submission to the tribunal) _ 335 
 
 5. Exhibits submitted by the United States: & 
 
 (a) Laws of Mexico relating to the Pious Fund 343 
 
 (&) 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 v. Mexico 349 
 
 (c) Powers of attorney from the bishops of Sacramento and Monterey to 
 
 the archbishop of San Francisco 374 
 
 (d) Proof of succession of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop 
 
 of San Francisco 377 
 
 (e) Proof of succession of the Right Rev. George Montgomery, Roman 
 
 Catholic bishop of Monterey 387 
 
 (/) Deposition of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, dated July 24, 
 
 1902 398 
 
 ( g ) Affidavit of Mr. John T. Doyie, dated August 26, 1902, with exhibits . . 399 
 (h) Affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of San 
 
 Francisco, dated September 16, 1902 421 
 
 (i) Answer to Mexican call for discovery with relation to the Indian 
 
 populations of California 425 
 
 (j) Mexican call for discovery, dated August 12, 1902, and supplemental 
 
 affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan with relation thereto. 433 
 (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 rela- 
 tion thereto 435 
 
 No briefs were submitted on behalf of Mexico, except the printed argument pre- 
 pared by the Mexican agent and embodied in the record of proceedings, commencing 
 on page 252. 
 
 6 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 
 United 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, and here found 
 at page 83. 
 
 5 
 
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 5. Exhibits submitted by the United States — Continued. 
 
 (I) Papal bulls relating to the bishopric of California 439 
 
 ( m ) Extracts and translations from ' ' Noticias de Calif ornias, "etc 448 
 
 (n) Translation of motion and arguments of Senor Avila, riot submitted to 
 the tribunal, but inserted to render more complete the record of 
 the former case of Alemany v. Mexico 450 
 
 6. Record of the 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 procSs- 
 verbaux, with index and table of citations a 502 
 
 a 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. 
 
PART I. 
 
 Report of agent, with English translation of the award. 
 
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 Cali- 
 f ornias, 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 Senor 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 there- 
 with, 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 Cali- 
 fornias, 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 con- 
 tributions down to the year 1731 reaching $120,000. In 1735 proper- 
 ties 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 por- 
 tion of its existence, was entirely managed and controlled by the Order 
 of Jesus. Later, and upon the expulsion of that order from the domin- 
 ions 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, man- 
 aged the fund for the pious uses intended by the founders. On Sep- 
 tember 19, 1836, Mexico enacted a law looking toward the establish- 
 ment of a bishopric for the two Californias, and providing that the 
 person selected therefor should receive from the public revenues 
 
 9 
 
10 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 $6,000 per annum, with certain additional allowances, and further pro- 
 viding that " the property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Cali- 
 fornias shall be placed at the disposal of the new bishop and his suc- 
 cessors, 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 neces- 
 sary to sustain the expenses and respect and the dignity of a bishop, 
 and in addition, according to a decree o.f Congress, the Pious Fund 
 destined for the support of missions in the Calif ornias 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_ cre- 
 ated, 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 Govern- 
 ment repealed the law of September 19, 1836, placing the management 
 of the Pious Fund in the hands of the bishop of the diocese, and reas- 
 sumed 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, form- 
 ally 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 capi- 
 tal 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, upon the 
 formation of the mixed commission, under the treaty of 1868, to 
 adjust claims of citizens of the United States or of Mexico against the 
 other Government, the archbishop of San Francisco, and the bishops 
 of Monterey and Grass Valley, through the American agent, presented 
 their claim against the Republic of Mexico for a proper portion of the 
 income of said fund, bringing it to the attention of the mixed commis- 
 sion on March 30, 1870, a formal memorial being filed December 31, 
 1870. A large amount of evidence was filed with the memorial, and Mr. 
 Cushing, on behalf of Mexico, on April 24, 1871, filed a motion to dis- 
 miss for the reasons shown in the Transcript on page 67. After full 
 consideration of this motion and of all the evidence adduced on behalf 
 either of the United States or Mexico, the American arbitrator (Tran- 
 script, p. 523 et seq.) found in favor of the claimants for $904,700.99, 
 and the Mexican arbitrator for the defendant Government (Transcript, 
 p. 527 et seq.). 
 
 Because of this difference of opinion, the case was submitted to the 
 umpire, Sir Edward Thornton, who, on November 11, 1875, awarded 
 against Mexico and in favor of the claimants the sum of $904,700.99 in 
 Mexican gold,_being twenty -one years' interest at the rate of $43,080.99 
 per year; or, in other words, 6 per cent upon one-half of the capital- 
 ized value of the Pious Fund, it being considered by him that the proper 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORTSTIAS. 11 
 
 apportionment of interest in the fund itself between Upper and Lower 
 California would be one-half to each (Transcript, p. 606). Attention 
 being called to an error in computation, this sum total was, by the 
 further order of the umpire, reduced to $904,070.99 (Transcript, p. 650). 
 This award was duly paid by Mexico, although the Mexican secretary 
 of foreign affairs, by a letter, on pages 77 and 78 of the Diplomatic 
 Correspondence, said that "though the final award in the case only 
 refers to interest accrued in a fixed period, said claim should be con- 
 sidered as finally settled in toto, and any other fresh claim in regard 
 to the capital of said fund or its interest, accrued or to accrue, as for- 
 ever inadmissible." This position Secretary Fish (Diplomatic Corre- 
 spondence, p. 79) declined to entertain. Mexico, on January 20, 1890, 
 made its last payment on account of the Pious Fund award, and shortly 
 thereafter, and on August 3, 1891, Hon. William F. Wharton, as Act- 
 ing Secretary of State, took up the matter of the claim for interest 
 which had accrued since 1869 (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 23); the 
 same subject being renewed by later Secretaries of State, including 
 Hon. James G. Blaine, Hon. John W. Foster, Hon. Walter Q. Gresham, 
 Hon. John Sherman, Hon. W r . R. Day, and, finally, b} r yourself. 
 
 As the immediate result of the work performed under your direc- 
 tion, the protocol of May 22, 1902, was entered into with Mexico (Ses- 
 sion Statutes, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, Treaties, p. 142), 
 providing for the reference to a tribunal, to be constituted in general 
 conformity with the provisions of the Hague Peace Convention, of the 
 dispute between the two countries, such tribunal having the power to 
 determine: 
 
 "1. If said claim, as a consequence of the former decision, is within 
 the governing principle of res judicata, and 
 
 "2. If not, whether the same be just; 
 
 "And to render such judgment and award as may be meet and proper 
 under all the circumstances of the case." 
 
 Pursuant to the terms of this protocol, the United States served 
 upon Mexico on July 3, 1902, a copy of the memorial, setting forth 
 " the origin and amount of their claim," and on August 12, 1902, Mex- 
 ico delivered to the Department of State of the United States "a 
 statement of its allegations and grounds of opposition to said claim." 
 Meanwhile the United States had prepared and printed a copy of the 
 proceedings had before the Mixed Commission of 1868, the work above 
 referred to, on behalf of the United States, having been performed 
 under my direction, pursuant to appointment by you as agent in the 
 case under date of May 26, 1902. 
 
 Following the terms of the protocol, the United States selected as 
 its nominees for the special tribunal to determine the matter in con- 
 troversy, Prof. F. de Martens, of Russia, member of the Permanent 
 Court of Arbitration, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, of England, 
 likewise member of said court, while on behalf of Mexico there were 
 named Mr. T. M. C. Asser and Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin Lohman, 
 both of Holland, likewise members of said court, Mr. Asser taking 
 the place of Sig. Guarnaschelli, of Italy, who has declined the position. 
 The four gentlemen so named met at the hotel of the Permanent Court 
 of Arbitration on Monday, September 1, 1902, for the selection of the 
 fifth, who, under the terms of The Hague Peace Convention, was enti- 
 tled to act as president, and their choice fell upon Prof. Henning 
 Matzen, of Copenhagen, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
 
12 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 tion. Professor Matzen accepted the duties imposed upon him, and 
 the court opened its first formal session at The Hague on Monday, 
 September 15, 1902. 
 
 The judges upon assembling were greeted in their private chamber 
 by Baron van Lynden, president of the administrative council of the 
 court, and after the exchange of felicitations, the court was formally 
 opened, the address of the president made at that time being replied 
 to by myself, as agent on the part of the United States, and Senor Don 
 Emilio Pardo, as agent on behalf of the Mexican Republic. 
 
 His Excellency L. H. Euyssenaers, secretarj'-general of the court, 
 was appointed secretar}^, and to assist him Mr. Walter S. Penneld and 
 Mr. Luis Pardo acted, respectively, as the American and Mexican 
 secretaries. 
 
 The sessions for the hearing of arguments extended over ten days, 
 occurring on September 15, 17, 22, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, and October 
 1, on which latter date the discussions were closed, the decision being 
 finally given at a meeting on October 14, 1902. 
 
 In matters of formal precedence, the preference was given to the 
 United States, the idea being to place the national representatives 
 according to the alphabetical order indicated by the names of their 
 respective countries, and " Etats-Unis d'Amerique " preceding '' Etats- 
 Unis Mexicains." 
 
 The official language of the court was French, but as all of the 
 arbitrators were familiar with both French and English, the right 
 was extended to the representatives of the United States to address 
 the court in English. 
 
 The discussion was opened by Senator William M. Stewart, of 
 Nevada, who considered very fully and clearly the facts of the case, 
 making some incidental observations with relation to the law appli- 
 cable thereto. He was followed by Mr. Garret W. McEnerney, who 
 analyzed thoroughly the facts surrounding the creation and growth 
 of the Pious Fund and the action of Mexico and Spain with relation 
 thereto, discussing somewhat as well the subject of res judicata. As 
 American agent and as of counsel, I followed Mr. McEnerney, devot- 
 ing myself to the questions of law arising in connection with the 
 American contentions upon the subject of res judicata and also the 
 application of that theory to arbitral awards. M. Delacroix, of 
 Belgium, of counsel for Mexico, followed with a lengthy analysis of 
 the facts from the Mexican standpoint, and in turn was succeeded by 
 M. Beernaert, who discussed the subject of res judicata, the Mexican 
 opening being concluded by Sefior Don Emilio Pardo, the Mexican 
 agent. In reply for the United States, M. Descamps, of Belgium, 
 presented his views with reference to the subject of res judicata or 
 chose jugee as understood by the civil law, and the case of the United 
 States was concluded by Judge William L. Penneld, Solicitor of the 
 Department of State, who summed it up largely from an international 
 standpoint. Under the rules of practice established by the court, the 
 right to conclude was given to the defendant, and MM. Delacroix and 
 Beernaert closed the case with discussions in the line of their original 
 contention. 
 
 Upon the conclusion of the arguments on October 1, an adjourn- 
 ment was had for consideration and preparation of the opinion, the 
 court reassembling, after notice to the parties, on October 14, as 
 indicated, to deliver its judgment, at which time there were present 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 13 
 
 the representatives of the United States and Mexico, and as well a 
 very large number of the members of the Permanent Administrative 
 Council and others at The Hague interested in international affairs. 
 
 It is a source of gratification to me to be able to state that all of the 
 leading contentions indulged in on behalf of the United States were 
 unanimously sustained by the tribunal. In the first argument sub- 
 mitted by the American agent it had been maintained, among other 
 things, that " the amount of the proper judgment in this case was 
 fixed by the terms of the former award;" that an arbitral court had 
 " inherent power to pass upon its own jurisdiction," and particularly 
 was this true as to the Mixed Commission of 1868; that an arbitral 
 decision, more especially the decision of a Mixed Commission, was 
 entitled to be given the effect of res judicata as to the matters passed 
 upon by it as fully as the judgments of courts established b\ 7 a State, 
 and that the former award was to be looked at in its entirety in order 
 to determine as to what it was res judicata. All of these positions, 
 important in themselves and important as bearing upon the future 
 history of international arbitrations, received the fullest indorsement. 
 
 In addition to supporting the above propositions, all the counsel for 
 the United States contended that the Pious Fund controversy was 
 eminently international in character, and that national laws of pre- 
 scription could not be invoked to defeat such a claim as ours, presented 
 before an international body. These positions also received the explicit 
 sanction of the tribunal. The only point upon which the United States 
 could be considered as having failed of success was as to the currency 
 in which the award ought to be paid, the tribunal declaring that pay- 
 ment should be made in the legal currenc} 7 of Mexico, and as to its 
 direction that payment be made in gold, the award of Sir Edwin 
 Thornton was not to be considered as res judicata, except with relation 
 to the years embraced within its terms, payment in gold relating to the 
 execution of the award, and not to the foundation of the right in con- 
 troversy. We had believed that there were many equitable consider- 
 ations, such as long delay in the payment made by Mexico, the gradual 
 fall in the price of silver during the 1 time, the fact that gold had 
 remained constant in value, and the propert3 r originally taken was 
 valued in gold, even at less than its true value, etc., which would have 
 justified a different view, but we accepted cheerfully the findings of 
 the tribunal. The award was highly satisfactorjr, in that it directed 
 perpetual payment of the yearly annuity, thus by its express language 
 settling forever the controversy. 
 
 As a matter of convenience, I attach immediately to this report an 
 English translation of the award. 
 
 By the terms of the protocol a period of eight days was allowed 
 within which revision could be asked, but inasmuch as by the further 
 provision of The Hague Convention such revision could only be 
 demanded on the ground of "the discovery of some new fact calcu- 
 lated to exercise a decisive influence on the award, and which at the 
 time the discussion was closed was unknown to the tribunal and to 
 the party demanding the revision," no appeal therefor was possible, 
 the case having been decided upon a proposition of law, and none was 
 sought. 
 
 All matters submitted by the United States to the Permanent Court 
 of Arbitration were presented in print, a method which facilitated and 
 
14 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 
 
 lightened the work of the court, and by hastening the determination 
 of the case proved to be highly economical. 
 
 On the hrst day the American agent laid before the court the 
 printed volume containing the transcript of the proceedings in the 
 case of Alemany et al v. Mexico, before the mixed commission of 1868, 
 diplomatic correspondence between the two Governments relative to 
 the Pious Fund, and the memorial of the United States; also submitting 
 an appendix containing the various treaties and conventions between 
 Mexico and the United States, the rules of practice before the former 
 mixed commission and The Hague Peace Convention. There was also 
 added a replication to the answer of Mexico, with certain exhibits 
 attached thereto of presumed importance and value to the court, as 
 well as the statement and brief of the agent .and counsel of the United 
 States, and briefs prepared by Senator Stewart and Mr. Kappler and 
 by Messrs. Doyle & Doyle. Some objection was made to the submis- 
 sion of the replication as being a document not contemplated by the 
 protocol. This was withdrawn, and it was submitted, the right to 
 respond thereto being reserved to Mexico. Later other documents 
 were presented, either as independent pieces of evidence on the part 
 of the United States or in reply to demands for discoveiy made by 
 Mexico. In this connection it is to be noted that the two demands for 
 discovery submitted by Mexico were fully and completely answered 
 by the United States, even though not considered pertinent to the 
 issues, while similar demands on behalf of the United States met with 
 ■ only partial response, it being stated by the agent of Mexico that fuller 
 answer within the limited time was impossible because of the extent 
 of the records to be examined and the confusion in which some of them 
 were found. 
 
 I shall not in this report, brief in character as it is, take space to 
 discuss the questions submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
 tion. The considerations in support of, or antagonism to, the posi- 
 tions taken by the United States are set forth with the utmost fullness 
 of detail in the briefs and record of proceedings hereto attached, and 
 no useful purpose would be subserved by their recapitulation. The 
 result, as above indicated, was in a high degree satisfactory to the 
 United States and justifies the wisdom of the course pursued bj r your 
 Department in insisting upon a settlement of this dispute, so long a 
 cause of difference between the two countries. 
 
 The relations between the agent and the counsel of the United States 
 and the court and representatives of the opposing Government were 
 at all times agreeable and friendly, and the proceedings were marked 
 by no incident of an unpleasant character. It is to be believed that 
 an important element contributing to this condition was the entirely 
 neutral character of the court, the protocol having provided that the 
 nationals of the contending parties should not be eligible for member- 
 ship. The tribunal therefore regarded itself as in no degree composed 
 of the representatives of either party, but entirely divorced from any 
 bias which might have been assumed to exist- because of the circum- 
 stances of the appointment of its members. I am confident that if the 
 precedent in this respect now set be followed in future arbitrations 
 under The Hague Peace Convention, much good may be hoped 
 therefrom. 
 
 The two nations concerned in the dispute may congratulate them- 
 selves upon having appeared before able, painstaking, conscientious 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 15 
 
 judges, whose devotion to duty, clearness of comprehension, and 
 celerity of action can not fail to do much to advance the cause of 
 international arbitration. At the same time it is a pleasure to add 
 that the secretary-general of the court, His Excellency L. H. Ruys- 
 senaers, and the assistant secretary, Mr. J. M. Roell, were of the 
 greatest possible assistance to the court, agents, and counsel, meet- 
 ing most admirably the varied and exacting requirements of their 
 positions. 
 
 1 desire to tender my most sincere thanks to yourself and to all 
 officials and employees of the Department of State for the cordial 
 assistance rendered in the prosecution of this case. The utmost credit 
 must be given to Judge William L. Penfield, Solicitor of the Depart- 
 ment, for the able, earnest, and assiduous attention given by him to 
 the controversy. The Department furnished for its prosecution at 
 The Hague Mr. H. B. Armes, Mr. Walter S. Penfield, Miss Margaret 
 M. Hanna, and Miss Victoria G. Peacock (the last two translators), 
 and in addition I had the aid of Miss L. May Larkin as stenographer. 
 Mr. W. T. S. Doyle, aside from important work performed by him 
 as attorney, gave most efficient help as a translator. All of those 
 mentioned labored with earnestness and enthusiasm to bring about a 
 successful result, and without their assistance the large amount of 
 work indicated by the accompanying documents could not have been 
 completed. As it is, with all the factors mentioned, we may feel that 
 nothing was neglected which might tend to bring about the favorable 
 result finally achieved. 
 
 From Mr. Stanford Newell, envoy extraordinary and minister pleni- 
 potentiary of the United States to the Netherlands, and Mr. John W. 
 Garrett, secretary of the legation, many valued favors and much needed 
 assistance were thankfully received. Other diplomatic representatives 
 cheerfully responded to all calls made upon them. 
 
 I submit at this time, to be bound herewith, copies of all documents 
 presented before the Permanent Court of Arbitration not contained in 
 the volume heretofore printed, the documents so submitted to be 
 printed, arranged, and bound with this report in the manner indicated 
 in the preceding table of contents. 
 
 Renewing my thanks to you for your constant c.oui'tesy, I have the 
 honor to be, 
 
 Ver}'- respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Jackson H. Ralston, 
 Agent of the United States in the Pious Fund Case, 
 
 and of Counsel. 
 
 TRANSLATION of the sentence of the permanent court of arbi- 
 tration IN THE MATTER OF THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS, 
 RENDERED OCTOBER 14, 1902. 
 
 The tribunal of arbitration constituted by virtue of the treaty con- 
 cluded at Washington, May 22, 1902, 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 
 
16 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 was agreed and determined that the differences whichexisted 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 bases of the conven- 
 tion 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 (nonnationals), and the President of the United. Mexican 
 States equally two arbitrators (nonnationals); 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 Maj- 
 esty, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and 
 
 His Excellency M. De Martens, LL. D., privy councilor, member 
 of the council of the imperial ministry of foreign affairs of Russia, 
 member of the Institute of France, member of the Permanent Court 
 of Arbitration. 
 
 Whereas the President of the United Mexican States named as arbi- 
 trators: 
 
 Mr. T. M. C. Asser, LL. D., member of the council of state of the 
 Netherlands, former professor at the University of Amsterdam, mem- 
 ber 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 Univer-- 
 sity 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 pre:-ident of right of the Tribunal of Arbitration, 
 
 Mr. Henning Matzen, LL. D. , professor at the University of Copen- 
 hagen, councilor 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 umpire. 
 
 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 impar- 
 tiality 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 atten- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 17 
 
 tion the oral arguments presented before the tribunal by the agents 
 and the counsel of the two parties in litigation; 
 
 Considering that the litigation submitted to the decision of the tri- 
 bunal of arbitration consists in a conflict between the United States of 
 America and the United Mexican States, which can only be decided 
 upon the basis of international treaties and the principles of interna- 
 tional law; 
 
 Considering that the international treaties concluded from the year 
 1848 to the compromis of May 22, 1902, between the two powers in 
 litigation, manifest the eminently international character of this conflict; 
 Considering that all the parts of the judgment or the decree con- 
 cerning the points debated in the litigation enlighten and mutually 
 supplement each other, and that they all serve to render precise the 
 meaning and the bearing of the dispositif (decisory part of the judg- 
 ment) and to determine the points upon which there is res judicata and 
 which thereafter can not be put in question; ^ 
 
 Considering, that this rule applies not only to the judgments of tri- 
 bunals created by the State, but equally to arbitral sentences rendered 
 within the limits of the jurisdiction fixed by the compromis; 
 
 Considering, that this same principle should for a still stronger rea- 
 son be applied to international arbitration; 
 
 Considering, that the convention of July 4, 1868, concluded between 
 the two States in litigation, had accorded to the Mixed Commission 
 named by these States, as well as to the umpire to be eventually desig- 
 nated, the right to pass upon their own jurisdiction; 
 
 Considering, that in the litigation submitted to the decision of the 
 Tribunal of Arbitration, by virtue of the compromis of May 22, 1902, 
 there is not only identity of parties to the suit, but also identity of 
 subject-matter, compared with the arbitral sentence of Sir Edward 
 Thornton, as umpire, in 1875, and amended by him October 24, 1876; 
 Considering, that the Government of the United Mexican States 
 conscientiously executed the arbitral sentence of 1875 and 1876 by 
 paying the annuities adjudged by the umpire; 
 
 Considering, that since 1869 thirty-three annuities have not been 
 paid by the Government of the United Mexican States to the Govern- 
 ment of the United States of America, and that the rules of prescrip- 
 tion, belonging exclusively to the domain of civil law, can not be 
 applied to the present dispute between the two States in litigation; 
 
 Considering, so far as the money is concerned in which the annual 
 pavment should take place, that the silver dollar, having legal cur- 
 rency in Mexico, payment in gold can not be exacted, except by virtue 
 of an express stipulation; , 
 
 Considering that in the present instance such stipulation not exist- 
 ing-, the party defendant has the right to free itself by paying in silver; 
 that with relation to this point the sentence of Sir Edward Thornton 
 has not the force of res judicata, except for the twenty-one annuities 
 with regard to which the umpire decided that the payment should 
 take place in Mexican gold dollars, because question of the mode of 
 payment does not relate to the basis of the right in litigation, but 
 onlv to the execution of the sentence. 
 
 Considering, that according to article 10 of the protocol of Wash- 
 ington, of May 22, 1902, the present Tribunal of Arbitration must 
 determine, in case of an award against the Republic of Mexico, in 
 what money payment must take place; 
 S. Doc. 28 2 
 
18 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 For these reasons the Tribunal of Arbitration decides and unani- 
 mously pronounces as follows: 
 
 1. That the said claim of the United States of America for the bene- 
 fit 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 % L, 420, 682. 67 will totally extinguish the annuities accrued 
 and not paid by the Government of the Mexican Republic — that 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 Feb- 
 ruary 2, 1903, and each following year on the same date of February 2, 
 perpetually, the annuity of $43,050.99 Mexican, in money having legal 
 currency in Mexico. 
 
 Done at The Hague in the hotel of the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
 tion in triplicate original, October 14, 1902. 
 
 Henning Matzen. 
 
 Edw. Fry. 
 
 Maktens. 
 
 T. M. C. Assek. 
 
 A. F. de Savoknin Lohman. 
 
PART II. 
 
 PLEADINGS. 
 
 Memorial of the United States. 
 
 Answer of Mexico in Spanish and translation into French,, pre- 
 pared by the Mexican agent 
 
 Eeplication of the United States, with exhibits consisting of 
 English translation of Mexican answer with notes, resume of de 
 Rada litigation, statement as to Indian populations of Lower 
 California, and copy of deed of Cienega del Pastor. 
 
 Conclusions (rejoinder on behalf of Mexico). 
 
 19 
 
MEMORIAL OF THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO. 
 
 (Submitted to the determination and judgment of the arbitral court provided for in the 
 protocol of an agreement between the said Republics, bearing date on the 22d day of 
 May, A. D. 1902.) u J 
 
 This claim is made by the United States aforesaid, on behalf of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, of what was formerly known as Upper Cali- 
 fornia, represented by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, 
 California, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey, California, 
 successors of the former Bishop of the Californias. 
 
 I. The said claimants show to this honourable court, that the said 
 Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco is a corporation sole 
 incorporated under the laws of the State of California, and the said 
 Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey is also a corporation sole incor- 
 porated under the same laws; that the Most Reverend Patrick W. 
 Riordan is the incumbent of said first mentioned corporation, and the 
 Right Reverend George Montgomery incumbent of the said last men- 
 tioned one, and that as such Archbishop and Bishop they are successors 
 of the Right Reverend Francisco Garcia Diego, formerly Bishop of the 
 Californias, now deceased. 
 
 The said claimants thereupon allege that the Republic of Mexico is 
 indebted to the Roman Catholic Church of that portion of the United 
 States which was formerly designated and known as Upper California, 
 represented by the Bishop and Archbishop aforesaid, in a large sum 
 of money, to-wit: in the sum of one million four hundred and twenty 
 thousand six hundred and eighty-nine dollars and sixty-seven cents, in 
 Mexican Gold money, for the portion of the interest or income which 
 has accrued since February 2nd, 1869, on the capital of the Pious Fund 
 of the Californias corresponding, and properly belonging to what was 
 anciently known as "Alta California" or Upper California, now a por- 
 tion of the United States of America. 
 
 II. The Pious Fund of the Californias was a great charity, founded 
 and endowed during the closing years of the seventeenth and portion 
 of the eighteenth century, for the purpose of propagating the Catholic 
 faith in unsettled portions of Spanish North America, called the Cali- 
 fornias, and included, as did the whole scheme of the Spanish conquest 
 of America, the conversion to the Catholic faith of the Indian tribes of 
 the country, as well as the establishment of churches, the support of 
 the clergy and the maintenance of divine worship there, according 
 to the faith and rites of the Catholic Church. 12 It was confided to the 
 
 aNachrichten von der Amerikanischen Halbinsel Californien; Geschreiben von 
 einem Priester der Gesellschaft Jesu, &c. Manheirn, 1772, pp. 198—199 (Hereafter 
 cited as "Nachrichten.") 
 
 Noticia de la California y de su Conquista Temporal y Espiritual hasta el Tiempo 
 Presente. Sacada de la Historia Manuscrita, Formada en Mexico afio de 1739, por el 
 Padre Miguel Venegas, de la Com pan iade Jesus, &c, &c. Madrid, 1757. Vol- II, 
 p. 11 et seq. (Hereafter cited as '' Venegas.") 
 
22 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Society of Jesus. A copy of* the foundation deed with a translation 
 thereof is among the papers to be submitted to the Court, from which 
 deed the following is an extract: 
 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which may hereafter be 
 founded, in the Californias, as well for the maintenance of their religious, and to 
 provide for the ornament and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the 
 native converts and catechumens with food and clothing, according to the custom of 
 that country; so that if hereafter, by God's blessing, there be means of support in 
 the reductions and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their 
 lands, thus obviating the necessity of sending from this country provisions, clothing 
 and other necessaries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new 
 missions to be established hereafter in the unexplored parts of the said Californias, 
 according to the discretion of the Father Superior of said missions; and the estates 
 aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that, even in 
 the case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy catholic faith, 
 the profits of said estate shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their 
 support: etc. 
 
 III. The said fund was contributed by private individuals and reli- 
 gious societies, and placed in the hands of the Society of Jesus in New 
 Spain, for the purposes above indicated, and was held in trust and 
 administered by the said Societ} r . The income derivable from ten 
 thousand dollars being found sufficient for the support of a mission 
 each contributor of that sum was at first deemed to found a particular 
 mi ssion and was allowed to give it a name. a But there was no actual sep- 
 aration of the funds and the investment and management of them having 
 been always united in the same hands, the aggregate of the moneys and 
 property contributed, ere long became considerable and obtained and 
 became known by the name of "The Pious Fund of the Californias." 
 It originated in the year 1697,* when the Reverend Juan Maria Salva- 
 tierra and the Reverend Juan Ugarte, of that Society, began collect- 
 ing means for the proposed undertaking, under the name of limosnas 
 or alms, from charitable persons, to aid them in the work of Chris- 
 tianizing the inhabitants of the Californias, to attempt which they had 
 obtained the permission of tbe Spanish Crown, on condition that the 
 Public Treasury should not be called upon to furnish any money for 
 the undertaking. A list of the earliest contributions for the purpose 
 is to be found in a little work, published in Valencia in the year 1794, 
 entitled ".Nbticias de laprovincia de Californias, en tres cartas deun 
 sacerdote religioso, hijo del real convento de joredicadores de Valencia, a 
 un amigo suyo." (Carta II, pag 48, 49.) 
 
 In 1735 Don Jose de la Puente y Pena, Marquis de Villa-puente, and 
 his wife, Dona Gertrudis de la Pena, Marchioness de las Torres de 
 Rada, by deed of gift inter vivos conveyed to the Society of Jesus in 
 New Spain, for the support of their missions in the Californias, 
 estates and properties of great extent and importance, valued at the 
 time at over four hundred thousand dollars; and to the fund thus aug- 
 mented were aggregated the contributions enumerated in the " Tres 
 Cartas,'''' and others amounting to over one hundred and thirty thou- 
 sand dollars. The purposes contemplated by the contributors being 
 clearly expressed in the deed of the Marquis and Marchioness above 
 named, that instrument came to be looked upon, and spoken of, as the 
 foundation deed, although considerable contributions preceded it in 
 time. Another large contribution to the fund of about one hundred 
 
 oVenegas Vol. II, pp. 12 and 13, 233, 235-236. Nachriehten, pp. 214, 222. Tres 
 Cartas, ubi infra. 
 6 Venegas Vol. II, p. 11-14. Nachrichten, p. 199. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 23 
 
 and twenty thousand dollars followed, from the Duchess of Gandia," 
 and still another of great magnitude, from Dona Josef a Paula de 
 Arguelles, a wealthy lady of Guadlajara, who by her will bequeathed 
 one-fourth of her residuary estate to the Jesuit College of Santo 
 Tomas of Guadlajara, and the remaining three-fourths to the Jesuit 
 Missions of New Spain, and of the Philippine Islands, in equal parts. 
 The bequest to the College was renounced by the legatees, and litiga- 
 tion ensued as to the disposition of the property of the testatrix, 
 resulting in a decree or judgment, which was appealed to the Audi- 
 encia Eeal of New Spain and thence to the Council of the Indies. By 
 the time a decision by that tribunal was reached the Jesuits had been 
 expelled from the Spanish Dominions, and even suppressed by the 
 Holy See; the management of the property devolved on the Crown 
 and the three-fourths of this estate devised to these missions were 
 therefore ordered by the decree to be employed in equal moieties 
 in the Missions of New Spain and those of the Philippine Islands 
 under the direction of the Monarch ; one-half of them was thereupon 
 aggregated to the Pious Fund of the Californias and of the other half 
 was formed a fund for the support of the Missions in the Philippine 
 Islands, the interest of which was periodically remitted to them for 
 that purpose. 
 
 IV. The text of the Pragmatic Sanction expelling the Jesuits from 
 the Spanish dominions is to be found in the Novisima Recopilacion 
 Lib. I, Tit. 26, Ley III. Edicion de Salva, Paris 1846, pp. 183, 184, 
 185. The Crown in taking possession of the properties that were held 
 in trust, took them cum onere, or as expressed in Section 3, "sin per- 
 judicio de sus cargas, mente de los fundadores^ and thus the manage- 
 ment of the whole Pious Fund of the Californias (for want of trustees 
 capable of acting) devolved on the Crown, and continued to be con- 
 ducted and managed, as a trust for the benefit and support of the 
 • Missions, by a Royal Commission, until the accomplishment of Mexican 
 independence, when it passed to the hands of the new government, 
 and remained in the management of Mexico down to the year 1836, 
 when the Californias were erected into a diocese, and the Reverend 
 Francisco Garcia Diego, having been appointed and consecrated Bishop 
 thereof, the administration and control of the Pious Fund was trans- 
 ferred to him, as such, in pursuance of an Act of the Mexican Congress 
 passed September 19th, 1836. On February 8th, 1842, General Santa 
 Ana, then provisional President of the said Republic, with extraordi- 
 nary powers, made a decree resuming the administration of the Pious 
 Fund by the Mexican Government, and requiring all the properties of 
 the Fund to be delivered to General Gabriel Valencia, whom he had 
 commissioned for the purpose, to whom they were surrendered by 
 Don Pedro Ramirez, the apoderado or agent of the Bishop, accom- 
 panied by an official inventory or instruction circunstanciada, of which 
 a copy forms part of the record of the former arbitration. On the 
 24th of October, 1842, in pursuance of another decree of the same pro- 
 visional President, the properties of the Pious Fund were incorporated 
 into the National Treasury of the Mexican Republic and directed to be 
 sold, the Republic undertaking to pay interest on the proceeds at six 
 per cent, per annum. War broke out between the United States and 
 Mexico in 1846, which was terminated by the treaty of Guadalupe 
 
 aStoria della California, Opera p6stuma del Nob. Sig. Abate D. Francesco Saverio 
 Clavigero. 2 vols. Venice, 1789. Vol. II. pp. 139-140. 
 
24 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Hidalgo, bearing date February 2nd, 1848, and Upper California, being 
 all the Territory originally claimed by Spain, and after its independence, 
 by Mexico, north of the' Gila Eiver and of a line from the mouth of 
 said river to the Pacific Ocean, at a point one league south of the Bay 
 of San Diego, was ceded by Mexico to the United States in considera- 
 tion of fifteen million dollars, and other considerations, amounting to 
 several millions more. 
 
 The events, of which the above is a brief synopsis, are more fully 
 related in the "Brief History of the Pious Fund of California," and 
 amply corroborated by printed extracts from various historical works 
 and public documents which form a part of the record of the former 
 arbitration, to be presently referred to. Hence they are here related 
 very succinctly. 
 
 V. During the twenty years immediately succeeding the treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo many claims arose, made by citizens of each repub- 
 lic against the government of the other for damages, resulting from 
 injuries of various sorts, and a convention for the settlement of all 
 these various claims, was concluded between the two nations, bearing 
 date July 4th, 1868 (to which as a matter of public international law 
 reference is made without setting forth its terms), under which an 
 international tribunal was constituted for the determination of all such 
 claims, and their payment was provided for. The said tribunal opened 
 its sessions in the City of Washington on the 31st of July, 1869. To 
 this tribunal the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco and the 
 Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey, then in office, as successors of 
 the Right Reverend Francisco Garcia Diego, Bishop of the Californias, 
 presented a claim on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church aforesaid 
 for so much of the interest on the capital of the Pious Fund accrued 
 since the date of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, viz: the 2nd of Feb- 
 ruary, 1848, as properly belonged to Upper California. The time for 
 making awards under the said Convention of 1868 was originally limited 
 to two years and six months from the first meeting of the Commission, 
 viz: July 31st, 1869. But such time was enlarged by supplementary 
 conventions between the two nations, dated April 19, 1871; November 
 27, 1872, and November 20, 1874; so that it finally expired on January 
 31, 1876, with six additional months thereafter, within which the 
 Umpire was empowered to make his awards, in cases where the Com- 
 missioners had differed. 
 
 In the meantime, after a motion by the Counsel of Mexico to dismiss 
 the aforesaid claim of the said Archbishop and Bishop on the ground that 
 the Commission had not jurisdiction of the case, proofs were offered 
 and argument on the merits of the claim suggested by each party, and 
 on the 19th of May, 1875, the Mexican and American Commissioners 
 filed their opinions in the case, whereby it appeared that, they differed 
 totally; the American Commissioner being of opinion that an award 
 should be made in favor of the claimants for one-half of the interest 
 at six per cent, per annum on the capital of the Pious Fund (the amount 
 of which capital he decided to be $1,436,033.00) and the Mexican Com- 
 missioner being of opinion that no sum whatever should be awarded 
 I hem. Thereupon, under the provisions of the said original Conven- 
 tion of July 4th, 1868, and the several conventions supplementary 
 thereto, above mentioned, the said case was referred to Sir Edward 
 Thornton, then Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States Govern- 
 ment from the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- 
 
PIOtTS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 25 
 
 land, who had been chosen and was acting as Umpire in such cases, for 
 his decision. The decision of said Umpire not having been announced 
 within the time allowed therefor* by the supplementary convention of 
 November 20th, 1874, to-wit: the 31st of January, 1876, another sup- 
 plementary convention dated April 29th, 1876, was concluded between 
 the two governments whereby the term within which the Umpire 
 might make an award was further extended to November 20th of that 
 year. 
 
 VI. On the 29th of November, 1875, the said Umpire signed his 
 decision in favor of the claimants, and said decision became known to 
 the Agent of the Mexican Republic, who, on January 29th, 1876, 
 filed with the said Umpire a petition on behalf of. Mexico for rehear- 
 ing, and on September 19th of the same year presented an extended 
 argument in support thereof. He pointed out an error of one thou- 
 sand dollars in the addition of the items composing the capital of said 
 Fund, which was rectified by, the Umpire on the 18th of November, 
 1876, and on the same day said Umpire rendered his final award in the 
 case in favor of the claimants, for the sum of $904,070.79 in Mexican 
 Gold coin, being twenty-one years interest at 6 per cent, per annum on 
 one-half of the capital of the said Pious Fund, to-wit: the principal sum 
 of $717,516.50, which award was in due course fully and punctually 
 paid by the said Republic of Mexico in accordance with the terms of 
 the said convention of July 4th, 1868. 
 
 VII. The said Republic however again defaulted in the payment of 
 the current interest on the said Pious Fund Capital, in consequence 
 whereof and at the instance of the present incumbents (the said Joseph 
 S. Alemany having meantime been translated to another diocese, and 
 afterwards departed this life, and been duly succeeded as Archbishop 
 of San Francisco by the Most Reverend P. W. Riordan; and the said 
 Thadeus Amat having been succeeded by FrancisMoraasBishopof Mon- 
 terey, who in his turn was also succeeded by the Right Reverend George 
 Montgomery, being the present incumbent of the said diocese of Mon- 
 terey, and the said Patrick W. Riordan of that of San Francisco), the 
 government of the United States demanded payment thereof from 
 the government of Mexico, which the said government of Mexico 
 refused, and in fact, the annual interest of $43,050.99 remains unpaid 
 for each and every year after the year 1868, down to the present day, 
 the United States on behalf of the said prelates, insisting that the adju- 
 dication by the Umpire of the Mixed Commission created by the Con- 
 vention of July 4th, 1868, above mentioned, establishes conclusively the 
 amount of said annual interest to be the sum of $43,050.99, and the 
 liability of Mexico for the payment thereof in Mexican Gold Coin on 
 the 24th of October of each and every year after 1868 as res judicata, 
 and Mexico denying such liability and the finality and conclusiveness 
 of such judgment. Which question has been by the consent of the 
 high contracting parties, by the protocol dated May 22nd, 1902, referred 
 to this Honourable Court to determine. 
 
 VIII. Second. The said United States insist that, if the said liability 
 and its amount are not deemed by this honorable Court to be conclu- 
 sively established by the said adjudication made under the Convention 
 of July 4th, 1868, then the indebtedness of Mexico, justly due to the 
 said prelates, on behalf of their church as aforesaid, for the interest 
 on the portion of the said Pious Fund, corresponding to what was for- 
 merly known as Upper California, is really a much larger sum than 
 
26 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS.. 
 
 that above demanded. And in support of said last allegation they aver 
 that the following errors and omissions occurred in making said award, 
 occasioned by the ignorance of counsel of material facts relating to the 
 same, and their consequent failure to make proof thereof, and to over- 
 sight of the Commissioner and Umpire, as follows, viz. : 
 
 1. The claim for the amount received by the Mexican Government 
 from sales, or otherwise from the property donated or bequeathed by 
 Dona Josepha de Argiielles, was stated in the exhibit filed with the 
 Memorial before the former Mixed commission, to amount to the sum 
 of $681,946.00. A portion of this, amounting to $496,291.00 was 
 erroneously claimed, having been already included in the enumeration 
 of "assets of the pious fund" in the same exhibit. Of the remaining 
 $185,654.91 thereof, $105,045 was improperly rejected, as will be shown 
 by the evidence. The capital of the Pious Fund should therefore be 
 increased by said last mentioned amount. 
 
 2. In making the said award the proceeds of the hacienda called 
 the "Cienaga del Pastor" were excluded from the computation of 
 the said principal, because the same was stated in the inventory 
 or "instruccion circunstanciada" of Don Pedro Ramirez to be 
 embargoed or attached, and the claimants had no knowledge or means 
 of learning the ultimate results of said attachment or embargo, or the 
 amount realized by Mexico for the said hacienda. The said claimants 
 have since learned and aver that the three-quarters of said hacienda 
 belonging to the Pious Fund, were sold by the Government of Mexico 
 for $213,750, which sum should therefore be added to the capital of 
 the said Pious Fund, in the interest of which they were then and are 
 still entitled to participate. 
 
 3. The award or opinion of Commissioner William H. Wadsworth 
 which the Umpire adopted as the basis of his decision in the former 
 arbitration shows that in calculating the amount of the capital of the 
 Pious Fund, he deducted from the amount of the claims against the 
 Mexican Government the sum of $7,000, as a bad debt, under the date 
 of October 20th, 1829. This deduction was erroneous, and the 
 adjudged capital of the said fund should be augmented by the said 
 sum, and the income of the fund by the interest thereon amounting to 
 $420 per annum. The said Commissioner and Umpire designate the 
 said sum as a bad debt, referring to the instruccion circunstanciada of 
 Don Pedro Ramirez, from which the item is taken, but the text of 
 said document shows this to be an error, resulting from a misunder- 
 standing of its language. 
 
 4. The_ claimants are informed and believe and therefore aver, that 
 the Mexican Government borrowed from the Pious Fund, in or 
 about the month of July, 1834, various sums amounting in the whole 
 to $22,763.15, which loans have not, nor have any of them been repaid, 
 and they therefore claim that the said sum of $22,763.15, which was 
 omitted from the claim made before the Mixed Commission aforesaid, 
 by reason of the ignorance of counsel of the facts, this amount should 
 therefore be added to the aforesaid capital of the Pious Fund. 
 
 5. They also show that in the sale of the said hacienda of "Cienaga 
 del Pastor" was included certain personal property on said hacienda, 
 under the name of "llenos," for the sum of $4,000, three-fourths of 
 which belonged to the said Pious Fund, the capital of which should 
 therefore be further increased by the amount of $3,000. 
 
 6. If the adjudication of the tribunal constituted under the Conven- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 27 
 
 tion of July 4th, 1868, is not deemed conclusive as to the amount due 
 to the claimants on account of the Pious Fund by the Mexican Repub- 
 lic, neither is it conclusive as to the proportion in which the same 
 should be divided between Upper and Lower California, and an equal 
 division between the two former provinces, whatever excuse may have 
 appeared to exist for it in 1875, is at the present day wholly unjust 
 and indeed absurd. The present population of the region, which 
 under the Spanish and Mexican dominion was known as Upper Cali- 
 fornia, as shown by the United States Census of 1900 is 3,000,000 
 souls and upwards and steadily increasing; the number of priests 
 within its borders performing active missionary duty was then 284. 
 Lower California, on the other hand, has ceased to retain its former 
 importance. Its total population is only a little over 42,000 individu- 
 als, as stated in the "Statesman's Year Book" on the authority of the 
 Mexican Census of 1895. The number of clergy as well as can be 
 estimated from the Memorial or report of Ulysses Urbano Lassepas, 
 compiled by order of the Mexican government (1859), could not then 
 have exceeded 24. Mexico can, of course, furnish the actual number. 
 An equal division of a fund, for missionary purposes, between two 
 populations so wholly disproportionate as these, seems entirely absurd. 
 The United States have reason to believe that the evidence to be 
 adduced before this honorable Court in the course of this arbitration 
 will show other and additional sums due by Mexico, and going to 
 increase the capital of the said Pious Fund in the Public Treasury of 
 Mexico on which interest as aforesaid should be allowed. And the 
 said claimants allege and insist that the true basis of a division of the 
 income of the Pious Fund between Upper and Lower California is in 
 proportion to population which would give to Upper California 85 per 
 cent, and to Lower California 15 per cent, of the whole. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We propose now to state the capital of the Pious Fund and show 
 the amount due by Mexico under each of the two alternatives above 
 suggested, viz: 
 
 I. If the amount and rate of division are deemed settled as res 
 judicata; 
 
 II. In the contrary supposition, viz: that the whole question is open. 
 
 I. If the amount of the Fund and rate of division between Upper 
 and Lower California are deemed to be established as res judicata the 
 account will stand thus: 
 
 Principal as shown (after deducting $1,000 for said error in addition) . f 1, 435, 033. 00 
 
 The half of this sum corresponding to Upper California 717, 516. 50 
 
 The interest, 6 per cent, on which is 43, 050. 99 
 
 Total in this case (33 installments, at $43,050.99) 1, 420, 689. 67 
 
 II. If the said amount and rate of division are not deemed fixed as 
 res judicata, the capital of the Pious Fund should be stated as follows: 
 
 REAL ESTATE. 
 
 Houses on Vergara street, \ of annual income, viz: $2,625, belonging 
 to the Pious Fund, which, capitalized at 6 per cent, corresponds to 
 a capital of (Instruccion of Ramirez, p. 28J) - - $43, 750. 00 
 
 Hacienda "Cienaga del Pastor," J of annual income, viz: $12,825 
 belonging to the Pious Fund, which, capitalized at 6 per cent, rep- 
 resents a capital of (Id., p. 30) 213,750.00 
 
28 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNIA8. 
 
 "Llenos" (personality) sold with the same $3,000.00 
 
 Haciendas "San Augustin de Amoles," "El Oustodio," "San Ignacio 
 del Buey," and "La Baya," annual income of $12,705 belonging to 
 the Pious Fund, which at 6 per cent represents a capital of (Id., 
 
 pp. 30-31 ) -• 211, 750. 00 
 
 Hacienda "San Pedro de Ibarra," annual income $2,000, belonging to 
 the Pious Fund, which at 6 per cent represents a capital of (Id., 
 p. 30) 33,333.33 
 
 MORTGAGES. 
 
 $42,000 on Hacienda "Sta. Lugarda," at 5 per cent (Id., p. 31) 42,000. 00 
 
 On Hacienda "Arroyozarco," $40,000, at 6 per cent, with arrears of 
 
 interest amounting to $26,770.75 66, 770. 75 
 
 On Hacienda "San Jose" Minyo," $3,000, at 5 per cent, with arrears of 
 
 interest amounting to $2,275 5, 275. 00 
 
 OWED BY PUBLIC TREASURY. 
 
 $20,000 borrowed during Spanish rule with arrears of interest at 5 per 
 
 cent, $29,166.54, down to April 30th, 1842 (Id., p. 32) 49, 166. 63 
 
 $201,856.75 with arrears at 5 per cent, since 1812 down to April 30th, 
 
 1842, $294,434.25 (Id., p. 32) 496,291.00 
 
 $162,618.37J borrowed in 1810 with interest at 6 percent, in arrears since 
 
 1820, amounting down to April 30th, 1842, to $206,525.25 (Id., p. 33). 369, 143. 75 
 $38,500 formerly owed by College of San Gregorio, with arrears of 
 
 interest at 3 per cent since 1811, amounting to $34,842.50 (Id., p. 33) 73, 342. 50 
 $68,160.37^ deposited in National Mint in 1825, no rate of interest 
 
 mentioned (Id., p. 34) ." 68,160.37° 
 
 $7,000 paid on October 28th, 1829, by order of Government for their 
 
 account, no interest mentioned (Id., p. 34) 7,000.00 
 
 $22,763.15 advanced Government in 1834 (Id., p. 3) 22, 763. 15 
 
 $3,000 advanced to Government to pay for Bulls of Bp. Diego in 1836, 
 
 no interest mentioned (Id., p. 34) 3,000. 00 
 
 Government Bonds 15, 973. 37 5 
 
 Proceeds of the estate of Sra. Argiielles paid into the Gen- 
 eral Treasury according to decree of Court, from time 
 to time, as set forth in Manuel Payno's Official Report, 
 which after paying $10,000 to a charity in the Philip- 
 pine Islands, should be divided one-fourth to the heirs 
 of Sra. Arguelles, three-eighths to the Philippine Mis- 
 sions, and three-eighths to the Pious Fund. Up to 
 August 2nd, 1803, there had been paid into the treas- 
 ury on this account $544,901.10; from which amount 
 for convenience we at once deduct $10,000 for the 
 charity in thePhilippine Islands. Three-eighths of the 
 
 remainder will belong to the Pious Fund $200, 606. 64 
 
 February 9th, 1804, there was deposited $18,000, of 
 
 which there belonged to the Pious Fund 6, 750. 00 
 
 January 20th, 1809, there was deposited $80,000, of 
 
 which there belonged to the Pious Fund 30, 000. 00 
 
 February 1st, 1809, there was deposited $30,000, of 
 
 which there belonged to the Pious Fund 11, 250. 00 
 
 October 25th, 1809, there was deposited $25,000, of 
 
 which there belonged to the Pious Fund 9, 375. 00 
 
 October 25th, 1809, there was deposited $75,000, of 
 
 which there belonged to the Pious Fund 28, 125. 00 
 
 July 16th and 29th, 1812, there was deposited $8,000 
 
 of which there belonged to the Pious Fund 3, 000 00 
 
 July 29th, 1812, there was deposited $19,000, of which 
 
 there belonged to the Pious Fund 7, 125 00 
 
 May 7th, 1814, there was deposited $28,453.63, of 
 which there belonged to the Pious Fund 10, 670. 00 
 
 „, Total 306,901.64 
 
 Of this amount $201,856.75 have already been taken 
 into consideration, which we therefore deduct $201, 856. 75 
 
 Total amount due as received from Sra. Argiielles 
 estate, not accounted for above 105 044. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 29 
 
 PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OWED. 
 
 Estate of Dolores Reyes (Instruction, p. 34) $9, 850. 00 
 
 D. Ramon Vestiz (Id., p. 35) 13,997.00 
 
 (We do not take into account debts of individuals considered in the 
 former arbitration as bad.) 
 
 Grand total 1, 853, 361. 75 
 
 The interest on this at 6 per cent per annum is Ill, 201. 70 
 
 Eighty-five per cent of the last, named sum is 94, 521. 44 
 
 Thirty-three installments of $94,521.44 amount to 3, 108, 207. 52 
 
 Jackson H. Ralston, 
 
 Agent of the United States. 
 William M. Stewart, 
 
 Of Counsel. 
 Prepared by — 
 John T. Doyle, 
 W. T. Sherman Doyle, 
 
 Of Counsel for the .Prelates. 
 
CONTESTACION AL MEMORIAL SOBRE LA RECLAMACION PRE- 
 SENTADA POR EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS TJNIDOS DE 
 AMERICA CONTRA EL DE MEXICO RELATIVA AL LLAMADO 
 "FONDO PIADOSO DE CALIFORNIAS." 
 
 A reserva de producir a favor de la Republica Mexicana, en uso del 
 derecho que la asiste conforme al protocolo ajustado en Washington el 
 22 de Mayo ultimo para el arbitramento de la presente reclamacion, 
 las pruebas de las excepciones que en seguida se expresan y de otras 
 que sean oportunas, asi como las defensas y alegaciones convenientes, 
 el infrascrito, organo autorizado del Gobierno de Mexico, pide que 
 La Coete Peemanente de Abbiteaje de La Hata deseche la recla- 
 macion, por las razones siguientes: 
 
 Primera. Falta de titulo en el Arzobispo de San Francisco y en el 
 Obispo de Monterrey para presentarse como legitimos comisarios del 
 Fondo Piadoso de Californias. 
 
 Segunda. Carencia de derecho de la Iglesia Catolica de la Alta Cali- 
 fornia para exigir reditos provenientes del supuesto fondo. 
 
 Tercera. Ineptitud 6 extincion de los titulos en que el Arzobispo y 
 Obispo mencionados fundan su reclamacion. 
 
 Guarta. Insubsistencia del objeto atribuido a la institucion del fondo, 
 en lo que respecta a la Alta California. 
 
 Quinta. Facultad exclusiva del Gobierno Mexicano para el empleo 
 del fondo y disposicion de sus productos sin la intervention de la 
 Iglesia Catolica de la Alta California. 
 
 Sexta. Uso que el Gobierno hizo de dicha facultad, y 
 
 Septima. Exageracion de la demanda. 
 
 I. 
 
 Los reclamantes convienen con el Gobierno Mexicano en reconocer 
 los hechos siguientes, comprobados con irrefutables documentos: 
 
 Primero. Los Jesuitas f ueron los comisarios 6 administradores origi- 
 narios de los bienes que f ormaban el Fondo Piadoso de Californias hasta 
 el ano 1768, en que fueron expulsados de los dominios espanoles. 
 
 Segundo. La Corona Espanola ocup6 los bienes que constituian el 
 citado Fondo Piadoso, en substitution de los Jesuitas, y lo administro 
 por medio de una Real Comision hasta que se consumo la independen- 
 cia de Mexico. 
 
 Tercero. El Gobierno Mexicano, que sucedio al Gobierno Espanol, 
 fue, como este lo habia sido, comisario del Fondo y, en este concepto, 
 sucesor de los Jesuitas Misioneros, con todas las facultades concedidas 
 a estos por los fundadores. 
 
 Para que el Arzobispo y Obispo reclamantes pudieran ser considerados 
 como comisarios (trustees, en ingles), por sucesion, segun ellos lo pre- 
 tenden, tendrian que justificar su actual calidad de causahabientes del 
 30 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 31 
 
 Gobierno Mexicano, a titulo perpetuo, universal 6 singular. De otro 
 modo no se podria explicar la actitud de acreedores con que se han 
 presentado contra su pretendido oausante. 
 
 En ef ecto, invocan como titulo de sucesion que les concedi6 la repre- 
 sentation inmediata del Gobierno, y la mediata de los Jesuitas, el decreto 
 del Congreso Mexicano expedido en 19 de Septiembre de 1836, el cual 
 mando poner a disposition del Obispo de las Californias y de sus 
 sucesores los bienes pertenecientes al Fondo Piadoso de las Californias, 
 para que lo administrasen e invirtiesen en sus objetos u otros analogos, 
 respetando siempre la voluntad de los fundadores. Pero los mismos 
 reclamantes reconocen que el citado decreto fue derogado en 8 de 
 Febrero de 1842 por el General Santa Ana, Presidente provisional de 
 la Kepublica investido de facultades extraordinarias, y que devolvio al 
 Gobierno Mexicano la administration e inversion del producto de esos 
 bienes en el modo y t^rminos que el dispusiera, para llenar el objeto 
 que los fundadores se propusieron, la civilization y conversion de los 
 larbaros. Posteriormente, en 24 de Octubre del mismo aiio, se mando 
 vender esos bienes y que su producto entrara en el Tesoro Nacional 
 para constituir con el un censo consignativo al seis por ciento anual, 
 aplicable al objeto de la primitiva fundacion. 
 
 Ninguna ley posterior otorgo a, los Obispos de las Californias la 
 facultad de recibir y aplicar a su objeto los reditos del indicado censo. 
 Verdad es que el Gobierno Mexicano expidio otro decreto, en 3 de 
 Abril de 1845, ordenando que todos los bienes del Fondo Piadoso de las 
 Californias que existieran invendidos, se devolviesen al Obispo de Cali- 
 fornias y a sus sucesores, para los objetos expresados en el articulo 6° 
 de la ley del 19 de Septiembre de 1836, sin perjuicio (se decia), "de lo 
 que el Congreso resolviera despues acerca de los bienes ya enajenados." 
 Aunque el tenor de este decreto dio pretexto al arbitro tercero en dis- 
 cordia de la Comision Mixta, en 1875, para afirmar que en el estaba 
 reconocida la obligation de remitir al Obispo los productos del fondo, 
 no ha parecido oportuno a los abogados de los reclamantes alegarlo en 
 apoyo de su actual demanda, seguramente porque ese decreto se refiere 
 a los bienes invendidos, cuyo importe, es claro que no habia ingresado en 
 el Tesoro Nacional, y no a los reditos 6 intereses sobre el producto de 
 los enajenados, respecto de los cuales el Congreso se reservo expresa- 
 mente la facultad de resolver. Esta resolucion no llego a darse, y por 
 lo mismo, el ultimo decreto no ha podido mejorar la situation en que 
 el del 8 de Febrero de 1842 coloco al Obispo de las Californias, desti- 
 tuye"ndolo del cargo de aplicar a las Misiones los reditos del seis por 
 ciento anual sobre el producto de lo enajenado; reditos que son pre- 
 cisamente la unica materia de la actual reclamation. 
 
 II. 
 
 La Iglesia Catolica de la Alta California jamas pudo, por derecho 
 propio, administrar el Fondo Piadoso de las Californias ni reclamar 
 sus productos, por la sencilla razon de que los fundadores no se lo 
 dieron ni se lo dieron tampoco los Jesuitas, que fueron los primitivos 
 comisarios, ni el Gobierno Espanol que sucedio a ellos, ni el Gobierno 
 Mexicano que sucedio al Espanol y que, lo mismo que este y los Jesuitas, 
 adquirio la facultad de aplicar los bienes del Fondo en cuestion a las 
 Misiones de las Californias 6 a, cualesquiera otras dentro de sus domi- 
 nios, a, su solo arbitrio y discrecion. Esta facultad discrecionai no 
 
32 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS, 
 
 tolera la coaccion, que es atributo del derecho perfe'cto. Por lo 
 misnio, aunque en gracia del argumento se concediera a la Iglesia 
 Catolica de la Alta California la representacion de las misiones de los 
 Jesuitas (suprimidas expresamente por el Papa Clemente XIV desde 
 el ano de 1773), esa Iglesia no tendria el derecho de exigir los reditos 
 del Fondo Piadoso. 
 
 El decreto del 19 de Septiembre de 1836 arriba citado, en que los 
 reclamantes pretenden fundar sus derechos, solamente_ confiri6 al 
 primer Obispo de Californias y a sus sucesores la administracion del 
 E'ondo, durante la voluntad del Gobierno, con la obligation de invertir 
 sus productos en el objeto que les senalaron los fundadores 6 en otros 
 analogos; pero no les dio un derecho irrevocable, ni a ellos ni a 
 la Iglesia que representaban, y ademas fue derogado por el de 8 de 
 Febrero de 1842, que retiro a los Obispos de Californias la adminis- 
 tracion del Fondo y la devolvio al Gobierno. 
 
 in. 
 
 No pudiendo servir de titulo para esta reclamacion ley alguna 
 vigente, quieren los reclamantes suplirlo con el que llaman instru- 
 mento de constitution (_ foundation deed) de la obra pia, 6 con el laudo 
 pronunciado por la Comision Mixta de Reclamaciones establecida en 
 Washington conforme a la convention ajustada entre Mexico y los 
 Estados Unidos a 4 de Julio de 1868, pronunciado en 11 de Octubre de 
 1875, considerandolo como generador de res judicata. 
 
 (A.) 
 
 En cuanto al primer titulo, bastara, para demostrar que el no favo- 
 rece las intenciones de los reclamantes, copiar las siguientes clausulas 
 del instrumento que ellos toman como un modelo de las donaciones que 
 se hicieron al Fondo: 
 
 Esta donacion * * * hacemos * * * d dichas Misiones fundadas y por 
 fundar de las Californias, asi para la manutenci6n de sus religiosos, ornato y decencia 
 del culto divino, como para sooorro que acostumbran a los naturales catecumenos y 
 convertidos por la misma (probablemente miseria) de aquel pais: de tal suerte, que 
 si en los venideros tiempos con el favor de Dios en la reduction y misiones manda- 
 das, hubiere providencia de mantenimientos, cultivadas sus tierras sin que se necesiten 
 llevar de estas tierras, vestuario y demas necesarios, se han de aplicar losfrutos y esquil- 
 mos de dichas haciendas de (seguramente &) nuevas misiones * * * y en el caso de 
 que la Compania de Jesus voluntariamente 6 precisada dejare dichas misiones de Califori 
 nias, 6, lo que Dios no permita, se rebelen aquellos naturales apostatando de nuestra 
 santa M, 6 por otro contingente, en ese caso ha de ser & arbitrio del reverendo Padre Pro- 
 vincial que a la sazonfuere de la Compaflia de Jesus de esta Nueva Espana, el aplicar los 
 frutos de dichas haciendas, sus esquilmos y aprovechamientos, para otros misiones de 
 lo que f alta de descubrir de esta Septentrional America 6 para otras del Oniverso Mundo, 
 segun le pareciere ser mas del agrado de Dios Nuestro Senor; y en tal manera que siem- 
 pre y perpetuamente se continue el gobierno de dichas haciendas en la sagrada Compania 
 de Jesus y prelados, sin quejueces algunos, eclesidsticos ni seculares tengan la mas minima 
 intervencidn * * * queremos que en tiempo alguno se inculque, ni por ningun jnez 
 eclesidstico 6 secular se entrometa & saber si se cumple la condicidn de esta donaci6n,p'uesnues- 
 t ra voluntad es que en esta razdn haya lugar ninguna pretension y que cumpla 6 no cumpla 
 ja Sagrada Compania con elfin de las misiones, en esta materia s6lo a Dios Nuestro Senor 
 fendrd que dar cuenta. 
 
 (B.) 
 
 El laudo antes referido, que fue pronunciado en Washington el 11 
 de Noviembre de 1875, no pudo prejuzgar la presente reclamacion, la 
 cual, por lo tanto, no debe considerarse cosa juzgada. Hoy se trata de 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 33 
 
 una demanda de nuevos r^ditos, y aun cuando los reclamantes aleguen 
 que al condenar a Mexico a pagar los vencidos hasta cierta fecha, se 
 declaro implicitamente que existia el capital y que seguiria produciendo 
 reditos, 6stas seran consideraciones 6 motivos para la declaraci6n que 
 se hizo de que la Republica Mexicana debia pagar cierta cantidad de 
 intereses vencidos, a lo cual se limitaba la reclamation. La inmutabi- 
 lidad de unasentencia y su f uerza de cosa juzgada pertenecen solamente 
 a su conclusion, esto es, a la parte que pronuncia absolution, 6 bien 
 condena, quod jussit vetuitve. Esta proposition apenas es discutible, 
 y por eso la generalidad de los autores, al exponer la teoria de la cosa 
 juzgada, la atribuyen a la parte resolutiva de la sentencia, al paso que 
 su extension a la expositiva (motivos) es asunto de controversia, solo 
 para algunos. 
 
 Entre los que favorecen esa extension se hallan ciertamente autori- 
 dades tan famosas como la de Savigny; pero no son menos respetables 
 y se cuentan en mayor numero los que profesan la opinion contraria. 
 El mismo insigne maestro que acabo de nombrar declara textual- 
 mente que: 
 
 Es doctrina muy antigua, sostenida por gran numero de autores, que la verdad 
 legal de la cosa juzgada pertenece exclusivamente a la resolution y no participan de 
 ella los motivos, resumiendo su doctrina en estos terminos: "La autoridad de la cosa 
 juzgada no existe sino en la parte dispositiva de la sentencia." (Savigny. Droit 
 Romain, § 291, T. 6, p. 347. ) 
 
 La mayor parte de los autores, anade, rehusan absolutamente a los 
 motivos la autoridad de cosa juzgada, sin exceptuar el caso en que los 
 motivos son parte de la sentencia. (§293, T. 6, p. 382.) 
 
 Griolet se expresa asi: 
 
 La decision supone siempre diversas proposiciones que el juez ha aebido admitir 
 para hacer una declaraci6n sobre los derechos controvertidos y que comunmente en 
 nuestro derecho (el francos) expresa la sentencia; estos son los considerandos (moiiws). 
 Ya nemos manifestado que, contra la opinion de Savigny, ni los motivos subjetivos 
 ni los objetivos deben participar de la autoridad de la sentencia, porque el juez no 
 tiene la misi6n de decidir sobre los principios juridicos ni sobre la existencia de los 
 hechos. * * * Hemos, pues, demostrado ya, en todos los casos que puedan 
 presentarse, que la autoridad de la cosa juzgada no comprende los motivos de 1p sen- 
 tencia ni aun la afirmacion 6 negacidn de la causa de los derechos juzgados. 
 
 El mismo escritor anade: 
 
 Ninguno de nuestros autores, en efecto, ha ensenado un sistema analogo al de M. 
 Savigny sobre la autoridad de los motivos, y la jurisprudencia francesa reconoce el 
 principio de que la autoridad de la cosa juzgada no se extiende a ninguno de los 
 motivos de la decisi6n. (Griolet. De la aut. de la cosa juzgada, p. p. 135, 168, 169 
 yl73.) 
 
 En cuanto el derecho prusiano, el mismo Savigny dice: 
 
 Kespecto a la autoridad de los motivos, existe un texto que desde luego parece 
 excluirla absolutamente, dando la mayor importancia a la parte que contiene la 
 decision judicial. ( Allg. Gerichte Ordnung 1. 13 13, p. 38. ) Los colegios de Jueces y 
 los ponentes de las sentencias deben cuidadosamente distinguir de sus motivos la 
 decision real, y asignarles un lugar distinto y jamas confundirlos, porque 'simples 
 motivos no deben nunca tener la autoridad de cosa juzgada. (D. R., § 294, T. 6, p. p. 389 
 y390.) 
 
 Los tribunales espanoles constantemente han desechado el recurso de 
 casacion intentado contra los fundamentos de la sentencia definitiva, 
 por no reconocer en ellos, sino solamente en la parte dispositiva, la 
 autoridad de la cosa juzgada, unica materia del recurso. (Pantoja. 
 Rep., p. p. 491, 955, 960, 970 y 979.) 
 
 En el caso especial (que es el nuestro) de una demanda de intereses 
 
 S. Doc. 28 3 
 
34 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 fundada en sentencia que los declaro debidos, despu^s de haber oido 
 las excepciones del demandado contra el derecho que alego^ al capital 
 6 a, la renta, Savigny es de opini6n que este derecho tiene a su favor 
 la autoridad de la cosa juzgada; pero al mismo tiempo advierte que 
 Buchka resuelve la cuestion en sentido contrario con arreglo al 
 Derecho Romano; que en el mismo sentido la han resuelto los tribu- 
 nales prusianos por razon de que el reconocimiento de un derecho en 
 los motivos de la dicision no pertenece verdaderamente a la sentencia, 
 cuya sola parte resolutiva constituye la cosa j uzgada; y agrega Savigny : 
 
 No tenemos sobre eate punto la decisi6n del Derecho Eomano y los textos que 
 suelen citarse son extranos a la materia. (D. R., § 294, nums. 3 y 4, nota (r) del 
 num. 7, y § 299, num. 4, T. VI, p. p. 397, 401 y 446.) 
 
 Sin embargo, lo cierto es que Ulpiano dice: Si injudicio actum sit 
 usursemie solse petiee svn,t, non est verendum ne noceat rei judicata 
 excepUo circa sortispetitionem: quia enim non competit neo opposita 
 nocet. Tal es el principio de la ley 23 D, de Exc. rei Jud.; y aun 
 cuando parece estar en contradiction con lo que en ella sigue, esa 
 aparente antinomia se halla explicada de un modo satisfactorio por 
 Griolet (p. p. 46 y 47), a quien me refiero, para evitar extenderme en 
 esta materia. He aducido sobre ella todas las citas precedentes, por 
 no haberse tratado hasta ahora el punto sino muy ligeramente en la 
 correspondencia diplomatica seguida con motivo de la presente recla- 
 mation. 
 
 Aun debo anadir, que si lo anterior es cierto respecto de las senten- 
 cias pronunciadas por jueces investidos de autoridad publica para 
 decidir sobre el caso, sus motivos y consecuencias, lo es mucho mas 
 con respecto a decisiones pronunciadas por arbitros que no tienen 
 verdadera jurisdiction, ni mas facultades que las que se les concede en 
 el compromiso. Asi es que si todo lo relativo a. la exception y action 
 rei judicata}, es de estricta interpretation (Griolet. De la aut. de cosa 
 juzg., p. 68), mucho mas debe serlo cuando se aplica a, sentencias 
 arbitrales. 
 
 De estas ha dicho una ley romana: De his rebus et rationibus et con- 
 troversiis judicare arbiter potest, quae, ob initio fuissent inter eos qui 
 compromisserunt, non qxise, postea supervenerunt (L. 46 D, de recept. 
 qui arb., T. L., p. 25), y tan limitado efecto atribuia el Derecho Civil 
 a los laudos, que no les concedia que produjeran la acci6n de cosa juz- 
 gada. La ley primera del Codigo de recept. se expresa en estos 
 terminos: 
 
 Ex sententia arbitri ex compromisso jure perfecto arbitri apellari non posse seepe receptum 
 
 est; QUIA NEC JUDICATI ACTIO INDE PR/ESTAKI POTEST. 
 
 La ineficacia de los laudos arbitrales, en Derecho International, para 
 decidir casos futuros, aunque sean analogos a, los que aquellos resol- 
 vieron, ha sido expresamente reconocida por el Gobierno de los Estados 
 Unidos, segun puede verse en Moore, "International Arbitrations," 
 con motivo de la comision mixta reunida en Halifax, a, consecuencia 
 del tratado de Washington, que condeno a los Estados Unidos a pagar 
 al Gobierno Britanico la suma de cinco millones y medio de pesos por 
 dafios y perjuicios causados por Pescadores americanos, y en el caso 
 de una reclamation presentada por el Ministro de Espana, S'r. Muruaga, 
 procedente de confiscation de algodon, considerado como contrabando 
 de guerra, que sufrieron los subditos espanoles Mora y Larrache. El 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKHTAS. 35 
 
 Secretario de Estado, T. F. Bayard, decia con este motive- en nota de 3 
 de Diciembre de 1886: 
 
 Los fallos de Comisiones Internationales * * * no se considera que tengan 
 autoridad sino en el caso particular decidido * * * en ninguna manera ligan al 
 Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, excepto en aquellos casos en que tuvieron aplicacion. 
 (Papers relating to the For. Rel. of the U. S., year 1887, p. 1,021.) 
 
 El mismo honorable Secretario, en el documento citado, decia: 
 ''Tales decisiones se acomodan a la naturaleza y terminos del tratado 
 de arbitrage," teniendo en cueuta, sin duda, que: " Omne tractatum 
 ex compromisso sumendum: nee enirn aliud illi {arbitro) licebit, quam 
 quod wi ut officer e possit cemtum est: non ergo quodlibet statuere arbiter 
 poterit, nee in qua re Ubet, nisi de qua ee compkomissum est. " 
 
 Consultando las estipulaciones contenidas en la citada Convencion 
 del 4_de Julio de 1868, se ve que las reclamaciones de ciudadanos 
 americanos contra Mexico, y de ciudadanos mexicanos contra los 
 Estados Unidos, que i ue" permitido someter a la Comision Mixta creada 
 por aquella convencion, debian indispensablemente reunir estas tres 
 condiciones: 
 
 Primera. Haberse originado en acontecimientos posteriores al 2 de 
 Febrero de 1848, y anteriores al l°de Febrero de 1869 (fechadel canje 
 de ratificaciones dela Convencion). 
 
 Segunda. Tener por objeto perjuicios estimables en dinero, causados 
 en las personas 6 bienes de los reclamantes de cualquiera de los dos 
 paises, por autoridades del otro. 
 
 Tercera. Haber sido presentadas al Gobierno de los reclamantes y 
 por este 6 en su nombre a la Comision Mixta dentro de ocho meses, 
 
 Sirorrogables hasta once meses, contados desde la primera reunion de 
 os arbitros. 
 
 Desde luego se nota que la reclamacion de los reditos cuyo pago hoy 
 se solicita, no. podia considerarse con la primera ni con la tercera de 
 dichas condiciones. Inutil parece detenerse en demostrarlo, 6 seguir 
 discutiendo sobre la falta de fundamento con que se alega la cosa juz- 
 gada en la nueva reclamacion que ahora se presenta contra el Gobierno 
 Mexicano. El fallo que pronuncio el arbitro en 1875 quedo completa 
 y absolutamente cumplido con el pago que hizo Mexico de los $904, 070. 79 
 oro mexicano a que f ue condenado, y ese fallo no puede aplicarse a 
 nueva reclamacion. 
 
 Dando por supuesto, en virtud de lo alegado, que no se declare 
 resuelta ya la actual reclamacion por el laudo pronunciado on 1875, la 
 primera objecion, la excepcion mas clara que oponemos a la dernanda, 
 es que el derecho que pudieran haber tenido los reclamantes al prin- 
 cipio del ano 1848, quedo completamente extinguido por el tratado de 
 paz y amistad que el 2 de Febrero de ese ano fue celebrado entre 
 Mexico y los Estados Unidos, porque en su articulo 14 se declaro que 
 todos los creditos y reclamaciones no resueltos hasta entonces y que 
 pudieran tener los ciudadanos de la segunda de esas naciones contra el 
 Gobierno de la primera, se considerarian fenecidos y cancelados para 
 siempre. El texto del articulo de ese tratado que asi lo dispone, es 
 como sigue, y lo cito en ingles para que sea mejor comprendido por la 
 parte demandante. Dice asi: 
 
 Article XIV. 
 
 The United Slates do furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims of the 
 United States not heretofore decided against the Mexican Government, which may have 
 arisen previously to the date of the signature of this treaty, which discharge shall be final 
 
36 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 and perpetual, whether the said claims be rejected or be allowed by the board of commis- 
 sioners provided for in the following article and whatever shall be the total amount of 
 those allowed. 
 
 La contestacion que los reclamantes han dado a esta excepci6n peren- 
 toria, se reduce a, decir que ellos no demandan los r^ditos causados 
 antes de la f echa del tratado, sino los devengados despu^s de esa f echa, 
 y no han demandado el capital porque no se creen con derecho a ello, 
 pudiendo conservarlo Mexico indefinidamente. Al dar esta respuesta 
 no reflexionan que el Articulo XIV antes citado, no exonera a Mexico 
 unicamente de las reclamaciones 6 demandas que puedan desde luego 
 presentarse, sino de todos los creditos (all claims) no decididos ante- 
 riormente (not heretofore decided) contra su gobierno, y en este caso 
 se encontraba el credito del Fondo Piadoso, comprendiendose en el 
 tanto el capital como sus reditos. Todo ello, en efecto, se comprende 
 en la palabra inglesa claim, que tanto significa la reclamacion 6 demanda 
 que se hace de algo a que nos creemos con derecho, como la causa, 
 origen 6 fundamento de esa demanda: "a right to claim, or demand 
 something/ a title to any debt, privilege or other thing in possession of 
 another; also a title of any thing which another should give or concede 
 to, or confer on, the claimant" segun lo dice Webster en su Diccionario, 
 que es la mejor autoridad linguistica en los Estado Unidos y tal vez 
 donde quiera que se hable la lengua inglesa. (Vease el Diccionario 
 Ingles de Webster, articulo Claim, acepcion segunda.) 
 
 Esta inteligencia del Articulo XIV se corrobora leyendo el comienzo 
 del articulo siguiente, el XV, cuyo texto es como sigue: 
 
 The United States exonerating Mexico from all demands on account of the claims of their 
 citizens mentioned in the preceding article and considering them entirely and forever can- 
 celled. 
 
 Aqui se ve la distincion hecha entre demands y claims y que esta 
 ultima palabra se ha tornado en el sentido de titulo 6 derecho que da 
 origen a una reclamacion. 
 
 M podia ser de otra manera, cuando el espiritu bien claro de ese 
 convenio f ue no de]ar nada pendiente que pudiese alterar 6 pertubar las 
 relaciones pacificas y de amistad que se renovaban en aquel tratado. 
 Por esto sehizo en el lo que se hace con frecuencia en tratados de 
 igual especie: se pacto la extincion completa de las reclamaciones y 
 motivos de reclamacion pendientes 6 que por hechos pasados pudieran 
 ocurrir entre ambos Gobiernos, sin dejar de atender al interes de los 
 particulares. A este ultimo se proveyo en el mismo Articulo XV, 
 cuyo principio he copiado, previniendo que se reservaran tres y un 
 cuarto millones de pesos para satisfacer a los reclamantes hasta donde 
 sus demandas f ueran aprobadas por una Comision Americana que al 
 efecto se mandaba establecer y se establecio por el Gobierno de los 
 Estados Unidos, comision ante la cual, si tenian conciencia desu derecho, 
 pudieron haberse present? do los representantes de la Iglesia Catolica 
 de California. Si no lo hicieron, no por eso pueden reclamar ahora 
 contra Mexico, el cual quedo exonerado de toda responsabilidad, from 
 all demands on account of the claims of their (of the United States) 
 citizens. 
 
 Parece inconcedible que en presencia de esos articulos del tratado 
 de Guadalupe Hidalgo, el mas solemne de cuantos hemos celebrado 
 con la nacion vecina, y que esta vigente porque es de caracter perpetuo 
 se haya sostenido que no se extinguio en virtud de sus estipulaciones 
 el credito del Uamado Fondo Piadoso. % Que privilegio tenia ese fondo 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIFOKKIA8. 37 
 
 para no estar comprendido en la absoluta declaration del tratado? No 
 es de extranarse que los abogados de los reclamantes, en su apuro para 
 contestar esta exception, hayan querido limitar los efectos del tratado 
 en este punto a extinguir los reditos del Fondo, anteriores a Febrero 
 de 1848; lo que apenas se explica es que la sentencia arbitral, suscrita 
 por Sir Edward Thornton, haya admitido semejante interpretation. 
 For eso, entre otros motivos, consideramos dicha sentencia como noto- 
 riamente injusta, no habiendo injusticia mas clara que la de un laudo 
 que decide una cuestion entre ciudadanos de un pais y el Gobierno de 
 otro, contrariando lo estipulado por los dos paises en un tratado 
 solemne y cuyo vigor nadie disputa. 
 
 En caso de que se resuelva (contra toda probabilidad) que el tratado 
 de Guadalupe Hidalgo dej 6 vigente el credito (the claim) de ciudadanos 
 americanos contra Mexico, relativamente al Fondo Piadoso y existente, 
 segun se alega, al celebrarse el tratado, aun hay otro motivo por el 
 cual se habria extinguido ese credito, y de consiguiente el derecho de 
 cobrar los reditos del capital. Sabido es que la Kepublica Mexicana, 
 en uso de su soberania y por razones de alta politica, que explic6 el 
 Comisionado mexicano en su dictamen de 1875, decret6 en los anos 
 1856 y 1859, primero, .la desamortizacion y en seguida la llamada 
 nationalization de los bienes eclesiasticos, que no fue, propiamente 
 hablando, sino la prohibition al clero de seguir administrando aquellos 
 bienes nacionales. Si, como justamente se ha dicho, la validez y f unda- 
 mentos de esta providencia se pued'en disputar a la luz del derecho 
 canonico, son incuestionables bajo el aspecto politico y social, y no 
 menos en vista de los favorables resultados que esa determination 
 ha producido para consolidar la paz y promover el progreso de la 
 Republica. 
 
 Bajo el aspecto del derecho comun y el international privado, parece 
 claro que el capital cuyos reditos se demandan, en su caracter de censo 
 consignativo 6 de censo en general, y debiendo ser considerado como 
 bien inmueble (Sala. Dro. Real de Espaiia, torn. I, lib. 2, tit. 14 y 
 autores que cita), estaba sujeto a la legislation del pais donde se hallaba 
 constituido, a la jurisdiction y fuero rei sitae s cualquiera que fuese la 
 nacionalidad de los censualistas. 
 
 Por otra parte, debe tenerse en cuenta que la falta de cobro por 
 largos anos de los reditos que ahora se demandan, los ha sujetado a las 
 leyes del pais sobre prescription y que es de aplicarse al caso el articulo 
 1,103 de nuestro Codigo Civil, que dice asi: 
 
 Las pensiones enfiteuticas 6 censuales, las rentas, los alquileres y cualesquiera otras 
 prestaciones no cobradas 6, su vencimiento, quedaran prescriptas en oinco anos conta- 
 dos desde el vencimiento de cada una de ellas, ya se haga el cobro en virtud de accion 
 real 6 de accion personal. 
 
 Si llegamos a suponer que el credito de los reclamantes no se extin- 
 guio ni por el terminante art. XIV del tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
 ni por los otros motivos que acabamos de examinar, aun queda otro 
 mas que lo habria hecho parecer conforme a la legislation mexicana, a 
 la cual, sin duda alguna, esta, sujeto un censo constituido por su Gobierno 
 en el ano 1842. Dicho Gobierno, con el fin de arreglar la deuda 
 pdblica, dio, con fecha 22 de Junio de 1885, un decreto convocando a, 
 todos sus acreedores para el examen y conversion de sus cre"ditos 
 originados de ministraciones, ocupaciones, prestamos, 6 de_ cualquiera 
 otro acto 6 negocio del que resultara un cargo al erario publico; y al 
 ef ecto fijo un plazo conveniente, que f ue" prorrogado en varias ocasiones, 
 
38 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 para la presentaci6n de dichos cre"ditos. El art. 15 de la ley de 6 de 
 Septiembre de 1894 era del tenor siguiente: 
 
 Quedan para siempre preaoritos, sin que puedan jamas constituir un derecho ni 
 hacerse valer en manera alguna, los creditos, tftulos de deuda piiblica y reclamaciones 
 siguientes * * * Todos los creditos comprendidos en los arts. 1° y 2°, que_ no 
 fueren presentados a esta conversi6n dentro del plazo fljado en el articulo anterior, 
 6 que, aiin cuando se presenten, no lleguen los interesados a satisfacer los requisitos 
 que establece este decreto. 
 
 Es incuestionable que los supuestos creditos por capital 6 intereses 
 reclamados al Gobierno de Mexico por el Arzobispo y Obispos de la 
 Iglesia de la Alta California, no fueron presentados para su conversion 
 en obediencia a la ley de 1885, ni se aprovecharon los pretendidos acree- 
 dores del nuevo plazo que en calidad de ultimo y fatal les concedio el 
 citado decreto de 1894 en su art. XIV. La caducidad 6 prescripci6n de 
 acci6n 6 exception superveniente, dejaria, sin efecto, aun la sentencia 
 pasada en autoridad de cosa juzgada: principio de explorado derecho, 
 reconocido hasta por los actuales reclamantes. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Dicen los reclamantes que el objeto del Fondo Piadoso de las Cali- 
 fornias fue" proveer a la conversion de los indios y al sostenimiento de 
 la Iglesia Catolica en las Californias. 
 
 Siendo este objeto doble, hay que distinguir entre las dos partes que 
 lo constituyen. 
 
 La primera parte, conversion de los indios paganos a la fe catolica y 
 a la obediencia del Soberano Espanol, es incuestionable y hay que con- 
 siderarla como el fin principal y directo de las misiones encomendadas 
 a la Compania de Jesus por el Rey Catolico, dotadas por los consti- 
 tuyentes del Fondo Piadoso y subvencionadas por el Tesoro publico de 
 Mexico. La otra parte del objeto, esto es, el sostenimiento de la Iglesia 
 en las Californias, no fue el fin principal ni directo de la institution 
 del fondo, sino el medio de llevar a, cabo la conquista espiritual de los 
 indios salvajes por los religiosos misioneros. 
 
 Hecha esta distincion, se comprende que el culto catolico fue un 
 objeto de las misiones subordinado al fin de la conquista espiritual de 
 los indios barbaros. De lo cual se sigue que la no existencia de los 
 indios barbaros e idolatras en una region determinada, 6 la supresion 
 en ella de las misiones catolicas instituidas para sojuzgarlos 6 cristiani- 
 zarlos, deberia traer consigo el retiro de las subvenciones ofrecidas a 
 los misioneros; no su aplicacion exclusiva al fomento del culto catolico, 
 a no ser violando abiertamente la intention de los bienhechores que 
 fundaron tal obra pia. 
 
 A la expulsion de los Jesuitas ordenada por el Rey Carlos III y con- 
 siguiente cesacion de las Misiones de la Nueva Espana, siguio la 
 supresion de la Orden, que declaro Clemente XIV en su Breve, expe- 
 dido el dia 21 de Julio de 1773, parrafo 32, en que se lee. 
 
 Por lo tocante A las sagradas misiones, las cuales queremos que se entiendan 
 tambten comprendidas en todo lo que va dispuesto acerca de la supretidn de la Com- 
 pania, nos reservamos establecer los medios con los cuales se pueda conseguir y 
 lograr con mayor facilidad y estabilidad, asi la conversion de los indios como la 
 pacificaci6n de las disensiones. 
 
 Y es de advertir que las misiones fundadas por los Jesuitas jamas 
 traspasaron los limites de la Baja California. La mas avanzada al 
 Norte, que dejaron, fue la de Santa Maria, debajo del 31 grado de 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIA S. 39 
 
 latitud, y por lo mismo f uera de la demarcation de la Alta California 
 hecha en el tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo. 
 _ Las misiones de la Alta California comenzaron, despu^s de la expul- 
 sion de los Jesuitas, por meras disposiciones, no de la Compafilade Jesus 
 ni de la Santa Sede ni de alguna otra autoridad eclesiastica, sino del 
 Virrey de Nueva Espana, aprobadas por el Rey en 1769 y 1762. 
 
 Como empresas nacionales, las misiones de la Alta California f ueron 
 naturalmente abandonadas por el Gobierno Mexicano cuando los 
 Estados Unidos adquirieron aquella region. Este abandono fue 
 exigido por el cambio de autoridad y de jurisdiction sobre el terri- 
 torio enajenado a los Estados Unidos, y correspondi6. ademas, a, la 
 facultad privativa que tenia el Gobierno Mexicano, heredada del 
 Gobierno Espanol, de suprimir misiones y fundar otras nuevas para la 
 conversion de infieles dentro de sus dominios. 
 
 No solamente cesaron en la Alta California las misiones desde el 7 
 de Julio de 1846 como empresas nacionales a, cargo del Gobierno Mexi- 
 canp,sino que ceso comoentidad legal la misma Iglesia Catolica, puesto 
 que su restablecimiento como corporation no tuvo efecto sino en 22 de 
 Abril de 1850 a virtud del estatuto de aquella fecha del Estado de 
 California. 
 
 Por ultimo, hay que tener en cuenta que en la Alta California no 
 existen tribus de indios barbaros, cuya sujecion al poder secular de la 
 Nueva Espana y conversion a. la fe catolica fue el objeto principal 6 
 fin directo de las misiones de los Jesuitas dotadas con los bienes del 
 Fondo Piadoso de California. 
 
 V. 
 
 La facultad de aplicar el fondo e invertir sus productos conforme a 
 la intention de los donadores de los bienes que lo formaron, fue" ejer- 
 cida legitimamente sin la intervention de los ordinarios eclesiasticos, 
 primeramente por los Jesuitas, en seguida por la Corona de Espana y 
 ultimamente por el Gobierno de la Republica Mexicana. Los reclaman- 
 tes jamas probaran que una autoridad legitima haj'a dado ley 6 dispo- 
 sition alguna- que restringiera esa facultad. En ejercicio de ella, el 
 Gobierno Mexicano ordeno, por decreto del 19 de Septiembre de 1836, 
 que se diera la administration del Fondo al Obispo de California y sus 
 sucesores, como dependientes de dicho Gobierno; retiro la misma comi- 
 sion al Obispo y sus sucesores por decreto de 18 de Febrero de 1842; 
 ordeno la venta de los bienes de que se componia el Fondo y su capitali- 
 zation a censo consignativo sobre el Tesoro national por decreto del 
 24 de Octubre de 1842; y dos anos y medio mas tarde, por decreto del 
 3 de Abril de 1845, mando devolver al entonces Obispo de California y 
 a sus sucesores los creditos y demas bienes que no se hubieran vendido 
 reservandose expresamente la facultad de disponer del producto de 
 los bienes vendidos, cuyos reditos son precisamente la materia de esta 
 reclamation. 
 
 Esta facultad privativa del Gobierno Mexicano esta reconocida por 
 parte de los reclamantes. En su replica dirigida el 21 de Febrero de 
 1901 al Hon. John Hay, Secretario de Estado de los Estados Unidos 
 por los Srs. Jackson H. Ralston y Frederick L. Siddons, abogados 
 de los Obispos catolicos romanos de California, se encuentran las 
 palabras siguientes: 
 
 No dispute has ever been raised as lo the rigid of the Mexican Government to administer 
 theproperty in question. * * * Mexico must continue the trust relation which she has 
 
40 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 herself assumed. * * * It should be borne in mind that we never have had or made 
 any claims to the principal. From its origin it has been in the hands of trustees; first the 
 Jesuits, then in the Spanish Crown; then the Government of Mexico, then in the Bishop 
 under the law of 1836, then from February 8, 1842, again in the Mexican Republic. All 
 of these changes were accomplished by law, the act of the Sovereign. 
 
 VI. 
 
 El uso que el Gobierno Mexicano hizo del derecho soberano de 
 reasumir la facultad de administrar el f ondo e invertir sus productos 
 con exclusi6n de la Iglesia de California en 1842, no puede considerarse 
 en Derecho, perjudicial a la parte reclamante: " Qui jure suo utitur 
 neminem Isedit." 
 
 Por la misma razon tampoco puede justificar la demanda contra la 
 Eepublica Mexicana el hecho de que su Gobierno, desde que dejo de 
 tener autoridad sobre la Alta California, hubiese concentrado todo su 
 cuidado y protecci6n en la Baja California, tanto en el orden civil como 
 en el eclesiastico, y cesado en consecuencia de aplicar a la Alta California 
 las rentas destinadas a fomentar las misiones catolicas. 
 
 Habian cesado las misiones de los Jesuitas en aquel territorio, no 
 habia ya necesidad de que sus habitantes recibieran de Mexico minies- 
 tras, vestuario y demas recursos de subsistencia; sus tierras iban a ser 
 cultivadas, como lo fueron en efecto y se hicieron maravillosamente 
 productivas; y en tales circunstancias quedo al arbitrio del Gobierno, 
 como comisario, substitute de los Jesuitas, destinar los productos del 
 Fondo a, otras misiones, sin dar lugar a censura, queja 6 reclamaeion de 
 nadie, conforme en todo a la voluntad de los fundadores, expresada en 
 el instrumento de constitucion del Fondo, segun las palabras textuales 
 arriba citadas. 
 
 VII. 
 
 La exageracion de la demanda 6 phis peticion se demuestran de 
 varias maneras, y a, reserva de presentar en el curso del juicio una 
 liquidation, que hasta ahora no ha sido posible concluir, hare las 
 siguientes reflexiones: 
 
 En primer lugar, es de toda evidencia que pretender ahora, en moneda 
 de oro mexicano, el pago de los reditos que se demandan, porque otros 
 reditos del mismo capital fueron mandados pagar en esa moneda por 
 la sentencia pronunciada en Noviembre de 1875, es pedir mas del doble 
 de lo que importaria el interes al seis por ciento a, que se alega tener 
 derecho. La raz6n consiste en que — nadie lo ignora — en 1875 era casi 
 exacta la proportion de 16 a, 1 entre el valor del oro y el de la plata, 
 habiendose mas que duplicado posteriormente el valor del oro respecto 
 al del metal bianco. Ahora bien, en pesos de plata y no en otra cosa 
 fueron valuados los bienes del Fondo Piadoso, en el valor que repre- 
 senta esa moneda fueron vendidos y el producto de la venta reconocido 
 por el Gobierno Mexicano a, favor de dicho fondo. Mexico ni ha tenido 
 •nunca ni tiene ahora otro tipo para su moneda que el peso de plata; su 
 moneda de oro se acuna en muy corta cantidad y no sirve para regular 
 ningfin valor mercantil. Cuando los reclamantes piden por rSditos 
 tantos dollars, habian de pesos de su pais que asi se llaman, eLtendien 
 dose que son de oro. El oro mexicano de que habian tiene un 'jgeri 
 simo descuento respecto del americano; pero en todo caso los dollars 
 de oro mexicano valen mas del doble de los pesos de plata, en los que 
 unicamente se podrian cobrar los reditos del Fondo Piadoso si els 
 correspondieran a los reclamantes. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 41 
 
 Por lo mismo la pretension de los Obispos californicos viene a ser 
 usuraria, al pedir, no el seis por ciento de capital sino mucho mas del 
 doce por ciento al ano. 
 
 Otro de los excesos de la demanda es cobrar, no la mitad (que es ya 
 una demasia) del r^dito del capital, en consideration a que tendria que 
 aplicarse la otra mitad a misiones en la Baja California, sino que ahora 
 se pide el ochenta y cinco por ciento, porque la proporcion — se dice — 
 entre las poblaciones de la Alta'California de los Estados Unidos y la 
 Baja California de Mexico. Asi se discurre como si el fondo se hu- 
 biera destinado a, toda la poblacion y no a los indios barbaros para su 
 conversion y mejora. Semejante razonamiento solo tendria cabida si 
 toda la poblacion de una y otra California fuera de indios barbaros. 
 Es, pues, insostenible tal pretension, que revela unicamente el celo, 
 desproporcionado en este caso, de los abogados y consejeros de los 
 reclamantes. La proporcion a que debiera atenderse, para cumplir en 
 su espiritu la voluntad de los fundadores, seria la que hubiese entre 
 los indios no convertidos y civilizados de una de las Californias en 
 comparacion con los de la otra; y ya se sabe que en la perteneciente a 
 los Estados Unidos no hay muchos, tal vez ni un solo indio en ese caso. 
 
 Otro exceso de la demanda consiste en incluir en el valor de lo 
 demandado el de los bienes que fueron del Marques de las Torres de 
 Rada. El importe de esos bienes forma, indudablemente, la mayor 
 parte de lo que se reclama, y sin embargo no hay fundamento legal 
 para reclamarlo. Esta asercion escandalizara, sin duda, a. los recla- 
 mantes, que han hecho un estudio prolijo de lo relativo a la donacion 
 dc dichos bienes hecha al Fondo Piadoso; pero es de advertir que muy 
 recientemente se han descubierto en el Archivo General de la Republica 
 datos importantisimos que comprueban lo que acabo de asentar. Esos 
 datos se contienen en el libro impreso en el siglo XVI11 que acompano 
 a la presente demanda y cuya autenticidad sera debida y oportuna- 
 mente comprobada. En 61 se adviei'te que hubo un largo litigio acerca 
 de la sucesion del Marques de las Torres de Rada y que al final del 
 pleito el Supremo Consejo de Indias en Espana, ultimo tribunal com- 
 petente para el caso en aquella epoca, declaro nulos y de ningun valor 
 ni efecto los inventarios y aprecios de los bienes que quedaron por 
 muerte del referido Marques, y nula tambien la adjudication que de 
 ellos se hizo a, la Marquesa su viuda. Esta sentencia de ultima 
 instancia dej6 sin efecto alguno las determinaciones de la Marquesa 
 viuda de las Torres de Rada, y por lo mismo las del Marques de Villa 
 Puente en el testamento que este hizo con poder para testar de su 
 prima la Marquesa. Ahora bien, dicho testamento t'ue la base de la 
 donacion que hicieron ambos al Fondo Piadoso de unos bienes que no 
 pertenecian legalmente a ninguno de los dos. 
 
 No me extender^ en explicaciones sobre esta materia y me refiero al 
 libro adjunto, principalmente a la sentencia con la cual concluye y cuyo 
 original, segun se probara a su tiempo, existe en el archivo espanol 
 del Supremo Consejo de Indias. No cabe duda en que fue nula la 
 donaci6n que de bienes ajenos hizo la Marquesa al Fondo Piadoso, por 
 el conocido principio de Nemo plus juris transferre potest quam ipse 
 hdberet. Debe, pues, descontarse de la suma que demandan los recla- 
 mantes, cuando menos el valor de los bienes a. que me contraigo. 
 
 En conclusion, me parece quedar demostrado: 
 
 1° Que los reclamantes carecen de titulo para presentarse como 
 legitimos comisarios del Fondo Piadoso de Californias. 
 
42 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 2° Que la Iglesia Catolica de la Alta California no tiene derecho para 
 exigir del Gobierno Mexicano el pago de reditos por el supuesto capital 
 6 Fondo. 
 
 3° Que los titulos alegados por el Arzobispo y el Obispo reclamantes, 
 6 adolecen de ineptitud para el caso, 6 se han extinguido, principalmente 
 por el Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo que extinguio "todos los cr^ditos 
 de ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos contra la Republica Mexicana," 
 exonerando a e\sta de todas las demandas por razon de creditos contra 
 ella, que existieran el 2 de Febrero de 1848, £ favor de dichos ciuda- 
 danos, como se ve en los Articulos XIV y XV del Tratado. A falta 
 de esa Convencion, el derecho de los reclamantes se habria extinguido 
 por varias de las leyes generales que sucesivamente se han expedido 
 en esta Republica, a las cuales estaba, sin duda, sujeto el censo que 
 constituia el Fondo Piadoso. 
 
 4° Que el verdadero objeto de ese Fondo, el fin a que estaba destinado, 
 era la conversion de los indios barbaros al cristianismo y su civiliza- 
 cion, siendo asi que ya no hay indios barbaros a quienes se aplique en 
 California. 
 
 6° Que al Gobierno Mexicano, y solo a el, le corresponde dar, en su 
 territorio 6 fuera de el, esa u otra aplicacion al fondo, sin que tenga 
 que dar cuenta de lo que hiciere en el particular a los Obispos de 
 California. 
 
 7° Que si algun derecho a cobrar reditos tuvieran los reclamantes, 
 no seria a la cantidad que piden, la cual es excesiva, desde luego, por 
 haberse calculado en pesos de oro, cuando las sumas que toman por 
 base han sido en pesos de plata y hoy la diferencia entre ambas monedas 
 no es la misma que en 1875, cuando Mexico f ue" condenado a pagar 
 otros reditos en oro. Ademas, se computa la porcion de reditos que 
 corresponden a la Alta California por la poblacion y no por el numero 
 de indios en cuya conversion hayan de emplearse; y por ultimo, se 
 incluyen en el valor del Fondo Piadoso los bienes donados por la Mar- 
 quesa de las Torres de Rada, cuando nuevos documentos comprueban 
 la nulidad de esa donacion. 
 
 Por estas razones y las demas que se alegaren en su oportunidad, a 
 nombre del Gobierno Mexicano suplico respetuosameote al Tribunal 
 se sirva desechar la demanda interpuesta contra este Gobierno por los 
 representantes de la Iglesia Catolica de California, demanda contraria 
 en general a la Justicia y en particular al tratado de paz y amistad 
 vigente entre la Republica Mexicana y los Estados Unidos de America. 
 
 Mexico, 6 de Agosto de 1902. 
 
 El Ministro de Helaciones JExteriores, 
 
 Ignacio Maeiscal. 
 
[Translation into French of foregoing answer.] 
 
 reponse atj memorial sttr la reclamation presentee 
 par le gouvernement des etats-tinis d'amerique con- 
 tre le mexique relative ait fonds pie des californies. 
 
 Sous reserve de produire au nom de la Republique Mexicaine les 
 preuves des defeases qui seront exposes dans la suite, ainsi que les 
 exceptions et les allegations convenables en vertu du droit accorde 
 par le Protocole signe a, Washington, le 22 mai dernier, le soussigne, 
 dument autorise par le Gouvernement Mexicain, demande a la Cour 
 Permanente d'Arbitrage de La Haye, de rejeter les reclamations en 
 vertu des raisons suivantes: 
 
 1. L'Archeveque de San-Francisco et l'Eveque de Monterey n'ont 
 aucun titre a alleguer comme fidei-commissaires legitimes du Fonds 
 Pie des Californies. 
 
 2. L'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Calif ornie n'a aucun droit d'exiger 
 les interets provenant du Fonds suppose. 
 
 3. L'inefficacite" ou l'extinction des titres invoque's par l'Archevejque 
 et par l'Eveque sus-mentionne's a l'appui de leur reclamation. 
 
 4. La non-subsistance de l'objet attribue a l'institution du Fonds, en 
 ce qui concerne la Haute Californie. 
 
 5. La faculte exclusive du Gouvernement Mexicain d'employer le 
 Fonds et de disposer de ses produits sans aucune intervention de 
 l'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Californie. 
 
 6. L'usage que le Gouvernement Mexicain a fait de la dite faculte. 
 
 7. L'exageration de la reclamation. 
 
 Les reclamants sont d'accord avec le Gouvernement Mexicain sur 
 les f aits suivants, etablis par des documents irrefutables : 
 
 1. Les Je"suites furent les fideicommissaires ou administrateurs 
 origihels des biens qui formaient le Fonds Pie des Californies jusqu'en 
 1768, annee de leur expulsion des domaines espagnols. 
 
 2. La Couronne d'Espagne, se substituant ainsi aux J^suites, prit 
 possession des biens constituant le Fonds Pie, et les administra par 
 l'intermediaire d'une Commission Royale jusqu'au moment de l'ind6- 
 pendance du Mexique. 
 
 3. Le Gouvernement Mexicain, ayant succede au Gouvernement 
 Espagnol, devint, comme ce dernier l'avait ete, fideicommissaire du 
 Fond, et a, ce titre, le successeur des Jesuites missionaires avec toutes 
 les f acult^s accordees par les f ondateurs. 
 
 En s'attribuant le role de fideicommissaire (trustees en Anglais), par 
 succession, Parcheveque et l'eveque reclamants devraient etablir leur 
 
 43 
 
44 piotjs fund of the califoenias. 
 
 qualite actuelle d' 'ay ant-cause du Gouvernement Mexicain, en vertu 
 d'un titre quelconque, perp^tuel, universel ou singulier. Autrement, 
 l'attitude de creanciers qu'ils ont prise vis-a-vis de leur pr^tendu d6bi- 
 teur, resterait inexplicable. 
 
 Comme titre de succession que leur donna la representation imme- 
 diate du Gouvernement et celle mediate des Jesuites, ils invoquent le 
 decret du Congres Mexicain expedie" le 15 septembre 1836, ordonnant 
 la mi.se a la disposition de 1'eVeque de Californie, et de ses successeurs, 
 des biens qui appartenaient au Fonds Pie des Californies, pour 6tre 
 par oux administre's et applique's a, leurs intentions ou autres fins 
 analogues, la volonte des fondateurs devant toujours etre respectee. 
 Mais les reclamants eux-memes admettent que le decret pr^cite* fut 
 abroge le 8 fevrier 1842, par le General Santa-Anna, President Pro- 
 visoirc de la K^publique, muni de facult^s extraordinaires et qui res- 
 titua au Gouvernement Mexicain l'administration et l'emploi du 
 produit de ces biens, selon qu'il le jugeait convenable afin d'atteindre 
 les buts vises par les fondateurs: la civilisation et la conversion des 
 sawvages. Le 24 octobre de la m&me annee, la vente de ces biens fut 
 ordonnee ainsi que l'incorporation au Tresor National pour constituer 
 ainsi un " census consignativus" au taux annuel de 6 pour cent aux 
 intentions de la fondation primitive. 
 
 Aucune loi posteVieure ne donna aux Eveques des Californies, la 
 faculte de toucher et d'appliquer a leur but, les interets, du "census" 
 indique. II est vrai qu'un autre decret fut expedie par le Gouverne- 
 ment Mexicain le 3 avril 1845 ordonnant que tous les biens encore 
 invendus du Fonds Pie, fussent remis a l'Eveque des Californies et a, 
 ses successeurs en vue des fins exprimees par l'article 6 de la loi du 19 
 septembre 1836, sous reserve " de ce que le Congres disposa touchant 
 les biens deja vendus." Bien que le taxte de ce decret ait servi de 
 pr^texte au surarbitre de la Commission Mixte de 1875, pour affirmer 
 que l'obligation y etait reconnue de remettre a l'Eveque les produits 
 du fonds, les avocats des reclamants n'ont pas juge convenable de 
 1'alleguer a l'appui de leur demande actuelle, sans doute parce que ce 
 decret vise les biens encore invendas dont le mo'ntant n'avait pas ete 
 incorpore au Tresor National, et non les interets ou les redevances du 
 produit des biens vendus, et sur lesquels le Congres s'etait reserve 
 express^ment la faculte de pourvoir. Aucune resolution ne fut prise 
 a ce sujet et en consequence, ce dernier decret n'a pas modifie la situa- 
 tion creee a l'Eveque des Californies par le decret du 8 fevrier 1848, 
 qui lui retira la faculte d'appliquer aux missions les interets du 6 pour 
 cent annuel sur le produit des biens deja, vendus, interets qui sont pre- 
 cisement 1'obj.et de la reclamation actuelle. 
 
 II. 
 
 L'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Californie ne put jamais administrer 
 de son propre droit le Fonds Pie des Californies, ni en reclamer le 
 produit, pour la raison tres simple que ce droit ne iui fut pas accord^ 
 par les fondateurs, non plus que les Jesuites qui en furent les premiers 
 fideicommissaires ou par le Gouvernement Espagnol qui les remplac, 
 ou encore par le Gouvernement Mexicain qui succ^da \ ce dernier, et 
 pareillement a celui-ci et aux Jesuites, eut la faculty d'appliquer les 
 biens due Fonds en litige aux missions des Californies ou a, d'autres 
 dans ses domaines, a son jugement et a sa discretion. Cette faculte" 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 45 
 
 "discre"tionnelle" qui est Pattribut du droit parfait, n'admet pas de 
 contrainte. En consequence, meme en concedant por supposition, a 
 PEglise Catholique de la Haute Californie, la representation des mis- 
 sions des J6suites (supprim^es expressement par le Pape Clement XIX, 
 Pannee 1773) cette Eglise n'aurait pas le droit de reclamer les interets 
 du Fonds Pie. Le decret du 19 Septembre 1836 sus-mentionne' invoque 
 par les reclamants a Pappui de leurs pretendus droits, confera seule- 
 inent au premier Eveque des Calif ornies et a ses successeurs, Padminis- 
 tration du Fonds, selon le bon vouloir du Gouvernement avec Pobliga- 
 tion d'en employer les produits aux intentions visees par les fondateurs 
 ou a d'autres analoges. Mais il ne leur donna pas un droit irrevoca- 
 ble, non plus qu'a, l'Eglise qu'ils representaient; en outre, il futabroge 
 par le decret du 8 f evrier 1845 qui enleva aux Eveques des Californies 
 Padministration du Fonds pour la restituer au Gouvernement. 
 
 _ Cette reclamation ne pouvant invoquer comme titre aucune loi en 
 vigueur, les reclamants cherchent a y suppleer par ce qu'ils appellent 
 un instrument de constitution (fondation deed) de Poeuvre pie, ou par 
 la decision rendue le 2 octobre 1875, par la Commission Mixte de 
 Reclamations etablie a Washington, d'apres la convention pass.ee entre 
 le Mexique et les Etats-Unis, le 4 juillet 1868, s'efforcant de la faire 
 apparaitre comme generatrice de res judicata. 
 
 A. Pour etablir que le premier titre ne favorise pas les intentions 
 des reclamants, il sufEra de citer les causes suivantes de Pacte qu'ils 
 acceptent comme le modele des dons qui formerent le Fonds: 
 
 " Cette donation — nous la faisons — aux dites missions fondees et restant a fonder 
 aux Californies, ainsi que pour le maintien de leurs religieux, le soutien et ladecence 
 du Culte Divin, pour le secours qu'ils ont coutume de donner aux indigenes cathe- 
 cumenes et convertis pour la m&me ( probablement miserie) de ee pays: de sorte que, 
 si dans les temps ii venir, pour la reduction et pour les missions commandees par la 
 grace de Dieu, il y avait des ressources, et que leurs terres fussent cultivees, sans qu'il 
 fut necessaire de les eraporter de ces terres, les fruits et les produits des dites fermes devront 
 etre appliques a des missions nouvelles — et, si la Compagnie de Jesus, de son gre ou par 
 contrainte, abandonee les dites missions des Californies, ousi, — ce qu'a Dieu ne plaise, — 
 les indigenes se soulevent et apostasient notre sainte foi, ou dans toute autre event- 
 ualite, il restera a l'arbitre du R."P. Provincial de la Compagnie de Jesus dans cette 
 Nouvelle Espagne, et quel qu'il soit, a, appliquer les produits desdites fermes, ainsi 
 que leurs revenus et redevances a d'autres missions dans les territories de cette 
 Amerique Septentrionale qui ne sont pas encore decouverts, ou a d'autres de "l'uni- 
 verso mundo" selon qu'il le jugera le plus plus agreable a Dieu, Notre Seigneur, et de 
 telle sorte que toujours et perpeiuelleinent, le Gouvernement desdites fermes soit dans 
 les mains da la Sacree Compagnie de Jesus et prelats, sans qu'aucun juge, ni ecclesiafctique, 
 ni seculier, ait le droit d'intervenir dans l'accomplissement de cetta donation, notre 
 volonte etant qu'aucune pretention ne puisse etre deduite a, ce sujet, et que la Sacree 
 Compagnie de Jesus remplisse ou non les intentions des missions, elle ne soit tenue 
 d'en rendre compte qu'a Dieu, Notre. Seigneur." 
 
 B. La decision ci-dessus mentionnee, rendue a Washington, le 11 
 novembre 1$75, n'a pu prejuger sur la reclamation presente*e, et par 
 rapport a laquelle, en consequence, il n'y a pas de chose jugee. II 
 s'agit maintenant d'une demande d'int^rets nouveaux, et, bien que les 
 reclamants aient allegue que le Mexique etait condamne a payer les 
 interets echus jusqu'a une certaine date, il fut declare implicitement 
 que le capital existait et devait produire des interets. Ce pouvait etre 
 la des considerations ou des motifs a Pappui de la declaration faite sur 
 Pobligation a la charge de la Republique Mexicaine de payer une cer- 
 taine somme pour les interets echus, Punique objet de la reclamation. 
 L'immutabilite" d'un jugement et sa force de chose jugee n'appartien- 
 nent qu'a sa conclusion, c'est-a-dire a la partie qui prononce Pacquitte- 
 
46 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 ment ou la condamnation, quod jussit vetuitve. Cette proposition est 
 presque indiscutable et voila pourquoi la plupart des auteurs, quand 
 ils exposent la th^orie de la chose jug6e, l'attribuent seulement a la 
 partie resolutive du jugement, alors que son extension a la partie exposi- 
 tive (motifs) n'est controversee que par quelques-uns. II est vrai qu'au 
 nombre de ceux qui f avorisent une telle extension, se trouvent des 
 autorites aussi celebres que celle de Savigny, mais celles qui professent 
 l'opinion contraire ne sont pas moins respectables et sent plus nom- 
 breuses. L'eminent professeur que je viens de nommer declare lui- 
 meme, textuellement, que: "Cest une doctrine trcs ancienne appuyee 
 par un grand nombre d 'auteurs, que la verite Mgale de la chose juge"e 
 appartient exclusivement a la resolution et qu'elle n'est pas partagee 
 par les motifs," et il resume sa doctrine: " L'autorite de la chose jug£e 
 n'existe que dans la partie dispositive du jugement." (Savigny — Droit 
 Romain, par. 291, tome 6, p. 347.) • " La plupart desauteurs, ajoute-t-il, 
 refusentabsolument aux motifs l'autorite de la chose jug6e, sans excepter 
 meme les cas ou les motifs font partie du jugement" (par. 293, tome 6, 
 p. 282). 
 
 Griolet enseigne que "la decision suppose toujours diverses pro- 
 
 Sositions que le juge a du admettre pour faire une declaration sur les 
 roits dispute's, et qui, ordinairement sont exprim^es selon notre droit 
 (le droit francais) par le jugement, ce sont les considerants (motifs). 
 Nous avons deja dit, contrairement a l'opinion de Savigny que les 
 motifs tant subjectifs qu'objectifs, ne doivent pas partager l'autorite du 
 jugement, car il ne rentre pas dans la mission du juge, de se pronon- 
 cer sur les principes juridiques ou sur l'existence des faits . . . 
 Nous avons done deja demontre que dans tous les cas qui peuvent se 
 presenter, l'autorite de la chose jugee ne comprend pas les motifs du 
 jugement, ni meme V affirmation ou la negation de la cause des droits 
 juges." 
 
 Le meme ecrivain ajoute: Aucun de nos auteurs n'enseigne en effet 
 un systeme analogue a, celui de Monsieur Savigny sur l'autorite des 
 motifs, et la jurisprudence francaise admet le premier principe: que 
 l'autorite de la chose jugee n'appartient a, aucun des motifs de la deci- 
 sion. — (Griolet, de l'autorite de la chose jugee, par. 135, 168, 169 et 
 173.) 
 
 Quand au droit Prussien, Savigny dit lui-meme: "Quant a l'autorite - 
 des motifs, il existe un texte qui parait tout d'abord l'exclure absolu- 
 ment, en attribuant une importance, considerable a la partie qui con- 
 tient la decision judicaire (All. Gerichte Ordnung, 1, 13 13 p. 38) Les 
 colleges des juges et les rapporteurs des jugements doivent distinguer 
 soigneusement entre la decision reelleet ces motifs, et leur donner une 
 place differente sans les confondre jamais, farce que de simples motifs 
 ne doivent jamais avoir Vautorite de la chose jugee. (D. R. par. 294 — 
 tome 6— pp. 389 et 390). 
 
 Les tribunaux espagnols ont rejete constamment les recours en cas- 
 sation interjetes contre les fondements du jugement d^finitif, parce 
 qu'ils n'ont voulu reconnaitre l'autorite de la chose jug^e qu'a la partie 
 dispositive, la seule matieere de recours (Pantoja, Repert. pp. 491, 955. 
 960, 970 et 975.) 
 
 Dans l'espece speciale (qui est la notre) d'une demande d'int6r§ts 
 fondle sur le jugement qui les declara diis, apres avoir entendu les 
 defenses du defendeur contre le droit invoque - sur le capital ou sur la 
 rente, Savigny a pour opinion que ce droit a, en sa faveur, l'autorite 
 
(l 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA8. 47 
 
 de chose jugee, mais il remarque imm^diateinent que Bucka resout la 
 question dans le sens oppose, selon le droit romain; que les Cours 
 Prussiennes ont decide dans le meme sens parce que la reconnaissance 
 d'un droit par les motifs de la decision n'appartient vraiment qu'au 
 jugementdontla partie resolutive constitue la chose jugee, etil ajoute: 
 , , Nous n'avons pas sur ce point la decision du droit romain et les textes 
 que l'on invoque si souvent n'ont rien a faire avec le sujet." (D. R. 
 par. 294 — num. 3 et 4, note (r) du num 7 et par. 299, num. 4, tome 6, 
 pp. 397, 401 et 446.) 
 
 Et cependant Ulpiendit: Siinjudicio actum sit useroequesolsepetitse 
 tshii, non est verendum ne noceat rei judicate exceptio circa sortis peti- 
 tionem: Quia enim non competit nee apposita noceat. Tel est le prin- 
 cipe de la loi 23 D. de Except rei jud. et, bien qu'il semble contredit 
 }ar ce qui le suit, cette antinomie apparente est expliquee par Griolet 
 pp. 46 et 47) d'une facon satisfaisante. C'est a lui que je me suis 
 rerere' en faisant les citations pr^ce'dentes au sujet de cette question 
 qui n'a encore ete traitee que legerement dans la correspondance diplo- 
 matique 6changee sur la reclamation presente. 
 
 Et je dois ajouter que si ce qui vient d'etre dit est vrai en ce qui 
 concerne les jugements rendus par des juges revetus de l'autorite pub- 
 lique pour decider sur un cas, sur ses motifs et sur ses consequences, 
 l'absolutisme de cette verite est encore plus complete en ce qui touche 
 les decisions rendues par des arbitres sans juridiction veritable et sans 
 autres facultes que celles accordees par le compromis. Done, tout ce 
 qui vise l'exception et Paction de la ,,res judicata" etant d'interpreta- 
 tion stricte (Griolet- de l'autorite de la chose jugee p. 68) doit l'etre 
 plus encore lorsqui'il s'agit de l'appliquer aux decisions arbitrales. 
 
 Dans cette discussion, une loi romaine dit: De his rebus et rationibus 
 et controversiis judicare arbiter potest, que ab initie fuissent inter eos 
 qui compromisserunt, non qusepostea supervenerunt (L. 46 D. de recept. 
 qui arb.) et l'effet attribue par le droit civil aux decisions arbitrales 
 etait si limite qu'il ne leur accordait pas de produire les etfets de chose 
 jugee. La loi I du code de recept dit: Ex sententia arbitri ex com- 
 promisso jure perfecto arbitri appellari non posse saepe receptum est; 
 quia necjudicati actio inde praestari potest.'''' 
 
 L'inefficacite des decisions arbitrales du Droit International, a servir 
 pour la decision des cas f uturs, quoiqu'ils pussent etre analogues a^ceux 
 deja, jug6s, a ete expressement reconnue par le Gouvernement des Etats- 
 Unis d'apres ce que l'on voit dans l'ouvrage de Moore ' 'International 
 Arbitrations," au sujet de la Commission Mixte, qui siegea Halifax, 
 en vertu du traite' de Washington, et qui condamna les Etats-Unis a 
 payer au Gouvernement Britannique cinq millons et demi de^dollars 
 
 americams, 
 d'Espagne, _ 
 
 considere comme contrebande de guerre dont les sujets espagnols Mora 
 et Larrache avient souffert. Le Secretaire d'Etat des Etas-Unis, T. F. 
 Bayard, a dit dans sa communication du 3 decembre 1886: „Les 
 decisions des Commissions Internationales * * * nesontconsiderees 
 comme ayant d'autorite que sur Pespece particuliere jugee * * 
 d'aucune facon elles ne lient les Etats-Unis, sauf dans les cas ou elles 
 furent appliquees (Papers relating to the For. Rei. of the U. S., year 
 1837, p. 1021). , . L , .,„ 
 
 Le meme honorable Secretaire disait dans le document precitd ' Ces 
 
48 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 decisions s'accordent avec la nature et les termes du traite" d'arbitage's 
 tenant compte, sans doute, que: Omne tractatum ex com/promisso 
 sumendum : nee enim aliud illi (arbitro) licebit, quam quod wi ut offi- 
 cerepossit cautum est; non ergo quodlibet statuere arbiter poterit, nee 
 inquerelibenisidequareco?npro??iissumest." 
 
 Si l'on se rappele les stipulations de la Convention citee, du 4 juillet 
 1868, Ton est convaincu que les reclamations des citoyens Americains 
 contre le Mexique et celle des Mexicains contre les Etats-Unis, sou- 
 mise au jugement de la Commission Mixte creee par la dite Conven- 
 tion, devaient indispensablement reunir les trois conditions suivantes: 
 
 1. Avoir pour origine, des evenements posterieurs au 2 fevrier 
 1848, et anterieurs au 1 fevrier 1869 (date de P6change des ratifications 
 de la (Convention). 
 
 2. Avoir pour objet des prejudices estimables en argent, 6ccasionn6s 
 aux individus ou aux biens des reclamants de l'un des deux pays, par 
 les autorites de l'autre. 
 
 On remarquera de suite que la reclamation des interets dont on 
 sollicite aujourd'hui le paiement, ne peut stre consideYee comme rem- 
 plissant la premiere et la troisieme des conditions enumerees. II me 
 semble inutile de m'arreter a le demontrer ou de continuer a discuter 
 le peu de fondement avec lequel on allegue la chose jugee dans la nou- 
 velle reclamation presentee contre le gouvernement Mexicain. La 
 decision que prononca l'arbitre en 1876 fut completement et absolu- 
 ment executee par le paiement efFectue' par le Mexique de $904,070.79 
 en or mexicain, qu'il 6tait condamne a payer et cette decision est 
 inapplicable a la nouvelle reclamation. 
 
 Lors m^me qu'en vertu des allegations ant^rieures, il serait jug^ 
 que la reclamation actuelle ne fut pas regime par la decision prononcee 
 en 1875, la premiere objection, l'exception la" plus claire que l'on put 
 opposer a la demande, e'est que le droit que les reclamants auraient pu 
 avoir au commencement de l'aunee 1848, fut completement eteint en 
 vertu du traite" de paix et d'amitie, de la meme annee, entrele Mexique 
 et les Etats-Unis; Particle 14 en effet declara que toutes les cre"ances et 
 toutes les reclamations non resolues jusqu'alors et que les citoyens de 
 la seconde de ces puissances pourraient avoir a, presenter contre le 
 Gouvernement de la premiere, devraient etre considerees desormais 
 comme eteintes et comme annulees pour toujours. Voici le texte de 
 Particle de ce traite qui contient la disposition invoquee et je le cite en 
 anglais, afin qu'il soit mieux compris par la partie plaignante. II est 
 ainsi formule: 
 
 XIV. 
 
 The United States do furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic 
 fro?n all claims of the United /States not heretofore decided against the 
 Mexican Government, which may have arisen previously to the date of 
 the signature of this treaty, which discharge shall be final and perpetual, 
 whether the said claim.s be rejected or be allowed by the board, of commis- 
 sioners provided for in the following article and whatever shall be the 
 total amount of those allowed.- 
 
 A cette exception peremptoire les reclamants repondent qu'ils ne 
 demandent pas les interets echus avant la date du traits, mais ceux 
 echus apres cette date, et equ'ils ne reclament pas le capital parce 
 qu'ils ne s'y reconnaissent aucun droit, le Mexique pouvant le garder 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 49 
 
 ind&finiment. En r^pondant ainsi, les revlamants oublient que Particle 
 precite' (XIV) ne libere pas seulement le Mexique des reclamations ou 
 des demandes pouvant §tre presentees immediatement, mais de toutes 
 les creances (all claims) non encore tranchees (not heretofore decided) 
 a la charge de son Gouvernement; et tel est le cas pour la creance du 
 Fonds Pie qui comprend en tout, le capital et les interets. Le mot 
 anglais claim, qui signifie la reclamation ou la demande de ce que nous 
 croyons, avec droit, nous appartenir, comme la cause, l'origine ou le 
 fondement de cette demande, comprend en effet tout cela: u a right to 
 claim or demand something; a title to any debt, prwilege or other thing 
 in possession of another; also a title of any thing which another should 
 give or concede to, or confer on, the claimant," d'apres ce que dit Web- 
 ster dans son dictionnaire, l'autorite linguistique la plus competente 
 aux Etats-Unis, et qui penetre partout ou la langue anglaise estparlee. 
 (Voyez le Dictionnaire Anglais de "Webster, article claim, deuxieme 
 acception.) 
 
 Cette interpretation de Particle XIV est confirmee par la lecture 
 du commencement de Particle suivant, (XV) dont le texte anglais dit 
 ceci: "The United States exonerating Mexico from all demands on 
 account of the claims of their citizens mentioned in the preceding arti- 
 cle and considering them entirely and for ever cancelled." Ici, Pon 
 voit bien la distinction entre demands et claim et Pon remarque que ce 
 dernier mot est pris dans le sens due titre ou droit confere par son 
 origine a une reclamation quelconque. 
 
 II ne pouvait en &tre autrement puisque Pintention manifeste de 
 cette convention, fut de ne rien laisser en suspens qui fut susceptible 
 d'alterer ou de troubler les relations pacifiques et amicales renouvelees 
 par ledit traite. Aussi, ce que Pon fait tres souvent dans des traites 
 du meme genre: Pextinction complete de toutes les reclamations, et 
 de tous les motifs de reclamations en suspens ou qui par suite de faits 
 anterieurs, pourraient surgir entre les deux Gouvernements, fut 
 stipulee, sans abandon toutef ois de Pinteret des particuliers. L'article 
 XV don't le premier paragraphe a ete copie pourvoyait a cet interet. 
 II ordonnait que trois millions et un quart de piastres fussent reserves 
 pour faire face aux reclamations approuvees par une Commission 
 Americaine nommee a cet effet, et etablie par le Gouvernement des 
 Etats-Unis, et devant laquelle les representants de PEglise Catholique 
 de Californie auraient du se presenter s'ils avaient eu conscience de 
 leurs droits. Pour n'avoir pas voulu se presenter a cette epoque, ils 
 ne sont pas du tout autorises a redamer aujourd'hui contre le Mexique, 
 qui resta libere de toute responsabilite, from all demands on account 
 of the claims of their (of the United States) citizens. 
 
 En presence des articles invoques du traite de Guadelupe Hidalgo 
 le plus solennel de tous ceux que nous ayons signes avec la Nation 
 voisine, et toujours en vigueur parce que de son essence il est de 
 nature perpetuelle, il parait inconcevable de soutenir que la creance 
 du Fonds Pie ne fut pas eteinte en vertu des stipulations du dit traite. 
 Quel etait le privilege de ce Fonds qu'il ne fut pas compris dans la 
 declaration absolue du traite? II n'y a pas a s'etonner que les avocats 
 des reclamants, a bout de ressources, aient, pour contester cette defense, 
 cherche a limiter sur ce point les effets du traite a Pextinction des 
 interets du Fonds, echus avant le mois de fevrier 1848. Mais il est 
 inexplicable, qu'une semblable interpretation ait ete admise par la 
 decision arbitrale signee par Sir Edward Thornton. Voila pourquoi, 
 S. Doc. 28 4 
 
50 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 entre autres motifs, nous considerons la dite decision comme notoire- 
 ment injuste, puisque aucune injustice ne peut etre plus eVidente que 
 celle d'une decision jugeant sur une question entre las citoyens d'un 
 pays et le Gouvernement d'un autre, en opposition expresse avec les 
 stipulations d'un traite" solennel conclu par les deux pays et dont la 
 vigueur n'est past en cause. 
 
 Lors meme que, contre toute probability, on en viendrait a d^creter 
 que le traite" de Gaudalupe Hidalgo laissa ouverte la creance (the 
 claim) des citoyens ameVicains contre le Mexique, touchant le Ponds 
 Pie, creance existant, allegue-t-on, au moment de la signature du 
 traite, il y aurait encore un motif d'extinction de cette creance et par 
 consequent du droit a exiger les interets du capital. On sait en effet 
 que la Republique Mexicaine, en vertu de ses droits souverains et pour 
 des raisons de haute politique exposees par le Commissaire Mexicain 
 dans son rapport de 1879, decreta en 1856 en 1859, d'abord la de"sa- 
 mortisation pius la nationalisation des biens ecclesiastiques, ce qui, a 
 proprement parler, n'est "autre chose, que l'interdiction au clerge de 
 continuer a administrer ces biens nationaux. Si, comme on l'a dit fort 
 justement, la validite et les motifs de cette determination peuvent etre 
 contestes au point de vue du droit canonique, ils sont indiscutables 
 sous leur aspect politique et social; et ils ne le sont pas moins si l'on 
 tient compte des resultats favorables de cette determination qui con- 
 solida la paix et stimula les progress de la Republique. 
 
 II semble clair au point de vue du droit commun et du droit inter- 
 national prive\ que le capital, dont les interets sont reclames, devait 
 etre considere comme bien immeuble, si l'on tient compte de son 
 caractere de census conslgnativus ou de cens *en general, et du fait qu'il. 
 (Sala Dro. Real de Espana, torn. 1, lib. 2, tit. 14 et les auteurs qu'il 
 cite) etait soumis a la legislation du pays sous la jurisdiction duquel il 
 etait constitute et f ut rei sitae, quelle que f ut la nationality des crean- 
 ciers (censualistas). 
 
 D'autre part, il faut tenir en compte que les soi-disants creanciers 
 ayant laisse passer mainies annexes sans exiger les interets qu'ils 
 reclament maintenant, les ont par la assujettis aux lois du pays, sur la 
 prescription. L'article 1,103 de notre Code Civil leur est done appli- 
 cable. II y est dit: "Les pensions ' ' emphiteotigues'' (emphiteose — bail 
 a longues annees, 10 k 90 ans) ou censuelles, les rentes, les loyers et 
 toutes autres prestations non exigees a leur 6cheance, seront prescrites 
 apres 5 annees, a partir de l'echeance de chacune d'elles, que Taction 
 reelle ou Taction personnelle soit exercee aux fins du recouvrement. 
 
 " Supposant meme que la creance des reclamants n'ait ete" eteinte ni 
 par l'article XIV du traite" de Guadalupe Hidalgo ni par les autres 
 motifs que nous yenons d'examiner, il en est un autre qui aurait deter- 
 mine son extinction d'apres la legislation mexicaine, a laquelle, sans 
 aucun doute, est soumis un cens constitue par le Gouvernement mexi- 
 cain en l'annee 1842. 
 
 Lorsqu'il s'agit de regler la dette publique, le dit Gouvernement 
 exp^dia a la date du 22 juin 1885 un decret convoquant tous ses 
 creanciers en vue de Petude et de la conversion de celles de leurs 
 creances ayant pour origine des occupations, emprunts, ou tous faits 
 ou affaires dont une responsabilite pourrait resulter a la charge du 
 Trevor public. A cet effet un delai convenable fut fix6 et proroge" 
 plusieurs fois pour la presentation desdites creances. L'article 15 de 
 laloi du 6 septembre 1894 etait ainsi concu; 'Seront pour toujours 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 51 
 
 presents sans que jamais dans la suite ils soient susceptibles de con- 
 stituer un droit ou d'etre exerces en aucune facon, les creances, les 
 titres de dettes publiques et les reclamations suivantes — " Toutes les 
 creances visees par les articles 1 et 2 qui ne seront pas presentees a, 
 cette conversion dans le delai fixe par l'article anterieur, ou bien que 
 presentees, ne rempliraient pas les conditions etablies par ce decret." 
 II est indiscutable que les creances supposees pour ce capital et pour 
 les intSrets reclames au Gouvernement du Mexique par l'Archeveque 
 et les Eyeques de l'Eglise de la Haute Californie, ne furent pas pre- 
 sentees a, la conversion, selon la loi de 1885, et que les soi-disants 
 creanciers ne profiterent pas du nouveau et dernier delai qui leur fut 
 accorde' par le decret de 1894, a l'article 14. La caducite ou prescrip- 
 tion d'action ou de defense "siiperveniente" laisserait inenie done sans 
 aucun effet le jugement devenu autorite de chose jug6e, d'apres un 
 principe de droit indubitable reconnu par les r^clamants actuels 
 eux-memes. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Les reclamants disent que l'objet du Fonds Pie des Californies 6tait 
 de pourvoir a la conversion des Indiens et au maintien de l'Eglise 
 Catholique aux Californies. Ce but etant double, il y a une distinction 
 a etablir entre ses deux parties. 
 
 Le premier point, la conversion des Indiens pai'ens a la Foi Catho- 
 lique et leur soumission au Souverain Espagnol doit etre indiscutable- 
 ment considere comme le but principal et direct des missions confines 
 a la Compagnie de Jesus par le Roi Catholique, dotees par les f ondateurs 
 du Fonds Pie et subsidises par le Tresor public du Mexique. Le second 
 point, e'est-a-dire le maintien de l'Eglise aux Californies, ne fut pas le 
 but principal ni direct de l'institution du Fonds, mais seulement le 
 moyen .d'operer la conquete spirituelle des Indiens sauvages par les 
 religieux missionaires. 
 
 Cette distinction etablie on voit immediatement que le Culte Catho- 
 lique fut un but des missions, subordonne a celui de la conquete spiri- 
 tuelle des Indiens sauvages. II s'ensuit que la non-existance des Indiens 
 sauvages ou idolatres dans une contree donnee, ou la suppression des 
 missions catholiques pour les dominer ou les christianiser devrait 
 produire la suppression des subsides affectes aux missionnaires et, non, 
 en aucune facon, leur application exclusive au maintien du culte catho- 
 lique, a moins de violer ouvertement la volonte des bienfaiteurs de 
 cette pieuse fondation. 
 
 A l'expulsion de Jfeuites, ordonnee par le Roi Charles III, et dont 
 la cessation des missions de la nouvelle Espagne fut la consequence, 
 sinon a la suppression de l'ordre, declaree par Clement XIV, dans son 
 Bref du 21 juillet 1773, paragraphe 32, et qui dit: "Touchant les mis- 
 sions sacrees, lesquelles nous voulons qu'elles soient comprises egale- 
 ment dans tout ce qu'il ete dispose sur la suppression de la Compagnie, 
 nous reservons d'etablir des moyens par lesquels il sera possible d'ob- 
 tenir avec une plus grande f acilite et une plus grande stability le con- 
 version des Indiens ainsi que la pacification des dissensions." 
 
 II f aut remarquer que les missions fondees par les Jesuites ne depas- 
 serent jamais les limites de la Basse Californie. Leur mission la plus 
 septentrionale fut celle de Sainte-Mari'e sous le trente et unieme degre 
 de latitude et en dehors de la demarcation de la Haute Californie, fixee 
 par le traits de Guadaloupe Hidalgo. 
 
52 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Les missions de la Haute Calif ornie f urent entreprises apres l'expul- 
 sion des Jesuites, non par la Conipagnie de Jesus, par le Saint-Siege 
 ou une autre autorite' ecclesiastique quelconque, mais sur les disposi- 
 tions du Vice-Roi de la nouvelle Espagne approuvees par le Roi en 
 1769 et 1762. • 
 
 Les missions de la Haute Californie dtant des entreprises nationales 
 furent naturellement abandonees par le Gouvernement Mexicain au 
 moment de l'acquisition de cette contree par les Etats-Unis. Cet 
 abandon f ut impose par le changement d'autorite et de juridiction sur 
 le territoire alie"ne aux Etats-Unis, et il dtait en outre une derivation 
 de la faculte privative que le Gouvernement Mexicain avait heriteedu 
 Gouvernement Espagnol, de suppriiner des missions et d' 'en fonder de 
 nouvelles pour le conversion des tnfideles dans ses domaines. 
 
 Non seulement les missions de la Haute Californie prirent fin depuis 
 le 7 juillet 1846 comme entreprises nationales a, la charge du Gouverne- 
 ment Mexicain, mais l'Eglise catholique elle-meme cessa d'exister 
 comme entite legale, puisque son retablissement comme corporation 
 n'eut lieu que le 22 avril 1850, en vertu du statut de cette date de l'Etat 
 de Californie. 
 
 Enfin, il faut tenir compte qu'il n'existe pas dans la Haute Californie 
 de tribus d'Indiens sauvages dont la soumission au pouvoir sdculier de 
 la Nouvelle Espagne et la conversion a la foi catholique fussent le but 
 principal ou l'objet direct des missions des Jesuites dotees des biens du 
 Fonds Pie des Californies. 
 
 V. . 
 
 Les reclamants ne prouverent jamais qu'une loi ou une disposition 
 f (it expediee par une autorite legitime, imposant des restrictions a cette 
 faculte. En l'exercant, le Gouvernement Mexicain ordonna par le d6- 
 cret du 15 septembre 1836 que l'administration du Fonds fut confide a 
 1'Eveque de Californie et a ses successeurs en qualite" d'employe's dudit 
 Gouvernement. Le decret du 18 fevrier 1842 retira cette commission 
 a, 1'Eveque et a ses successeurs. Le ddcret du 24 octobre 1842 ordonna 
 la vente des biens qui formaient le Fonds et leur capitalisation a census 
 consignativus sur le Tresor National; et deux ans et demi plus tard il 
 ordonna la devolution a 1'Eveque de Californie et a ses successeurs des 
 creances et autres biens encore invendus, tout en se reservant expresse'- 
 ment, par le ddcret du 3 avril 1845, la faculte de disposer du produit 
 des biens vendus dont les interets sont precisement l'objet de cette 
 reclamation. 
 
 Cette faculte privative du Gouvernement Mexicain est reconnue par 
 les reclamants. Dans leur replique envoyee le 21 fevrier 1901 a 
 l'hon. John Hay, Secretaire d'Etat des Etats-Unis, par MM. Jackson 
 H. Ralston et Frederick L. Siddons, avocats des Eveques catholiques 
 romains de Californie, se trouvent les mots suivants: "No dispute has 
 ever leen raised as to the right of the Mexican Government to adminis- 
 ter the property in question . . . Mexico must continue the trust rela- 
 tion which she has herself assumed . . . It should le lorne in mmd 
 that we never have had or made any claims to the principal. From its 
 origin it has leen in the hands of trustees: First the Jesuits, then in the 
 Spanish crown, then in the Government of Mexico, then in the lishop 
 under the law of 1836, then from Felruary 8, 181$, again in the Mexi 
 can Bepubkc. All of these changes were accomplished ly law, the act 
 of the sovereign, " 
 
PIOUS FUND OK THE CALIFOENIAS. 53 
 
 VI. 
 
 L'usage fait en 1842 par le Gouvernement Mexicain du droit 
 souverain de recouvrer la faculte d'administrer le fonds et d'en 
 affecter le produit sans aucune intervention de l'Eglise Catholique des 
 Californies, ne peut 6tre consid^re en droit comme la cause d'un dom- 
 inate fait a la partie reclamante: " qui jure suo utitur nemmem Isedit." 
 
 Par cette meme raison, le fait que le Gouvernement Mexicain, du 
 moment ou cessa son autorite' sur la Haute Californie, concentra sur 
 la Basse Californie ses soins et sa protection tant dans l'ordre civil que 
 dans l'ordre ecclesiastique, et que des lors il cessa d'appliquer a la 
 Haute Californie les rentes destinies a stimuler les missions catholiques, 
 ce fait ne peut pas justifier davantage les reclamations contre la 
 Republique Mexicaine. 
 
 Les missions des Jesuites dans cette contre"e n'existaient plus; les 
 habitants n'avaientplusbesoin de recevoir du Mexique des provisions, 
 des habillements et autres ressources pour subsister ; leurs terres 6taient 
 destinees a etre cultive'es, elles le furent en effet et devinrent merveil- 
 leusement productives. Etant donne ces circonstances, le Gouverne- 
 ment avait la faculte" ' ' discretionnelle " en sa qualite de fideicommissaire, 
 substitue aux Jesuites, d'employer les produits du Fonds a, d'autres 
 missions sans donner lieu par la a aucune censure, plainte ou reclama- 
 tion de qui que ce fut et conformement en tous points a la volonte des 
 fondateurs, exprimee dans l'acte de constitution du Fonds d'apres les 
 mots textuellement cites plus haut. 
 
 VII. 
 
 L'exageration de la demande, ou plus petition se demontre de 
 plusieurs manieres, et tout en me reservant de piesenter au cours de 
 la procedure une liquidation qu'il n'apas 6t6 possible d'achever jusqu'a 
 present, je crois devoir faire les remarques suivantes: 
 
 D'abord, il est bien evident que la demande faite aujourd'hui du 
 paiement en monnaie d'or Mexicaine des interets reclames s'autorisant 
 de ce que d'autres interets du m^me capital furent payes de cette 
 monnaie, en vertu du jugement rendu en novembre 1875, ^quivaut a, 
 demander le double du montant de Pinteret a 6 pour cent sur leque, 
 un droit a 6te allegue. La raison en est que — personne ne l'ignore — 
 en 1875 la valeur de Vqv par rapport a celle de l'argent etait presque 
 exactement de 16 a 1 tandis qu'aujourd'hui cette proportion s'eleve a 
 plus du double de cette valeur. Or, les biens du Fonds Pie furent 
 estimejs en piastres argent, ils furent vendus pour la valeur representee 
 par cette monnaie, et le produit de leur vent fut reconnu par le 
 Gouvernement Mexicain en faveur dudit fonds. Le Mexique n'a pas 
 eu et n'a pas encore aujourd'hui d'autre etalon pour sa monnaie, que la 
 piastre argent; il ne frappe d'or que pour une somme tres minime et 
 cette monnaie n'est pas en usage dans les transactions commerciales. 
 Lorsque les reclamants demandent a. titre d'interets cette somme en 
 dollars, ils parlent des piastres de leur pays, qui ont cette denomina- 
 tion, bien entendu parce qu' elles sont en or. L'or Mexicain dont ils 
 parlent vaut un peu moins que l'or americain; mais dans tous les cas, 
 les dollars d'or mexicains ont une valeur double de celle des piastres 
 en argent; la seule monnaie au moyen de laquelle les interets du Fonds 
 Pie devraient 6tre payes s'ils etaient dus aux reclamants. 
 
54 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 La pretention des EvSques Californiens est done usuraire lorsqu'ils 
 reclament non le 6 pour cent du capital mais plus de douze pour cent 
 par an. 
 
 (Jn autre point sur lequel la reclamation est exag^ree, e'est lorsque, 
 ne se bornant plus k exiger la moitie des inter&ts du capital, ce qui 
 serait deja excessif, considerant que l'autre lnoitie" devrait revenir aux 
 missions de la Basse Californie les r^clamants formulent une demande 
 des 85 pour cent en s'appuyant sur le fait que cette proportion est celle 
 qui existe entre les populations de la Haute Californie des Etats-Unis 
 et de la Basse Californie du Mexique. On oublie en raisonnant de la 
 sorte que le Fonds avait 6te destine a la conversion des sauvages et 
 a. l'amelioration de leur sort, et non a la population tout entiere des 
 Californies. Pareil raisonnement serait admissible si toute la popula- 
 tion des deux Californies etait composed d'Indiens sauvages. Une 
 telle pretention est insoutenable et demontre uniquement le zele 
 immodere dans l'espece des avocats et des conseillers des r^clamants. 
 Pour satisfaire a, l'esprit de la volonte des fondateurs, on devrait con- 
 siderer non la proportion de la population totale des deux Californies 
 mais celle qui existe entre les Indiens non convertis et non civilises de 
 l'une et de l'autre. Et il est bien avere" que dans la Californie Ameri- 
 caine il n'y en a pas beaucoup et peut-etre pas un seul, qui se trouve 
 dans la situation prevue. 
 
 Un autre exces de la reclamation consiste a faire entrer les biens 
 appartenant au Marquis de las Torres de Rada dans la valeur de ce qui 
 est reclame. Le montant de ces biens constitue indubitablement la plus 
 grande part de la reclamation et cependant il n'y a pas de motif legal 
 pour les reclamer. Cette assertion etonnera sans doute les reclamants 
 qui se sont livres a une etude tres detaillee de tout ce qui concerne la 
 donation des dits biens au Fonds Pie; mais il faut tenir compte que 
 tout recemment on a decouvert dans l'archive generale de la Repub- 
 lique des donnees tres importantes etablissant ce point. Cesdonnes se 
 trouvent dans le livre imprime au XVH1" siecle, que je pr^sente avec 
 cette reponse et dont l'autenticite sera bien et dument etablie. Ce livre 
 prouve qu'un proces tres etendu f ut suscite par la succession du Marquis 
 de las Torres de Rada et que le jugement final, rendu par le Conseil 
 Supreme des Indes en Espagne, k cette epoque tribunal de dernier 
 ressort, declaranuls et non avenus lesinventaires et les estimations des 
 biens qui, laisses a, sa mort par le Marquis sus-mentionne, et nulle et 
 sans aucune valeur l'adjudication qui fut faite de ces biens a la Mar- 
 quise sa veuve. Ce jugement, rendu en derniere instance laissa sans 
 effet. les volontes de la Marquise Douairiere de las Torres de Rada, et 
 ■par la meme sentence, celle du Marquis de Villa Puente exprimees dans 
 le testament que ce dernier fit au moyen d'une procuration pour tester 
 au nom de la Marquise. Or, ce testament fut la base de la donation 
 que tous- les deux firent au Fonds Pie, de biens qui ne leur apparte- 
 naient pas legalement. 
 
 Je n'insiste pas davantage sur ce point et je me rapporte au livre que 
 je presente et principalement au jugement par lequel il se termine et 
 dont l'original, d'apres ce qu'il sera etabli a l'occasion, se trouve & 
 l'archive Espagnole du Conseil Supreme des Indes. II n'est point dou- 
 teux que la donation des biens d'autrui faite par la Marquise au Fonds 
 Pie fut nulle d'apres le principe bien connu. " Nemo phis juris trans- 
 ferre potest quam -ipse haberet. " II y aurait done a d^duire de la somme 
 reclamed par les plaignants au moins la valeur des biens dont il s'agit. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 55 
 
 En conclusion, il me.parait qu'il a et6 demontre': 
 
 1. Que les re"clamants n'ont pas de titres a se presenter comme fidei- 
 commissaires legitimes du Fonds Pie des Californies. 
 
 2. Que l'Eglise de la Haute Californie n'a pas le droit d'exiger du 
 Gouvernement Mexicain le paiement des intents pour le capital du 
 Fonds suppose\ 
 
 3. Que les titres invoqu^s par l'Archeve'que et l'Eveque reclamants 
 sont sans force dans ce cas, ou sont 6teints, d'abord en vertu du traite 
 de Guadalupe Hidalgo qui prononca l'extinction de toutes les creances 
 des citoyens des Etats-Unis envers la R6publique Mexicaine, en la 
 libelant de toutes reclamations fondees sur des creances a sa charge 
 existant le 2 feVrier 1848, en faveur des dits citoyens, comme on le 
 voit dans les articles 14 et 15 du traite. MSme sans cette convention, 
 le droit des reclamants serait eteint en vertu des lois generates suc- 
 cessivement voters en cette R^publique et auxquelles, sans aucun doute, 
 le sens qui constituait le Fonds Pie se trouvait assujetti. 
 
 4. Que le veritable but de ce Fonds, l'objet auquel il 6tait destine - , 
 etait la conversion des Indiens sauvages au christianisme ainsi que leur 
 civilisation. Etant donn6 qu'il n'existe plus d'Indiens sauvages, il serait 
 sans application dans la Californie. 
 
 5. Qu'au Gouvernement Mexicain seul appartient le droit de donner 
 dans son territoire ou en dehors de celui-ci, une application quelconque 
 au Fonds, sans qu'il soit tenu de rendre compte aux Eveques de la 
 Californie de ses actes a ce sujet. 
 
 6. Que si les demandeurs avaient un droit a reclamer des interSts, 
 ils n'auraient pas le droit d'exiger la somme qu'ils demandent et qui 
 est excessive car ils estiment en or des sommes qui ont ete calculees ne 
 piastres argent.. La difference entre ces deux especes de monnaie n'est 
 pas la meime aujourd'hui que celle qui existait en 1875 a l'epoque ou le 
 Mexique f ut condamne a payer d'autres interets en or. D'ailleurs la 
 portion des interets correspondant a la Haute Californie est eValu^e 
 sur la population et non sur le nombre des Indiens qui sont a convertir. 
 Cette somme est encore d'une plus grande exageration; l'on veut com- 
 prendre dans la valeur du Fonds Pie les biens donnes par la Marquise 
 de las Torres de Rada, dont la donation fut annulee comme le revelent 
 les documents nouvellement decouverts. 
 
 Pour ces motifs et pour ceux qui seront allegues plus tard au nom 
 du Gouvernement Mexicain, jedemanie respectueusement au tribunal 
 de rejeter la reclamation proposee contre ce Gouvernement par les 
 representants de l'Eglise Catholique de la Californie, reclamation 
 opposee en general a la justice et specialement au traite" de paix et 
 d'amitie en vigueur entre la Republique Mexicaine et les Etats-Unis 
 d'Am^rique. 
 
 Mexico, le 6 aout 1902. 
 
 Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, 
 
 Ignacio Marisoal. 
 
REPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE 
 ANSWER OF THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO IN REPLY TO THE 
 MEMORIAL RELATIVE TO THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALI- 
 FORNIAS. 
 
 Sr. Don. Ignacio Mariscal, minister of foreign affairs of the Kepub- 
 lic of Mexico, having offered to this honorable court an answer to the 
 memorial of the United States, it has seemed incumbent upon the 
 undersigned to present for the consideration of this tribunal what may 
 be regarded as in the nature of a replication thereto, and in so doing 
 the paragraphing of the answer will be followed. 
 
 I. 
 
 Under the head of Paragraph I, the distinguished secretary contends 
 that no law later in date than October 24, 1842, granted to the Cali- 
 fornias the right to receive and apply to their enterprises the annuity 
 of the Pious Fund. The existence of a later law was not necessary, 
 for, apart from the legal and equitable right of the bishop to adminis- 
 ter the fund in question, the act of April 3, 1845, recognizes him as 
 the proper benefieiary, and even before that date, during the continu- 
 ance of the decree of October 24, 1842, and on April 23, 1844, and, as 
 is believed, on other dates, payments on account of the income belong- 
 ing to the Pious Fund of the Californias were ordered to be made to 
 him (Transcript, p. 149). This sufficiently disposes of the suggestion 
 that the Mexican Congress having, in the act of April 3, 1845, reserved 
 the right to decide as to the proceeds of property sold, the bishop was 
 not the proper recipient of funds chargeable on account thereof, for 
 a practical interpretation covering the matters reserved in the law of 
 April, 1845, had been given to the law of October, 1842, and further 
 congressional action was needless, and none in fact took place. 
 
 II. 
 
 Even if no perfect right had existed in the Catholic Church of 
 Upper California to administer the Pious Fund of the Californias, or 
 to demand the perpetual interest thereon provided for by the Mexican 
 decrees (a proposition we deny), nevertheless, in the eye of a court of 
 equity dealing with the subject-matter upon broad principles of right, 
 the Catholic Church, through its accredited officers, would have been 
 the proper recipient of the interest upon the fund. And this equitable, 
 and, as we contend legal, right also, was conclusively recognized by 
 the Mexican Government, as has been fully discussed in the brief of 
 the agent and counsel of the United States, pages 55 and 56. For fur- 
 ther considerations relative to the question of legal right, we also refer 
 to the argument of Messrs. Stewart and Kappler. 
 56 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 57 
 
 HI. 
 
 A. For the moment, under this heading, following the answer of 
 Mexico, attention is invited to the fact that Sr. Mariscal in his state- 
 ment in the answer of the trusts upon which the Pious Fund was held 
 only included them in so far as he esteemed them as assisting to sustain 
 the argument he desired to make. We have not believed that the 
 court could be enlightened or brought to a proper conclusion by this 
 method of treatment, and in the original brief we have fully stated 
 the trusts, and, for the. convenience of the court, we have repeated 
 them in a footnote to the English copy of the answer. (See Exhibit 
 A, hereto attached.) In the American view of the matter, a proper 
 conclusion as to the meaning of the instrument in question can only be 
 gained by a, perusal of its essential parts, and any argument predicated 
 upon partial and imperfect quotation must be erroneous in itself, and 
 incidentally have a tendency to mislead the court. 
 
 To the point discussed under this paragraph subsequent reference 
 will be made. 
 
 B. Under this heading, Sr. Mariscal renews the contentions made 
 by him in his letter to Secretary Hay, of date November 28, 1900 
 (Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. 27 et seq.), insisting that only the 
 decisory part of the judgment is to be regarded as res judicata. It 
 will be noted, however, that in the letter above referred to he relied 
 upon Laurent to sustain his contentions. That he was in error as to 
 the effect of the legal citation he then employed, must, we think, appear 
 fully by reference to the letter of Messrs. Ralston and Siddons (Diplo- 
 matic Correspondence, pp. 51 et seq.), wherein it is shown that the 
 citation relied upon by Laurent for his statement was based upon a 
 case not properly involving the principle laid down by him, while upon 
 the very page from which the citation was taken, Laurent showed that 
 if the matters necessary to be found to make up a judgment had been 
 debated between the parties, the judgment of necessity in these inspects 
 had the force of res judicata. It will be borne in mind that before an 
 award could have been given in the former controversy in favor of 
 the bishops of California, it was necessary that the court should have 
 found the existence of a fund, the possession of it by Mexico, her obli- 
 gation to pay interest thereon to the Catholic bishops, the yearly amount 
 due by her on account of such obligation, and the number of years for 
 which she was in default. Questions upon all of these matters were 
 raised. They were made the subject of evidence and fully debated 
 between the parties, and, as Laurent would indicate, having been so 
 debated, the authority of the conclusions reached as res judicata "n'est 
 point douteuse." 
 
 Having therefore abandoned Laurent, he now discusses Savigny, 
 and in the translation of the answer hereto attached (p. 23 a ) he quotes 
 him as expressing his own opinion to the effect that "the force of res 
 judicata does not exist except in the decisory part of the judgment." 
 
 In making this statement Sr. Mariscal is manifestly in error. We 
 hesitate to attribute to him want of care in his reading of Savigny, but 
 the exact language of that author is as follows: 
 
 C'est une doctrine fort ancienne et soutenue par un grand nombre d'auteurs que 
 l'autorife de la chose jugee appartient au jugement seul, et non a ses motifs, et cette 
 doctrine se resume en ces termes: L'autorite de la chose jugee n'existe que pour le 
 dispositif du jugement. (Dr. Kom., tome 6, p. 357.) 
 
 " Page 72, this volume. 
 
58 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 It will be seen that the statement made by Savigny was not a pro- 
 nouncement of his own ideas, as would be implied from the reading of 
 the Mexican answer, but a deduction from the writings of others of 
 their opinion. 
 
 With this statement as the foundation for his discussion, Savigny 
 undertakes to disentangle what he denominates "the confused and 
 erroneous ideas " entertained by the partisans of the doctrine cited for 
 the purpose of discovering its foundation. In the course of his inter- 
 esting and instructive discussion he arrives at the logical and impreg- 
 nable position that — . 
 
 Les Pigments du jugement ont l'autorite 1 de la chose jugee (p. 365). 
 
 Further pursuing the subject, he groups the "motifs "into two 
 classes; those which are objective, or which constitute the elements 
 necessary to be found before any judgment may be given, and those 
 which are subjective, or which influence the mind of the judge to affirm 
 or to deny the existence of these elements (p. 367). Then, stating the 
 principle above given in other words, he declares that — 
 
 Les motifs objectifs (les elements) adoptes par le jug6 ont l'autorite de la chose 
 jug6; les motifs subjectifs n'ont pas l'autorite de la chose jugee. 
 
 With this distinction in mind he finds no difficulty whatsoever in 
 reconciling the divergencies of opinion and explaining the misunder- 
 standings to be found among the various authors. 
 
 The conclusion of Savigny is summed up in these words (p. 376) : 
 
 Les motifs (meaning of the word being as above explained by him) font partie 
 integrante du jugement, et l'autorite de la chose jvgee a pour limites le contenu du 
 jugement y compris ses motifs. 
 
 He further comments: 
 
 Ce principe important, conforme a la mission du jug6, a 6t6 formellement reconnu 
 par le droit romain et appliqu6 dans toute son extension. 
 
 Further pursuing the citations made by Sr. Mariscal from Savigny, 
 we beg to call attention to the fact that on page 25 " (Exhibit A), Jiereto 
 attached, of the answer of Mexico the following language is used: 
 
 In the particular case (which is ours) of a demand for interests founded on a judg- 
 ment which declared them due, after having heard the pleas of the defendant against 
 the right that claimed the capital or rent, Savigny is of opinion that this right has in 
 its favor the force of res judicata; but, at the same time, he observes that Buchka 
 solves the question in the contrary sense in accordance with Roman law; that, in the 
 same sense, the Prussian tribunals have solved it for the reason that a recognition of 
 a right in the reasons (motifs) of a decision does not appertain in fact to the judg- 
 ment, whose decisory Dart alone constitutes res judicata; and Savigny adds: 
 
 ' ' We have not on this point the decision of Roman law, and the texts that are usu- 
 ally cited are foreign to the matter. (D. R., sec. 294; Nos. 3 and 4, note (r) of No. 
 7, and sec. 299, No. 4, T. 6, pp. 397, 401, 446.)" 
 
 In the above summary and citation occur two errors, to us entirely- 
 inexplicable. To understand their nature, let us cite the exact lan- 
 guage used by Savigny, taking it from pages 458 and 459: 
 
 II en est de meme quand le defendeur a ete condamne a payer les intents d'une 
 creance ou les arrerages d'une rente apres avoir contests le droit du demandeur au 
 capital, ou a la rente; ce droit se trouve investi de l'autorite de la chose jugee, par la 
 condamnation. (a). 
 
 (q) Ici encore Buchka a bien r&olu la question pour le droit actuel, mais pour le 
 droit romain il la resout a tort en sens inverse. Vol. I, p. 307, 308; Vol. II, pp. 184, 191. 
 J'ai deja signale, sec. 294, notes (n) et (r),quelques decisions erron6es des tribunaux 
 prussiens sur cette question. 
 
 Nous n'avons pas sur ce point de decision du droit romain, et les textes que l'on a 
 coutume de citer sont strangers a la matiere. 
 
 " Page 73, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNIAS. 59 
 
 Critical comparison of the answer of Mexico with the language of 
 Savigny, which it purports to sum up, will show that Buchka exactly 
 agreed with Savigny as to the present law (a fact overlooked by Mr. 
 Mariscal), and in so far as he undertook to state the Eoman law other- 
 wise, he had, in Savigny's opinion, reached a wrong conclusion (a 
 tort); this commentary also being omitted. 
 
 There are contained in the answer of Mexico three citations from 
 Griolet, who has been correctly quoted as stating in opposition to the 
 opinion of Savigny that neither the subjective or the objective reasons 
 can share in the authority of the judgment, and that the authority of 
 res judicata does not embrace the reasons (motifs). His positions, 
 nevertheless, are not altogether clear, and it is not too much to say 
 they are contradictory. For instance, after referring to the distinc- 
 tions made by Savigny between subjective and objective "motifs," he 
 says (pp. 8 and 9): 
 
 Cette theorie est exacte dans sa plus grande partie, parce qu'on voit que M. de 
 Savigny considerecommemotifs objectifs de la sentence lea rapports de droit en vertu 
 desquels la condanmation est demandee, et les rapports de droit que le defendeur 
 oppose au demand enr pour neutraliser en quelque sorte l'effet des rapports de droit 
 qu'on invoque contre lui, et eviter ou amoindrir la condanmation. 
 
 Furthermore, in the application of the rules govering the subject, 
 he furnishes us with references directly in point for the support of the 
 contentions of the United States. To make clear his understanding 
 of what is said to be his rule, and to furnish applications in point for 
 our present consideration, we copy the following extracts: 
 
 1°. Condamnation du difendeur. — II est facile de reconnaltre quels sont les droits sur 
 lesquels la condamnation suppose une declaration du juge le plus souvent affirmative, 
 quelquefois negative. Ce sont tous les droits dont 1' existence, dans le premier eas, 
 ou l'inexistence, dans le second cas, 6tait necessaire pour justifier l'ordre sanction- 
 nateur. (p. 125.) 
 
 Again, from page 104, we quote two paragraphs: 
 
 Un rapport de droit peut avoir de nombreuses consequences et 6tre l'objet de sanc- 
 tions diverses. Bien qu'on n'ait invoque' qu'une seule de ces consequences ou qu'on 
 n'ait poursuivi qu'une seule de ces sanctions, la declaration que le juge a rendue 
 s'attache au droit lui-meme, en sorte qu'elle serait opposable si on invoquait plus 
 tard une autre consequence du droit, ou si on poursuivait quelque autre des sanctions 
 que ce droit peut recevoir. Cette conclusion est conforme aux decisions de la juris- 
 prudence et des auteurs. 
 
 N'est-elle pourtant pas contraire a la theorie qui exige l'identite de l'objet de la 
 demande? 
 
 Sans abandonner cette theorie, on reconnait que le juge saisi de la revendication a 
 titre hereditaire prononce sur le droit hereditaire, que le juge qui admet un enfant a 
 la succession de son pere le declare enfant legitime (cas. 25 pluv., an 11, D. ch. j., 
 163) , que le juge qui ne condamne qu'au paiement du quart d'une creance, des 
 interets du capital, affirme, dans le premier cas, toute la creance, et, dans le second, 
 la creance du capital (req. 20 decembre 1830, D. ch j., 112; Toulouse, 24 decembre 
 1840, ibid., 113). 
 
 We add from page 105: 
 
 II est done bien admis dans notre droit que la declaration du jugement porte sur 
 le droit conteste tout entier, et non pas seulement sur le droit contests relativement 
 a la condamnation qui 6tait demandee. 
 
 We add from page 131: 
 
 Quelquefois l'existence de plusieurs droits est necessaire pour justifier la condam- 
 nation poursuivie par le demandeur. Quand cette condamnation est prononcee elle 
 implique evidemment l'existence de tous ces droits. Mais on voit non moins aise- 
 ment que l'absolution peut ne pas avoir toujours le meme sens. II suffit en effet, 
 pour qu'elle soit justifiee, qu'un seul des droits necessaires ait fait defaut. Ainsi une 
 demande d'interets suppose qu'un capital est du et que ce capital produit des interets 
 qui sont encore dus. 
 
60 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 We add in a note some references to recent Netherland decisions 
 and authorities sustaining our propositions. ( a ) 
 
 We have heretofore referred to the elements entering into the judg- 
 ment for which we claim the authority of res judicata.^ To deny to 
 these elements, so bound up in the amount for which judgment was 
 finally awarded, the force of res judicata, and to accept the position 
 taken by the Mexican Government, would be to take the position that 
 it is right to regard the quotient as res judicata, but we may not 
 analyze that quotient into its two elements of multiplier and multipli- 
 cand and treat the judgment as determining the amount of the multi- 
 plicand. 
 
 We might cheerfully admit that in the subjective sense, so well 
 pointed out by Savigny, the "motifs" are not to be regarded as enter- 
 ing into the thing adjudged, and, applying this doctrine, say simply 
 
 («) In support of the contentions made by us upon this point, we may cite Deur- 
 waarder's Maanblad, Part 16, March 3, 1900, as showing that in the case of a suit for 
 rent the existence of the lease may be proved by reference to a former judgment in 
 which the tenant was condemned to pay for a prior term. 
 
 Again, as appears by reference to Paleis van Justitie for the year 1901, page 92, a 
 decision of the Leeuwarden court of justice of May 31, 1900, shows that there must 
 be considered as included within the scope of a judgment the questions of law which 
 the judge had to decide in order to arrive at the final decision. 
 
 Again in the Weekblad van het Recht of March 7, 1900, being numbered 7397, we 
 find a decision of the Netherlands High Court of Justice, in which it was advised by 
 the Procureur General that every decision of the judge which by reason of the con- 
 tentions of the parties he might and has given with regard to their rights, is included 
 in the subject-matter of his judgment, no matter in what particular part thereof the 
 decision might be found. The finding of the court in this case was in the line of the 
 above contentions, holding that the subject-matter of the judgment must not be 
 understood to relate exclusively to the actual dictum at its end, but includes the 
 decisions given by the judge with regard to the points of difference between the par- 
 ties as to their rights, provided the requirements of the second clause of article 1954 
 are met. (This article requires that the claim to constitute res judicata be based upon 
 the same cause and made by and against the same parties in the same capacity. ) In 
 the case at bar it was held that although two suits were brought between the same 
 parties, having relation to the same subject-matter, in reality the suit prosecuted is 
 one and the same, dependingupon the same thing — noncompliance with the contract — 
 and therefore the former judgment was received as conclusive evidence as to facts 
 affecting such contract. 
 
 In the observations with regard to the articles of the Civil Code, by C. W. Opzoo- 
 mer, third edition, pages 279 to 281, is to be found a discussion of the subject-matter 
 under consideration. That author considers that — 
 
 "Whatever has once passed through all the forms of a' suit and is legally decided 
 by the judge must never afterwards be subject to any doubt." 
 
 Further discussing, he says: 
 
 ' ' From what has been here discussed it appears that, as the legal bases are actually 
 fundamental parts of the judgment of the judge, they' should be entirely independent 
 of the place in which they appear in such judgment. Whether they are found in 
 the so-called dispositif or whether they be anywhere else is a matter of perfect indif- 
 ference. They become authority not because of the place in which they appear, but 
 because of the inseparable connection in which they stand to the immediate decision. 
 Those who tear the legal basis from the decision follow the abstract method of treat- 
 ment, which in the nature of things regards as divided that which our reasoning power 
 divides." 
 
 The views of Dr. Opzoomer are thoroughly indorsed and followed in Netherland 
 Civil Law, part 3, edition of 1874, pages 234 et seq. Without quoting therefrom at 
 length, the writer says: 
 
 "His (Dr. Opzoomer' s) views are, in my opinion, the correct ones (p. 242). A 
 judgment (p. 256) deciding the existence or nonexistence of a claim for an interest- 
 bearing debt may be relied upon to maintain or contest a claim with relation to 
 unpaid interest, and for or against a claim for adjustment of a debt one may appeal 
 to a judgment in which a decision has been given with regard to a claim for interest 
 based on the existence or nonexistence of the debt." 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 61 
 
 that the reasons influencing the mind of the mixed commission to con- 
 clude that $43,080.79 was the multiplicand, rather than some other 
 sum, and to conclude further that the Roman Catholic bishops of Cali- 
 fornia were the proper plaintiffs, and had a right to demand the sum 
 above indicated yearly, should be rejected as not entering into res 
 judicata, leaving us simply to claim for the substantial elements of 
 the judgment. * 
 
 If we are not right in this contention, and the beneficiary, the num- 
 ber of installments for which judgment has been rendered, and the 
 yearly amount of each installment do not form part of the decisory 
 part of the award, and the judgment may not be inspected for the pur- 
 pose of determining these various elements, so as to inform us as to 
 what yearly claims would be satisfied by "payment, then might the 
 United States hereafter declare that, although a judgment had been 
 obtained against Mexico for a gross sum, such judgment could not 
 constitute a bar to another action for one of the factors of the old 
 judgment, such as a particular yearly installment. Of course, such a 
 suggestion would be regarded as absurd. 
 
 We have up to this time argumentatively assumed the possibility 
 that the determination of the amount due per year and the number of 
 years for which the mixed commission made their calculations might 
 be classed among the "motifs" of the award. In point of fact, we 
 submit that these elements are exactly embraced within its decisory 
 part, the "motifs" being merely the reasoning conducive to the result. 
 Referring to the award itself (Transcript, p. 609), we read as follows: 
 
 The annual amount of interest, therefore, which should fall to the share of the 
 Roman Catholic Church of Upper California is $43,080.79, and the aggregate sum 
 for twenty-one years will be $904,700.79. 
 
 This is the finding of the umpire, and after some further remarks 
 he adds: 
 
 The umpire consequently awards that there be paid by the Mexican Government 
 on account of the above-mentioned claim the sum of nine hundred and four thousand, 
 seven hundred Mexican gold dollars and seventy-nine cents ($904,700.79), with 
 interest. 
 
 The two clauses constitute at # least part of the decisory portion or 
 dispositifol the award, and so treating them, the award as res judicata 
 upon the question of annual payments is free from even the doubt 
 sought to be raised by Mexico on the supposed authority of Laurent, 
 as first suggested by Sr. Mariscal and afterwards abandoned, and lastly 
 upon the authority of Griolet, above analyzed and showed to be lacking 
 in so far as it was used by the minister of foreign affairs to sustain 
 his position. 
 
 Sr. Mariscal, further continuing his discussion of the subject of res 
 judicata, refers to a letter from the American Secretary of State to 
 the Spanish minister, Sr. Muruaga, to the effect that the findings of 
 international commissions — 
 
 Are not to be regarded * * * as authoritative, except in the particular case 
 decided. * * * They do not in any way bind the Government of the United 
 States, except in those cases in which they were rendered. 
 
 In a footnote to the appendix of this replication we have added at 
 the appropriate place the full paragraph contained in the letter of 
 Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, quoted partially and imperfectly by 
 Sr. Mariscal. 
 
 In making the reference last indicated, Sr. Mariscal has, we respect- 
 
62 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 fully submit, committed the same error pointed out on page 55 a of our 
 first brief, under the head of "The doctrine of overruled cases." He 
 has once more confused stare decisis with res judicata. In the refer- 
 ence now made by him, Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, refused to 
 recognize the authority of a decision had between certain parties with 
 relation to a given subject-matter, when it was invoked to control his 
 action in a controversy having relation to an issue between other par- 
 ties with a somewhat different subject-matter. In other words, of 
 course, he refused to recognize the doctrine, not of res judicata, but 
 of stare decisis. No reference other than this having been cited on 
 behalf of the Mexican Government, believed by it to show that the 
 doctrine of res judicata does not apply to arbitral tribunals, we may 
 conclude that none exists. 
 
 We are fortunately able, in opposition to the suggestion of Sr. 
 Mariscal that the decisions of arbitral tribunals have not the force of 
 res judicata, to quote that gentleman himself, for in addressing Mr. 
 Clayton, under date of November 28, 1900 (Diplomatic Correspondence, 
 p. 31), he writes as follows: 
 
 That res judicata pro veritate accipitur is a principle admitted in all legislation, and 
 belonging to the Eoman law, certainly no one will deny. Nor is it denied that a 
 tribunal or judge established by international arbitration gives to its decisions "pro- 
 nounced within the limits of its jurisdiction" (in the language of the authority cited by 
 Mr. McCreery) the force of res judicata; but to give in practice the same force as that 
 directly expressed in the decision to close the litigation, to the considerations or 
 premises not precisely expressed as points decided by the judge, but simply referred 
 to by him in the bases of his decision, or assumed as antecedents necessary for the 
 party in interest who interprets the decision, is a very different thing and can not be 
 considered in the same way. 
 
 Nowhere in the course of the present answer has Sr. Mariscal dis- 
 tinctly denied the jurisdiction of the mixed commission. Not having 
 denied such jurisdiction, according to the citations given, its decisions 
 have "the force of res judicata." 
 
 That the Mexican commissioner (member of the mixed commission 
 of 1868) believed the award would constitute res judicata is shown on 
 pages 44 and 45 b of brief of agent and counsel of the United States, 
 and that Mexico's former counsel agreed to the proposition is fully 
 developed on page 14 c of the brief of the Messrs. Doyle. 
 
 It is a matter of pleasure to be able to add to this replication a 
 reference to the Civil Law of the Netherlands, edition of 1874, Part 
 III, page 242, to the effect that as to res judicata, "Even the judg- 
 ments of arbitrations are in precisely the same condition as judicial 
 decisions." 
 
 It may not be inappropriate at this moment to congratulate the 
 present tribunal upon the fact that the first controversy submitted to 
 arbitration under the provisions of The Hague Convention will enable 
 this court, if in its judgment it be right, to declare once and for all 
 time that to the findings of arbitral tribunals there attaches at least 
 the same sanctity and conclusiveness as pertains to the judgments of 
 the least important courts, passing upon the most trifling disputes 
 likely to arise between man and man. 
 
 If the Permanent Court of Arbitration can give no greater degree 
 of permanence and finality to its utterances than may be inferred from 
 the present answer of Mexico through Sr. Mariscal, then indeed may 
 the outlook for solemn and conclusive arbitration be considered as 
 gloomy and discouraging. The United States adhere to a view which 
 
 « Page 237, this volum e, » Pages 229, 230, this volume. « Page 271 , this volume, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 63 
 
 we believe will tell in the future in favor of the peace and well-being 
 of the world, in that it will tend, if maintained, to insure absolutely 
 the peaceful settlement of difficulties. 
 
 Under a further subheading of the present paragraph, it is con- 
 tended by Sr. Mariscal that any right the claimants may have had in 
 the beginning of the year 1848 was completely extinguished by the 
 treaty of peace and friendship which was consummated February 2 of 
 that year between Mexico and the United States; and this for the 
 reason that Article XIV of that treaty declares that all debts and 
 claims not decided up to that time, and which the citizens of the last- 
 named country should hold against the former, would be considered 
 ended and canceled forever. 
 
 The particular reason for the insertion of this article is found in the 
 fact that some years previously, and before the breaking out of the 
 war between the two countries, there had been a commission in session 
 for the settlement of claims between the citizens of one country and 
 the government of the other, respectively; that many of the claims 
 had remained legally incomplete and unsettled, and that it was the 
 design of both Governments to put an end to the old litigations. It 
 could not have the slightest relation to the claims of those who became 
 citizens from or at any time after the date of the treaty. The argu- 
 ment upon this point now being urged by Sr. Mariscal was presented 
 by the Mexican Government in the litigation before the former mixed 
 commission, and was passed upon unfavorably to the Mexican conten- 
 tions, as certainly it could not have been the intention of Mexico, by 
 a treaty had between it and the United States, to cancel claims against 
 itself of those who up to the date of its signing had been its own 
 citizens. 
 
 The further suggestion is made by Mexico that the claim is extin- 
 guished because, being in the nature of an annuity of one sort or 
 another, it should be considered real property, subject to the legislation 
 of the country in which it was held, and barred by the running of its 
 statute of limitations. 
 
 It has never yet been held in international tribunals that a claim 
 brought before them could be defeated by reason of the existence of a 
 statute of this sort, such statute having no authority whatsoever over 
 international courts. The purpose and effect of statutes of this kind, 
 as is well known, is not to extinguish the right, but to bar the remedy. 
 Their operation, therefore, may be waived by the defendants, and the 
 very agreement to submit a claim to arbitration is a waiver. 
 
 By the terms of the protocol it is agreed between the two countries 
 that reference be made specifically to determine whether the claim is 
 within the governing principle of res judicata, and if not " whether the 
 same be just," and the award if against the Republic of Mexico must 
 be for "such amount as under the contentions and evidence may be 
 just." Even without these specific clauses, which of themselves effec- 
 tually prevent any appeal to a statute of limitations and offer a consid- 
 eration absolutely determinative of the plea now presented by Mexico, 
 international tribunals are controlled in their operations by broad prin- 
 ciples of right and justice, and this tribunal can not, of course, recog- 
 nize that injustice becomes justice by the simple efflux of time without 
 culpable laches on the part of the creditor or by the act of debtor 
 declaring the claim barred. 
 
 After the reasons above given, we may dismiss without further dis- 
 
64 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 cussion the references' made to Sala. Dro. Real de Espana, Tom. I, 
 lib. 2, tit. 14; art. 1103, Civil Code; the decree of June 22, 1885, 
 and Article XV of September 6, 1894, even if it were not true that 
 the claim now under consideration, so far as it had then accrued, had 
 been presented to Mexico before the last-named law had gone into 
 effect, and on August 17, 1891. (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 8.) 
 Just about that time Mexico paid the last installment of the former 
 judgment. 
 
 Messrs. Stewart and Kappler have so fully pointed out in the brief 
 filed by them that the purpose of the Pious Fund was to maintain the 
 Catholic Church and its missions, as well as to civilize and convert the 
 Indians, that but little time need be spent over the point discussed by 
 Mexico under this heading. We may, however, remark that Mexico's 
 position is largely predicated upon the asserted control by the Mexican 
 Government over all the goods of the church and the assumption that 
 since the separation of California from Mexico she had rightfully 
 exercised this control, even though prejudicially to the California 
 bishops. 
 
 In considering this argument, the fact is not to be lost sight of that 
 at the time of the cession of Upper California to the United States 
 Mexico was under an acknowledged obligation to pay a certain income, 
 based upon the estimated values of the properties of the Pious Fund, 
 to the bishops of California for church purposes. The bisliop of Upper 
 California very shortly after the transfer became a corporation sole 
 under the American law. The obligation then existed on the part of 
 Mexico to pay the income, at least in a proper proportion, to the bishop 
 of California, as that country existed in the United States, and what- 
 ever might have been the power of Mexico to use the property of the 
 Eoman Catholic Church of Mexico for its own purposes, such power 
 could not extend to property belonging to, or income payable to, a 
 religious corporation which had become the citizen of another country, 
 whose laws did not recognize the power, either in itself pr in a foreign 
 nation, to sequester the property of the church without just compen- 
 sation. In other words, even though it be granted (and we do not 
 make this concession) that Mexico had the right to sequester the 
 property of its own religious corporations, no right could be exercised 
 as against such corporations or bodies, citizens of the United States. 
 To hold otherwise would be to give extraterritorial effect to the sup- 
 posed right of sequestration or confiscation. 
 
 To explain at this point the legal position occupied by the bishop 
 of California under the Mexican law, we refer to the argument of 
 Senor Aspiroz, page 395, paragraph 126, of the Transcript, stating as 
 follows: 
 
 126. The merely canonical creation of the Church of California may have given it 
 a standing in the Universal Church, as a religious body, but it would not have been 
 sufficient to entitle it to recognition of the sovereign of the country; hence the said 
 church was created by virtue of a decree of tne Mexican Congress. This, which 
 occurred m a nation officially Catholic, is the same as is established by the laws of 
 the United States to entitle a corporation to be acknowledged by public law as has 
 been repeatedly decided, in accordance with the public law of all nations. 
 
 The church, therefore, having a recognized legal existence and being 
 possessed of certain rights under the laws of Mexico at the time of 
 the cession of California to the United States, was, according to the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 65 
 
 principles of international law, entitled to maintain its legal existence 
 under the new sovereignty, as was indicated in the opinion of the 
 umpire. (Transcript, p. 606.) 
 
 To the suggestion made on behalf of Mexico that the nonexistence 
 ot uncivilized or idolatrous Indians should entail at the same time the 
 withdrawal of the support offered the missionaries, we have to repeat 
 our former remark to the effect that Mexico has apparently forgotten 
 the first and principal purpose of the foundation deed, which was to 
 s "PE° 1 r . t the Catholic Church and its missions, "so that even in case of 
 all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic faith, 
 the profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said mis- 
 sions and their support." For this reason, the remark contained on 
 page 13 a of the answer, to the effect that "it is necessary to take into 
 account that in Upper California there exist no tribes of uncivilized 
 Indians whose subjugation to the secular power of New Spain and con- 
 version to the Catholic -faith was the principal object or direct end of 
 the missions of the Jesuits, endowed with the properties of the Pious 
 Fund of the Calif ornias," becomes immaterial, and any evidence tend- 
 ing to sustain this point incompetent and beside the purpose. 
 
 We desire, however, to be distinctly understood as denying the state- 
 ment of fact last quoted in whatever form it occurs in the answer. 
 There are, as we shall be prepared to show if material, many thousands 
 of uncivilized Indians in Upper California, while the whole Roman 
 Catholic Church of that territory is canonically recognized as mission- 
 ary in character. Meanwhile the disappearance of the Indian popula- 
 tion of Lower California is graphically shown by Exhibit C. 
 
 It is contended in the corresponding paragraph of the answer that 
 the Mexican Government possessed the exclusive right of investing 
 the fund and applying its proceeds according to the intentions of the 
 donors, and that this right had been recognized on the part of the 
 claimants. We deny both these propositions. 
 
 The Mexican Government itself has in its legislation, as we have 
 pointed out in another brief, and before in this, under the head of 
 Paragraph I (pp. 1 and 2*), admitted that the proper person to apply 
 the proceeds, according to the intention of the donors, was the bishop 
 of the Californias. We further deny, as a matter of right, that any 
 person other than the bishop could have properly administered the 
 funds designed for the benefit of the church, in accordance with the 
 wishes of the founders of the Pious Fund, and this position was f ully 
 recognized by Mexico in the several laws referred to in the course of 
 this brief, as well as sustained by its established course of conduct. 
 
 The distinguished minister of foreign affairs of Mexico further errs, 
 as we have said, in his statement that any exclusive right on the part 
 of the Mexican Government to invest the fund and apply its proceeds 
 has been recognized by the claimant. In reaching the conclusion 
 maintained he has made (as shown by note to translation of answer 
 attached hereto) a partial and entirely imperfect citation from a brief 
 on behalf of the Roman Catholic bishops of California, omitting entire 
 sentences and part of one sentence explaining and defining the posi- 
 es Page 79, this volume. 
 6 Page 56, this volume. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 5 
 
66 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 tion entertained by the bishops. Correcting the errors and supplying 
 the omissions, it is manifest that the contention of the parties in inter- 
 est was that Mexico, as trustee, had charged itself with the payment 
 of a definite amount, fixed by the Mexican Government at a sum equal 
 to 6 per cent upon the total capitalization of the Pious Fund ; that Mexico 
 had recognized the definite character of the claim against her for a 
 certain annual charge; that having assumed a trust relation, and under- 
 taken to pay an annuity to the bishop of California, she was not at 
 liberty to disregard the undertaking. It may not, therefore, be said, 
 and the language used on behalf of the bishops can not be tortured 
 into an admission, that Mexico has been recognized as having a right 
 to administer the fund and dispose of the proceeds otherwise than by 
 delivery to the bishops of the Calif or nias. 
 
 VI. 
 
 This paragraph of the reply of Mexico would convey the inference, 
 to support or to contradict which discovery has been asked by the 
 United States, that since 1848 Mexico has centered its care and protec- 
 tion, so far as the Pious Fund is concerned, on Lower California. We 
 do not consider it in truth important whether this be the fact or not. 
 The more important point is that the most considerable beneficiary 
 (the Catholic Church of Upper California, and the missions subordinate 
 thereto), has received no assistance from the fund, to the income of 
 which it was the principal claimant, since 1848, except as the result of 
 the decision of the mixed commission. To show the disappearance of 
 the Indians of Lower California, we again refer to Exhibit C, hereto 
 attached. 
 
 VII. 
 
 We are left at a disadvantage in replying to this paragraph of the 
 answer of Mexico, the right being reserved by that country of pre- 
 senting in the course of the proceedings a basis for a settlement, which, 
 as it is said, Mexico has not yet found it possible to conclude. Never- 
 theless there are certain considerations which should be submitted. 
 
 Instead of the suggestion next made by Mexico that justice demands 
 the privilege of paj-ment in silver of any judgment against that coun- 
 try, we insist that justice would more naturally require that interest 
 be charged against Mexico on every yearly installment from the 24th 
 day of October of each year to the date of the protocol providing for 
 the present court. 
 
 Mexico occupies the position of a trustee. The unquestionable duty 
 of a trustee is to make payments to the beneficiary as they become 
 due. A trustee who withholds payments therefrom is, and of right 
 ought to be, chargeable with interest from the date of his default. 
 
 Mexico further charges the United States with having exaggerated 
 the claim, because of the fact that in the former adjudication there 
 was included in the basis of calculation of the court the property 
 that belonged to the Marchioness de las Torres de Rada, and says that 
 its assertions with relation thereto "will no doubt astonish the claim- 
 ants, who have made a minute study with regard to the donations of 
 said properties made to the Pious Fund; but it is to be observed that 
 there has very recently been discovered in the general archives of the 
 Republic important data which verifies the foregoing statement," (the 
 statement being that the value of the properties of the Marchioness de 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIA8. 67 
 
 las Torres de Rada formed the greater part of the amount demanded, 
 and that there was nevertheless no legal basis on which to claim it). 
 
 The claimants are astonished by this assertion, but not quite in the 
 manner anticipated by Mexico. The facts contained in the volume of 
 ancient records (Pleito de Rada) produced by Mexico were substantially 
 all familiar to the claimants in the suit of Alemany v. Mexico, as will 
 appear by reference to pages 518-521 of the Transcript. Therein will 
 be found a history prepared by Pedro Ramirez, the agent of the bishop 
 of California, substantially complete in all respects, and in general 
 agreement with the volume Mexico now produces. For the purpose 
 of the further enlightenment of the present tribunal we have added in 
 the form of an appendix to this replication an abstract of the contents 
 of the volume in question, together with a copy of the decree con- 
 tained at its close, translated into English, the summary so added being 
 supplemented as to some of its details by reference to the review of 
 the litigation written by Ramirez and before referred to. 
 
 At the present time we shall direct the attention of the court to but 
 one or two facts. The decree closing the volume in question was not 
 a final decree settling the title of the property, as might fairly be 
 implied from the Mexican answer. To the contrary, while determin- 
 ing the title to certain offices it remanded the cause to the lower court 
 to settle the question of the rights in the other property of the Mar- 
 chioness and her successors, together with the other litigants, "in 
 order that they may make use of it as they see fit, according to the 
 respective rights deduced in that audiencia where they shall execute 
 it." It thus appears that the record Mexico has now supplied to the 
 court is incomplete and imperfect, and reference must be made to the 
 statements of Ramirez for information as to the further course of the 
 litigation. It is, however, apparent, taking the record and the state- 
 ments of Ramirez in conjunction, that no order was ever passed 
 declaring the Marchioness and her successors to be without interest in 
 the lands claimed by them, but that there was finally granted simply 
 a money judgment. No attempt seems ever to have been made to 
 disturb the title of the Pious Fund to the Rada property, and the last 
 step taken in the litigation was the levying of an attachment, not 
 against the Rada and Villapuente property, but against the Cienaga del 
 Pastor and the house on Vergara street (Transcript, p. 520), both of 
 which came to the Pious Fund from the property left by Madame de 
 Arguelles. It thus remains incorrect to say, in effect, as has been 
 averred in the answer, that the Pious Fund had no legal basis on which 
 to claim the properties that belonged to the Marchioness de las Torres 
 de Rada, and this particularly in view of the fact that the fund was 
 never disturbed in its possession thereof until it was sold by Mexico. 
 
 As to the money judgment in favor of the heirs of de Rada above 
 referred to, it could have^been settled prior to the reassumption of con- 
 trol by Mexico for the sum of $210,000 (Transcript, p. 521). Mexico 
 thereafter sold this particular property, despite the attachment, for a 
 price which yielded for the interest of the Pious Fund $213,750 (see 
 copy Escritura de Venta, Exhibit D, hereto attached), and so far as 
 the record discloses, no part of this money was ever paid out in settle- 
 ment of any supposed claim against the fund, but Mexico received the 
 exclusive benefit thereof, and failing to disclose this fact there was 
 excluded from the calculations of the former commission (Transcript, 
 opinion of Commissioner Wadsworth, p. 526, followed by Umpire, 
 
68 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 p. 609) the sum of about $200,000. Had all the facts with relation to 
 the transaction been disclosed by Mexico to the mixed commission, 
 there seems no doubt that a much larger award would then have been 
 rendered against Mexico, but with the additional facts now before this 
 court, in the event of the reopening of the former decision, the United 
 States will insist strenuously upon the calculation of annuity in favor 
 of the Pious Fund upon the additional amount of $213,750, as derived 
 from the sale of Cienaga del Pastor (the property so excluded) since 
 1848. 
 
 On behalf of the United States, I respectfully submit that the alle- 
 gations and prayers of the memorial have not been met by the answer 
 of Mexico. 
 
 Jackson H. Ealston, 
 Agent of the United States and of Ccmnsel. 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 [Translation from the Spanish. See p. 30.] 
 
 Answer to the memorial upon the claim, presented by the United States 
 of America against Mexico in regard to the so-called " Pious Fund of 
 the Californias." 
 
 Reserving the privilege to produce on the part of the Mexican Re- 
 public, in exercise of the right which belongs to it under the protocol 
 concluded in Washington the 22d of May last, for the arbitration of 
 this claim, proofs of the contentions which are hereafter set forth and 
 of others that may be appropriate, such as defenses and proper allega- 
 tions, the undersigned, the authorized representative of the Govern- 
 ment of Mexico, asks that the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The 
 Hague set aside the claim for the following reasons: 
 
 First. Lack of title of the Archbishop of San Francisco and of the 
 bishop of Monterey to present themselves as legal trustees of the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias. 
 
 Second. Want of right of the Catholic Church of Upper California 
 to demand interests originating in the supposed fund. 
 
 Third. Insufficiency or extinction of title on which the archbishop' 
 and bishop, above mentioned, base their claim. 
 
 Fourth. Nonexistence of the object attributed to the institution of 
 the fund, so far as regards Upper California. 
 
 Fifth. The exclusive right of the Mexican Government to employ 
 the fund and dispose of the proceeds, without the intervention of the 
 church of Upper California. 
 
 Sixth. The use which the Government made of said right; and 
 
 Seventh. The exaggeration of the demand. 
 
 The claimants agree with the Government of Mexico in admitting the 
 following facts, proved by irrefutable documents: 
 
 First. The Jesuits were the original trustees or administrators of the 
 properties which constituted the Pious Fund of the Californias up to 
 the year 1768, when they were expelled from Spanish dominions. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 69 
 
 Second. The Spanish Crown, in place of the Jesuits, took possession 
 of the properties which constituted the aforesaid Pious Fund, and 
 administered them by means of a . Royal Commission until the inde- 
 pendence of Mexico was achieved. 
 
 Third. -The Mexican Government which succeeded the Spanish Gov- 
 ernment was, as the latter had been, trustee (comisario) of the fund, 
 and in this conception successor of the Jesuit Missionaries, with all the 
 rights granted to them by the founders. 
 
 In order that the archbishop and bishop, the claimants, may be con- 
 sidered trustees (comisarios) by succession, as they contend, they would 
 have to prove their actual position as successors in interest of the 
 Mexican Government, co perpetual, general, or particular title. In 
 no other way could the attitude in which they present themselves as 
 creditors against their alleged debtor be explained. 
 
 In fact, they claim as title of succession that the direct representa- 
 tion of the government, and the indirect of the Jesuits, was granted 
 to them by the deci'ee of the Mexican Congress, issued on the 19th of 
 September, 1836, which authorized the placing at the disposition of the 
 Bishop of the Californias and his successors the properties belonging 
 to the Pious Fund of the Californias, to be administered and invested 
 in their enterprises, or other analogous ones, respecting always the wish 
 of the founders. But the same claimants acknowledge that the afore- 
 said decree was repealed on the 8th of February, 1842, by General Santa 
 Ana, provisional president of the Republic, invested with extraordinary 
 powers, which devolve upon the Mexican Government the administra- 
 tion and employment of the proceeds of the properties in the way and 
 manner which it should determine, in carrying out the objects proposed 
 by the founders — the civilization and conversion of the heathen. Later, 
 on the 24th of October of the same year, the properties were directed 
 to be sold and the proceeds to be incorporated into the National Treas- 
 ury to constitute a secured annuity (censo consignativo) at the rate of 
 6 per cent per annum, to be used for the purpose of the original 
 foundation. 
 
 No later law granted to the bishops of the Californias the right to 
 receive and apply to their enterprises the interests of the aforesaid 
 annuity. It is true that the Mexican Government issued another decree, 
 on the 3d of April, 1845, directing that all the properties of the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias, remaining unsold, should be returned to the 
 bishop of the Californias, and to his successors, for the ends set forth 
 in article 6 of the law of September 19, 1836, without prejudice (it was 
 said) "to what Congress shall afterwards determine concerning the 
 properties already disposed of." Although the tenor of this decree, 
 gave an excuse to the umpire under the mixed commission of 1875 to 
 declare that the obligation of remitting to the bishop the proceeds of 
 the fund was recognized in it, it has not seemed advisable to the claim- 
 ants' attorneys to allege it in support of their present claims, certainly 
 because that decree refers to unsold properties, whose value clearly 
 had not been incorporated into the National Treasury, and not to the 
 revenues or interests upon the proceeds of the properties sold, touch- 
 ing which Congress had expressly reserved the right to decide. This 
 right was never exercised, and therefore the last decree has not bet- 
 tered the situation in which the bishop of the Californias was placed 
 by the decree of the 8th of February, 1842, which deprived him of the 
 charge of using for the missions the revenues from the annual 6 per 
 
70 PIOUS FUKD OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 cent upon the proceeds of the properties sold, which revenues are the 
 only subject-matter of the present claim. 
 
 II 
 
 The Catholic Church of Upper California never could, of its own 
 right, administer the Pious Fund of the Californias, nor demand its 
 proceeds, for the simple reason that they were not granted it by the 
 founders, nor by the Jesuits, who were the original trustees (comisarios), 
 nor by the Spanish Government that succeeded them, nor by the 
 Mexican Government that succeeded the Spanish, and which, like that 
 Government and the Jesuits, acquired the right of using the properties 
 of the fund in question for the missions of the Californias, or for any 
 others within its dominions, at its free will and discretion alone. Such 
 discretionary power will not permit coercion, which is an attribute of 
 perfect right. Therefore, although for the sake of the argument, the 
 representation of the Jesuit missions (expressly suppressed by Pope 
 Clement XIV since the year 1773) might be conceded to the Catholic 
 Church of Upper California, that church would have no right to demand 
 the interests of the Pious Fund. 
 
 The decree of the 19th of September, 1836, above cited, on which 
 the claimants pretend to base their rights, only conferred on the first 
 bishop of the Californias and upon his successors the administration 
 of the fund, during the will of the Government, with the obligation of 
 employing the income for the ends indicated by the founders or for 
 other like objects; but did not give either to them or to the church 
 they represented an irrevocable right; and, moreover, it (this decree) 
 was repealed by that of the 8th of February, 1842, which withdrew 
 from the bishops of the Californias the administration of the fund 
 and devolved it upon the Government. 
 
 III. 
 
 No existing law being able to establish any title to this claim, the 
 claimants wish to supply it with the so-called foundation deed of the 
 pious work, or with the decision rendered by the Mixed Claims Com- 
 mission, established at Washington under the convention between 
 Mexico and the United States, signed on the 4th of July, 1868, which 
 decision was given on the 11th of October, 1875, claiming it to cause 
 res judicata. 
 
 A. As to the first, it will suffice to show that it does not favor the 
 pretentions of the claimants, to quote the following clauses from the 
 instrument which they take as an example of the donations that were 
 made to the fund: a 
 
 This donation * * * we make * * * to said missions founded, and which 
 may hereafter be founded, in the Californias, not only as for the maintenance of 
 their religious, and to provide for the support and conduct of divine worship, but 
 
 «The full and exact trusts, including all omitted portions, read as follows: 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be founded, 
 in the Californias, as well for the maintenance of their religious, and to provide for 
 the ornament and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the native converts 
 and catechumens with food and clothing, according to the destitution of that coun- 
 try; so that if hereafter, by God's blessing, there be means of support in the "reduc- 
 tions" and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their lands thus 
 obviating the necessity of sending from this country provisions, clothing, and other 
 
• PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 71 
 
 also to aid the native converts and catechumens by the same (probably "from the 
 misery") of that country: so that if thereafter, by God's blessing, there be means 
 of support in the "reductions" and missions now established — as ex. gr. by the 
 cultivation of their lands, thus obviating the necessity of sending from this country cloth- 
 ing and other necessaries — the rents and products of said estates shall be applied of 
 {surely to) «ew missions * * * and in case the Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by 
 compulsion, should abandon said missions of the Calif ornias, or, which God forbid, the 
 natives of that country should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any 
 other (such) contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend 
 father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain, for the time being, to 
 apply the profits of said estates, their products and improvements, to other missions in 
 the undiscovered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, as he 
 may deem most pleasing to Almighty God; and in such a way that the government of said 
 estates be always and perpetually continued in the reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, 
 so that no judge, ecclesiastical or secular, shall exercise any control therein * * * we 
 desire that at no time shall this donation be set aside nor shall any judge, ecclesias- 
 tical or secular, undertake to investigate or intervene to ascertain whether the conditions of 
 this donation be fulfilled; for our will is that in this matter there shall be no pretense for 
 such intervention, and that whether the said reverend society fulfills or does not fulfill the 
 trusts in favor of the missions herein contained it shall render account to God, our Lord, 
 alone. 
 
 B.- The decision above referred to, rendered in Washington on the 
 11th of November, 1875, could not prejudge the present claim, which, 
 therefore, can not be regarded as res judicata. 
 
 Now we are treating of a claim for new interests, and even if the claim- 
 ants maintain that in condemning Mexico to pay the accrued interests 
 up to a certain date, it was declared impliedly that the capital existed 
 and would continue to produce revenues, those would be considerations 
 or reasons (motifs) for the judgment which was made that the Republic 
 of Mexico must pay a definite amount of accrued interest to which the 
 claim was limited. 
 
 The immutability of a judgment and its force as res judicata belong 
 alone to its conclusion (conclusion); that is, to that part which pro- 
 necessaries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new missions to 
 be established hereafter in the unexplored parts of the said Californias, according to 
 the discretion of the Father Superior of said missions; and the estates aforesaid shall 
 be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that, even in case of all Cali- 
 fornia being civilized and converted to our holy catholic faith, the profits of said 
 estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their support; and in 
 case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should aban- 
 don said missions of the Californias, or (which God forbid) the natives of that country 
 should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such contingency, 
 then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father provincial of 
 the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being to apply the profits of said 
 estates, their products, and improvements to other missions in the undiscovered por- 
 tions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, according as he 
 may deem most pleasing to Almighty God, and in such ways that the government 
 of said estates be always and perpetually continued in the reverend Society of Jesus 
 and its prelates, so that no judges, ecclesiastical or secular, shall exercise any control 
 therein or intervene in or about the same; and all such rents and profits shall be 
 applied to the purposes and objects herein specified, i. e., the propagation of our 
 holy catholic faith; and by this deed of gift we, the said grantors, both divest our- 
 selves of and renounce absolutely all property, dominion, ownership, rights, and 
 actions, real and personal, direct and executive, thereover, and all others whatever 
 which belong to us or which from any other cause, title, or reason may belong or 
 appertain to us; and we cede, renounce, and transfer the whole thereof to said rev- 
 erend Society of Jesus, its missions of Californias, its prelates and religious, under 
 whose charge may happen to be the government of said missions and of this province 
 of New Spain, now and at all times hereafter, in order that from the profits of said 
 estates and the increase of their cattle, large and small, their other gains, natural or 
 otherwise, they may maintain said missions in the manner above proposed, indi- 
 cated, defined, and laid down forever. (Following parts of quotation not included 
 as not properly trusts.)— J. H. Ralston, agent United States. 
 
72 PIOUS FUND OF THE californias. • 
 
 nounces acquittal or condemnation, guodjussit vetuitve. This propo- 
 sition is scarcely open to question, and therefore the greater part of 
 authorities, in expounding the theory of res judicata, attributes it to 
 the decisory part of the judgment, so that its extension to the reasons 
 (motifs) is a matter of controversy only to a few. 
 
 Among those who favor that extension are found, it is true, author- 
 ities as noted as that of Savigny; but there are no less noted ones, and 
 they are in greater numbers, who hold the contrary opinion. The same 
 noted authority that I have just named, declares that — 
 
 " It is a very old doctrine, sustained by a large number of authori- 
 ties, that the legal principle of res judicata belongs exclusively to the 
 decision (resolucion), and the reasons are not embraced in it," summing 
 up his doctrine in these terms: 
 
 "The force of res judicata does not exist except in the decisory part 
 of the judgment." 
 
 (Savigny: Droit Romain, sec. 291, T. 6, p. 347. ) a 
 
 "The greater number of authorities," he adds, "deny absolutely to 
 the reasons (motifs) the force of res judicata, not excepting the case 
 where the reasons (motifs) are apart of the judgment. (Sec. 293, T. 6, 
 p. 382.) 6 
 
 Griolet expresses himself as follows: 
 
 The judgment supposes always several propositions which, the judge has had to 
 admit in rendering a decision upon controverted rights and which under our law 
 (the French) the judgment usually expresses. These are the reasons (motifs). We 
 have already shown, in opposition to the opinion of Savigny, that neither the sub- 
 jective nor objective reasons (motifs) should share the authority of the judgment, 
 because the judge has not the duty of deciding upon juridical principles nor upon 
 the existence of facts. 
 
 * * * We have, then, already shown,, in all cases that may be presented, that 
 the authority of res judicata does not embrace the reasons (motifs) of the judgment, 
 nor even the affirmation or denial of the cause of the rights adjudged. * * * 
 
 The same writer adds: 
 
 None of our authorities, in fact, have shown a system analogous to that of M. 
 Savigny upon the authority of the reasons, and French jurisprudence recognizes 
 the principle that res judicata does not extend to any of the reasons of the sen- 
 tence. * * * 
 
 On the authority of res judicata (pages 135, 168, 169, and 173.) c 
 
 «The exact language of M. Savigny is as follows: 
 
 "O'est une doctrine fort ancienne et soutenue par un grand nombre d'auteurs que 
 l'autorite' de la chose jugee appartient au jugement seul, et non a ses motifs, et cette 
 doctrine se resume en ces termes: L'autorite de la chose jugee n'existe que pour le 
 dispositif du jugement." (Savigny, vol. 6, p. 357.) J. H. Ralston, Agent United 
 States. 
 
 6 "La plupart refuse absolument aux motifs l'autorite de la chose jugee sansmeme 
 excepter le cas ou les motifs font partie integrante du prononce' du jugement." 
 (Savigny, vol. 6, pp. 393, 394. ) J. H. Ralston, Agent United States. 
 
 <"'La decision suppose et le plus souvent, dans notre droit, le jugement exprime 
 diverges propositions que le juge a du admettre pour rendre sa declaration sur les 
 droits contestes. Ce sont les motifs. Nous avons dejft montre, contrairement a 
 1' opinion de M. de Savigny, que ni les motifs subjectifs, ni les motifs objectifs ne 
 doiventparticiper a l'autorite des jugements, parceque le juge n'a pas mission de pro- 
 noncer sur la verite des principes ou sur 1' existence des faits." (Griolet p 113 ) 
 
 "Aucun de nos auteurs en effet n'a enseigne un systeme analogue a celui de M de 
 Savigny sur l'autorite des motifs. Et la jurisprudence reconnait en principe que 
 l'autorite de la chose jugee ne s'etend a aucun des motifs de la decision." (Griolet n 
 103.) J. H. Ralston, Agent United States. ' 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 73 
 
 As to Prussian law, the same Savigny says: 
 
 Regarding the force of the reasons, a text exists that at first glance appears to 
 exclude it absolutely, giving the greatest importance to the part that contains the 
 judicial decision. (Allg. Gerichtsordnung, I, 1313, p. 38.) Judges and those ren- 
 dering decisions must carefully distinguish the real judgment from the reasons 
 (motifs), and give them a distinct place, and never confuse them, because simple 
 reasons should never have the force of res judicata. (D. R., sec. 294, T. 6, pp. 389, 
 390. ) a ,w ' 
 
 Spanish tribunals have constantly excluded appeal for annulment 
 attempted against the foundations of a definitive sentence by not recog- 
 nizing in them, except in the decisory part, the force of res judicata, 
 the only subject for appeal. (Pantoja, Eep. pp. 491, 955, '960, 970, 
 and 979.) 
 
 In the particular case (which is ours) of a demand for interests 
 founded on a judgment which declared them due, after having heard 
 the pleas of the defendant against the right that claimed the capital 
 or rent, Savigny is of opinion that this right has in its favor the 
 force of res judicata; but, at the same time, he observes that Buchka 
 solves the question in the contrary sense in accordance with Roman 
 law; that, in the same sense, the Prussian tribunals have solved it, for 
 the reason that the recognition of a right in the reasons (motifs) of a 
 decision does not appertain in fact to the judgment, whose decisory 
 part alone constitutes res judicata; and Savigny adds: 
 
 We have not, on this point, the decision of "Roman law, and the texts that are 
 usually cited are foreign to the matter. (D. R. sec. 294, Nos. 3 and 4, note (r) of 
 7, and sec. 299, No. 4, T. 6, pp. 397, 401, 446.) & 
 
 Nevertheless it is positive that Ulpian says: 
 
 Si in judicio actum sit usuraeque solae petitae sint, non est verendum ne noceat 
 rei judicatae exceptio circa sortis petionem: Quia enim non competit nee opposita nocet. 
 
 Such is the principle of the law 23 D., of Exc. Rei. Jud. ; and even 
 though it appears to be in contradiction with what follows in it, that 
 apparent conflict of law is explained satisfactorily by Griolet, pages 46 
 and 47, to which I refer in order to avoid dealing at too much length 
 with this subject. I have adduced all the preceding citations because 
 up to this time the point has been but lightly touched upon in the 
 diplomatic correspondence in connection with the claim. 
 
 I must add, however, that if the foregoing is true respecting judg- 
 ments rendered by judges invested with public authority to act in the 
 case, their reasons (motifs) and inferences (consecuencias) it is much 
 
 "(«) Quant a l'autorite des motifs, il y a un texte qui au premier abord semble 
 l'exclure absolument et attacher la plus haute importance a la place qu'occupe une 
 decision juditiaire. Allg. Gerichtsordnung, I, 13, sec. 18: Les colleges de juges et les 
 r£daeteurs des jugements doivent soigneusement distinguer la decision reelle de ses 
 motifs, et leur. assigner une place distincte, et ne jamais les confondre, car de simples 
 motifs ne doivent jamais avoir l'autorite" de la chose jugee. (Savigny, vol. 6, p. 401. ) 
 J. H. Ralston, Agent United States. 
 
 "( 6 ) II en est de meme quand le defendeur a ete" condamne it payer les interets 
 d'une crfsance ou les arr^rages d'une rente apres avoir contests le droit du demandeur 
 au capital ou a la rente; ce droit se trouve investi de l'autorite" de la chose jug£e, par 
 la condemnation, (q) 
 
 "Nous n'avons sur ce point de decision du droit romain, et les textes que l'on a 
 coutume de citer sont strangers a la matiere (Savigny, vol. 6, pp. 458, 459). J. H. 
 Ralston, Agent United States. 
 
 "(<?) Ici encore Buchka a bienresolu la question pour le droit actuel, mais pour le 
 droit romain il a resout a tort en sens inverse. Vol. 1, pp. 307, 308; vol. 2, pp. 184, 
 191. J'ai ddja signals, § 294, notes (n) and (r), quelques decisions erron^es des tri- 
 bunaux prussiens sur cette question." 
 
74 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 more true with regard to awards rendered by arbitrators who have no 
 real jurisdiction nor other powers than those granted them in the 
 arbitration agreement (eompromiso). Thus it is that if all that relates 
 to the plea and effect of res judicata is of strict (limited) interpretation 
 (Griolet, on the authority of res judicata, p. 68), it must be much more 
 so when it relates to arbitral awards. 
 
 Of these arbitral awards a Roman law has said : 
 
 De his rebus et rationibus et controversiis judicare arbiter potest, quae ab initio 
 fuissent inter eos qui compromisserunt, non quae postea supervenerunt. (L. 46 D, 
 de recept. qui arb., T. L. p. 25.) 
 
 The civil law attributed so limited a scope to awards that it did not 
 concede to them that they should produce the effect (accion) of res 
 judicata. The first law of the code de recept is to the following effect: 
 
 Ex sententia arbitri ex compromisso jure perfecto arbitri appellari non posse saepe 
 receptum est; quia nee judicati actio inde prosstari potest. 
 
 The inadequacy of arbitral decisions, under international law, to 
 decide future cases, although they may be analogous to those already 
 decided, has been expressly recognized by the Government of the 
 United States, as may be seen in Moore's "International Arbitrations," 
 with regard to the mixed commission, convoked at Halifax under the 
 treaty of Washington, which condemned the United States to pay to 
 the British Government the sum of $5,500,000 for damages and 
 injuries caused by American fishermen, and in the case of a claim 
 presented by the Spanish Minister, Sr. Muruaga, growing out of the 
 confiscation of cotton, considered as contraband of war, which the 
 Spanish subjects, Mora and Larrache, suffered. The Secretary of 
 State, T. F. Bayard, said in this connection in a note of the 3d of 
 December, 1886 : a 
 
 Decisions of international commissions * * * are not regarded as authoritative, 
 except in the particular case decided * * * they do not in any way bind the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, except in those cases in which they were rendered. (Papers 
 relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, year 1887, p. 1021.) 
 
 The same honorable Secretary, in the document cited (further), said: 
 
 Such decisions are molded by the nature and terms of the treaty of arbitration. 
 
 Taking into account without doubt that: 
 
 Omne tractatum ex compromisso sumendum: nee euim aliud illi (arbitro) licebit, 
 quam quod ibi ut afficere possit cautum est: non ergo quodlibet statuere arbiter 
 poterit, nee in qua re libet, nisi de qua re compromissum est. 
 
 Referring to the stipulations contained in the aforesaid convention 
 of July 4, 1868, it is seen that the claims of the American citizens 
 against Mexico and of Mexican citizens against the United States, 
 
 « The full paragraph referred to, supplying all omitted matters and correcting the 
 arrangement of words, reads as follows: 
 
 "But, aside from this criticism, I must be allowed to remind you that decisions of 
 international commissions are not to be regarded as establishing principles of inter- 
 national law. Such decisions are molded by the nature and terms of the treaty of 
 arbitration, which often assumes certain rules, in themselves deviations from inter- 
 national law, for the government of the commission. Even when there are no such 
 limitations, decisions of commissions have not heretofore been regarded as authori- 
 tative, except in the particular case decided. I am compelled, therefore, to exclude 
 from consideration the rulings to which you refer, not merely because they do not 
 sustain the position for which they are cited, but because, even if they could be con- 
 strued as having that effect, they do not in any way bind the Government of the 
 United States, except in those cases in which they were rendered." — J. H. Ralston, 
 Agent United States. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE C A.LIFOKNIAS. 75 
 
 which were permitted to be submitted to the mixed commission 
 created by that convention, must indispensably embrace the following 
 conditions: 
 
 First. To have arisen out of transactions of a date later than the 
 2d of February, 1848, and before the 1st of February, 1869 (the date 
 of the exchange of ratifications of the convention). 
 
 Second. To be founded upon damages calculable in money caused 
 to the persons or property of the claimants of either of the two coun- 
 tries by the authorities of the other. 
 
 Third. To have been presented to the government of the claimants, 
 and by it or in its name to the mixed commission within eight months 
 (capable of being extended to eleven months), counting from the first 
 meeting of the arbitrators. 
 
 It may be noted, therefore, that the claim for interests of which pay- 
 ment is now asked could not be considered under the first or third of 
 the above conditions. It seems useless to take up further time by 
 showing or continuing to dwell upon the lack of cause with which res 
 judicata is alleged in the new claim which is now presented against 
 the Mexican Government. The award rendered by the umpire in 1875 
 became complete and absolutely fulfilled with the payment that Mexico 
 made of 1904,070.79 Mexican gold, to which it was condemned, and 
 that award can not be applied to a new claim. Admitting in virtue of 
 all the allegations that the present claim is not declared already deter- 
 mined by the award rendered in 1875, the first objection — the clearest 
 plea that we oppose to the claim — is that any right that the claimants 
 might have had in the beginning of the year 1848 was completely 
 extinguished by the treaty of peace and friendship which was celebrated 
 the 2d of February of that year between Mexico and the United States, 
 because in article 14 (of that treat} 7 ) it was declared that all debts and 
 claims not decided up to that time and which the citizens of the latter 
 of those nations should bold against the Government of the former 
 would be considered ended and canceled forever. The text of the 
 article of that treaty which thus provides is as follows, and I quote it 
 in English in order that it may be better understood by the party com- 
 plainant. It reads as follows: 
 
 The United States do furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims 
 of citizens of® the United States not heretofore decided against the Mexican Govern- 
 ment which may have arisen previously to the date .of the signature of this treaty; 
 which discharge shall be final and perpetual, whether the said claims be rejected or 
 be allowed by the Board of Commissioners provided for in the following article, and 
 whatever shall be the total amount of those allowed. 
 
 The answer which the claimants have made to this peremptory pro- 
 vision amounts to saying that they do not demand the interests accrued 
 before the date of the treaty, but those accrued since that date, and 
 they have not demanded the principal, because they do not think they 
 have any right to it, Mexico being able to indefinitely retain it. In 
 giving this answer, they do not reflect that the fourteenth article, 
 above cited, not only exonerates Mexico from the claims or demands 
 which might be thereupon presented, but from all claims not hereto- 
 fore decided against the Government, and in this class was included 
 the claim of the Pious Fund, not only the capital but also the interests 
 being comprehended therein. All that, in fact, is understood in the 
 
 «The words in italics "citizens of" omitted in the answer.— J. H. Ralston, Agent 
 United States. 
 
T6 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 English word " claim," which means as well the claim or demand 
 which is made to something to which we believe ourselves entitled, as 
 to the cause, origin, or foundation for that claim: " A right to claim 
 or demand something; a title to any debt, privilege or other thing in 
 possession of another; also a title of anything which another should 
 give or concede to or confer on the claimant" according to Webster's dic- 
 tionary, which is the best authority on definitions in the United 
 States, and possibly wherever English is spoken. (See Webster's 
 English Dictionary, under Claim, the second acceptation of word.) 
 
 This interpretation of Article XIV is corroborated by reading the 
 beginning of the article following, Article XV, the text of which is 
 as follows: 
 
 The United States exonerating Mexico from all demands on account of the claims 
 of their citizens mentioned in the preceding article, and considering them entirely 
 and forever canceled. 
 
 Here is seen the distinction made between demands and claims and 
 that this last word is used in the sense of the title or right which gives 
 rise to a claim. 
 
 Nor could it be otherwise, when it was very clearly the intention of 
 this agreement to leave nothing pending that might alter or disturb 
 the peaceable and friendly relations which were renewed in that treaty. 
 By this was made, as is frequently done in similar treaties, an agree- 
 ment to completely cancel all claims and demands for indemnity pend- 
 ing, or which for past acts might arise between the two Governments, 
 providing also for the settlement of private claims. The same article, 
 the fifteenth, the beginning of which I have copied, provided that three 
 and a quarter millions of dollars be reserved to satisfy the claimants, 
 as far as their claims should be approved by an American commission 
 which it ordered created for that purpose, and which was created by 
 the Government of the United States, a commission before which, if 
 aware of their right, the representatives of the Catholic Church of 
 Californias would have presented it. If they did not do so, they can 
 not, on that account, now make the claim against Mexico, which is 
 released from all liability, from all demands on account of the claims 
 of their (of the United States) citizens. 
 
 It seems inconceivable, in view of these articles of the treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo — the most solemn we have ever celebrated with a 
 neighboring nation, and which is in force because it is perpetual in 
 character — that it should be claimed that the debt known as the Pious 
 Fund had not been canceled in virtue of its stipulations. What privi- 
 lege did this fund have to be excluded from the positive declaration of 
 the treaty? Is it not strange that the attorneys of the claimants, in 
 their zeal to reply to this plea, should have wished to limit the mean- 
 ing of the treaty on this point— to cancel the interest of the fund prior 
 to February, 1848? And what is scarcely less explicable is that the 
 arbitral award subscribed by Sir Edward Thornton should have 
 accepted the same interpretation. For this, among other reasons, we 
 consider said judgment as notoriously unjust, there being no injustice 
 more manifest than the judgment pronounced by an arbitrator who 
 decides a question between citizens of one country and the govern- 
 ment of another, ignoring the stipulations of a solemn treaty made by 
 both countries, the force of which no one disputes. 
 
 In case it should be determined (contrary to all probability) that the 
 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo left in force the claims of American citi- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 77 
 
 zens against Mexico relative to the Pious Fund, and existing, as 
 alleged, at the time of celebrating said treaty, there is still another 
 ground upon which that claim might be canceled, and consequently 
 the right to collect interest on capital. It is well known that the Mex- 
 ican Republic, in the exercise of its sovereignty, and for high political 
 reasons, which the Mexican commissioner explained in his opinion of 
 1875, ordered in the years 1856 and 1859, first, the disentailing, fol- 
 lowing it by the so-called nationalization of the church property; but 
 which, properly speaking, was not actually such, but only the prohi- 
 bition to the clergy of continuing in control of those national proper- 
 ties. If, as has been properly said, the validity and principles of this 
 provision can be disputed from the standpoint of canon law, from a 
 political and social point of view, they are unquestionable, and no less 
 so in view of the favorable results which that action has produced in 
 the way of establishing peace and of promoting the general welfare of 
 the Republic. 
 
 From the standpoint of common law and private international law, 
 it seems clear that the capital whose interest is claimed in the charac- 
 ter of a secured annuity (censo consignativo), or of general annuity 
 (censo), and which should be considered as real property (Sala. Dro. 
 Real de Espana, torn I, Lib. 2, tit. 14, and authors cited), was subject 
 to the legislation of the country in which it was held, to the jurisdic- 
 tion and statute law rei sitae, whatever might be the nationality of the 
 annuitants. 
 
 On the other hand, it should be taken into account that the failure 
 for many years to collect the interest which is now claimed makes it 
 subject to the laws of limitations of the country, concerning which 
 Article 1103 of our Civil Code applies to the case, and says as follows: 
 
 Emphyteutic or annuity pensions, revenues, rents, and any other loans whatso- 
 ever, not collected when due, remain barred in five years, counting from the 
 maturity of each of them, even though the collection be attempted by virtue of a 
 real or personal action. 
 
 If ■ we are to suppose that the demand of the claimants was not 
 canceled by the decisive Article XIV of the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, or on the other grounds which we have just reviewed, there 
 is yet another reason which would make it seem subject to Mexican 
 legislation, to which an annuity, established by that Government in the 
 year 1842 is undoubtedly subject. Said Government, for the purpose 
 of settling the public debt, issued, under date of June 22, 1885, a 
 decree calling upon all its creditors for the examination and funding 
 of their debts arising from supplies, employments, loans, or any other 
 act or business which might become a charge upon the national treas- 
 ury, and for this purpose it fixed a suitable time, which was extended 
 on several occasions for the presentation of said claims. Article XV 
 of the law of September 6, 1894, was of the following tenor: 
 
 The debts, evidences of public indebtedness, and the following claims, are forever 
 barred, without being able to constitute any cause of action, or to be of any validity 
 whatever: * * * All claims included in Articles I and II, which were not pre- 
 sented for this funding within the period fixed by the article preceding or which 
 when they are presented, the interested party may not comply with the requirements 
 of said decree. 
 
 It is undeniable that the supposed claims for capital and interest 
 made against the Government of Mexico by the archbishop and bishops 
 of the Church of Upper California were not presented for adjustment 
 
78 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 in compliance with the law of 1885, nor did the pretended creditors 
 avail themselves of the new period which the said decree of 1894 
 granted them in Article XIV as a final and last resort. The lapse 
 (caducidad) or barring of suit, or supervening plea, would leave with- 
 out effect even a former judgment having the force of res judicata— a 
 principle of well investigated law recognized even by the present 
 claimants. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The claimants state that the object of the Pious Fund of the Cali- 
 fornias was to provide for the conversion of the Indians and for the 
 support of the Catholic Church in the Californias. This being a double 
 object, it is necessary to distinguish between the two parts which 
 constitute it. The first part, the conversion of the pagan Indians to 
 the Catholic faith and to the obedience of Spanish authority, is unques- 
 tionable, and must be considered as the principal and direct object of 
 the missions intrusted to- the Society of Jesus by the Catholic King, 
 indorsed by the founders of the Pious Fund, and subsidized by the 
 public treasury of Mexico. The other part of the object— that is, the 
 support of the church in California, was not the principal or direct 
 object of the establishment of the fund, but the means of carrying out 
 the spiritual conquest of uncivilized Indians through the religious 
 missionaries. 
 
 This distinction being made, it is understood that the Catholic worship 
 was an object of the missions subordinate to the spiritual conquest of 
 the uncivilized Indians; hence it follows that the nonexistence of 
 uncivilized or idolatrous Indians in a specified region, or of the sup- 
 pression therein of the Catholic missions, instituted for the purpose of 
 subjugating or Christianizing them, should entail at the same time the 
 withdrawal of the support offered the missionaries; not their exclusive 
 application to fostering the Catholic faith, otherwise it would be an 
 open violation of the intention of the benefactors who founded said 
 pious work. Upon the expulsion of the Jesuits ordered by King 
 Charles III and the consequent cessation of the missions of New Spain, 
 the suppression of the order followed, which Clement XIV declared 
 in his bull, issued the 21st day of July, 1773, paragraph 32, which 
 reads: 
 
 But as regards the religious missions we desire to extend and include all that has 
 been decreed concerning the suppression of the Society (of Jesuits) , reserving (at the 
 same time) the privilege of providing the means by which not only the conversion of 
 the infidels, but also the peaceful settlement of dissensions may be obtained and 
 secured with greater facility and stability. 
 
 And it is a fact worthy of note that the missions founded by the 
 Jesuits never extended beyond the limits of Lower California. The 
 mission farthest north that they had in charge was that of Santa 
 Maria, below the thirty-first degree of latitude, and was therefore 
 outside of the limits of Upper California, as fixed in the Treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo. 
 
 The missions of Upper California were undertaken after the expul- 
 sion of the Jesuits by the orders, not of the Society of Jesus, nor of 
 the Holy See, nor any other ecclesiastical authority, but of the viceroy 
 of New Spain, with the approval of the King, in 1769 and 1762.° 
 
 « Should be 1772. J. H. Ralston, Agent United States. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 79 
 
 As national enterprises the missions of Upper California were 
 naturally abandoned by the Mexican Government when the United 
 States acquired that region. The abandonment became necessary by 
 the change of authority and jurisdiction over the territory disposed of 
 to the United States, and, moreover, the Mexican Government had the 
 original authority which it had inherited from the Spanish Govern- 
 ment to abandon missions and establish other new ones for the conversion 
 of infidels within its dominions. 
 
 No only did the missions of Upper California cease on the 7th of 
 July, 1846, as national enterprises in charge of the Mexican Govern- 
 ment, but the Catholic Church itself ceased as a legal entity, inasmuch 
 as its reestablishment as a corporation did not go into effect until the 
 22d of April, 1850, in virtue of the statute of that date of the State of 
 California. 
 
 Finally, it is necessary to take into account that in Upper California 
 there exist no tribes of uncivilized Indians whose subjugation to the 
 secular power of New Spain and conversion to the Catholic faith was 
 the principal object or direct end of the missions of the Jesuits endowed 
 with the properties of the Pious Fund of California. 
 
 The right of investing the fund and applying its proceeds according 
 to the intentions of the donors of the properties which constitute it 
 were legitimately exercised without the intervention of ordinary clergy, 
 first by the Jesuits, followed by the Spanish Crown, and lastly by the 
 Mexican Government. The claimants can never prove that any legiti- 
 mate authority has ever made any law or decree to restrict that right. 
 In exercise of this right the Mexican Government ordered, by the 
 decree of September 19, 1836, that the administration of the fund be 
 given to the bishop of California and his successors as dependents of 
 said Government; the same commission was withdrawn from the bishop 
 and his successors by the decree of February 18, 1842; the sale of the 
 properties which composed the fund and its constitution into the 
 secured annuity (censo consignativo) upon the National Treasury was 
 ordered by decree of October 24, 1842; and two and one-half years 
 later, by the decree of April 3, 1845, the " creditos" and other prop- 
 erties were ordered returned to the then bishop of California and his 
 successors, reserving expressly the right to dispose of the proceeds 
 resulting from the properties sold, the interest on which is the very 
 subject-matter of this claim. 
 
 This exclusive right of the Mexican Government is recognized on 
 the part of the claimants. 
 
 In the reply made February 21, 1901, to the honorable John Hay, 
 Secretary of State of the United States, by Messrs. Jackson H. Ral- 
 ston and Frederick L. Siddons, attorneys for the Roman Catholic 
 bishops of California, are found the following words: a 
 
 No dispute has ever been raised as to the right of the Mexican Government to 
 administer the property in question. Mexico must continue the trust relation which 
 
 «A full and complete extract from the Diplomatic Correspondence (p. 52) above 
 quoted partially and imperfectly, reads as follows: 
 
 "No dispute has ever been raised as to the right of the Mexican Government to 
 administer the property in question and charge itself, as a trustee, with the payment 
 of a definite sum. No demand has ever been made for the repayment of the princi- 
 pal sum. The bishops of California and all other parties in interest have treated 
 
80 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 she has herself assumed. It should be borne in mind that we never have had or 
 made any claims to the principal. From its origin it has been in the hands of trus- 
 tees; first, the Jesuits; then in the Spanish Crown; then the Government of Mexico; 
 then in the bishop under the law of 1836; then, from February 8, 1842, again in the 
 Mexican Republic. All of these changes were accomplished by law— the act of the 
 sovereign. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The use which the Mexican Government made of the sovereign priv- 
 ilege to reassume the right of administering the fund or investing its 
 proceeds to the exclusion of the church of California in 1842, can not 
 be considered in law prejudicial to the party claimant. " Qui jure suo 
 utitur neminem laedit." 
 
 Nor for the same reason can the fact that this government, since it 
 ceased to exercise authority over Upper California, should have cen- 
 tered all its care and protection on Lower California, not only in the 
 civil but also in the ecclesiastical order, and discontinued consequently 
 to apply to Upper California the revenues intended to foster the Cath- 
 olic missions, justify the claim against the Mexican Republic. 
 
 The missions of the Jesuits having discontinued in that territory, 
 there remained no necessit}^ that its inhabitants should receive from 
 Mexico supplies, clothing, and other means of subsistence; its lands 
 were about to come under cultivation, as in fact they did, with mar- 
 velously productive results; and under these circumstances the Gov- 
 ernment was at liberty, as trustee (eomisario), in place of the Jesuits, 
 to apply the proceeds of the fund to other missions, without exposing 
 itself to censure, complaint, or claim from anyone, conforming entirely 
 to the will of the founders expressed in the foundation deed of the 
 fund, according to the language of the text above cited. 
 
 VII. 
 
 The exaggeration of the demands, or plus petition, is demonstrated in 
 various ways, and, reserving the privilege of presenting in the course 
 of the proceedings a basis for a settlement, which up to this time it 
 has not been possible to conclude, I* make the following observations: 
 
 In the first place, it is most evident that to solicit now, in Mexican 
 gold money, the payment of the interests which are claimed because 
 
 their claim against the Mexican Government as being a claim for an annuity, the 
 amount of which annuity has been fixed by the Mexican Government at a sum equal 
 to 6 per cent upon the total capitalization. Mexico, by her acts in 1842, recognized 
 the definite character of the claim against her, acknowledging a liability, not for the 
 principal, but for a certain annual charge. After having herself stamped this char- 
 acter upon the claim of the Pious Fund, Mexico can not now say that the claim is to 
 the principal and not to an annuity, and a claim for the principal, if such existed, 
 being barred by treaty stipulation, no claim for the annuity can exist. Mexico must 
 continue the trust relation which she has herself assumed. 
 
 " The difference now insisted upon is more than verbal; it is substantial, and is to 
 be borne in mind when it is suggested to us, as it has been by the Mexican secretary 
 of state, that we have lost our claim to the principal because such claim was not pre- 
 sented under the treaty of 1848; the fact being that at no time under the Mexican 
 decrees could a claim for the principal have been entertained. 
 
 "It should be borne in mind that we never have had or made any claim to the 
 principal. From its origin it has been in the hands of trustees; first, the Jesuits; 
 then the Spanish Crown; then the Government of Mexico; then m the bishop under 
 the laws of 1836; then from February 8, 1842, again in the Mexican Republic. All of 
 these changes were accomplished by law — the act of the sovereign." J H, Ralstori, 
 Agent United States. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 81 
 
 other interest on the same capital were ordered paid in this money by 
 the award made in November of 1875, is to ask more than double what 
 the interest would amount to at 6 per cent, to which right is claimed. 
 The reasons consist in this, which no one denies: In 1875 the ratio 
 between the value of gold and silver was almost exactly 16 to 1, the 
 value of gold later having more than doubled that of silver. Now, 
 then, in pesos of silver, and in no other way, were the properties of 
 the Pious Fund valued, and for the value which this money represented, 
 they were sold, and the amount resulting from the sale recogonized 
 by the Mexican Government in favor of said fund. Mexico has never 
 had nor has it now any other standard for its money than the silver 
 peso; its gold money is coined in very small quantity, and is not used 
 to regulate the commercial values. When the claimants ask for interest 
 in so many dollars, they speak of dollars of their own country, as they 
 are there called, with the understanding that they are of gold. The 
 Mexican gold of which they speak is at very slight discount with 
 respect to American gold; but in every case the dollars of Mexican 
 gold are of more than double the value of the silver dollar, in which 
 money only could the interest of the Pious Fund be collected, if they 
 should belong to the claimants. 
 
 Therefore, the claim of the bishops of California is usurious in ask- 
 ing, not only 6 per cent on the capital, but much more than 12 per 
 cent per annum. 
 
 Another of the exaggerations of the claim is the endeavor to collect, 
 not the half (which is even too much) of the interest on capital, since 
 the other half would have to be applied to the missions in Lower 
 California, but now 85 per cent is asked, because this is the propor- 
 tion, it is said, between the populations of Upper California of the 
 United States and Lower California of Mexico. Thus it is argued as 
 if it had been intended that the fund should be applied to the entire 
 population and not to the conversion and improvement of uncivilized 
 Indians. This reasoning would only have held good if the entire 
 population of both Californias were of barbarous Indians. This argu- 
 ment, then, can not be sustained, which demonstrates only the zeal, 
 disproportionate in this case, of the attorneys and counsellors of the 
 claimants. In order to comply with the spirit and intention of the 
 founders, the proportion should be made between the unconverted 
 and uncivilized Indians of one of the Californias in comparison with 
 those of the other; and it is now known that in that belonging to the 
 United States, there are not many, perhaps not even one, in that con- 
 dition. 
 
 Another exaggeration of the claim consists in including in the amount 
 demanded the value of the properties that belonged to the Marquis de 
 las Torres de Eada. The value of these properties form, undoubt- 
 edly, the greater part of the amount demanded, and there is, never- 
 theless, no legal basis on which to claim it. This assertion will, no 
 doubt, astonish the claimants, who have made a minute study with 
 regard to the donation of said properties made to the Pious Fund; but it 
 is to be observed that there has very recently been discovered in the 
 general archives of the Republic important data which verify the fore- 
 going statement. These data are contained in the book printed in the 
 eighteenth century, which accompanies the present repty, and whose 
 authenticity will be properly and opportunely proved. In it is given 
 the history" of the protracted litigation concerning the inheritance of 
 
 S. Doc. 28 6 
 
82 PIOUS FUND OF' THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 the Marquis de las Torres de Rada, and at the close of the suit, the 
 supreme "consejo de Indias" in Spain, the court of last resort capable 
 of acting in the case at that time, declared null and without value the 
 inventories and valuations of the properties which remained at the 
 death of the said Marquis, as well as the adjudication which was made 
 of it to the Marchioness, his widow. This judgment of the court of 
 last resort rendered the dispositions of the Marchioness, widow of 
 Torres de Rada, worthless, and therefore those of the Marquis de 
 Villapuente in the will which the latter made with power to will from 
 his cousin, the Marchioness. Now, then, said will was the basis of 
 the donation which both made to the Pious Fund of certain properties 
 which did not legally belong to either of them. I will not prolong 
 this matter with explanations, but refer to the accompanying book, 
 principally to the concluding judgment, and whose original, as will be 
 proved at the proper time, exists in the Spanish archives of the 
 ' ' supremo consejo de Indias. " There can be no doubt as to the nullity 
 of the donation made by the Marchioness to the Pious Fund of prop- 
 erties which did not belong to her, by the recognized principle of 
 nemo plus juris transferee potest qua/rA ipse haberet. There should at 
 least then be deducted from the sum demanded by the claimants the 
 value of the properties to which I refer, 
 i In conclusion, I believe I have demonstrated — 
 
 1. That the claimants lack the right of presenting themselves as 
 legitimate trustees of the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 2. That the Catholic Church of Upper California has no right to 
 exact from the Government of Mexico the payment of interest upon 
 the supposed capital or fund. 
 
 3. That the rights alleged by the archbishop and bishop, the claim- 
 ants, are either inadequate to sustain the case or they have been can- 
 celed chiefly by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which canceled all 
 claims of citizens of the United States against the Republic of Mexico, 
 exonerating the latter from all demands on account of claims against 
 it, which were in existence February 2, 1848, in favor of said citizens, 
 as is seen in Articles XIV and XV of the treaty. Even in the absence 
 of this treaty, the right of the claimants would have been canceled by 
 the various general laws which were made successively by this Repub- 
 lic, to which, without doubt, the annuity (censo) which constituted the 
 Pious Fund was subject. 
 
 4. That the real object of this fund, the purpose for which it was 
 intended, was the conversion of the barbarous Indians to Christianity 
 and their civilization, and this being so, that there are now no barbar- 
 ous Indians to whom to apply it in California. 
 
 (5. No such number given in original.) 
 
 6. That the right rests with the Mexican Government and with it 
 alone to direct in its territory or out of it this or other application of 
 the fund, without any obligation to account to the bishops of Califor- 
 nia for its action in the matter. 
 
 7. That if the claimants should have any right to collect interest, it 
 would not be for the sum which they ask, which is excessive inasmuch 
 it has been calculated in gold dollars, when the sums which were taken 
 for its basis have been in silver dollars, and to-day the difference 
 between the two moneys is not the same as in 1875, when Mexico was 
 condemned to pay other interests in gold. Moreover, the portion of 
 interest which belonged to Upper California is computed according to 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 83 
 
 the population and not by the number of Indians in whose conversion 
 it has to be employed; and, lastly, the properties donated by the 
 Marchioness de las Torres de Rada are included in the value of the Pious 
 Fund, when new evidence proves the nullity of that donation. 
 
 For these reasons and others which will be alleged when the oppor- ' 
 tunity arises, I respectfully pray in the name t of the Mexican Govern- 
 ment to the court to disallow the claim brought against this Governmnt 
 by the representatives of the Catholic Church of California, a claim 
 contrary in general to justice, and in particular to the treaty of peace 
 and friendship in force between the Mexican Eepublic and the United 
 States of America. 
 
 Mexico, August 6, 1902. 
 
 Ignacio Makiscal, 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 Resume of litigation relating to the Rada property referred to in the 
 • answer of Mexico. 
 
 This synopsis is taken principally from the statement of the case 
 contained in the first eleven pages of Document No. 3 in the volume 
 produced by Mexico. 
 
 The Mexican exhibit consists of the following documents, which are 
 bound together in the order in which they are here enumerated: 
 
 1. Memorial of Don Joseph "de Rada, as ordered by the supreme council of the 
 Indies, in the matter of his claim" against the widow of the Marquis of Torres de 
 Rada and the Marquis of Villapuente dated at Madrid, January 11, 1748. 
 
 2. Addition to the foregoing memorial. 
 
 3. Argument in support of the memorial of Don Joseph de Rada, printed in Mexico 
 in 1742. 
 
 4. Statement made by the attorney appointed to defend the estate of the Marquis 
 • Villapuente dated 1741. 
 
 5. Legal defense of the missions of California as the devisees of the widow of the 
 Marquis of Torres de Rada in the matter of the distribution of his estate, as ordered 
 by the judgment at the end of the volume, dated Mexico, 1759. 
 
 6. Judgment of the royal and supreme council of the Indies dated Madrid, April 
 16, 1749. 
 
 These documents in substance recite that on the 23d of April, 1713, 
 the Marquis of Torres de Rada died, and, as no will of his could be 
 found, the probate judge in the City of Mexico proceeded to take the 
 necessary steps to distribute the estate. The proceedings were opened 
 on the 19th of May following, and by the testimony that was taken, 
 especially by that of the marquis's widow, Dona Gertrudis de la Pena, 
 it appeared that he had not left any natural heirs, except herself, his 
 brothers and sisters in Spain, a nephew named Francisco, who was 
 with her; another, a Franciscan novice, and a third in Spain. Accord- 
 ingly, on June 23 of the same year, an order was made reciting that 
 the marquis had died intestate, and ordering the inventories and 
 appraisements of his estate to be made, and all pertinent evidence to 
 be produced, and referring the cause to the chief justice of the pro- 
 bate court, further reciting that the appraisers should be named by 
 the marchioness and the attorney of the court, Defensor del Juzgado, 
 resei'ving the right for any absent heirs to come in and prove their 
 
84 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 heirship. This order was communicated to the attorney of the court 
 on the following day, and thereupon he and the marchioness named 
 the appraisers. After some time — that is, on the 28th of August — 
 the attorney of the court consented to the approval of the inventories 
 then completed, and on the 29th of August an order was made approv- 
 ing them and allowing Dona Gertrudis to take further steps in the 
 matter. 
 
 On the same day she came into court, reciting that the estate, as 
 shown by the inventories, was insufficient to cover her separate estate 
 (dote), and she asked that it be distributed to her, promising to pay 
 the debts of the late marquis, and claiming the right to ask for the 
 distribution to her of any other property that might at any future 
 time be discovered. Service of her petition was made on the attorney 
 of the court, who consented to it, and an order was made on the 9th 
 of September in accordance therewith. At the same time the judge 
 declared that Don Andres, Dona Francisca, Dona Isabel, and Dona 
 Maria Lorenz de Rada, brother and sisters of the late marquis, to be 
 his heirs, and in place of his brother Don Juan Antonio Lorenz de 
 Rada and the other brothers, who were dead, their children should be 
 so considered. 
 
 This order of the probate judge remained undisturbed until 1718, 
 when Don Joseph de Rada appeared, through his guardian, and sought 
 to compel the marchioness to render an account of the expenditures 
 and administration of the estate of the late marquis, as well as to pro- 
 duce any evidence that she might possess concerning the title and 
 expenditures of the marquis, andasking certain information as to prop- 
 erties which she took as her separate estate (dote). Notice of this was 
 served on the marchioness. The moving party was the son of the late 
 Don Juan Antonio Lorenz de Rada, who was the eldest brother of the 
 deceased marquis. Upon this demand an order issued requiring that 
 Dona Gertrudis produce all papers relating to the title of marquis in 
 her possession, as well as all account books and papers of the marquis. 
 From this order she appealed, but it was sustained. The marchioness 
 thereupon produced some papers of her husband, declaring them to be 
 all that she could find that in any way related to his property, saying 
 that she thought her late husband had not kept any books of account, 
 whereupon Don Joseph de Rada asked that the inventories made in the 
 estate of her husband be annulled, saying that they had been falsified. 
 The marchioness resisted the demand and the court ordered that if the 
 moving party considered that the properties had been undervalued in 
 the inventories he should bring forward some one who would offer more 
 for them than the prices set down in said inventories. This was not 
 done and the demand was refused. An appeal was taken, which was 
 dismissed by the Audiencia Real on the 21st of July, 1721. 
 
 The suit remained in this condition until August 18 of the following 
 year, when an attempt was made by the Marchioness to have Don Gre- 
 gorio Joseph del Pino appointed to be chancellor, and after various steps 
 in the courts she was, in 1724, referred to the King of Spain and the 
 council of the Indies. From the orders submitting this appointment 
 to the council of the Indies, the Marchioness appealed. 
 
 At about this time, Don Joseph de Rada came forward, asking that 
 he be furnished with copies of all the orders made in these proceed- 
 ings. His demand was granted, and the Marchioness appealed; her 
 appeal was dismissed, and she was enjoined from further proceeding. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 85 
 
 The order appealed from was confirmed in 1726. In view of the deci- 
 sion against the Marchioness, Don Joseph Lorenz de Bada came into 
 court, demanding that he be declared the successor to the title of Mar- 
 quis, and that the rights and possession of the offices of chancellor and 
 registrar be granted him, at the same time asking that an account 
 accompanied by payment over to him of the receipts of these offices, 
 since 1713, be rendered him. To this the Marchioness made objection, 
 producing a royal cedula of 1725, declaring that she was the person 
 who should succeed to the title and offices. This paper was served on 
 Don Joseph Lorenz de Rada, who represented that it could not abridge 
 his rights in his demand, as it had been obtained by misrepresentation, 
 and he insisted upon his rights. 
 
 An order was thereupon made for the production of the proceedings 
 since November 26, 1729. (This must have been some years after the 
 production of the cedula.) 
 
 The case remained in this state until March 12, 1738, when the Mar- 
 chioness having died, Don Joseph Lorenz de Rada asked that the suit 
 be revived as against her heirs and personal representatives. Notice 
 of this revival was served on one Father Juan Francisco de Tompez, a 
 Jesuit, the attorney in fact of the Marquis of Villapuente, whom the 
 Marchioness had named as her executor and heir by an instrument 
 (el poder de testar), executed before the notary, Francisco de Valle, 
 on October 15, 1735. He (the attorney in fact) contended that the 
 whole controversy had been settled by the royal cedula of 1725, to 
 which Don Joseph Lorenz de Rada replied that the cedula had been 
 obtained by misrepresentation, etc. The court then learned of the 
 death of the Marquis of Villapuente at Madrid, apparently without 
 leaving any will, and it therefore appointed an attorney to defend his 
 rights. This attorney set up practically the same defense as Padre 
 Tompez, and the court then ordered that the evidence in the case be 
 taken. 
 
 Don Joseph contended that he was entitled to the title of Marquis 
 and all receipts of the offices of chancellor and registrar since 1713, 
 as well as the property remaining over after the payment of the sepa- 
 rate estate (credito dotal) of the late widow of his uncle. 
 
 The other parties asked that the suit be dismissed, and that all prop- 
 erty distributed as the separate estate of Dona Gertrudis be exempt 
 from this judgment. 
 
 This suit was decided by the audiencia real on December 20, 1742, 
 against Don Joseph Lorenz de Rada, and he was condemned, to pay 
 costs, and enjoined from further proceedings. (These latter facts are 
 set forth in the judgment of the council of the Indies at the end of the 
 volume.) 
 
 Furthermore, the right of appeal was denied him, and on this account 
 he instituted proceedings to take the matter to the council of the 
 Indies by an appeal to the King. These proceedings resulted in his 
 being allowed to take an appeal from the judgment of the court below, 
 and the former judgment of the audiencia real of December 20, 1742, 
 was reversed, and it was ordered that the parties appear in that court 
 to show their respective rights to the property left by the Marquis 
 over and above the separate estate of his widow. This judgment was 
 rendered without any notice to the heirs or representatives of the Mar- 
 quis of Villapuente, or the missions of California. 
 
 In accordance with this judgment, in 1752 an order of the council 
 
86 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 of the Indies was made, formally referring the question of division of 
 the properties of the late Marquis of Torres de Rada to the audiencia 
 real of Mexico. 
 
 In 1759 the representatives of the missions of California furnished 
 a brief on the subject, which is to be found in the volume just before 
 the judgment of the council of the Indies, and although it precedes 
 said judgment in the arrangement of this exhibit, it is, in fact, ten 
 years later in date. This brief recites the facts substantially in the 
 same way as the argument made on behalf of Don Joseph de Rada, 
 except that it brings the matter down to a later date. Upon reading 
 it, it will be seen that the statement made by Pedro Ramirez (Tran- 
 script, p. 518 et seq.) is entirely correct. 
 
 We thus trace this suit, beginning in 1718, through all its stages, 
 down to 1759. Mexico has not furnished any additional evidence 
 bearing on the case, but the ultimate result of the whole litigation was 
 considered and passed upon by the mixed commission of 1869. The 
 history of the case from 1759, as given by Pedro Ramirez, brings it 
 down to 1840. At that time the claimant, Senor Jauregui, was willing 
 to settle for $210,000. (Transcript, p. 520.) 
 
 In making his award, the umpire followed the American commis- 
 sioner's opinion, and rejected the estate of Cienega del Pastor, because 
 it was under attachment at the instance of Senor Jauregui. This prop- 
 erty was afterwards sold for $213,750, as will be seen by the deed of 
 sale, executed by order of the Mexican Government on November 29, 
 1842, in the City of Mexico, before the notary, Ramon Villalobos, a 
 copy of which is in evidence as Exhibit D. 
 
 SENTENCIA DE EL KEAL T SUPKEMO 
 CONSEJO DE INDIAS. 
 
 {Senorcs: La Isequilla, Regalia, Cornejo, Contre- 
 ras, Aguero.) 
 
 Vistos por los del Supremo Con- 
 sejo de Indias en Sala de Justicia 
 en virtud de Real Cedula de Co- 
 mision de su Magestad, su fecha 
 en San Ildephonso a 21 de Octubre 
 de 1744 los Autos seguidos por 
 Don Joseph Lorenz de Rada, y 
 otros sus Coherederos, como here- 
 deros, ab intestato del Marques de 
 las Torres de Rada, primero ante 
 el Juez de bienes de dif untos de 
 la Ciudad de Mexico, y despues en 
 aquella Audiencia; con Dona Ger- 
 trudis de la Pena, Marquesa que 
 fue de las Torres de Rada, viuda 
 de dicho Marques, y por muerte 
 de esta, con el apoderado del Mar- 
 ques de Villapuente, su heredeo, 
 y por su f allecim iento, con el Defen- 
 sor nombrado a sus bienes: cuyos 
 Autos se siguieren en su principio, 
 sobre la exhibition de los Libros. 
 
 JUDGMENT OF THE KOYAL AND SU- 
 PREME COUNCIL OF THE INDIES. 
 
 Those of the Supreme Council 
 of the Indies in the Hall of Justice 
 considering that by virtue of the 
 royal cedula of commission, dated 
 at San Ildephonso October 21, 
 1744, the suits prosecuted by Don 
 Josef Lorenz de Rada, and others 
 his coheirs, as heirs ab intestato of 
 the Marquis of Torres de Rada, 
 first before the probate judge of 
 the City of Mexico, and afterwards 
 in the Audiencia of that place; 
 with Dona Gertrudis de la Pena, 
 late Marchioness of Torres de 
 Rada, widow of said Marquis, and 
 in consequence of her death, with 
 the attorney in fact of the Marquis 
 de Villapuente, her heir, and upon 
 his death with the lawyer appointed 
 to defend his estate (Ddfenser 
 nmnbrado a sus bienes): which 
 suits were prosecuted at first for 
 the production of the books; and 
 papers of the said Marquis of 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 87 
 
 y Papeles del referido Marques 
 de las Torres de Eada, recision, y 
 nulidad de los inventarios, y apre- 
 cios hechos por su muerte de sus 
 bienes, manifestation de ellos, su- 
 cesion en el Titulo de Marques 
 y en los Oficios de Chanciller, y 
 Registrador de aquella Audiencia, 
 las de Guadalaxara, Goathemala, 
 Santo Domingo, y Philipinas, y 
 quenta con pago de los rendimien- 
 tos de estos oficios; y ultimamente 
 sobre la nulidad de la adjudication 
 insolutum, que de uno, y otro se 
 hizo a dicha Dona Gertrudis de la 
 Pena, y restrucion de sus salarios 
 y emolumentos, con lo demas, que 
 son los Autos: los quales se nian- 
 daron entregar, y presentaron en el 
 Consejo, por Testimonio, y penden 
 en grado de segunda suplicacion, 
 interpuesta por el expresado Don 
 Joseph Lorenz de Rada, de los 
 Autos proveidos por los Ministros 
 de ella en 14 de Noviembre, y 20 
 de diciembre de 1742 en que por 
 el primero declararon, no haver 
 probado su action, y demanda la 
 parte de Don Joseph Lorenz de 
 Rada, y haverlo hecho de sus 
 excepciones, y defensas, la del 
 Defensor delos bienes del Marques 
 de Villapuente, y en su consequen- 
 cia mandaron se guardasse, cum- 
 pliesse, y executasseelAutode 5 de 
 Julio de 1721 en que se delaro por 
 aquella Audiencia por desierta la 
 suplicacion del de 13 de Febrero 
 de este mismo ano, proveido por 
 el Juez General del Juzgado de 
 bienes de difuntos, y que para su 
 execution se bolviessen los Autos 
 a. dicho Juzgado, donde las Partes 
 ocurriessen & pedir lo que les con- 
 viniesse; y a mayor abundamiento 
 seimpuso perpetuo silencio a dicho 
 Don Joseph de Rada, y sus Coli- 
 tigantes, y se les condeno en las 
 costas, con otras cosas que por 
 menor se expressan en dicbo Auto; 
 y por el segundo de 20 Diciembre 
 de 742 declaro dicha Audiencia 
 por insuplicable el antecedente; 
 cuyos Autos se han substanciado 
 
 Torres de Rada; the cancellation 
 and annulment of the inventories 
 and appraisements, made after his 
 estate; the exhibition of them; the 
 succession to the title of Marquis, 
 and the office of Chancellor and 
 Registrar of said Audiencia and 
 those of Guadalajara, Guatemala, 
 Santo Domingo, and the Philip- 
 pines, and for an account accompa- 
 nied by payment of the emoluments 
 of these officers; and finally, for 
 the annulment of the adjudication 
 msolutum, both of which, and the 
 restitution of the salaries and 
 emoluments, with the rest, were 
 decided in favor of Dona Gertrudis 
 de la Pena which are the decisions 
 (on appeal), which were ordered 
 produced and they were presented 
 before the council as evidence, and 
 they are pending in the nature of 
 a second appeal taken by the 
 aforesaid Don Joseph Lorenz de 
 Rada from the decrees pronounced 
 by the judges of it (the Audiencia) 
 on the 14th of November and 20th 
 of December, 1742, in which, by 
 the first, they declared that on the 
 part of Don Joseph Lorenz de 
 Rada he had not proved his suit 
 and demand, and that on the part of 
 the attorney appointed to defend 
 the estate of the Marquis de Villa- 
 puente in his pleas and defenses 
 this had been done, and in conse- 
 quence they ordered that the decree 
 of the 5th of July, 1721, should 
 be obeyed, complied with, and 
 executed, in which it was declared 
 by said audiencia that the appeal 
 from the one (the decree) of the 
 13th of February of the same year, 
 pronounced by the chief justice 
 of the probate court should be 
 dismissed, and that in order that 
 it be executed, the decisions be 
 remanded to the said court, where 
 the parties might appear to pray 
 (the relief) that they may deem 
 proper; and in addition perpetual 
 silence was imposed on said Joseph 
 de Rada and his colitigants, and 
 they were adjudged to pay costs 
 
88 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 en ausencia, y rebeldia del Defensor 
 delos bienes del Marqufe de Villa- 
 puejite, en los Estrados de este 
 bupremo Consejo, por no haver 
 comparecido a su seguimiento; y 
 vistos por uno de 27 de Noviembre 
 de 1748. teniendo presente lo dicho 
 por el senor Fiscal en ellos, se 
 declaro haver lugar a el grado de 
 segunda suplicacion, interpuesto 
 por dicho Don Joseph Lorenz de 
 Rada, y que se traxessen estos 
 Autos en lo principal, lo que se 
 executo asi, y en su inteligencia, 
 y de todo lo demas que 6s el pro- 
 cesso, y ver convino. 
 
 faijlamos: 
 
 Atento a los meritos de el, a que 
 nos remitimos, que debemos revo- 
 car, y revocamos, los Autos pro- 
 veidos por aquella Audiencia, que 
 quedan citados en 5 de Julio de 
 721 y 11 de Noviembre de 742 
 por los que declaro por desierta la 
 suplicacion interpuesta por Don 
 Joseph Lorenz de Rada, y Don 
 Francisco de Revilla, del Auto 
 proveido por el Juez General de 
 bienes dedifuntos enl3deFebrero 
 del referido ano de 721 como tam- 
 bien el de 20 de Diciembre de 742 
 que va expressado; y declaramos 
 por nulos, y de ningun valor, ni 
 efecto, los Inventarios, y aprecios 
 de los bienes que quedaron por 
 meurte del Marques de las Torres 
 de Rada, y la adjudicacion hecha 
 de ellos a la referida Marquesa, y 
 reservamos a los successores de 
 esta, y al referido Don Joseph 
 Lorenz de Rada, y sus colitigantes, 
 su derecho a salvo, para que usen 
 de el como les convenga, sobre los 
 respectivos derechos deducidos en 
 aquella Audiencia, donde lo de- 
 beran executar. Declarando, como 
 declaramos que por muerte de Don 
 FranciscoLorenz de Rada,Marques 
 de las Torres deRada, se transfirio 
 en Don Joseph Lorenz de Rada, 
 su sobrino, la possession civil, y 
 natural del Titulo, y Dignidad de 
 
 and other things, which are more 
 specifically set forth in said de- 
 crees; and by the second, that of 
 the 20th of December of 742 
 (1742), said audiencia adjudged 
 the former proceedings to be non- 
 appealable; which decrees have 
 been enforced in the absence and 
 nonappearance of the lawyer ap- 
 pointed to defend the estate of 
 Marquis de Villapuente, in the 
 halls of this supreme council, be- 
 cause of his not having appeared 
 at the rendering of these decrees; 
 and considering that by a decree 
 of November 27, 1748, interposed 
 by the said Don Joseph Lorenz 
 de Rada, and weighing all that 
 was said by the attorney-general 
 in them (decrees) the right of tak- 
 ing a second appeal was sustained, 
 and it was ordered that the de- 
 crees be set forth in the premises, 
 which was done, and in the knowl- 
 edge of this and all the other facts 
 of the suits, and it seeming just: 
 
 we decree: 
 
 That mindful of the merits of 
 him to whom we remand this cause, 
 that we ought to revoke, and we 
 do revoke, the decrees rendered by 
 said audiencia, which have been 
 cited as of the 5th of July, 1751, 
 and 14th of November, 1742, by 
 which the appeal taken by Don 
 Joseph Lorenz de Rada, and Don 
 Francisco de Revilla, from the 
 decree pronounced by the chief 
 justice of the probate court on the 
 13th of February of the said year 
 1721, as also the one (the appeal) 
 of the 20th of December of 1742, 
 which has been set forth, was dis- 
 missed; and we declare null and of 
 no value nor effect the inventories 
 and appraisements of the proper- 
 ties left by the Marquis of Torres 
 de Rada upon his death, and the 
 distribution of them made to the 
 said Marchioness, and we reserve 
 to her successors, and to the said 
 Don Joseph Lorenz de Rada and 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 89 
 
 Marques de las Torres de Rada, 
 la que realmente, y con efecto debe 
 verificarseenel. Yassimismoman- 
 'damos se le ponga en la posses- 
 sion de los oficios de Chanciller, y 
 Registrador de aquella Audiencia, 
 y las demas que van citadas, para 
 que las sirva, y possea, en la mis- 
 ma forma, y con las proprias fa- 
 cultados que las gozo, y posse3 r 6, 
 el Marques su Tio, perciviendo los 
 Frutos de ellas por salario, y man- 
 teniendo la propriedad responsable 
 a las resultas del juicio que sigan 
 las partes en aquella Audiencia, 
 por los derechos que les van reser- 
 vados: y en consequensia de todo 
 lo que va dicho, mandamos se chan- 
 cele, y tenga por de ningun valor, 
 ni efecto la caucion Juratoria, y 
 obligacion otorgada por dicho Don 
 Joseph Lorenz Rada para las re- 
 sultas de este Juicio ;y por estanu- 
 estra sentencia difinitivamente j us- 
 gando, assi lo pronunciamos, man- 
 damos, y firmamos. Don Joseph 
 de la Isequilla. Marques de la Re- 
 galia. Don Joseph Cornejo. Don 
 Pedro Domingo deContreras. Don 
 Juan Vazques de Aguero. Dada, y 
 pronunciada f ue la sentencia ante- 
 cedente por los Senores del Supre- 
 mo Consejo de las Indias, que la 
 firmaron en Madrid a 16. Abril de 
 1749. Don Antonio de Salazar y 
 Castillo. 
 
 his colitigants, their right safe and 
 in full force, in order that they 
 may make use of it as they see fit, 
 according to the respective rights 
 deduced in that Audiencia, where 
 they shall execute it. Declaring, 
 as we do declare, that on account 
 of the death of Francisco Lorenz 
 de Rada, the Marquis of Torres de 
 Rada, the civil possession and right 
 of title and rank of the Marquis of 
 Torres de Rada, which really and in 
 effect ought to be confirmed in him, 
 were transferred to Don Joseph 
 Lorenz de Rada, his nephew. And 
 at the same time, we command 
 that he be put in possession of the 
 office of Chancellor and Registrar 
 of that Audiencia and the others 
 before mentioned, in order that he 
 may fill and possess them in the 
 same way, and with the proper 
 authority which the Marquis, his 
 uncle, enjoyed and possessed, en- 
 joying the emoluments of them, as 
 salary, and maintaining the prop- 
 erty in accordance with the out- 
 come of the judgment which the 
 parties may pursue in said Audi- 
 encia, by reason of the rights above 
 reserved; and in consequence of all 
 that has been said, we order that 
 the parol (oath taken in lieu of bail) 
 and bond executed by said Don 
 Lorenz de Rada to abide the out- 
 come of this judgment be cancelled 
 and held of no value nor effect; and 
 by this our judgment definitively 
 (definitivamente) decreeing, thus 
 we pronounce, command and sign. 
 Don Joseph de la Isequilla. El 
 Marques de la Regalia. Don Jo- 
 seph Cornejo. Don Pedro Domin- 
 go de Contreras. Don Juan Vaz- 
 quez de Aguero. 
 
 The foregoing judgment was 
 given and pronounced by the offi- 
 cers of the Supreme Council of the 
 Indias, who signed it in Madrid, the 
 16th of April, 1749. Don Antonio 
 de Salazar y Castillo. 
 
90 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Exhibit C. 
 
 The statistics which follow are taken from a work entitled " Historia 
 de la Colonizacion de la Baja California," by Ulixes Urbano Lassepas,, 
 an official of the Mexican Government in Lower California, and printed 
 in 1859 in Mexico City, apparently as a Government publication. The 
 work (pp. 91-107) contains a description of the missions and shows that 
 their population in nearly every case had suffered a great decrease. 
 Where the figures have been given they are reproduced. On page 164 
 of the history this Mexican official says that — 
 
 The greater number of the northern missions lying between Santa Catarina and 
 San Ignaoio are to-day (1859) veritable skeletons, some in ruins, scarcely indicating 
 the spot where formerly stood the houses of worship and other buildings. The ani- 
 mals have disappeared from the fields, the native populace has died, silence reigns 
 where formerly was heard the humming of a mill, the bells of the chapels, and the 
 lowing of the herds. One of the principal causes of this decadence was without 
 doubt the application of the Pious Funds of California to purposes other than those for which 
 they were designed. 
 
 Name of mission. 
 
 San Francisco Xavier . . . 
 Guadalupe or Guasinapi 
 
 Los Dolores 
 
 San Ignacio 
 
 San JosS del Cabo 
 
 Todos Santos 
 
 San Luis Gonzaga 
 
 Santa Gertrudis 
 
 San Borja 
 
 Santa Maria 
 
 San Fernando 
 
 Year 
 enum- 
 era- 
 tion 
 was 
 made. 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 485 
 
 56 
 
 630 
 
 11 
 
 450 
 
 6 
 
 750 
 
 281 
 
 350 
 
 1,091 
 
 90 
 
 310 
 
 310 
 
 20 
 
 1,000 
 
 4 
 
 1,500 
 
 3 
 
 330 
 
 
 
 Name of mission. 
 
 San Pedro Martir 
 
 Santa Catarina Martir. 
 
 Santo Tomas 
 
 San Vicente Ferrer 
 
 Eosario 
 
 Santo Domingo 
 
 San Miguel 
 
 Descanso 
 
 Total of Indians at above-men- 
 tioned missions of Lower Cali- 
 fornia at the earlier dates 
 
 Total in 1857 
 
 Difference . 
 
 Year 
 enum- 
 era- 
 tion 
 was 
 made. 
 
 1796 
 1857 
 1800 
 1857 
 1797 
 1855 
 / 1835 
 ' 1855 
 1830 
 1855 
 1778 
 1855 
 1778 
 1855 
 1778 
 1855 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 420 
 
 1 
 
 1,500 
 
 
 
 350 
 40 
 
 176 
 40 
 41 
 24 
 
 530 
 19 
 
 600 
 5 
 
 220 
 24 
 
 10,162 
 1,938 
 
 8,224 
 
 Exhibit D. 
 
 ArcKiwo general de notarias del 
 distrito federal. 
 
 Testimonio de la escritura de venta 
 de tineas de la pertenencia del 
 Fondo Piadoso de Californias, 
 otorgada por los Senores Mi- 
 nistros de la Tesoreria General 
 de la Nacion, a favor de los Se- 
 nores Liquidatarios y demas 
 socios de la extinguida empresa 
 del tabaco. 
 
 Mexico, agosto 9 de 1902. 
 En la Ciudad de Mexico, a veinte 
 y nueve de noviembre de mil ocho- 
 cientos cuarenta y dos, ante mi, el 
 
 General archives of notaries of 
 the federal district. 
 
 Certified copy of the deed of sale 
 of properties which belonged to 
 the Pious Fund of Californias, 
 executed by the ministers of the 
 general treasury of the nation, 
 in favor of the liquidators and 
 the other members of the extinct 
 tobacco monopoly. 
 
 Mexico, August 9th, 1902. 
 In the City of Mexico, the 29th 
 day of November, 1842, before me, 
 the notary public, appeared, with 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 
 
 91 
 
 Escribano Publico del numero y 
 testigos, los Senores Don Tran- 
 quilino de la Vega y Don Nicolas 
 Maria de Fagoaga, ministros ac- 
 tuates de la tesoreria general de 
 la nacion dijeron : que por el 
 ministerio de hacienda se les han 
 dirijido las dos supremas ordenes 
 que tengo a la vista y cuyo tenor 
 con el de la respectiva certification 
 de entero y decreto de la materia 
 es a la letra como sigue ' ' minis- 
 terio de hacienda. Secci6n segun- 
 da numero dos mil setecientos diez 
 y siete. El Ecselentisimo Senor 
 Ministro de Justicia e Instruction 
 
 {mblica con fecha de ayer me dice 
 o que sigue: Ecselentisimo Senor, 
 El Ecselentisimo Senor Presidente 
 provisional de laRepublicamejica- 
 na se ha servido espedir el decreto 
 siguiente ' 'Antonio Lopez de Santa 
 Anna, Benem^rito de la Patria, 
 General de Division y Presidente 
 provisional de la Republica meji- 
 cana a, los habitantes de ella sabed; 
 Que teniendo en consideracion que 
 el Decreto de ocho de Febrero del 
 presente ano, que dispuso volviera 
 a continuar al cargo del Sepremo 
 Gobierno el cuidado y Administra- 
 tion del f ondo piadoso de Califor- 
 nias, como lo habia estado ante- 
 riormente, se dirije a que se logren 
 con toda esactitud lo bene^ficios y 
 nacionales objetos que se propuso 
 la fundadora, sin la menor perdida 
 de los bienes destinados al intento: 
 y considerando asimismo, que esto 
 solo puede conseguirse,capitalizan- 
 do los propios bienes, e imponien- 
 dolos a cr^ditos bajo las debidas 
 seguridades, para evitar asi los 
 gastos de Administration y cual- 
 quiera otros que puedan sobreve- 
 nir; usandodelasfacultadesqueme 
 concede la septima de las bases 
 acordadas en Tacubaya y sancio- 
 nadas por la nacion, he tenido a 
 bien decretar lo siguiente primero. 
 Las Finca rfisticus y urbanas, los 
 crdditos, y demaas bienes pertene- 
 cientes al fondo piadoso de Cali- 
 fornias, quedan incorporados al 
 
 witnesses, the Messrs. Don Tran- 
 quiiino de la Vega and Don Nicolas 
 Maria de Fagoaga, present minis- 
 ters of the general treasury of the 
 nation, and said that through the 
 department of finance (hacienda) 
 there have been issued the two su- 
 preme orders which I have before 
 me, and whose tenor, with that of 
 the respective certificate of receipt 
 and decree relative to the matter 
 is literally as follows: "Depart- 
 ment of finance (hacienda) section 
 second, numbertwo thousand seven 
 hundred and seventeen. His ex- 
 cellency, the minister of justice 
 and public instructions under date 
 of yesterday, addresses me as fol- 
 lows: Most Excellent Sir: His Ex- 
 cellency the Provisional President 
 of the Mexican Republic has seen 
 fit to issue the following decree: 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, 
 Well deserving of the country, 
 general of division and Provi- 
 sional President of the Mexican 
 Republic to the inhabitants of the 
 same, be it known: That whereas, 
 the decree of February 8th of the 
 present year, directing that the ad- 
 ministration and care of the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias should re- 
 devolve on and continue in charge 
 of the Government, as had previ- 
 ously been the case, was intended to 
 fulfill most faithfully the benefi- 
 cent and national objects designed 
 by the founders, withoutthe slight- 
 est diminution of the properties 
 destined to the end; and whereas, 
 this result can only be attained by 
 capitalizing the funds and placing 
 them at interest on proper securi- 
 ties so as to avoid the expenses of 
 administration and the like, which 
 may occur. In virtue of the power 
 conferred on me by the Seventh 
 Article of the Bases of Tacubaya, 
 and sanctioned by the Nation, I 
 have determined to decree as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 1. The real estate, urban and 
 rural, the credits, and all other 
 property belonging to the Pious 
 
92 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Erario nacional. Segundo. Sepro- 
 cedera por el Ministerio de Haci- 
 enda a la venta de las fincas y demas 
 bienes pertenecientes al f ondo pia- 
 doso de Californias, por el capital 
 que representen al seis por ciento 
 de sus productos anuales, y la Haci- 
 enda publica reconocera el redito 
 del mismo seis por ciento, el total 
 producido de estas enagenaciones. 
 Tercero. La renta del Tab'aco q ueda 
 hipotecada especialmente, al pago 
 de los reditos correspondientes del 
 capital del referido fondo de Cali- 
 fornias, y la Direccion del ramo 
 entregara las cantidades necesarias 
 para cumplir los objetos a que est& 
 aestinado el mismo fondo, sin de- 
 duccion alguna por gastos de Ad- 
 ministration ni otro alguno, por 
 tanto mando se imprima, publique 
 circule y se le de el debido cumpli- 
 miento. Palacio del Gobierno na- 
 cional en Mejico a veinte y cuatro 
 de Octubre de mil ochocientos 
 cuarenta y dos. Antonio Lopez 
 de Santa Anna. Pedro Veloz, 
 Ministro de Justicia e - Instruccion 
 publica. "YlocomunicoaVuesen- 
 cia, para su inteligencia y efectos 
 correspondientes." Trasladolo a 
 Usias, de Suprema orden con igua- 
 les fines. DiosyLibertad. Mejico, 
 Octubre veinte y cinco de mil ocho- 
 cientos cuarenta j dos. Trigue- 
 ros — Senoresencargados delaTeso- 
 reria general." Almargen: "Sup- 
 remas orden." Ministerio de ha- 
 cienda. Seccion. Ntimerodosmil 
 setecientosonce. T.Numero cuatro 
 mil novecientos diez y seis. Los 
 liquidatarios y demas socios de la 
 estinguida empresa del tabaco, han 
 hecho la siguiente proposicion. l a . 
 Compraremos al Supremo Gobier- 
 no, la Hacienda conocida con el 
 nombre de amoles con sus anexas, 
 y las tres cuartas partes que le perte- 
 necen en la de Cienega del Pastor y 
 sus anecsas, ubicadas, la priniera en 
 el Departamento de San Luis Poto- 
 si, y la segunda en el de Guadala- 
 jara; pertenecientes ambasal fondo 
 piadoso de Californias; y cuyo va- 
 
 Fund of the Californias are incor- 
 porated into the national treasury. 
 
 2. The department of the treas- 
 ury will proceed to sell the real es- 
 tate and other property belonging 
 to the Pious Fund of the Californias 
 for the capital represented by their 
 annual product at six per cent per 
 annum. And the public treasury 
 will acknowledge an indebtedness 
 of six per cent per annum on the 
 total proceeds of the sales. 
 
 3. The revenue from tobacco is 
 specially pledged for the payment 
 of the income corresponding to the 
 capital of the said fund of the Cali- 
 fornias, and department in charge 
 thereof, will pay over the sums 
 necessary to carry on the objects 
 to which said fund is destined with- 
 out any deduction forcosts, whether 
 of administration or otherwise. . 
 
 Therefore, I order that it be 
 printed, published, and circulated 
 and properly executed. Palace of 
 the National Government of Mex- 
 ico, October 24, 1842, Antonio Lo- 
 pez de Santa Anna, Pedro Velez, 
 minister of justice and public in- 
 struction. "And I communicate 
 it to your honor for your knowl- 
 edge and appropriate action." I 
 transfer it to your honors by 
 supreme order for the same pur- 
 poses, God and liberty. Mexico, 
 October 25, 1842. Trigueros.— 
 Gentlemen in charge of the general 
 treasury. In the margin: "Su- 
 preme order," department of 
 finance (hacienda). Section num- 
 ber two thousand seven hundred 
 and eleven. T. Number four 
 thousand ninehundredandsixteen. 
 The liquidators and the other mem- 
 bers of the extinct tobacco monop- 
 oly have made the following pro- 
 posal: First. We will buy from 
 the Supreme Government the 
 estate known by the name of 
 "Amoles," with its outlying prop- 
 erties (anexas) and three-f ourths of 
 the Cie"nega del Pastor and its out- 
 lying properties (anexas), which 
 also belong to it; the first situated 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 93 
 
 lor se calculara por lo que produsca 
 sus actuales arrendamientos, a, ra- 
 zon de un seis por ciento al ano: es 
 decir, que si estos producen anual- 
 mente veinte y cuatro mil pesos, el 
 precio de estas dos fincas sera, de 
 cuatrocientos mil pesos; y en la 
 misma proporcion si el arrenda- 
 miento es mayor 6 menor. Dare- 
 mos en pago, cincuenta mil pesos 
 que se enteraran inmediatamente en 
 laTesoreria general— doscientos cin- 
 cuenta mil pesos que por resultado 
 de nuestra cuenta con el Banco 
 nos deben ser pagados en abonos 
 de treinta y cinco mil pesos men- 
 suales con los productos de las 
 rentas de Tabacos de las Adminis- 
 traciones de Zacatecas y Guada- 
 lajara, tanluego como seamortizen 
 las ordenes anteriores, que se nos 
 estan pagando en la actualad por 
 las mismas Administraciones con 
 arreglo al Decreto Supremo de doce 
 de Noviembre de mil ochocientos 
 cuarenta y uno. 2 a - Segunda. Lo 
 que f altare hasta completer el total 
 valor de dichas haciendas lo entre- 
 garemos en la Tesoreria general en 
 creditos reconocidos por la nacion; 
 verificandolo en el termino de ocho 
 meses, que se contaran desde la 
 f echa de la aprobacion de esta pro- 
 puesta. 3 a - Tercera. El Supremo 
 Gobierno saneara en todo caso la 
 venta de dichas fincas; cualquiera 
 reclamacion que pueda hacerse con- 
 tra las mismas, sera de cuenta del 
 Gobierno satisfacerlas, sin que por 
 ningfin motivo se nos inquiete en 
 la pacifica posecion de ellas, y 
 cualquiera gasto 6 perjuicio que 
 se nos pueda orijinar por este mo- 
 tivo, nos debera ser indemnizado 
 por la Hacienda publica. 4\ 
 Cuarta. No estaremos obligados a 
 ecsivir ninguna otra cantidad que 
 las ya espresadas, por razon de 
 esta compra. 5 a . Quinta. Nos obli- 
 gamos a cumplir las Escrituras de 
 arrendamiento de dichas Hacien- 
 das hasta su termino, si en ellas 
 se espresare que los arrendatarios 
 no deban ser molestados ni aun 
 
 in the District of San Luis Potosi, 
 and the second in that of Guadala- 
 jara; both belonging to the Pious 
 Fund of Calif or nias; the value of 
 which shall be determined by the 
 capital, which at the rate of 6 per 
 centper annumwould produce their 
 present rents — that is to say, that 
 if these 3'ield annually twenty -four 
 thousand dollars, the price of these 
 two estates shall be four hundred 
 thousand dollars; and in the same 
 proportion if the income for rents 
 be greater or less. We will give 
 in payment fifty thousand dollars, 
 to be deposited immediately in the 
 general treasury — two hundred 
 and fifty thousand, which as a re- 
 sult of our account with the bank 
 (banco) ought to be paid us in 
 monthly instalments of $35,000, 
 together with the proceeds of the 
 revenues of tobacco from the dis- 
 tricts of Zacatecas and Guadalajara 
 as soon as the above orders shall 
 fall due, which are being paid at 
 present by said districts in accor- 
 dance with the supreme order of 
 the 12th of November, 1841. Sec- 
 ond: The amount lacking to com- 
 plete the total value of the said 
 estates will pay into the general 
 treasury in notes approved by the 
 nation; redeeming the same in the 
 period of eight months, which will 
 be counted from the approval of 
 this offer. Third: The Supreme 
 Government shall guarantee in 
 every case the sale of said estates; 
 it shall be the obligation of the 
 Government to satisfy any claims 
 whatsoever that may be brought 
 against the estates, so that we may 
 not for any cause be disturbed in 
 the peaceful possession of them, 
 and any expense or loss which 
 may originate through this cause 
 must be made good by the public 
 treasury (Hacienda). Fourth. We 
 will not be held liable for any other 
 amount than those already stated 
 by reason of this purchase. Fifth. 
 We bind ourselves to carry out 
 the contracts of the leases of said 
 
94 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE C ALIFOBNI AS. 
 
 en el caso de enagenacion de las 
 mencionadas fincas." Y en virtud 
 de la autorizaci6n que concede al 
 Gobierno el decreto de esta fecha, 
 admite el Ecselentisimo Senor 
 Presidente provisional esta propo- 
 sicion, bajo el concepto de que los 
 cincuenta mil pesos que se of recen 
 entregar en numerario se ecsiviran 
 en el acto. Dios y Libertad. Me- 
 jico, Octubre veinte y cinco de mil 
 ochocientos cuarenta y dos. Tri- 
 ffueros. Senores encargados de la 
 Tesoreria general." Al margen: 
 ' 'Otra. " ' 'Ministerio de hacienda. 
 Seccion segunda, Nwnerro dos mil 
 ochocientos tres. T. numero cihco 
 mil trescientos cua/renta y sets. 
 Dada cuenta al Ecselentisimo Senor 
 Presidente sustituto con el oficio 
 de Usias. , numero doscientos uno 
 de diez y siete del que rige, en 
 que consultan si al venderse las 
 Haciendas de Cienega del Pastor 
 y San Agustin de los Amoles per- 
 tenecientes al Fondo Piadoso de 
 Calif ornias se tubo presente el valor 
 de los llenos, ecsistencias, deudas 
 y mejoras; se ha servido acordar 
 su Escelencia diga a Usias. , en con- 
 testation, como lo verifico, que 
 teniendo en consideracion el Su- 
 premo G obierno que se computaron 
 los llenos de las Haciendas refe- 
 ridas para apreciar sus arrenda- 
 mientos a los que se acomodo el 
 precio 6 valor contenido en el con- 
 trato celebrado con los liquidatarios 
 y demas socios de la estinguida em- 
 presa del tabaco para la venta de 
 las fincas espresadas cuya aproba- 
 cion comunique a Usias. bajo el 
 numero dos mil setecientos once en 
 veinte y cinco del ultimo Octubre, 
 no se insiste en que sean pagados 
 por separado. En consecuencia 
 dispone su Escelencia se admitala 
 propuesta que han hecho los in- 
 teresados vervalmente, reducida a 
 recibii tres mil pesos en el acto, y 
 con calidad de que si los llenos 
 aparecieren pertenecer a tercera 
 persona, sera de cuenta de los mis- 
 mos su devolution 6 contenta. sin 
 
 estates until their expiration, if 
 therein it be provided that the 
 tenants must not be disturbed 
 even in case of the sale of the said 
 estates." 
 
 And in virtue of the authority 
 conceded to the Government by the 
 decree of this date, His Excellency, 
 the Provisional President, accepts 
 this offer upon the condition that 
 the $50,000 which is offered to be 
 paid in coin be delivered immedi- 
 ately. God and Liberty. Mexico, 
 October 24, 1842. Trigueros. 
 Gentlemen in charge of theGeneral 
 Treasury. In the margin — "Ano- 
 ther," "Department of Finance" 
 (Hacienda), "SectionSecond, Num- 
 ber two thousand eight hundred 
 and three. T. Number five thou- 
 sand, three hundred and'forty-six. 
 His Excellency, the Provisional 
 President, having been notified by 
 the letter of Your Excellencies, No. 
 201 of 17 instant, in which you 
 discuss as to whether or not account 
 was taken of the utensils (llenos) 
 stock, debts and improvements of 
 the hacienda Cienega del Pastor 
 and San Agustin de los Amoles 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of 
 Calif ornias at the time of their sale. 
 His Excellency has seen fit to say 
 in reply to your Honors, to which 
 I attest, that inasmuch as the 
 Supreme Government took into 
 consideration the farming utensils 
 (llenos) on the said estates in order 
 to determine their rents, by means 
 of which the price or value con- 
 tained in the contract made with 
 the liquidators of the extinct 
 Tobacco Monopoly for the sale of 
 the aforesaid estates was computed, 
 the approval of which contract, I 
 communicated toyourHonorsunder 
 Number 2711 on the 25th of October 
 last, it is not required that the uten- 
 sils be paid for separately . There- 
 fore his Excellency orders the ac- 
 ceptance of the proposal made ver- 
 bally by the parties interested, pro- 
 vided three thousand dollars be paid 
 down, and with the understanding 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 95 
 
 que esta incluya responsabilidad 
 alguna que tenga que cubrir el 
 Gobierno. De suprema orden lo 
 comunico a Usias. para su inteli- 
 gencia y fue desde luego se pro- 
 ceda a otorgar la correspondiente 
 Escritura de enagenacion. Dios y 
 Liber tad. Mejico Noviembre 
 veinte y tres de mil ochocientos 
 cuarenta y dos. Trigueros. Se- 
 iiores encargados de la Tesoreria 
 general. Certificaci6n de entero. 
 ' ' Los ministros. Tesoreros gene- 
 rales de la Nacion. Certificamos 
 que hoy a f ojas quinientas veinte y 
 nueve vuelta del Libro manuel de 
 cargo, nos formamos el siguiente. 
 Son cargo: Trescientos tres mil 
 pesos que con el valor de las Polizas 
 numeros mil ochocientos cuatro y 
 mil ochocientos cinco y tres mil 
 en numerario, enteran los liquida- 
 tarios y demas socios de la extin- 
 guida Empresa del Tabaco, y con 
 ciento veinte y cinco rnil quinientos 
 que han de enterar en veinte y 
 cinco de Juniodel anoprocsimo de 
 mil ochocientos cuarenta y tres, en 
 creditos reconocidos por la Nacion 
 componen el total de cuatrocientos 
 veinte y ocho mil quinientos pesos, 
 en que han comprado las haciendas 
 del Custodio (a) San Agustin de 
 los Amoles y sus anecsas en el De- 
 
 Eartamento de San Luis Potosi, y 
 i de Cienega del Pastor y sus 
 anecsas en el de Jalisco, pertene- 
 cientes al Fondo Piadoso de Cali- 
 fornias, calculado el valor de la 
 primera sobre doce mil setecientos 
 cinco pesos que produce de arren- 
 damiento a razon de un seis por 
 ciento anual, y de doce mil ocho- 
 cientos veinte y cinco pesos tres 
 cuartas partes sobre diez y siete 
 mil cien pesos que produce tambien 
 de arrendamiento la segunda; todo 
 conforme a aprobacion suprema 
 del Gobierno fecha veinte y cinco 
 del mes procsimo pasado y a resolu- 
 cion superior que orijinales se ad- 
 juntan a este billete, en el concepto 
 de que el entero de la parte de cre- 
 ditos, queda afianzada a, nuestra 
 
 that should the utensils (llenos) 
 thereon belong to a third party, it 
 will be the d uty of the purchasers to 
 restore the same or give satisfaction 
 relieving the Government from all 
 responsibility. By supreme order 
 I communicate the same to your 
 honors for your information and 
 that you may forthwith proceed 
 to execute the corresponding deed 
 of sale. God and liberty. Mexico, 
 November 23, 1842. Trigueros. 
 Gentlemen in charge of the general 
 treasury. Certificate of receipt 
 (entero). The ministers, treasurers 
 general of the nation — We cer- 
 tify that to-day on pages 529 and 
 over in the book of accounts we 
 have entered the following: There 
 has been entered to the account 
 of the liquidators and the other 
 members of the extinct tobacco 
 monopoly $303,000, deposited in 
 notes Nos. 1804 and 1805, and 
 $3,000 in cash, which, with the 
 1125,500 which they are obliged 
 to pay on the 25th of June of 
 next year, 1843, in notes approved 
 by the nation, forms the total 
 amount of $428,500 for which sum 
 has been purchased the estates Cus- 
 todio, San Agustin de los Amoles 
 and their outlying properties 
 (anexas) in the District of San 
 Luis Potosi, that of Cienega del 
 Pastor and its outlying properties 
 (anexas) in the District of Jalisco, 
 belonging to he Pious Fund of 
 Calif ornias; the value of the first 
 calculated at $12,705, which it pro- 
 duced from rents at the rate of 
 6% per annum, and the second at 
 $2,825, being three-fourths of 
 $17,100, which is also produced 
 from rents; all in accordance with 
 the approval of the Supreme Gov- 
 ernment, dated 25th of last month 
 and a superior resolution, the orig- 
 inals of which are attached to this 
 letter, with the understanding that 
 the entire amount in the form of 
 notes be secured to our satisfaction. 
 Letter 1884 — $303,000. Vega— 
 Fagoaga — Manuel Fernandez, Li- 
 
96 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 satisfaction. Billete mil ochocien- 
 tos ochenta y cuatro. Trescientos 
 tres mil pesos. Vega. Fagoaga. 
 Manuel Fernandez, Liquidatario 
 de la E. del Tabaco. Y para que 
 conste damos la presente en Mejico 
 a veinte y seis de Noviembredemil 
 ochocientos cuarenta y dos. Tran- 
 quilinodela Vega. Nicolas Maria de 
 Fagoaga. Que supuesfo lo ref erido 
 y procediendo al otorgamiento de la 
 correspondiente Escritura, por la 
 presente y en aquella via y forma 
 que mas haya lugar en derecho 
 ftrme y valedera sea, los espresados 
 Senores Ministros otorgan: Que 
 en cumplimiento de las supremas 
 ordenes referidas, venden en 
 venta real de hoy para siempre 
 y dan en adjudication y pago a, 
 los Senores Liquidatarios y 
 demas socios de la estinguida 
 Empresa del Tabaco las tres 
 cuartas partes que el Supremo 
 Gobierno tiene en la Hacienda de 
 Cienega del Pastor y sus anecsas 
 con cuanto a ellas corresponda, y 
 la Hacienda de San Agustin de 
 los Amoles con sus anecsas de San 
 Jose la Vaya, San Ygnacio del 
 Buey, Custodio, Buena Vista, y 
 todas las otras tierras y rancherias 
 que constan de los respectivos docu- 
 mentos y se han considerado y 
 consideran como pertenecientes a 
 dicha finca, excepto la de San Pedro 
 de Ybarra, que con anterioridad 
 esta enagenada por el Supremo 
 Gobierno; cuyas tineas se hayan 
 ubicadas en los Departamentos de 
 Guadalajara, San Luis Potosi, 
 Tamaulipas 6 algun otro que no se 
 tiene presente, y f ueron de la per- 
 tenencia del fondo piadoso de Cali- 
 fornias, de las cuales dispone el 
 Supremo Gobierno con arreglo a 
 lo prevenido en el Decreto incerto, 
 que con respecto a dicho fondo 
 espidio por el Ministerio de Jus- 
 ticia en veinte y cuatro del proc- 
 simo pasado Octubre y a otras 
 varias antiguas disposiciones, cuya 
 venta hacen los referidos Senores 
 Ministros con cuanto de hecho y 
 
 quidator of the extinct tobacco 
 monopoly. And in witness where- 
 of, we execute the present instru- 
 ment in Mexico, the 26 of Novem- 
 ber, 1842 — Tranquilino de la Vega. 
 Nicolas Maria de Fagoaga. " That 
 admitting the foregoing and pro- 
 ceeding to the execution of the 
 corresponding deed, now and in 
 that manner and form which may 
 be most binding and valid in law, 
 the said gentlemen ministers cove- 
 nant: That in fulfillment of said 
 Supreme orders, they will sell in 
 fee simple (venta real) from now 
 and forever and give in settle- 
 ment and payment to the liquida- 
 tors and the other members of 
 the extinct tobacco monopoly the 
 three-fourths part which the su- 
 preme government owns in the 
 estate Cienega del Pastor and its 
 outlying properties (anexas) and 
 whatever belongs thereto, and the 
 estate San Agustin de los Amoles, 
 with its outlying properties (an- 
 exas) of San Jose Lavaya, San Ig- 
 nacio del Buey, Custodio, Buena 
 Vista, and of the other lands and 
 ranches which appear in the re- 
 spective documents, and which 
 have been considered and are con- 
 sidered as pertaining to said prop- 
 erty, except that of San Pedro de 
 Ibarra, which has already been sold 
 by the Supreme Government; 
 which properties are situated in 
 the districts of Guadalajara, San 
 Luis Potosi, Tamaulipas, or in any 
 other not named, and which prop- 
 erties belonged to the Pious Fund 
 of California, of which the Su- 
 preme Government disposes in ac- 
 cordance with its rights, set forth 
 in the decree hereto annexed, and 
 which, with reference to said fund, 
 was issued by the Department 
 of Justice the 24th of October 
 last, and in accordance with va- 
 rious former orders, which sale 
 the said ministers make of all 
 that by right and law belongs 
 and pertains to said properties, 
 including the farming implements 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 97 
 
 de derecho toca y pertenece a dichas 
 fincas inclusos los llenos de mue- 
 bles, semovientes y aperos, con los 
 linderosque guardan, sus entradas, 
 salidas, usos, servidumbres, trojes, 
 casas y aguas, del mismo modo 
 que hasta aqui se han poseido por 
 el ref erido f ondo piadoso, libres de 
 todo> gravamen, censo e hipoteca, 
 en precio y cuantia de cuatrocien- 
 tos veinte y ocho mil quinientos 
 pesos que es su legitimo valor, 
 regulado por los actuales arrenda- 
 mientos, incluyendose el valor de 
 los llenos en los teYminos y del 
 modo que espresa la segunda de 
 las Supremas ordenes incertas, y 
 caso que mas valgan, hacen dona- 
 cion pura, perfecta e" irrevocable 
 que el derecho llama intervwos, 
 sin que ahora ni nunca pueda 
 demandarseles otra suma a los 
 compradores por razon de este con- 
 trato, debi^ndose, ademas entre- 
 garseles a estos todos los titulos, 
 papeles y documentos que hagan 
 relacion con dichas fincas, y pudi- 
 endo tomar posecion de ellas 
 desde luego, judicial 6 estrajudi- 
 cialmente segun les convenga con 
 solo la copia de esta Escritura y 
 como reales vendedores se obligan 
 a la eviction y saneamiento de este 
 contrato, en tales terniinos que 
 siempre sera firme y subsistente 
 sin que nadie pueda alegar mejor 
 derecho, y si se anulare 6 saliere 
 tercero que sobre estas fincas 6 
 parte de ellas alegare derecho 6 
 pusiere pleito, lo tomara. de su 
 cuenta la Hacienda ptiblica tan 
 luego como se le avise aunque sea 
 despues de la publicacion de pro- 
 vanzas, y lo seguira por todas sus 
 instancias hasta dejar a los Senores 
 compradores en quieta y pacifica 
 posecion, lo que si no pudiere con- 
 seguir los indemnizara del precio 
 de esta venta con todas las mejoras 
 que hubieren hecho, gastos eroga- 
 dos, y danos y perjuicios que se les 
 sigan con total arreglo a lo pactado 
 en las condiciones tercera y cuarta 
 en la primera de las supremas 6r- 
 S. Doc. 28 7 
 
 [llenos], furniture, stock, and 
 sheep, with the fences which en- 
 close them, the rights of way en- 
 joyed, or to whom they are sub- 
 ject, uses, servitudes, granaries, 
 buildings, and waters in the same 
 manner as they have been pos- 
 sessed heretofore by the said Pious 
 Fund, free from all encumbrance, 
 annuity, andmortgage, forthesum 
 of $428,500, which is their true 
 value, estimated by the present 
 rents, including the value of the 
 farming utensils [llenos] under the 
 terms and in the manner expressed 
 by the second of the supreme or- 
 ders herein incorporated; and in 
 case they are worth more, they 
 make entire, perfect, and irrev- 
 ocable donation, which in law is 
 called intervivos, so that neither 
 now nor ever caii any other 
 sum be demanded from the gran- 
 tees by reason of this contract, 
 binding themselves, moreover, to" 
 deliver to the latter all the titles, 
 papers, and documents which may 
 relate to said properties; and grant- 
 ing immediate possession of them, 
 judicially or extrajudicially, ac- 
 cording as may please them (con 
 solo) by a copy of this deed alone; 
 and as actual sellers they bind 
 themselves to the security and 
 guaranty of this contract on such 
 terms as will always be binding 
 and lasting to the exclusion of all 
 prior rights, and if the sale should 
 be annulled, or a third party should 
 appear to allege title or to bring 
 suit concerning these properties, 
 the public treasury as soon as it 
 is advised of it, even though it be 
 after the taking of testimony, un- 
 dertakes to prosecute the same 
 through all its stages until the 
 
 frantees be left in quiet and un- 
 isturbed possession, or if this can 
 not be accomplished in full per- 
 formance of that which is agreed in 
 the third and fourth conditions of 
 the first of the supreme orders here 
 incorporated, it (the public treas- 
 ury) will return to them the price 
 
98 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 denes incertas. Y habiendo cum- 
 plido ya los compradores adjudi- 
 catarios con las eshibiciones a que 
 se comprometieron segun consta 
 de la certificacion incerta; y no 
 teniendo lugar la clausula quinta 
 en razon de no estar obligado el 
 supremo gobierno a, mantener a 
 los arrendatarios en sus contratos, 
 verificada la venta; quedan los es- 
 presados compradores adjudicata- 
 rios en la libre, franca, y general 
 administracion de las espresadas 
 fincas para que puedan disponer de 
 ellas como les convenga por si 6 
 por quien sus derechos represente, 
 como de cosa suyapropia, legitima- 
 mente adquirida; entendiendose 
 que este contrato debe comenzar £ 
 tener sus ef ectos desde el dia veinte 
 y cinco del pasado Octubre, que es 
 la fecba de su aprobacion, segun la 
 primera de las incertas ordenes; y 
 que por consiguiente desde aquella 
 fecha deberan percibir los compra- 
 dores los productos y arrendami- 
 ento de las repetidas fincas. Yala 
 guarda, firmeza y cumplimiento de 
 esta Escritura, obligan los Senores 
 otorgantes los haberes de la Haci- 
 enda publica y los someten a los 
 Tribunales y Jueces competentes 
 para que a, lo dicho la compelan y 
 apremien como si fUese por sen- 
 tencia consentida y pasada en 
 autoridad de cosa juzgada, con la 
 renuncia de Leyes favorables en 
 derecho necesaria. Y estando 
 presentes los Senores Don Fran- 
 cisco de Paula Rubio y Don 
 Manuel Fernandez y habiendo en- 
 tendido el tenor de esta Escritura, 
 dijeron: Que como socios liquida- 
 tarios y en representacion de los 
 Senores Rubio hermano, Don 
 Joaquin Maria Errazu, Don Felipe 
 Neri del Barrio, Don Manuel 
 Escandon, Don Benito de Maqua 
 y Muriel hermanos, que son los 
 que componen la estinguida em- 
 presa delTabaco, y a quienes se ha 
 hecho esta adjudication y venta, 
 aceptaban y aceptan en los terminos 
 en ella contenidos, y firmaron con 
 
 of this sale, and of all the improve- 
 ments which they have made, costs 
 of suit, damages, and losses which 
 may be incurred by them. And 
 the grantees having made the de- 
 posits to which they agreed as is 
 shown by the certificate hereto an- ' 
 nexed and the fifth clause having 
 no force, because theSupreme Gov- 
 ernment is not obliged to protect 
 the tenants in their contracts in 
 the event of a sale, the said grantees 
 are placed in full, free, and entire 
 possession to manage the said prop- 
 erties, so that they may dispose 
 of them as they please for them- 
 selves or for those whose rights 
 they represent, as of their own 
 private preperty legimately ac- 
 quired; it being understood that 
 this contract is to take effect from 
 the 25th of October last, the date 
 of its approval, according to the 
 first of the orders herein incor- 
 porated and that consequently from 
 that date the grantees should re- 
 ceive the proceeds and rents from 
 the said properties. And for the 
 perfectperformanceandfulfillment 
 of this deed, the grantors pledge 
 the assets of the public treasury 
 and submit them to the tribunals 
 and competent judges, so that at 
 the proper time they may uphold 
 and enforce it as though by a 
 judicial sentence pronounced, with 
 the force of res judicata, with the 
 renunciation of favorable statutes 
 deemed necessary in law. And 
 being present, the Messrs. Don 
 Francis de Paula Rubio and Don 
 Manuel Fernandez, and having un- 
 derstood the meaning of this deed, 
 said: That as associated liquida- 
 tors and as representatives of the 
 Messrs Rubio brothers, Don Joa- 
 quin Maria Errazu, Don Felipe 
 Neri de Barrio, Don Manuel Es- 
 candon, Don Benito de Magua and 
 Muriel Brothers, who are those 
 who constitute the extinct tobacco 
 monopoly, and to whom this con- 
 veyance and sale has been made, 
 they accepted and do accept in the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF TEE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 99 
 
 los Senores Ministros siendo testi- 
 gosDonManuel Bracho,Don Felipe 
 Diaz y Don Francisco Gonzales de 
 esta vecindad, de que doy fe\ — 
 Tranguilino de la Vega. Nicolas 
 Ma. de Fagoaga. Franco, de P. 
 Rvhio. Liqo. de la E. de T. M. 
 Fernandez. Liqo. de la F. de 
 Tavo. Ramon Villaldbos. Fsno. 
 Pubco. Rubricas. 
 
 Un sello que dice: " Secretaria 
 de relaciones exteriores. Mexico. " 
 Seccion de Anieri ca, Asia y Oceania 
 Numero 169. Mexico, Agosto 5 de 
 1902. El Senor Embajador de los 
 Estados Unidos me dice en nota f e- 
 chada ayer lo que traducido, sigue: 
 "El Departamento de Estado me 
 ha informado que, el 21 de Julio 
 proximo pasado, el Gobierno de 
 los Estados Unidos notifico su deseo 
 al Senor Godoy, Encargado de 
 Negocios ad interim de Mexico, 
 para que ciertos documentos f uesen 
 presentados, a fin de hacer prueba 
 ante la Corte de Arbitraje, con- 
 stituida para considerar la cuesti6n 
 de los f ondos piadosos. Entre ellos 
 esta la escritura de venta de tres 
 cuartas partes de la hacienda 
 ' ' Cienaga del Pastor " y sus anexas, 
 y de la hacienda de San Agustin, 
 de San Jose, Lavaya, San Ygnacio 
 del Buey, Custodio, Buena Vista 
 etc. , porlosSecretariosde Hacienda 
 de Mexico, por 1428,500; la cual 
 escritura, creese, rue" tirada en 
 29 de Noviembre de 1842, ante el 
 Notario Fillalobos, y que actual- 
 mente se halla bajo la Custodia 
 del Notario Don Gil Mariano Le6n, 
 de la Ciudad de Mexico. Se desea 
 con interes que una copia del citado 
 documento se ha suministrada tan 
 pronto como fuese posible, 6 
 cuando menos, que mi Gobierno 
 sepa que tal documento sera eu- 
 ministrado por el Gobierno de 
 Mexico. Tengo instrucciones para 
 preguntar desde luego, si el Go- 
 bierno Mexicano ha hecho sacar 
 copia del referido documento, y 
 en que tiempo pueda esperar mi 
 
 terms therein contained and signed 
 with the Ministers, the witnesses 
 thereto being Don Manuel Bracho, 
 Don Felipe Diaz and Don Fran- 
 cisco Gonzalez of this neighbor- 
 hood, to which I attest. Tranqui- 
 lino de la Vega. Nicolas Ma. de 
 Fagoaga. Franco, de P. Rubio, 
 liquidator of the tobacco monop- 
 oly. M. Fernandez, liquidator of 
 the tobacco monopoly. Ramon 
 Villalobos,NotaryPublic,Rubrics. 
 A seal which says: "Department of 
 Foreign Relations, Mexico." Sec- 
 tion of America, Asia, and Oceanica 
 Number 169. Mexico, August 5, 
 1902. The Ambassador of the 
 United States informs me in a note, 
 dated yesterday, which, translated, 
 reads as follows: "The Department 
 of Statehasinformedmethatonthe 
 21st of July last the Government 
 of the United States expressed its 
 desire to Senor Godoy, charge 
 d'affaires ad interim of Mexico, 
 that certain documents should be 
 presented as evidence before the 
 court of arbitration formed to 
 consider the question of the Pious 
 Funds. Among these is the deed 
 of sale of 3/4 parts of the estate 
 'Ci^nega del Pastor' and its out- 
 lying properties (anexas) and of 
 the estate San Agustin de San 
 Jose", Lavaya, San Ignacio del 
 Buey, Custodio, Buena Vista, etc., 
 by the secretaries of the treasury 
 of Mexico for $428,500, which 
 deed it is believed was executed 
 on the 29th of November, 1842, 
 before the Notary Villalobos, and 
 which to-day is to be found in the 
 custody of the Notary Don Gil 
 Mariano Le6n, of the City of Mex- 
 ico. It is specially desired that a 
 copy of the said document be fur 
 nished as soon as possible, or at 
 least that my Government may 
 know that said document will be 
 furnished by the Government of 
 Mexico. I am, therefore, instruct- 
 ed to inquire if the Mexican Gov- 
 ernment has had the said document 
 
100 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Gobierno que le sea remitida al 
 Agente de los Estados Unidos se- 
 giin esta. prevenido en el articulo 
 IV del Protocolo. — "Solicito re- 
 spectuosamente de Vuestra Excel- 
 encia que me en vie, con la pronti- 
 tud que las emergencias del caso 
 lo requieren, el informe deseado." 
 Lo que traslado a Usted a fin de 
 que se sirva expedir, a la brevedad 
 posible, la copia de la escritura a 
 que se refiere la preinserta nota, en 
 el concepto de que debe ser copia 
 fehaciente y sin timbres, por tra- 
 tarse del asunto que la propia nota 
 especifica. Renuevo a listed mi 
 consideraci6n. Mariscal. Rii- 
 briea. Senor Director del Archi- 
 vo general de Notarias. Present©. 
 
 Es tercer testimonio compulsado 
 de su matriz, la que esta autorizada 
 por el Notario Ram6n Villalabos 
 en el protocolo que formo, el cual 
 obra en el Archivo de mi cargo. 
 Y en uso de la facultad que me 
 concede la ley de diez y nueva de 
 Diciembre de mil novecientos uno, 
 en su articulo noventa y seis, f rac- 
 cion catorce, expido el presente a 
 solicitud y para el Supremo Gob- 
 ierno de la Union, en virtud de lo 
 mandado en el oficio preinserto. 
 Esta cotejado y va en seis fojas, y 
 sin timbres por tratarse de asunto 
 en que se interesa el fisco federal. 
 Mexico, Agosto nueve de mil no- 
 vecientos dos. Entre lineas — cir- 
 cule — una palabra — vale. 
 
 E. Escudeeo. 
 
 [Sello. (Archivo General de No- 
 tarias del Distrito Federal, Mexi- 
 co.)] 
 
 Derechos devengados siete pesos. 
 
 (Sin derechos.) 
 
 No. 494. El infrascrito, Sub- 
 secretario de Relaciones exteri- 
 ores, certifica: que el Sr. Lie. 
 DonEduardoEscudero es Director 
 del Archivo general de notarias 
 
 copied, and when my Government 
 may expect it to be forwarded to 
 the agent of the United States, as 
 provided in Article IV of the Pro- 
 tocol. "I respectfully request of 
 your excellency that the desired 
 information be sent to me with 
 the promptness which the emer- 
 gency of the case requires." All 
 of which I hand to you that you 
 may send as soon as possible the 
 copy of the deed to which the 
 above-inserted note refers, with 
 the understanding that the copy 
 must be authentic and without 
 stamps, to be used for the purpose 
 certified in said note. I renew to 
 your honor my consideration. 
 Mariscal. Rubric. Senor Direc- 
 tor of the General Archives of 
 Notaries. Present. 
 
 This is the third copy taken from 
 its original, which is subscribed by 
 the notary, Ramon Villalobos, in 
 the protocol he made, which is filed 
 in the archives in my charge. And 
 availing myself of the rights con- 
 ceded me by the law of December 
 19, 1901, in' its article 96, part 14, 
 I issue the present copy at the re- 
 quest and for the Supreme Gov- 
 ernment of the Union, in virtue of 
 the order in the official letter pre- 
 viously inserted. Compared and 
 issued in six leaves and without 
 stamps on account of dealing with 
 a subject in which the federal 
 treasury is interested. Mexico, 
 August 9, 1902. Inserted between 
 the lines. Circulate — one word — 
 authentic. 
 
 [Seal. General archives of no- 
 taries of the federal districts, 
 Mexico.] 
 
 E. ESCUDEKO. 
 
 Fees are $7. 
 
 •(Rubric.) 
 
 (Without charge.) 
 _ No. 24. The undersigned, as- 
 sistant secretary of foreign rela- 
 tions, certifies that the Sr. Lie. 
 Don Eduardo Escudero is the 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 101 
 
 del distrito federal y suya la firma 
 que antecede. 
 
 Mexico, doce de Agosto de mil 
 novecientos dos. 
 
 Jose Algaka. 
 
 [Sello (Secretaria de Relaciones 
 Exteriores. Mexico).] 
 
 Embassy of the 
 
 United States of America, 
 Mexico, August 13, 1902. 
 
 I, Powell Clayton, ambassador 
 extraordinary and plenipotentiary 
 of the United States of America 
 at Mexico, hereby cereify that Jose 
 Algara, whose signature is hereto 
 attached, was, at the time he signed 
 • the same, subsecretary of the de- 
 partment of foreign affairs at 
 Mexico, and that said signature is 
 his true and genuine signature. 
 
 In witness whereof I have here- 
 unto set my hand and affixed the 
 seal of the embassy of the United 
 States at Mexico, the day and year 
 next above written, and of the in- 
 dependence of the United States the 
 one hundred and twenty-seventh. 
 Powell Clayton. 
 
 [Seal (Embassy of the United 
 States of America,City of Mexico). ] 
 
 director of the general archives 
 of the federal district, and the 
 above signature is his. 
 
 Mexico, August 12, 1902. 
 [Seal of Department of Foreign 
 Affairs.] 
 
 Jose Algaka. 
 
 it if Nov \A 
 
 li ( £•' i 
 
 V V ?9I5 J , 
 
 / ^^ 
 
 *^r 
 
 X" . 
 
CONCLUSIONS POUR LA REPUBLIQUE MEXICAINE CONTRE LL. 
 GG. L'ARCHEVEQUE DE SAN FRANCISCO ET L'EVEQUE DE 
 MONTEREY. 
 
 Attendu que la reclamation a pour objet le paiement de 33 annees 
 d'intergts (1870 a 1902) du "Fonds Pie de Calif ornie" dans la propor- 
 tion pour laquelle les interSts de ce Fonds appartiendraient aux 
 eVSques de la Haute Calif ornie; 
 
 Les demandeurs soutiennent: 
 
 En ordre principal, que le litige relatif a l'attribution aux ev&ques 
 de la Haute Californie des inter^ts du Fonds Pie, aurait recu une solu- 
 tion complete et definitive le 29 novembre 1875, par l'attribution a 
 leur profit dans une premiere sentence arbitrale, de la moitie de ces 
 interets et par la fixation de cette moitie a 43,050 dollars 99 par an; 
 qu'il y aurait ainsi chose jugee et en consequence les demandeurs 
 reclament pour les 33 annees ecoulees, la somme to tale de 1,420,689 
 dollars 67 en or; 
 
 En ordre subsidiaire et pour le cas ou l'exception de chose jugee ne 
 serait pas admise par le Tribunal arbitral, et ou ils auraient ainsi a 
 etablir a nouveau le fondement de leurs droits, les demandeurs recla- 
 ment 85 pour cent du revenu du Fonds et alleguent que cette part 
 repre'sente annuellement 94,521 dollars 44; en consequence et pour 
 cette hypothese, ils sollicitent a charge du Mexique pour les 33 annees 
 ^coulees de 1870 a, 1902, une condamnation a 3,108,207 dollars 52; 
 
 Attendu qu'il est a remarquer tout d'abord qu'il ne s'agit pas a 
 proprement parler d'un arbitrage international, lequel suppose neces- 
 sairement un conflit entra deux Etats; que le Gouvernement des 
 Etats-Unis n'est pas partie en cause; qu'il ne reclame rien pour 
 lui-meme et se borne a appuyer deux de ses sujets, Eveques de 
 Californie; 
 
 Attendu en consequence qu'il s'agit d'un litige de Droit prive, qui 
 doit recevoir sa solution d'apres les regies du droit positif ; 
 
 Attendu que la question soumise aux arbitres est celle de savoir si 
 les demandeurs ont droit a une part du produit des biens des Je"suites 
 de Californie, biens confisques par l'Etat en 1768; que c'est la une 
 question de droit civil qui, a defaut de la constitution d'un Tribunal 
 arbitral, aurait du normalement £tre portee devant les Tribunaux 
 Mexicains comme toutes les reclamations dirigees contre le Gouverne- 
 ment de ce pays; que les lois civiles mexicaines doivent done etre 
 appliquees par le Tribunal arbitral comme l'auraient fait les Juges 
 auxquels il est substitue; 
 
 Attendu que les demandeurs pretendent a tort que la Cour aurait a 
 faire abstraction de toute regie de droit pour ne tenir compte que de 
 qu'ils appellent arbitrairement "l'equit6;" que tel n'est ni le sens ni 
 la portee du compromis; que la justice procede du droit; 
 
 Attendu qu'il importe tout d'abord de characteriser nettement la 
 reclamation ; 
 
 102 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CA.LIFORNIA8. 103 
 
 Qu'en re*alite les demandeurs pretendent que l'Etat Mexicain aurait 
 l'obligation de leur remettre une part de toutes proprie'te's, creances et 
 valeurs qui auraient autrefois appartenu aux Jesuites de Californie en 
 vue de leurs Missions, et que l'Etat ayant ali^ne toutes ces proprietes 
 et valeurs qu'il s'etait appropri^es, doit aux eveques-demandeurs, 
 1'interSt a, 6 pour cent du montant de ces realisations; 
 
 Que, d'apres les demandeurs, cette obligation de l'Etat Mexicain 
 vis-a-vis d'eux b&tperpetuelle, absolue, irrevocable/ et n'aurait pas m§me 
 pour corollaire un droit de controle a son profit; que le droit implicite- 
 ment reclame" equivaut done au droit de propri6te\ 
 
 Attendu que les demandeurs qualifient cependant le droit reclame 
 de "trust" et considerent le Gouvernement Mexicain comme trustee, 
 mais que le trust suppose evidemment un tiers-proprietaire, pour 
 lequel le trustee agit comme mandataire ou depositaire, et que tout 
 en ne reclamant qu'un certain nombre d'annuites, e'est done bien la 
 propriety que visent les demandeurs; 
 
 Attendu qu'il y a lieu de rechercher quel est le titre sur lequel les 
 demandeurs appuient leur revendication; 
 
 Que ce titre ne pourrait §tre trouve que dans les actes de donation 
 primitifs, tels que celui du Marquis de Villa-Puente considere par les 
 demandeurs comme Facte-type au point de vue de la discussion, ou 
 dans les d^crets du 19 septembre 1836 et du 3 avril 1845 qui ont confie" 
 a l'Eve~que de Californie l'administration et l'emploi du "Fonds Pie." 
 
 QUANT AUX ACTES DE DONATION PRIMITIFS. 
 
 Attendu que les Jesuites ont 4te" charge's par le Roi d'Espagne de la 
 conquete spirituelle et temporelle de la Californie et qu'en vue de ce- 
 double but, il les a autorises, ind^pendamment de prestations du 
 Tresor Royal, a recueillir des aumones et a recevoir des liberalites. 
 
 Attendu que le fonds ainsi forme, moyennant l'autorisation du Roi, 
 ne constituait aucunement une propriety de l'eglise Catholique et que, 
 sauf les droits dela Couronne, ilappartenait exclusivement aux Jesuites, 
 pour leurs missions de Californie; que l'Eglise n'est intervenue ni 
 dans la constitution, ni dans l'administration audit fonds, que m6me les 
 actes de donation excluent toute intervention de l'Ordinaire, fut-ce au 
 point de vue d'un simple contr61e; les Jesuites " n'avaient a rendre 
 compte qu'a Dieu seul." 
 
 Attendu que m^me en droit canon, on n'a jamais confondu les biens 
 de l'eglise avec ceux appartenant soit aux communautes religieuses, 
 soit aux ordres a la fois religieux et militaires, tels que l'ordre de 
 Malte, celui des chevaliers Teutoniques, l'ordre de N. D. du Mont Car- 
 mel, etc., qu'il n'y a done pas m§me a examiner si dans les missions de 
 Californie, le but religieux l'emportait sur le but politique ou recipro- 
 quement; qu'a, toute epoque, les gouvernements se sont tenus comme 
 investis d'un droit de domaine Eminent sur les biens des corporations 
 religieuses, se considerant comme autorises a les supprimer comme ils 
 les avaient' autoris^es a naitre; qu'en mainte occasion, en Angleterre, 
 en Allemagne, en Espagne, en France, etc., ils se sont attribue lememe 
 droit quant aux biens ecclesiastiques proprement dits; 
 
 Attendu que lors de la suppression de l'ordre des Jesuites en Espagne 
 en 1767, le Roi a confisque leurs biens et que notammentil s'est 
 empare de ceux qui etaient afFectes aux missions de Californie; qu'a 
 cette epoque, le souverain pontife Clement XIV n'a fait ni protesta- 
 
104 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 tions, ni reserves,- soit contre le decret du 27 fevrier 1767, qui concer- 
 nait tous les Etats de la couronne d'Espagne, soit contre le decret 
 special du vice-Roi du Mexique de 1768; 
 
 Attendu que du domaine de la couronne d'Espagne, lesdits biens ont 
 passe dans celui de la Republique Mexicaine, qui depuis, les a vendus 
 et desamortis; 
 
 Attendu qu'assurement ces divers actes pose's il y a longtemps, en 
 vertu du droit de souverainte", peuvent Stre diversement apprecies, 
 mais qu'ils ne peuvent prefer a aucune critique utile; que cependant 
 la demande tend implicitement a les faire declarer nuls en ce qui con- 
 cerne la Haute Californie, alors qu'ils conserveraient tous leurs effets 
 quant a la Basse Californie; qu'il suit de ce qui precede que la preten- 
 tion manque de toute base juridique, 
 
 a. parce qu'il ne s'agit pas de biens ayant jamais appartenu a, l'Eglise 
 Catholique. 
 
 h. parce que les Jesuites, a qui ils appartenaient, ont ete depouilles 
 de tout droit. 
 
 c. parce qu'en aucun cas, ces droits n'auraient passe a aucun titre, 
 aux Eveques de la Haute Californie. 
 
 et d. parce qu'enfin l'Eglise elle-meme en aurait e"t6 depouill^e par 
 des actes souverains; 
 
 Attendu d'autre part que les demandeurs ne peuvent invoquer 
 l'intention pretendue des donateurs: 1°. parce que ceux-ci, qui enten- 
 daient investir les Jesuites de droits absolus, n'avaient certes pas prevu 
 la suppression de l'Ordre, 2°. parce que, lorsqu'ils fondaint une ceuvre 
 a la fois religieuse et nationale d'eVangelization et de "reduction" 
 politique, au profit de populations desherites, ils ne pouvaient viser le 
 budget du culte d'une contree devenue toute Chretienne, riche et desor- 
 mais etrangere a la race Espagnole; que de semblables hypotheses, 
 inadmissibles en droit, manqueraient de tout fondement en fait. 
 
 Attendu qu'il est encore a remarquer que les J&uites ont port6 
 exclusivement leur effort sur la Basse Californie, que les missions 
 fondees par eux se trouvaint toutes sur son territoire, que le nom 
 meme de Californie h'etait alors donne qu'a la presqu'ile et que l'on 
 6tait meme g^n^ralement dans la croyance que c'etait une ile; que les 
 donations faites au Fonds Pie n'ont done realise le but des fondateurs 
 que quant au territoire demeure Mexicain et que si certaine seventua- 
 lites permettaient d'en etendre l'effet a d'autres territoires, meme en 
 dehors de l'Amerique, ce n'etait que pour autant que telle futla volont^ 
 
 que l'on objecte que 
 a et6 alors l'objet, annonce l'intention du Roi de ne point faire preju- 
 dice aux charges^ imposees par les donateurs, mais que cette enoncia- 
 tion d'une volonte unilaterale ne diminue en rien les droits absolus que 
 s'attribue le Roi et dont il use par la confiscation; qu'en effet elle ne 
 pouvait creer de droit au profit de personne, ni pour les Jesuites qui, 
 seuls auraient eu qualitee pour protester, mais dont on supprimait 
 l'existence et qui meme depuis leur retablissement n'ont formule aucune 
 reclamation, ni pour l'Eglise Catholique, dont il n'est pas question dans 
 le decret de confiscation, meme au point de vue droits d'administration 
 ou de controle, ni pour les Indiens de Californie, ou d'ailleurs, qui 
 n'avaient aucune existence comme corps ou 6tre de droit, puisqu'a ce 
 titre ils se confondaient avec la nation, alors personnifiee par le Roi; 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORKIAS. 105 
 
 Qu'il s'en suit que les droits absolus que s'attribuait le Roi sont 
 demeures absolus et qu'en effet, un engagement bilateral seul aurait 
 pu les restreindre; qu'aussi nul le leur a conteste ce caractere, avant 
 que des Eveques auxquels la person naiit6 civile a e'te conferee deux 
 siecles plus tard, en vertu des institutions d'un Etat etranger, aient 
 pretendu puiser droit dans l'enonciation des intentions Royales. 
 
 QUANT AUX DECRETS DE 1836, DE 1842 ET DE 1845. 
 
 Attendu que par un decret du 19 September 1836, le gouvernement 
 Mexicain a charge l'Eveque de Californie, qu'il voulait instituer, de 
 l'administration et de l'emploi des biens des missions, que cette mesure 
 fut rapportee par un decret du 24 octobre 1842, qui prononcait la 
 nationalisation du fonds des missions et son incorporation au domaine 
 et ordonnait la vente des biens qui le composaient, qu'un troisieme 
 de'cret du 3 avril 1845 rendit a l'Eveque de Californie l'administration 
 des biens non vendus en vertu du decret precedent en reservant au 
 congres national le droit de disposer quant aux biens deja alienes. 
 
 Attendu que ces diverses dispositions n'etaient que des expressions 
 successivement differentes d'une volonte toujours souveraine et qu'il 
 est impossible d'y voir des contrats synallagmatiques, emportant 
 de la part du gouvernement quelque alienation de propriete ou 
 reconnaissance de creance et que meme en remettant a l'Eveque la 
 
 Sestion des biens affectes aux missions, l'Etat ne faisait que les charger 
 'un office public, en vue d'un interet public; que'n effet, il n'est 
 intervenu a ce sujet aucun contrat ou concordat, soit avec l'autorite 
 pontificale, soit avec le primat de l'Eglise Mexicaine, soit avec l'Eveque 
 cle Californie; que des biens qui appartenaient sans contestation au 
 domaine de l'Etat Mexican, n'auraient pu sortir de ce domaine qu'en 
 vertu de dispositions legislatives formelles et d'une acceptation non 
 moins positive et reguliere de l'Eglise Catholique; qu'aussi en 1842 
 les nouvelles mesures du gouvernement ne furent i'objet d'aucune 
 protestation de la part d'aucune autorite eclesiastique et que lors de la 
 ' remise des biens, le mandataire de l'Eveque, tout en alleguant l'interet 
 de l'Eglise et des fideles, reconnut qu'il n'avait aucun droit a invoquer; 
 Attendu qu'ici encore l'on invoque l'intention exprimee par le gou- 
 vernment mexicain d'affecter aux missions de Californie une somme 
 repre'sentant l'interet a 6 pour cent du produit de la vente des biens, 
 mais que pas plus qu'en' 1768 l'enonciation de semblable volonte dans 
 un acte souverain ne pouvait con3tituer de droits privfe au profit de 
 personne; qu'il aurait fallu pour cela un engagement bilateral qui 
 n'est jamais intervenu; qu'aussi, ni l'eglise mexicaine ni specialement 
 l'Eveque de Basse Californie n'ont revendique aucun droit, soit sous 
 l'empire du decret de 1842, soit depuis 1848, lorsque la Haute Cali- 
 fornie a ete annexee aux Etats-Unis, soit surtout depuis les lois mexi- 
 caines de 1857, 1859 et 1874, qui ont completement nationalise les 
 biens de l'eglise mexicaine. 
 
 Attendu que ce n'est qu'en 1859 que les Eveques auiericains de la 
 Haute Californie, dont la personnification civile ne date que de 1850, 
 ont pour la premiere fois invoque 1 des droits a une part du Fonds Pie 
 de la Californie et qu'ils n'invoquaient et n'invoquent d'autre titre que 
 celui qu'aurait l'eglise mexicaine elle-meme en vertu des intentions 
 exprimees en 1768 et en 1842; que leur demande doit done etre declared 
 sans fondement. 
 
106 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Attendu que les demandeurs invoquenfc encore, mais sans raison, 
 1'arrangement intervenu au sujet des missions des iles Philippines; 
 
 Que certains biens donnes par Dona Josepha Argueles etaient des- 
 tines pour moiti6 aux missions des lies Philippines, qu'apres la procla- 
 mation de l'independance du Mexique, les Dominicains des lies Philip- 
 pines notamment represented par le P. Moran, revendiquerent avec 
 l'appui de la couronne d'Espagne leur part dans lesdits biens et qh'il 
 intervint a ce sujet une transaction en vertu de laquelle le Mexique 
 paya 145,000 dollars; 
 
 Mais qu'il n'est pas admissible que l'on argumente d'une transaction, 
 puisque le caractere essentiel de semblable acte est de ne pas impliquer 
 la reconnaissance d'un droit; que la situation etait d'ailleurs ici toute 
 differente et parce que le Roi d'Espagne en cedant au Mexique le f onds 
 des missions, etait certes fonde a en retenir la part quHl affectait aux 
 missions des lies Philippines, dont il conservait la charge, et parce que 
 d'autres considerations d'ordre politique commandaient un arrangement. 
 
 Attendu que les defendeurs au contraire sont en <lroit d'invoquer 
 divers precedents et notamment: 
 
 1°. Une decision du Conseil superieur des Indes du 4 juin 1783 au 
 sujet de la succession de Dona Josefa Argueles, reconnaissant le droit 
 absolu du Roi aux biens donnas aux missions, depuis la suppression de 
 l'ordre des Jesuites et meme auparavant," en vertu du droit eminent de 
 la couronne; 8 
 
 2°. Diverses decisions des tribunaux americains, en ce qui concerne 
 les biens qui appartenaient jadis aux missions de la Haute Californie, 
 ou les Eranciscains avaient pris la place des Jesuites; l'Eglise Catho- 
 lique ayant revendique la propriety de certains de ces biens, comme 
 etant aux droits des missions, a ete declaree n'y avoir aucun titre. En 
 cause Nobile contre Redman,* il a ete decide' que "les missions etablies 
 en Californie anterieurement a son acquisition par les Etats-Unis, 
 etaient des etablissements politiques et n'avaient aucune relation avec 
 l'Eglise. Le fait que des moines ou des pretres etaient a la tete de 
 ces institutions ne prouve rien en f aveur de la pretention de l'Eglise a' 
 leur propriety." 
 
 Attendu que meme en faisant abstraction de tout ce qui precede, la 
 reclamation des demandeurs, devrait encore etre 6cartee comme en 
 opposition formelle avec les termes et l'esprit du traits de Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, du 2 fevrier 1848; 
 
 Attendu que ce traite stipule au profit de PEtat Mexicain de"charge 
 absolue, tant en ce qui concerne le gouvernement des Etats-Unis — qui 
 loindeser&server quelque revendication pecuniaire, allouaitau Mexique 
 une somme de 15 millions de dollars, en consideration de la cession 
 d'une partie de son territoire— que quant aux reclamations que des 
 citoyens des Etats-Unis pouvaient avoir a, former contre l'Etat Mexi- 
 cain a raison de faits anteneurs au Traite; une somme de 3,250.000 
 dollars etait remise aux Etats-Unis, qui ce moyennant, se chargeaient 
 de desinteresser tous les sujets americains, pouvant etre creanciers du 
 Mexique et une commission exclusivement americaine etait institute 
 pour apprecier leurs pretentions; 
 
 Attendu que la pensee des parties etait done de supprimer entre 
 elles tout sujet de conflit et qu'il semble d'evidence que si les 
 Etats-Unis avaient cru a, une obligation du Mexique envers quelque 
 corporation religieuse deyenue Americai ne, ils l'auraient deduite de 
 
 a "V. le volume publie par les demandeurs, p. 486. 
 6 V. meme volume, p. 343. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 107 
 
 Tindemnite qu'ils allouaient, ou tout au moins fait a ce sujet quelque 
 reserve; 
 
 Attendu que si les chefs de l'eglise catholique dans la Haute Cali- 
 fornie s'etaieiit crus forides a soulever quelque reclamation du chef du 
 fonds pie, ils auraient du en saisir la predite commission Amencaine 
 et que ne l'ayant pas fait, ils seraient de ce seul chef nonrecevables. 
 
 Attendu qu'S, cette fin de non recevoir, les demandeurs opposent 
 une double objection: n. N'ayant et6 investis de la personnification 
 civile qu'en 1850, ils ne pouvaient agir avant cette date et leur creance 
 ne peut done etre de celles dont il a etc" donn6 decharge; i. N'ayant 
 droit qu'a des int^rets et non a, un capital, leur droit ne pourrait pro- 
 ceder que du nonpayement et n'etait done pas ouvert en 1848. 
 
 Attendu: 
 
 a. Que par la sentence arbitrate de 1875, les demandeurs se sont fait 
 allouer des initere"t8 depuis 1848 et que des lors il se concoit peu, 
 qu'ils argumentent de leur nonexistence a cette epoque, mais qu'il est 
 en effet certain qu'en 1848, a partir du traite de Guadelupe, il n'exis- 
 tait plus dans la Haute Californie d'eglisc catholique reconnue, soit 
 Mexicaine, soit Americaine, et qu'une incorporation obtenue depuis 
 n'aurait pu faire revivre des droits eteints, d'ou une nouvelle fin de 
 nonrecevoir; 
 
 h. Que le droit aux inter&ts presuppose un droit de creance et que ce 
 droit dont la base aurait remonte" a de longues annees aurait du exister 
 lors de la separation des deux Calif ornies; d'ou suit qu'il tombait sous 
 le coup des stipulations du traite de Guadalupe ou n'existrait pas; que 
 d'ailleurs la reclamation des demandeurs a porte d'abord sur le princi- 
 pal et que notamment dans leur lottrc du 30 mars 1870 au Secretaire 
 des Etats-Unis Messeigneurs Alemany ct Amat l'evaluaient a 3 millions 
 de dollars; que si plus tard et aujourd'hui encore, on n'a reclame que 
 le paiement d'un certain nombre d'annees d'interet, ce n'etait et ce 
 n'est encore que pour echapper a la decheance pronouncee par le 
 predit traite de Guadalupe. 
 
 Attendu que la demande est encore non recevable a raison des art. 
 27 paraoraphe 2 de la constitution federale des Etats-Unis Mexicains 
 du 5 feVrier 1857, de la loi du 12 iuillet 1859 et de l'art. 14 de 
 l'amendment a la constitution du 14 decembre 1874; 
 
 Attendu que ces lois deja, ci-dessus citees, refusent a toute institution 
 ecciesiastique la personalite civile et partant le droit de posseder et 
 d'administrer des biens quelconques; que l'art. 13 du code civil fede- 
 ral rend les lois Mexicaines applicables aux biens possedes par les 
 etrangers et specialement aux chances garanties par une hypotheque, 
 comme l'eut ete la creance litigieuse par la redevance des fermiers du 
 tabac. 
 
 Attendu que sans qu'il y ait a discuter ou a apprecier ces lois en 
 elles-memes, ou dans leur portee politique et sociale, on ne peut 
 meconnaitre leur force obligatoire, ni leur applicabilite au Fonds pie 
 de Californie qui, dans la these m§me des demandeurs, continuerait a 
 appartenir au Mexique en capital et demeurerait soumis a la legisla- 
 tion Mexicaine, qu'une loi etrangere ne pourrait paralyser; 
 
 DE LA CHOSE PKETENDUEMENT JUGEE PAE DECISION DE LA COMMISSION 
 MIXTE DU 29 NOVEMBEE 1875. 
 
 Attendu qu'il resulte deja de ce qui precede que ce moyen, invoque 
 par les demandeurs en ordre principal, n'est pas fonde; que les 
 
108 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNT AS. 
 
 demandeurs ne peuvent a la fois invoquer la chose jugee quant a, la 
 perpetuite de leur droit et echapper aux stipulations du traite de 
 Guadalupe, en alleguant qu'ils n'ont que des droits annuels, naissant 
 avec chaque echeance; 
 
 Attendu que la presomption de verite qui s'attache il la chose juge"e 
 est une fiction necessaire et admise par toutes les legislations, rnais qui 
 se renferme dans les limites tres scientifiquement trace"es par le code 
 Napoleon, en conformity du droit dnterieur; il ny a chose jugee que 
 quant a ce qui a fait Pobjet de la demande et du jugement et il f aut que 
 la chose demanded soit la meme, que la demande ait la meme cause et 
 soit agitee entre les memes parties, agissant en ia me'me quality. Et 
 la chose jugee ne consiste que dans la decision du juge, c. a d. dans le 
 dispositif de la sentence; elle ne o'^tend pas aux motifs qui en sont 
 seulement 1' explication et ne peuvent servir qu'a l'interpreter, s'il en 
 est besoin; celui-ci meme ne comporte prcisomption de verite" que pour 
 ses dispositions certaines, non pour de simples enonciations (sententia 
 debet esse certa). 
 
 Telle est la disposition expresse de l'Allgemeine Grerichtsordnung 
 d' Allemagne et l'enseignement de la doctrine comme de la j urispr udence, 
 en France, en Belgique, en N6erlande, en Espagne, comme auMexique. 
 Aussi, de simples motifs ne peuvent-ils faire l'objet d'un recours devanti 
 les cours supremes de justice, dont la competence est limitee a la verifi- 
 cation de l'exacte application des lois. 
 
 Non seulement des motifs ne peuvent lier un autre juge, ni influencer 
 la decision de faits posteVieurs, mais ils ne lient pas meme le juge de» 
 qui ils emanent; il depend de lui d'ecarter ceux qu'il a precedemment 
 adrnis et e'est pourquoi l'interlocutoire ne lie pas le juge. Apres avoir 
 exprime un sentiment d'apres lequel il y avait lieu d'ordonner un 
 devoir d'instruction et bien que la preuve ainsi prescrite ait ete 
 obtenue, il peut statuer en un sens absolument oppose; 
 
 Attendu que pour apprecier s'il y a chose jug£e, il f aut done voir 
 ce qui a ete demande, le juge ne pouvant jamais exceder la demande. 
 
 Attendu dans I'espece que les conclusions sur lesquelles les arbitres 
 ont eu a statuer ne portaient que sur 21 annees d'interets et non sur 
 le pretendu droit de creance productif de ces intents, que la sentence 
 intervenue s'est exactement renfermee dans ces termes, sans m&me 
 qu'il ait ete tenu compte des interets qui seraient venus a echeance au 
 cours de l'instance; qu'elle a ete pleinement executee, qu'il eut ete 
 impossible aux demandeurs de poursuivre de ce chef le paiement des 
 int6rets ult^rieurs et que partant la demande actuelle qui porte sur 
 33 autres annees d'intergt, est nouvelle et independante de la demande 
 anterieurement admise; 
 
 Attendu qu'en reality on n'allegue pas & proprement parler, la chose 
 jug^e, mais un simple prejuge. La demande serait analogue S, celle 
 d4]a admise et les mgmes motifs devraient la faire admettre encore. 
 
 Mais ainsi qu'il a ete dit dej&, le prejuge fut-il formel, n'est pas la 
 chose jugee, et n'a rien d'obligatoire, meme pour le juge dont il emane. 
 De plus: 
 
 A. Tout prejugg 6tait impossible dans I'espece, puisque la decision 
 intervenue emanait d'une commission a laquelle on ne peut reconnaitre 
 qu'une autorite arbitrale, et que le pouvoir des arbitres ne procedant 
 que du consentement des parties, se trouve toujours exactemente limite 
 par le mandat prive dont il emane et ne peut done constituer de pre- 
 juge d'aucune sorte. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 109 
 
 B. Si la commission mixte avait implicitement statue" sur une recla- 
 mation en capital du chef de droits anterieurs a 1848, elle eut excede 
 les bornes de sa competence et de l'avis de tous les jurisconsultes, 
 semblable decision devrait etre tenue pour non avenue. 
 
 C. Dans la these meme de la partie adverse, il n'y aurait identity ni 
 d'objet, ni de cause et les moyens de defense pourraient etre fort diffe- 
 rents, ce qui est encore exclusif de toute chose jugee: 
 
 1°. La reclamation de 1870 a ete conformement a, la convention du 
 4 juillet 1868, soumise a la commission mixte et les pouvoirs de celle-ci 
 6tant expires-, celle de 1902 ne pouvait plus l'etre; 
 
 2°. Si les interets reclames sont du meme chiffre annuel, l'objet de 
 la demande ne porte assurement pas sur les memes sommes que celles 
 payees. De plus, le reglement en or naguere indifferent serait au- 
 jourd'hui ruineux pour le Mexique et ne pourrait se justifier; 
 
 3°. Les demandeurs invoquant un droit qui ne naitrait pour eux 
 que chaque annee auraient pour chaque reclamation a justifier non 
 seulement du l'existence de l'Eglise Catholique en Californie et du 
 maintien de sa personnification civile, mais de la quality de ceux qui 
 agissent pour elle, de la possibilite pour eux de remplir encore les 
 intentions des donateurs, de la quotite qui pourrait revenir a la Haute 
 Californie dans la somme totale, d'apres les donnees du moment et de 
 l'intentement de la demande en temps opportun, la prescription extinc- 
 tive pouvant etre utilement opposee pour certaines annees, alors qu'elle 
 ne pourrait l'etre pour d'autres. 
 
 SUBSIDIAIREMENT. 
 
 , QUANT 1 LA PRESCRIPTION. 
 
 Attendu que la demande comporte en realite la revendication d'une 
 part des biens donnes aux Jesuites pour les missions de Californie, 
 biens confisqufe par le E.oi d'Espagne en 1768 et plus tard repris par 
 l'Etat Mexicain, puis nationalises par lui; * 
 
 Que dans ces termes, la reclamation, fut-elle etablie, devrait etre 
 ecartee a un triple point de vue: 
 
 1°. Aux termes de la loi du 22 juin 1885 et du decret du 6 septembre 
 1894, toutes les creances a charge de l'Etat Mexicain devaient etre 
 produites dans un delai de huit et de onze'mois, devant un Bureau institue 
 pour en juger la realite et ce a peine de decheance definitive; que cette 
 loi concerne les creances appartenant a des etrangers comme celles 
 alleguees par des citoyens mexicains; la reclamation des demandeurs 
 n'ayant pas ete ainsi produite, se trouverait done frappee de 
 decheance. 
 
 2°. Elle serait d'autre part prescrite aux termes de l'art e , 1901 du 
 Code Civil Mexicain, lequel est ainsi concu; 
 
 La prescription negative s'opfire, qu'il y ait ou non bonne foi, par le delai de 20 
 ans a compter du jour ou 1' execution de V obligation eut pu etre exig^e. 
 
 3o. Aux termes de l'art. 1103 du Code Civil Mexicain, les rentes et 
 toutes prestations periodiques se prescrivent par 5 ans, et dans 1'espece, 
 il n'a 6te formule" aucune reclamation, meme ofEcieuse, de 1870 a 1891. 
 
 QUANT AU CHIFFRE DE LA DEMANDE. 
 
 a. Attendu que le capital dont les interets sont reclames est notam- 
 ment f orme" par des accumulations d'int^r^ts capitalists et que devien- 
 
110 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 draient ainsi eux-memes productifs d'inter^ts; or, la loi mexicaine 
 comme presque toutes les legislations, proscrit l'anatocisme. 
 
 b. Que jusqu'en 1848, le gouvernement mexicain et avant lui le 
 gouvernement espagnol, disposaient souverainement du Fonds Pie, 
 sans avoir aucun compte a rendre de son emploi, et que partant toute 
 reclamation de ce chef manque de base. 
 
 c. Qu'il n'existe d'actes que pour les biens donnes par le marquis de 
 Villa Puente et la marquise de las Torres del Kada et par Dona Josepha 
 Arguelles, que pour le surplus, il n'est Justine" d'aucun titre; 
 
 d. Qu'il existe dans la Haute Calif ornie trois dioceces et que 1'EvSque 
 de Grass Valley, qui naguere est intervenu au debat, n'y figure plus 
 aujourd'hui ; que par consequent on ne pourrait allouer aux demandeurs 
 la quotite qui reviendrait a, ce diocese; 
 
 e. Que la repartition eVentuelle du Fonds Pie entre la Haute et la 
 Basse Californie devrait 6tre 6tablie d'apres le nombre des missions ot 
 des Indiens a convertir en Californie, que les demandeurs ne fournis- 
 sent aucune justification a cet egard et que l'on croit pouvoir affirmer 
 qu'il ne reste plus dans la Haute Californie un seul indigene pa'ien; 
 qu'en aucun cas la repartition ne pourrait avoir pour base la popula- 
 tion, c. a d. le nombre de fideles aptes a subvenir aux besoins du culte 
 que par consequent il n'y aurait a admettre ni la base de moitie etablie 
 par la sentence de 1875, ni bien moins encore celle de 85 pour cent et 
 de 15 pour cent aujourd'hui proposee; 
 
 f. Que les biens du Fonds Pie ont ete realises par l'Etat Mexicain 
 avant 1848 et que leur produit doit avoir ete employe au profit de 
 toutes les parties de l'Etat; que par consequent la restitution qui 
 pourrait devoir §tre operee serait a la charge de l'ensemble des pro- 
 vinces qui constituaient alors le Mexique et que le gouvernement des 
 Etats-Unis Mexicains ne devrait qu'une part proportionnelle a l'impor- 
 tance des provinces conservees. 
 
 Que d'autre part il aurait a, reclamer une quotite du produit des 
 biens des missions situees dans la Haute Californie. 
 
 g. Qu'en aucun cas, l'Etat Mexicain ne pourrait §tre condampe" a 
 payer en or; que l'etalon Mexicain, est exclusivement d'argent; que 
 c'est en cette monnaie que l'Etat a encaisse" le produit des realisations 
 et qu'il ne pourrait avoir a, remettre qu'une partie de ce qu'il a ainsi 
 recu, comme il l'a recu. 
 
 h. Qu'enfin, il y aurait lieu de d^duire tout ce qui concerne les biens 
 donne*s par le marquis de Villa Puente et la marquise de las Torres del 
 Rada, puisqu'il y a en S, ce sujet un proces engage et juge". 
 Plaise a M. M. les arbitres: 
 
 admettre les exceptions et moyens ci-dessus proposes et en conse- 
 quence debouter les demandeurs de leur action. 
 
 A. Beeenaeet. 
 L. Delaceoix. 
 
PART III. 
 
 APPENDIX TO KECOKD. 
 
 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. 
 
 ill 
 
APPENDIX TO RECORD. 
 
 TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE 
 MEXICAN REPUBLIC— PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND SET- 
 TLEMENT. 
 
 Signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 181$. 
 Ratification advised., with amendments, by the /Senate, March 10, 
 1848. 
 
 Ratified by the Presid-ent of the United States, March 16, 181$. 
 Ratified by the President of Mexico, May 30, 181$. 
 Ratifications exchanged at Queretaro, May 30, 181$. 
 Proclaimed July If., 181$. 
 
 By the President op the United States of America. 
 A PROCLAMATION: 
 
 Whereas a Treaty of Peace, Friendship, limits, and settlement between 
 the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, was concluded 
 and signed at the City of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the second day of 
 February, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, which Treaty, 
 as amended by the Senate of the United States, and being in the 
 English and Spanish languages, is word for word as follows: 
 
 In the name of Almighty God: En el nombre de Dios Todo- 
 
 poderoso: 
 
 The United States of America, Los Estados Unidas Mexicanos 
 and the United Mexican States, y los Estados Dnidos de America, 
 animated by a sincere desire to animados de un sincero deseo de 
 put an end to the calamities of poner termino a las calamidades 
 the war which unhappily exists de la guerra que desgraciadamente 
 between the two Republics, and existe entre ambas Republicas, y 
 to establish upon a solid basis de establecer sobre bases soliclas 
 relations of peace and friendship, relaciones de paz y buena amistad, 
 which shall confer reciprocal ben- que procuren reciprocas ventajas 
 efits upon the citizens of both, and a los ciudadanos de uno y otro 
 assure the concord, harmony and pais, y afianzen la _ concordia, 
 mutual confidence, wherein the armonia y mutua seguridad en que 
 two Peoples should live, as good deben vivir, como buenos vecinos^ 
 Neighbours, have for that purpose los dos pueblos han nombrado a, 
 appointed their respective Pleni- este efecto sus respectivos pleni- 
 potentiaries: that is to say, the potenciarios; a saber, elPresidente 
 President of the United States de la Republica Mexicana a Don 
 has appointed Nicholas P. Trist, Bernardo Couto, Don Miguel 
 a citizen of the United States, Atristain, y Don Luis Gonzaga 
 and the President of the Mexican Cuevas, ciudadanos de la misma 
 S. Doc. 28 8 113 
 
114 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Republic has appointed Don Luis 
 Gonzaga Cuevas, Don Bernardo 
 Couto, and Don Miguel Atris- 
 tain, citizens of the said Republic; 
 who, after a reciprocal communi- 
 cation of their respective full 
 powers, have, under the protec- 
 tion of Almighty God, the author 
 of Peace, arranged, agreed upon, 
 and signed the following 
 
 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Lim- 
 its and Settlement between the 
 United /States of America and 
 the Mexican Republic. 
 
 Article I. 
 
 There shall be firm and univer- 
 sal peace between the United States 
 of America and the Mexican Re- 
 public, and between their respec- 
 tive Countries, territories, cities, 
 towns and people, without excep- 
 tion of places or persons. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 Immediately upon the signature 
 of this Treaty, a convention shall 
 be entered into between a Commis- 
 sioner or Commissioners appoint- 
 ed by the General in Chief of the 
 forces of the United States, and 
 such as may be appointed by the 
 Mexican Government, to the end 
 that a provisional suspension of 
 hostilities shall take place, and 
 that, in the places occupied by the 
 said forces, constitutional order 
 may be reestablished, as regards 
 the political, administrative and 
 judicial branches, so far as this 
 shall be permitted by the circum- 
 stances of military occupation. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 Immediately upon the ratifica- 
 tion of the present treaty by the 
 Government of the United States, 
 orders shall be transmitted to the 
 Commanders " of their land and 
 naval officers, requiring the latter, 
 
 Republica; y el Presidente de los 
 Estados Unidos de America a Don 
 Nicolas P. Trist, ciudadano de 
 dichos Estados; quienes, despues 
 de haberse comunicado sus plenos 
 poderes, bajo la proteccion del 
 Senor Dios Todo-poderoso, autor 
 de la paz, han ajustado, conve- 
 nido, y firmado el siguiente 
 
 Tratado depaz, amistad, Umiiesy 
 arreglo definitivo entre la Repub- 
 lica Mexicana y los Estados Uni- 
 ■ dos de America. 
 
 Articulo I. 
 
 Habra paz firme y universal 
 entre la Republica Mexicana y los 
 Estados Unidos de America, y 
 entre sus respectivos paises, terri- 
 tories, ciudades, villas y pueblos, 
 sin escepcion de lugares 6 personas. 
 
 Articulo LI. 
 
 Luego que se firme el presente 
 trata*do, habra un convenio entre 
 el comisionado u comisionados del 
 Gobierno Mexicano, y el 6 los que 
 nombre el General en gef e de las 
 fuerzas de los Estados Unidos, 
 para que cesen provisionalmente 
 las hostilidades, y se restablezca 
 en los lugares ocupados por las 
 mismas fuerzas el orden constitu- 
 tional en lo politico, administra 
 tivo y judicial, en cuanto lo permi- 
 tan las circunstancias de ocupacion 
 militar. 
 
 ARTfcULO III. 
 
 Luego que este tratado sea 
 ratificado por el gobierno de los 
 Estados Unidos, se expediran 6r- 
 denes a sus comandantes de tierra 
 y mar previniendo a estos segun- 
 dos (siempre que el tratado naya 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 115 
 
 (provided this Treaty shall then 
 have been ratified by the Govern- 
 ment of the Mexican Republic, 
 and the ratifications exchanged) 
 immediately to desist from block- 
 ading any Mexican ports; and re- 
 quiring the former (under the 
 same condition) to commence, at 
 the earliest moment practicable, 
 withdrawing all troops of the 
 United States then in the inte- 
 rior of the Mexican Republic, to 
 points, that shall be selected by 
 common agreement, at a distance 
 from the sea-ports, not exceeding 
 thirty leagues; and such evacua- 
 tion of the interior of the Repub- 
 lic shall be completed with the 
 least possible delay: the Mexi- 
 can Government hereby binding 
 itself to afford every facility in 
 it's power for rendering the same 
 convenient to the troops, on their 
 march and in their new positions, 
 and for promoting a good under- 
 standing between them and the 
 inhabitants. In like manner, or- 
 ders shall be despatched to the 
 Eersons in charge of the custom 
 ouses at all ports occupied by 
 the forces of the United States, 
 requiring them (under the same 
 condition) immediately to deliver 
 possession of the same to the per- 
 sons authorized by the Mexican 
 Government to receive it, together 
 with all bonds and evidences of 
 debt for duties on importations 
 and on exportations, not yet fallen 
 due. Moreover, a faithful and 
 exact- account shall be made out, 
 showing the entire amount of all 
 duties on imports and on exports, 
 collected at such Custom Houses, 
 or elsewhere in Mexico, by au- 
 thority of the United States, from 
 and after the day of ratification of 
 this Treaty by" the Government 
 of the Mexican Republic; and also 
 an account of the cost of collection; 
 and such entire amount, deducting 
 only the cost of collection, shall be 
 delivered to the Mexican Govern- 
 ment, at the City of Mexico, with- 
 
 sido ya ratificado por el gobierno 
 de la Republica Mexicana, y can- 
 geadas las ratificaciones) que in- 
 mediatamente alcen el bloqueo 
 de todos los puertos mexicanos, 
 y mandando a los primeros (bajo 
 la misma condicion) que a la 
 mayor posible brevedad comien- 
 cen a retirar todas las tropas de 
 los Estados Unidos que se halla- 
 ren entonces en el interior de la 
 Repulica Mexicana, a puntos que 
 se elegiran de comun acuerdo, 
 y que no distaran de los puertos 
 mas de treinta leguas; esta eva- 
 cuacion del interior de ly Repti- 
 blica se consumara con la menor 
 dilacion posible, comprometien- 
 dose a la vez el Gobierno Mexi- 
 cano a facilitar, cuanto quepa en 
 su arbitrio, la evacuacion de las 
 tropas americanas; a hacer co- 
 modas su marcha y su permanencia 
 en los nuevos puntos que se elijan; 
 y a promover una buena inteli- 
 gencia entre ellas y los habitantes. 
 Igualmente se libraran ordenes a 
 las personas encargadas de las 
 aduanas maritimas en todos los 
 puertos ocupados por las fuerzas 
 de los Estados Unidos, previnien- 
 doles (bajo la misma condicion) 
 que pongan inmediatamente en 
 posesion de dichas aduanas a, las 
 personas autorizadas por el Go- 
 bierno mexicano para recibirlas, 
 entregandoles al mismo tiempo 
 todas las obligaciones y constan- 
 cias de deudas pendientes por 
 derechos de importacion y ex- 
 portacion, cuyos plazos no esten 
 vencidos. Ademas se formara 
 una cuenta fiel y exacta que 
 manifieste el total monto de los 
 derechos de importacion y expor- 
 tacion, recaudados en las mismas 
 aduanas maritimas 6 en cualquie- 
 ra otro lugar de Mexico, por auto- 
 ridad de los Estados Unidos desde 
 el dia de la ratificacion de este tra- 
 tado por el Gobierno de la Repti- 
 blica Mexicana; y tambien una 
 cuenta de los gastos de recauda- 
 cion; y la total suma de los dere- 
 
116 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 in three months after the exchange 
 of ratifications. 
 
 The evacuation of the Capital 
 of the Mexican Republic by the 
 Troops of the United States, in 
 virtue of the above stipulation, 
 shall be completed in one month 
 after the orders there stipulated 
 for shall have been received by 
 the commander of said troops, or 
 sooner if possible. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 Immediately after the exchange 
 of ratifications of the present 
 treaty, all castles, forts, territo- 
 ries, places and possessions, which 
 have been taken or occupied by 
 the forces of the United States 
 during the present war, within 
 the limits of the Mexican Repub- 
 lic; as about to be established by 
 the following Article, shall be 
 definitely restored to the said 
 Republic, together with all the 
 artillery, arms, apparatus of war, 
 munitions, and other public prop- 
 erty, which were in the said cas- 
 tles and forts when captured, and 
 which shall remain there at the 
 time when this treaty shall be 
 duly ratified by the Government 
 of the Mexican Republic. To this 
 end, immediately upon the signa- 
 ture of this treaty, orders shall be 
 despatched to the American offi- 
 cers commanding such castles and 
 forts, securing against the removal 
 or destruction of any such artil- 
 lery, arms, apparatus of war, muni- 
 tions, or other public property. 
 The city of Mexico, within the 
 inner line of intrenchments sur- 
 rounding the said city, is compre- 
 hended in the above stipulations, 
 as regards the restoration of artil- 
 lery, apparatus of war, &c. 
 
 chos cobrados, deducidos solamente 
 los gastos de recaudacion, se entre- 
 gara al Gobierno Mexicano en la 
 ciudad de Mexico & los tres meses 
 del cange de las ratificaciones. 
 
 La evacuacion de la capital de la 
 Republica Mexicana por las tropas 
 de los Estados Unidos, en conse- 
 cuencia de lo que queda estipulado, 
 se completara al mes de recibirse 
 por el comandante de dichas tro- 
 pas las ordenes convenidas en el 
 presente articulo, 6 antes si fuere 
 posible. 
 
 Articulo IV. 
 
 Luego que se verifique el cange 
 de las ratificaciones del presente 
 tratado, todos los castillos, forta- 
 lezas, territories, lugares y po- 
 sesiones que hayan tornado u ocu- 
 pado las fuerzas de los Estados 
 Unidos, en la presente guerra, 
 dentro de los limites que por el 
 siguiente articulo van a fijarse a la 
 Republica Mexicana, se devolve- 
 ran definitivamente a la misma 
 Republica, con toda la artilleria, 
 armas, aparejos de guerra, muni- 
 ciones y cualquiera otra propie- 
 dad publica existentes en dichos 
 castillos y fortalezas cuando 
 fueron tornados, y que se con- 
 serve en ellos al tiempo de ratifi- 
 carse por el gobierno de la Re- 
 publica Mexicana el presente 
 tratado. A este efecto, immedia- 
 tamente despues que se firme, se 
 expediran ordenes a, los oficiales 
 Americanos que mandan dichos 
 castillos y fortalezas para asegurar 
 toda la artilleria, armas, aparejos 
 de guerra, municiones, y cual- 
 quiera otra propiedad publica, la 
 cual no podra en adelante remo- , 
 verse de donde se halla, ni des- 
 truirse. La ciudad de Mexico 
 dentro de la linea interior de 
 atrincheramientos que la circun- 
 dan, queda comprendida en la 
 precedente estipulacion en lo que 
 toca a la devolucion de artilleria, 
 aparejos de guerra, etca. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 117 
 
 The final evacuation of the 
 territory of the Mexican Repub-* 
 lie, by the forces of the United 
 States, shall -be completed in three 
 months from the said exchange 
 of ratifications, or sooner, if pos- 
 sible: the Mexican Government 
 hereby engaging, as in the fore- 
 going Article, to use all means in 
 its power for facilitating such 
 evacuation, and rendering it con- 
 venient to the troops, and for 
 promoting a good understanding 
 between them and the inhabit- 
 ants. 
 
 If, however, the ratification of 
 this treaty by both parties should 
 not take place in time to allow the 
 embarkation of the troops of the 
 United States to be completed be- 
 fore the commencement of the 
 sickly season, at the Mexican 
 ports on the Gulf of Mexico; in 
 such case a friendly arrangement 
 shall be entered into'between the 
 General in Chief of the said troops 
 and the Mexican Government, 
 whereby healthy and otherwise 
 suitable places at a distance from 
 the ports not exceeding thirty 
 leagues shall be designated for 
 the residence of such troops as 
 may not yet have embarked, until 
 the return of the healthy season. 
 And the space of time here re- 
 ferred to, as comprehending the 
 sickly season, shall be understood 
 to extend from the first day of 
 Ma,v to the first day of Novem- 
 ber. — 
 
 All prisoners of war taken on 
 either side, on land or on sea, shall 
 be restored as soon as practicable 
 after the exchange of ratifications 
 of this treaty. It is also agreed 
 that if any Mexicans shoulcf now 
 be held as captives by any sav- 
 age tribe within the limits of 
 the United States, as about to 
 be established by the following 
 Article, the Government of the 
 said United States will exact the 
 release of such captives, and 
 cause them to be restored to their 
 country. 
 
 La final evacuacion del terri- 
 torio de la Republics Mexicana 
 por las fuerzas de los Estados 
 Unidos quedara consumada a los 
 tres meses del cange de las ratifi- 
 caciones, 6 antes si fuere posible, 
 comprometiendose a la vez el 
 Gobierno mexicano, como en el 
 articulo anterior, a usar de todos 
 los medios que esten en su poder 
 para facilitar la tal evacuacion, 
 hacerla comoda a las tropas 
 americanas, y promover entre 
 ellas y los habitantes una buena 
 inteligencia. 
 
 Sin embargo, si la ratificacion 
 del presents tratado por ambas 
 partes no tuviera efecto en tiempo 
 que permita que el embarque de 
 las tropas de los Estados Unidos 
 se complete antes de que comience 
 la estacion malsana en los puertos 
 mexicanos del golfo de Mexico; 
 en tal caso, se hara un arreglo 
 amistoso entre el Gobierno me- 
 xicano y el General en gefe de 
 dichas tropas, y por medio de este 
 arreglo so sefialaran lugares salu- 
 bres y convenientes (que no disten 
 de los puertos mas de treinta 
 leguas) para que residan en ellos 
 hasta la vuelta de la estacion sana 
 las tropas que aun no se . ha3 r an 
 embarcado. Y queda entendido 
 que el espacio de tiempo de que 
 aqui se habla, como comprensivo 
 de la estacion malsana, se extiende 
 desde el dia primero de Mayo 
 hasta el dia primero de Noviem- 
 bre. 
 
 Todos los prisoneros de guerra 
 tornados en mar 6 tierra por ambas 
 partes, se restituiran a la mayor 
 brevedad posible despues del 
 cange de las ratificaciones del 
 presente tratado. Queda tambien 
 convenido que si algunos mexi- 
 canos estuvieren ahora cautivos 
 en poder de alguna tribu salvage 
 dentro de los Timites que por el 
 siguiente articulo van a fijarse a 
 los Estados Unidos, el Gobierno 
 de los mismos Estados Unidos 
 exigira su libertad y los hara res- 
 tituir a su pais. 
 
118 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 The Boundary line between the 
 two -Republics shall commence in 
 the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues 
 from land, opposite the mouth of 
 the Eio Grande, otherwise called 
 Rio Bravo del Norte, or opposite 
 the mouth of it's deepest branch, 
 if it should have more than one 
 branch emptying directly into the 
 sea; from thence, up the middle 
 of that river, following the deep- 
 est channel, where it has more 
 than one to the point where it 
 strikes the Southern boundary of 
 New Mexico; thence, westwardly 
 along the whole Southern Bound- 
 ary of New Mexico (which runs 
 north of the town called Paso) to 
 it's western termination; thence, 
 northward, along the western line 
 of New Mexico, until it intersects 
 the first branch of the river Gila; 
 (or if it should not intersect any 
 branch of that river, then, to the 
 point on the said line nearest to 
 such branch, and thence in a 
 direct line to the same;) thence 
 down the middle of the said 
 branch and of the said river, until 
 it empties into the Rio Colorado; 
 thence, across the Rio Colorado, 
 following the division line be- 
 tween Upper and Lower Califor- 
 nia, to the Pacific Ocean. 
 
 The southern and western lim- 
 its of New Mexico, mentioned in 
 this Article, are those laid down 
 in the Map, entitled "Map of the 
 United Mexican States, as organ- 
 ized and defined by various acts of 
 the Congress of said Republic, and 
 constructed according to thebest au- 
 thorities. Revised edition. Pub- 
 lished at New York in 184.7 by J. 
 Pisturnell:" Of which Map a Copy 
 is added to this Treaty, bearing the 
 signatures and seals of the Under- 
 signed Plenipotentiaries. And, in 
 order to preclude all difficulty 
 
 AETfOULO V. 
 
 La linea divisoria entre las dos 
 Republicas comenzara en el golfo 
 de Mexico, tres leguas fuera de 
 tierra frente a la desembocadura 
 del Rio Grande, Uamado por otro 
 nombre Rio Bravo del Norte, 6 
 del mas profundo de sus brazos, 
 si en la desembocadura tuviere 
 varios brazos; correra, por mitad 
 de dicho rio, siguiendo el canal 
 mas profundo, donde tenga mas 
 de un canal, hasta el punto en que 
 dicho rio corta el lindero meridio- 
 nal de Nuevo Mexico; continuara 
 luego hacia occidente por todo 
 este lindero meridional (que corre 
 al norte del pueblo llamaco Paso) 
 hasta su termino por el lado de 
 occidente: desde alii subira, la 
 linea divisoria hacia el norte por 
 el lindero occidental de Nuevo 
 Mexico, hasta donde este lindero 
 este cortado por el primer brazo 
 del rio Gila,) y si no esta cortado 
 por ningun brazo del rio Gila, 
 ent6nces hasta el punto del mismo 
 lindero occidental mas cercano al 
 tal brazo, y de alii en una linea 
 recta al mismo brazo;) continuara 
 despues por mitad de este brazo y 
 del rio Gila hasta su confluencia 
 con el rio Colorado; y desde la 
 confluencia de ambos rios la linea 
 divisoria, cortando el Colorado, 
 seguira el limite que separa la 
 Alta de la Baja California hasta 
 el mar Pacifico. 
 
 Los linderos meridional y occi- 
 dental de Nuevo Mexico, de que 
 habla este articulo, son los que se 
 mar can en la carta titulada: Mapa 
 de los Estados Unidos de Mexico se- 
 gunlo organizado y definidopor las 
 varios actas del Congreso de dicha 
 Republica, y construido por las 
 mejores autoridades. Edicio7i re- 
 visada que publico en Nueva York 
 en 184-7 J. Pisturnell; de la cual 
 se agrega un ejemplar al presente 
 tratado, firmado y sellado por los 
 plenipotenciarios inf rascriptos. Y 
 para evitar toda dificultad al trazar 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 119 
 
 in tracing upon the ground the 
 limit separating Upper from* 
 Lower California, it is agreed 
 that the said limit shall consist 
 of a straight line, drawn from the 
 middle of the Rio Gila, where it 
 unites with the Colorado, to a 
 point on the Coast of the Pacific 
 Ocean, distant one marine league 
 due south of the southernmost 
 point of the Port of San Diego, 
 according to the plan of said port, 
 made in the year 1782, hy Don 
 Juan Pantoja, second sailing- 
 Master of the Spanish fleet, and 
 published at Madrid in the year 
 1802, in the Atlas to the voyage of 
 the schooners Sutil and Mexicana: 
 of which plan a Copy is hereunto 
 added, signed and sealed by the 
 respective Plenipotentiaries. 
 
 In order to designate the Bound- 
 ary line with due precision, upon 
 authoritative maps, and to estab- 
 lish upon the ground landmarks 
 which shall show the limits of both 
 Republics, as described in the 
 present Article, the two Govern- 
 ments shall each appoint a Com- 
 missioner and a Surveyor, who, 
 before the expiration of one year 
 from the date of the exchange of 
 ratifications of this treaty, shall 
 meet at the Port of San Diego, 
 and proceed to run and mark the 
 said Boundary in it's whole course 
 to the mouth of the Rio Bravo 
 del Norte. They shall keep jour- 
 nals and make out plans of their 
 operations; and the result, agreed 
 upon by them, shall be deemed a 
 part of this treaty, and shall have 
 the same force as if it were 
 inserted therein. The two Gov- 
 ernments will amicably agree 
 regarding what may be necessary 
 to these persons, and also as to 
 their respective escorts, should 
 such be necessary. 
 
 The Boundary line established 
 by this Article shall be religiously 
 respected by each of the two Re- 
 publics, and no change shall ever 
 be made therein, except by the 
 
 sobre la tierra el limite que separa 
 la Alta de la Baja California, 
 queda convenido que dicho limite 
 coDsistira en unalinea recta tirada 
 desde la mitad del rio Gila en el 
 punto donde se une con el Colo- 
 rado, hasta un punto en la costa 
 del mar Pacifico, distante una 
 legua marina al sur del punto mas 
 meridional del puerto de San 
 Diego, segun este puerto esta 
 dibujado en el piano que levanto 
 el ano de 1782 el seguudo piloto 
 de la armada Espafiola Don Juan 
 Pantoja, y se publico en Madrid 
 el de 1802, en el atlas para el viage 
 de las goletas Sutil y Mexicana: 
 del cual piano se agrega copia 
 firmada y sellada por los pleni- 
 potenciarios respectivos. 
 
 Para consignar linea divisoria 
 con la precision debida en mapas 
 f ehacientes, y para establecer sobre 
 la tierra mo j ones que pongan a. la 
 vista los limites de ambas re- 
 publicas, segun quedan descritos 
 en el presente articulo, nonibrara 
 cada lino de los dos gobiernos un 
 comisario y un agrimensor, que se 
 juntaran antes del termino de un 
 ano contado desde la fecha del 
 cange de las ratificaciones de este 
 tratado, en el puerto de San Diego, 
 y procederan a senalar y demarcar 
 la expresada linea divisoria en todo 
 su curso hasta la desembocadura 
 del Rio Bravo del Norte. Lleva- 
 ran diarios y levantaran pianos 
 de sus operaciones; y el resultado 
 convenido por ellos se tendra por 
 parte de este tratado, y tendra la 
 misma fuerza que si estuviese 
 inserto en 6\; debiendo convenir 
 amistosamente los dos gobiernos 
 en el arreglo de cuanto necesiten 
 estos individuos, y en la escolta 
 respectiva que deban llevar siem- 
 pre que se crea necesario. 
 
 La linea divisoria que se esta- 
 blece por este articulo sera religio- 
 samente respetada por cada una 
 de las dos Republicas, y ninguna 
 variacion se nara jamas en ella, 
 
120 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 express and free consent of both 
 nations, lawfully given by the 
 General Government of each, in 
 conformity with it's own consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 The vessels and citizens of the 
 United States shall, in all time, 
 have a free and uninterrupted pas- 
 sage by the Gulf of California, and 
 by the river Colorado below it's 
 confluence with the Gila, to and 
 from their possessions situated 
 north of the Boundary line defined 
 in the preceding Article; it being 
 understood that this passage is to 
 be by navigating the Gulf of Cal- 
 ifornia and the river Colorado, and 
 not by land, without the express 
 consent of the Mexican Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 If, by the examinations which 
 may be made, it should be ascer- 
 tained to be practicable and ad- 
 vantageous to construct a road, 
 canal or railway, which should, in 
 whole or in part, run upon the river 
 Gila, or upon it's right or it's left 
 bank, within the space of one ma- 
 rine league from either margin 
 of the river, the Governments of 
 both Republics will form an agree- 
 ment regarding it's construction, 
 in order that it may serve equally 
 for the use and advantage of both 
 countries. 
 
 Article VII. 
 
 The river Gila, and the part of 
 the Rio Bravo del Norte lying be- 
 low the southern boundary of New 
 Mexico, being, agreeably to the 
 fifth Article, divided in the middle 
 between the two Republics, the 
 navigation of the Gila and of the 
 Bravo below said boundary shall 
 be free and common to the vessels 
 and citizens of both countries; and 
 neither shall, without the consent 
 of the other, construct any work 
 that may impede or interrupt, in 
 
 sino de expreso y libre consenti- 
 miento de ambas naciones, otor- 
 gado legalmente por el gobierno 
 general de cada una de ellas, con 
 arreglo a su propia constitucion. 
 
 ARTiCULO VI. 
 
 Las buques y ciudadanos de los 
 Estados Unidos tendran en todo 
 tiempo un libre y no interrumpido 
 transito por el golf o de California 
 y por el rio Colorado desde su 
 confluencia con el Gila, para sus 
 posesiones, y desde sus posesiones 
 sitas al norte de la linea divisoria 
 que queda marcada en el articulo 
 precedente ; entendiendose que 
 este transito se ha de hacer nave- 
 gando por el gulf o de California y 
 por el Rio Colorado, y no por 
 tierra, sin expreso consentimiento 
 del Gobierno mexicano. 
 
 Si por reconocimientos que se 
 practiquen, se comprobare la posi- 
 bilidad y conveniencia de cons- 
 truir un camino, canal, 6 ferro- 
 carril que en todo 6 en parte 
 corra sobre el rio Gila 6 sobre al- 
 guna de sus margenes derecha 
 6 izquierda en la latitud de una 
 legua marina de uno 6 de otro 
 lado del rio, los gobiernos de 
 ambas republicas se podran de 
 acuerdo sobre su construccion a 
 fine de que sirva igualmente para 
 el uso y provecho de ambos 
 paises. 
 
 Articulo VII. 
 
 Como el rio Gila y la parte del 
 Rio Bravo del Norte que corre bajo 
 el lindero meridional de Nuevo 
 Mexico se dividen por mitad entre 
 las dos republicas, segun lo esta- . 
 blecido en el articulo quinto, la 
 navegacion en el Gila y en la parte 
 que queda indicada del Bravo sera 
 libre y comun a los buques y ciu- 
 dadanos de ambos paises, sin que 
 por alguno de ellos pueda hacerse 
 (sin consentimiento del otro) nin- 
 guna obra que impida 6 interrumpa 
 
PIOtTS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 121 
 
 whole or in part, the exercise of 
 this right: not even for the purpose 
 of favoring new methods of navi- 
 gation. Nor shall any tax or con- 
 tribution, under any denomination 
 or title, be levied upon vessels or 
 persons navigating the same, or 
 upon merchandise or effects trans- 
 ported thereon, except in the case 
 of landing upon one of their shores. 
 If, for the purpose of making the 
 said rivers navigable, or for main- 
 taining them in such state, it should 
 be necessary or advantageous to 
 establish any tax or contribution, 
 this shall not be done without the 
 consent of both Governments. 
 
 The stipulations contained in 
 the present Article shall not im- 
 pair the territorial rights of either 
 Republic, within it's established 
 limits. 
 
 Article VIII. 
 
 Mexicans now established in 
 territories previously belonging 
 to Mexico, and which remain for 
 the future within the limits of the 
 United States, as denned by the 
 present Treaty, shall be free to 
 continue where they now reside, 
 or to remove at any time to the 
 Mexican Republic, retaining the 
 property which they possess in 
 the said territories, or disposing 
 thereof and removing the pro- 
 ceeds wherever they please; with- 
 out their being subjected, on this 
 account, to any contribution, tax 
 or charge whatever. 
 
 Those who shall prefer to remain 
 in the said territories, may either 
 retain the title and rights of Mexi- 
 can citizens, or acquire those of 
 citizens of the United States. But, 
 they shall be under the obligation 
 to make their election within one 
 year from the date of the exchange 
 of ratifications of this treaty: and 
 those who shall remain in the said 
 territories, after the expiration of 
 that year, without having declared 
 their intention to retain the char- 
 
 en todo 6 en parte el ejercicio de 
 este derecho, ni aun con motivo de 
 f avorecer nuevos m^todos de nave- 
 gacion. Tampoco se podrd, cobrar 
 (sino en el caso de desembarco en 
 alguna de sus riberas) ningun im- 
 puesto 6 contribucion bajo ninguna 
 denominacion 6 titulo a los buques, 
 efectos, mercancias 6 personas que 
 naveguen en dichos rios. Si para 
 hacerlos 6 mantenerlos navegables 
 f uere necesario 6 conveniente esta- 
 blecer alguna contribucion 6 im- 
 puesto, -no podr& esto hacerse 
 sin el consentimiento de los dos 
 gobiernos. 
 
 Las estipulaciones contenidas en 
 el presente articulo dejan ilesos 
 los derechos territoriales de una y 
 otra repiiblica dentro de los li- 
 mites que les quedan marcados. 
 
 Articulo VIII. 
 
 Los Mexicanos establecidos hoy 
 en territorios pertenecientes antes 
 a, Mexico, y que quedan para lo 
 futuro dentro de los limites sena- 
 lados por el presente tratado a los 
 Estados Unidos, podran permane- 
 cer en donde ahora habitan, & 
 trasladarse en cualquier tiempo a 
 la Republica mexicana, conser- 
 vando en los indicados territorios 
 los bienes que poseen, 6 enage- 
 nandolos y pasando su valor a 
 donde les convenga, sin que por 
 esto pueda exigirseles ningun ge- 
 nero de contribucion, gravamen 6 
 impuesto. 
 
 Los que prefieran permanecer 
 en los indicados territorios, podran 
 conservar el titulo y derechos de 
 ciudadanos mexicanos, 6 adquirir 
 el titulo y derechos de ciudadanos 
 de los Estados Unidos. Mas la 
 eleccion entre una y otra ciudadania 
 deberan hacerla dentro de un ano 
 contado desde la f echa del cange de 
 las ratificaciones de este tratado. 
 Y los que permanecieren en los 
 indicados territorios despues de 
 transcurrido el ano, sin haber de- 
 
122 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 acter of Mexicans, shall be consid- 
 ered to have elected to become 
 citizens of the United States. 
 
 In the said territories, property 
 of every kind, now belonging to 
 Mexicans not established there, 
 shall be inviolably respected. The 
 present owners, the heirs of these, 
 and all Mexicans who may here- 
 after acquire said property by con- 
 tract, shall enjoy with respect to 
 it, guaranties equally ample as if 
 the same belonged to citizens of 
 the United States. 
 
 clarado su intencion de retener el 
 caracter de mexicanos, se conside- 
 raraq ue han elegido ser ciudadanos 
 de los Estados Unidos. 
 
 Las propiedades de todo g^nero 
 existentes en los expresados terri- 
 tories, y que pertenecen ahora a" 
 mexicanos no establecidos en eilos, 
 seran respetadas inviolablemente. 
 Sus actuales duenos, los herederos 
 de estos, y los mexicanos que en lo 
 venidero puedan adquirir por con- 
 trato las indicadas propiedades, 
 disfrutaran respecto de ellas tan 
 amplia garantia como si perteneci- 
 esen a ciudadanos de los Estados 
 Unidos. 
 
 Article IX. 
 
 ArtIcuix) IX. 
 
 The Mexicans who, in the terri- 
 tories aforesaid, shall not pre- 
 serve the character of citizens of 
 the Mexican Republic, conforma- 
 bly with what is stipulated in the 
 preceding article, shall be incor- 
 
 E orated into the Union of the 
 United States and be admitted, at 
 the proper time (to be judged of 
 by the Congress of the United 
 States) to the enjoyment of all 
 the rights of citizens of the United 
 States according to the principles 
 of the Constitution; and in the 
 mean time shall be maintained and 
 protected in the free enjoyment 
 of their liberty and property, and 
 secured in the free exercise of 
 their religion without restriction. 
 
 Article X. 
 
 [Stricken out. J 
 
 Article XI. 
 
 Considering that a great part 
 of the territories, which, by the 
 present treaty, are to be compre- 
 hended for the future within the 
 limits of the United States, is now 
 occupied by savage tribes, who 
 will hereafter be under the exclu- 
 sive controul of the Government 
 
 Los mexicanos que en los terri- 
 tories antedichos no conserven el 
 caracter de ciudadanos de la Re- 
 piiblica mexicana, segun lo esti- 
 pulado en el articulo precedente, 
 seran incorporados en la union de 
 los Estados Unidos y se admitiran 
 en tiempo oportuno (a juicio del 
 Congreso de los Estados Unidos) 
 al goce de todos los derechos de 
 ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos 
 conforme a los principios de la 
 Constitucion; y entretanto seran 
 mantenidos y protegidos en el 
 goce de su libertad y propiedad, y 
 asegurados en el libre ejercicio de 
 su religion sin restriccion alguna. 
 
 Articulo X. 
 
 [Suprimido.] 
 
 ARTfCULO XI. 
 
 En atencion a que una gran* 
 parte de los territorios que por 
 el presente tratado van a que- 
 dar para lo f uturo dentro de los 
 limites de los Estados Unidos, se 
 halla actualmente ocupada por 
 tribus salvages, que han de estar 
 en adelante bajo la exclusiva au- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOENIA8. 
 
 123 
 
 of the United States, and whose 
 incursions within the territory of 
 Mexico would be prejudicial in 
 the extreme; it is solemnly agreed 
 that all such incursions shall be 
 forcibly restrained by the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States, 
 whensoever this maybe necessary, 
 and that when they cannot be pre- 
 vented, they shall be punished by 
 the said Government, and satisfac- 
 tion for the same shall be exacted; 
 all in the same way, and with 
 equal diligence and energy, as if 
 the same incursions were medi- 
 tated or committed within it's own 
 territory against it's own citizens. 
 
 It shall not be lawful, under 
 any pretext whatever, for any in- 
 habitant of the United States, to 
 purchase or acquire any Mexican 
 or any foreigner residing in Mex- 
 ico, who may have been captured 
 by Indians inhabiting the terri- 
 tory of either of the two Repub- 
 lics; nor to purchase or acquire 
 horses, mules, cattle or property 
 of any kind, stolen within Mexi- 
 can territory by such Indians; 
 
 And, in the event of any person 
 or persons, captured within Mexi- 
 can territory by Indians, being 
 carried into the territory of the 
 United States, the Government of 
 the latter engages and binds it- 
 self, in the most solemn manner, 
 so soon as it shall know of such 
 captives being within it's terri- 
 tory, and shall be able so to do, 
 through the faithful exercise of 
 it's influence and power, to rescue 
 them, and return them to their 
 country, or deliver them to the 
 agent or representative of the 
 Mexican Government. The Mexi- 
 can Authorities will, as far as 
 practicable, give to the Govern- 
 ment of the United States notice 
 of such captures; and it's agent 
 shall pay the expenses incurred in 
 the maintenance and transmission 
 of the rescued captives; who, in 
 
 toridad del gobierno de los Es- 
 tados Unidos, y cuyas incursiones 
 sobre los distritos Mexicanos se- 
 rian en extremo perjudiciales; 
 esta solemnemente convenido que 
 el mismo gobierno de los Estados 
 Unidos contendra las indicadas 
 incursiones por medio de la f uerza 
 siempre que asi sea necesario; y 
 cuando no pudiere prevenirlas, 
 castigara y escarmentara, a los 
 invasores, exigiendoles ademas la 
 debida reparacion: todo del mis- 
 mo modo, y con la misma diligen- 
 cia y energia con que obraria, si 
 las incursiones se hubiesen medi- 
 tado 6 ejecutado sobre territories 
 suyos 6 contra sus propios ciuda- 
 danos. 
 
 A ningun habitante de los Esta- 
 dos Unidos sera, licito, bajo nin- 
 gun pretesto, comprar 6 adquirir 
 cautivo alguno, mexicano 6 ex- 
 trangero residente en Mexico, 
 apresado por los Indios habitantes 
 en territorio de cualquiera de las 
 dos Republicas, ni los caballos, 
 mulas, ganados, 6 cualquiera otro 
 ge"nero de cosas que hayan robado 
 dentro del territorio mexicano. 
 
 Y en caso de que cualquier per- 
 sona 6 personas cautivadas por los 
 Indios dentro del territorio mexi- 
 cano sean llevadas al territorio de 
 los Estados Unidos, el gobierno 
 de dichos Estados Unidos se com- 
 promete y liga de la manera mas 
 solemne, en cuanto le sea posible, 
 A rescatarlas y a restituirlas a su 
 pais, 6 entregarlas al agente 6 
 representante del Gobierno mexi- 
 cano; haciendo todo esto, tan 
 luego como sepa que los dichos 
 cautivos se hallan dentro de su 
 territorio, y empleando al efecto 
 el leal ejercicio de su influencia 
 y poder. Las autoridades mexi- 
 canas daran a las de los Estados 
 Unidos, segun sea practicable, 
 una noticia de tales cautivos; y el 
 agente mexicano pagara los gastos 
 erogados en el mantenimiento y 
 remision de los que se rescaten, los 
 
124 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 the mean time, shall be treated 
 with the utmost hospitality by 
 the American Authorities at the 
 place where they may be. But if 
 the Government of the United 
 States, before receiving such no- 
 tice from Mexico, should obtain 
 intelligence through any other 
 channel, of the existence of Mexi- 
 can captives within it's territory, 
 it will proceed forthwith to effect 
 their release and delivery to the 
 Mexican agent, as above stipulated. 
 For the purpose of giving to 
 these stipulations the fullest pos- 
 sible efficacy, thereby affording 
 the security and redress demanded 
 by their true spirit and intent, the 
 Government of the United States 
 will now and hereafter pass with- 
 out unnecessary delay, and always 
 vigilantly enforce, such laws as 
 the nature of the subject may re- 
 quire. And finally, the sacredness 
 of this obligation shall never be lost 
 sight of by the said Government, 
 when providing for the removal 
 of the Indians from any portion 
 of the said territories, or. for it's 
 being settled by citizens of the 
 United States; but on the contrary, 
 special care shall then be taken not 
 to place it'slndian occupants under 
 thenecessity of seeking newhomes, 
 by committing those invasions 
 which the United States have 
 solemnly obliged themselves to 
 restrain. 
 
 Article XII. 
 
 In consideration of the exten- 
 sion acquired by the boundaries 
 of the United States, as defined in 
 the fifth Article of the present 
 treaty, the Government of the 
 United States engages to pay to 
 that of the Mexican Republic the 
 sum of fifteen Millions of Dollars. 
 
 Immediately after this Treaty 
 shall have been duly ratified by 
 
 cuales entre tanto seran tratados 
 con la mayor hospitalidad por las 
 autoridades americanas del lugar 
 en que se encuentren. Mas si el 
 gobierno de los Estados Unidos 
 antes de recibir aviso de Mexico; 
 tuviere noticia por cualquiera otro 
 cenducto de existir en su territo- 
 rio cautivos mexicanos, procedara 
 desde luego a, verificar su rescate 
 y entrega al agente mexicano, se- 
 gun queda convenido. 
 
 Con el objeto de dar siestas esti- 
 pulaciones la mayor fuerza posi- 
 ble, y afianzar al mismo tiempo la 
 seguridad y las reparaciones que 
 exige el verdadero espiritu 6 in- 
 tencion con que se han ajustado, 
 el gobierno de los Estados Unidos 
 dictara sin inutiles dilaciones, 
 ahora y en lo de adelante, las leyes 
 que requiera la naturaleza del 
 asunto, y vigilara, siempre sobre 
 suejecucion. Finalmente, el gobi- 
 erno de los mismos Estados Unidos 
 fendra muy presente la santidad 
 de esta obligacion siempre que 
 tenga que desalojar a los indios de 
 cualquier puntq de los indicados 
 territorios, 6 que establecer en el 
 a ciudadanos suyos: y cuidara muy 
 especialmente de que no se ponga 
 a, los indios que habitaban antes 
 aquel punto, en necesidad de bus- 
 car neuvos hogares por medio de 
 las incursiones sobre los distritos 
 mexicanos, que el gobierno de los 
 Estados Unidos se ha comprome- 
 tido solemnemente a reprimir. 
 
 Articulo XII. 
 
 En consideracion a la estension 
 que adquieren los limites de los 
 Estados Unidos, segun quedan 
 descritos en el articulo quinto 
 del presente tratado, el Gobierno 
 de los mismos Estados Unidos se 
 compromete a pagar al de la Re- 
 publica mexicana la suma de 
 quince millones de pesos. 
 
 Inmediatamente despues que 
 este tratado haya sido ratificado 
 
PIO0S FUND OP THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 125 
 
 the Government of the Mexican 
 Kepublic, the sum of three Mil- 
 lions of Dollars shall be paid to the 
 said Government by that of the 
 United States at the city of Mex- 
 ico, in the gold or silver coin of 
 Mexico. The remaining twelve 
 Millions of Dollars shall be paid 
 at the same place, and in the same 
 coin, in annual installments of 
 three Millions of Dollars each, 
 together with interest on the same 
 at the rate of six per centum per 
 annum. This interest shall begin 
 to run upon the whole sum of 
 twelve millions, from the day of 
 the ratification of the present 
 treaty by the Mexican Govern- 
 ment, and the first of the instal- 
 ments shall be paid at the expira- 
 tion of one year from the same day. 
 Together with each annual instal- 
 ment, as it falls due, the whole in- 
 terest accruing on such instalment 
 from the beginning shall also be 
 paid. 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 The United States engage 
 moreover, to assume and pay to 
 the claimants all the amounts 
 now due them, and those hereafter 
 to become due, by reason of the 
 claims already liquidated and de- 
 cided against the Mexican Re- 
 public, under the conventions 
 between the two Republics, sev- 
 erally concluded on the eleventh 
 day of April eighteen hundred 
 and thirty-nine, and on the thir- 
 tieth day of January eighteen 
 hundred and forty three: so that 
 the Mexican Republic shall be ab- 
 solutely exempt *f or the future, 
 from all expense whatever on ac- 
 count of the said claims. 
 
 Article XIV. 
 
 The United States do further- 
 more discharge the Mexican Re- 
 public from all claims of citizens 
 
 por el gobierno de la Republica 
 mexicana, se entregara al mismo 
 Gobierno por el de los Estados 
 Unidos, en la ciudad de Mexico, 
 y en moneda de plata u oro del 
 cuno mexicano, la suma de tres 
 millones de pesos. Los doce mil- 
 lones de pesos restantes se paga- 
 ran en Mexico, en moneda de plata 
 u oro del cuno mexicano, en abo- 
 nos de tres milliones de pesos cada 
 ano, con un redito de seis por 
 ciento anual : este redito comienza a 
 correr para toda la suma de los 
 doce milliones el dia de la ratifica- 
 cion del presente tratado por el 
 Gobierno' mexicano, y con cada 
 abono anual de capital se pagara, 
 el redito que corresponda a la 
 suma abonada. Los plazos para 
 los abonos de capital corren desde 
 el mismo dia que empiezan a cau- 
 sarse los reditos. 
 
 Articulo XIII. 
 
 Se obliga ademas el Gobierno 
 de los Estados Unidos a tomar 
 sobre si, y satisfacer cumplida- 
 mente a los reclamantes, todas 
 las cantidades que hasta aqui se 
 les deben y cuantas se verzan en 
 adelante por razon de las re- 
 clamaciones ya liquidadas j sen- 
 tenciadas contra la Republica 
 mexicana conforme a los con- 
 venios ajustados entre ambas Re- 
 publicas el once de Abril de mil 
 ochocientos treinta y nueve, y 
 el treinta de Enero de mil ocho- 
 cientos cuarenta y tres; de ma- 
 nera que la Republica mexicana 
 nada absolutamente tendra que 
 lastar en lo venidero, por razon 
 de los indicados reclamos. 
 
 Articulo XIV. 
 
 Tambien exoneran los Estados 
 Unidos a la Republica mexicana 
 de todas las reclamaciones de ciu- 
 
126 
 
 PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 of the United States, not hereto- 
 fore decided against the Mexican 
 Government, which may have 
 arisen previously to the date of the 
 signature of this treaty: which 
 discharge shall be final and per- 
 petual, whether the said claims be 
 rejected or be allowed by the Board 
 of Commissioners provided for in 
 the following Article, and what- 
 ever shall be the total amount of 
 those allowed. 
 
 Article XV. 
 
 The United States, exonerating 
 Mexico from all demands on ac- 
 count of the claims of their citi- 
 zens mentioned in the preceding 
 Article, and considering them 
 entirely and forever cancelled, 
 whatever their amount may be, 
 undertake to make satisfaction 
 for the same, to an amount not 
 exceeding three and one quarter 
 millions of dollars. To ascertain 
 the validity and amount of those 
 claims, a Board of Commissioners 
 shall be established by the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States, 
 whose awards shall be final and 
 conclusive: provided that in de- 
 ciding upon the validity of each 
 claim, the board shall be guided 
 and governed by the principles 
 and rules of decision prescribed 
 by the first and fifth Articles of 
 the unratified convention, con- 
 cluded at the city of Mexico on 
 the twentieth day of November 
 one thousand eight hundred and 
 forty -three; and in no case shall 
 an award be made in favor of any 
 claim not embraced by these prin- 
 ciples and rules. 
 
 If, in the opinion of the said 
 Board of Commissioners, or of 
 the claimants, any books, records 
 or documents in the possession 
 or power of the Government of 
 the Mexican Republic, shall be 
 deemed necessary to the just de- 
 cision of any claim, the Commis- 
 
 dadanos de los Estados Unidos 
 no decididas aun contra el Go- 
 bierno mexicano, y que puedan 
 haberse originado antes de la f echa 
 de la firma del presente tratado: 
 esta exoneracion es definitiva y 
 perpetua, bien sea que las dichas 
 reclamaciones se admitan, bien sea 
 que se desechen por el tribunal de 
 comisarios de que habla al articulo 
 siguiente, y cualquiera que pueda 
 ser el monto total de las que queden 
 admitidas. 
 
 ARTfCULO XV. 
 
 Los Estados Dnidos, exone- 
 rando a Mexico de toda responsa- 
 bilidad por las reclamaciones de 
 sus ciudadanos mencionadas en 
 el articulo precedente, y consi- 
 derandolas completamente cance- 
 ladas para siempre, sea cual fuere 
 su monto, toman a, su cargo sa- 
 tisfacerlas hasta una cantidad que 
 no exceda de tres millones dos- 
 cientos cincuenta mil pesos. Para 
 fijar el monto y validez de estas 
 reclamaciones, se establecera, por 
 el Gobierno de los Estados Uni- 
 dos un tribunal de comisarios, 
 cuyos fallos seran definitivos y 
 concluyentes, con tal que al de- 
 cidir sobre la validez de dichas 
 reclamaciones, el tribunal se haya 
 guiado y gobernado por los prin- 
 cipios y reglas de decision estable- 
 cidos en los articulos primero y 
 quinto de la convencion, no rati- 
 ficada, que se ajusto en la ciudad 
 de Mexico el veinte de Noviembre 
 de mil ochocientos cuarenta y 
 tres; y en ningun caso se dara 
 fallo en favor de ninguna reclama- 
 cion que no este comprendida en 
 las reglas y principios indicados. 
 
 Si en juicio del dicho tribunal 
 de comisarios, 6 en el de los re- 
 clamantes se necesitare para la 
 justa decision de cualquier recla- 
 macion algunos libros, papeles de 
 archivo 6 documentos que posea 
 el Gobierno mexicano, 6 que est6n 
 en su poder; los comisarios, 6 los 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 127 
 
 sioners or the claimants, through 
 them, shall, within such period 
 as Congress may designate, make 
 an application in writing for the 
 same, addressed to the Mexican 
 Minister for Foreign Affairs, to 
 be transmitted by the Secretary 
 of State of the United States; and 
 the Mexican Government engages, 
 at the earliest possible moment 
 after the receipt of such demand, to 
 cause any of the books, records 
 or documents, so specified, which 
 shall be in their possession or 
 power (authenticated copies or ex- 
 tracts of the same) to be transmit- 
 ted to the said Secretary of State, 
 who shall immediately deliver 
 them over to the said Board of 
 Commissioners: Provided That no 
 such application shall be made, by, 
 or at the instance of, any claimant, 
 until the facts which it is expected 
 to prove by such books, records 
 or documents, shall have been 
 stated under oath or affirmation. 
 
 Article XVI. 
 
 Each of the contracting parties 
 reserves to itself the entire right 
 to fortify whatever point within 
 it's territory, it may judge proper 
 so to fortify, for it's security. 
 
 Article XVII 
 
 The Treaty of Amity, Com- 
 merce and Navigation, concluded 
 at the city of Mexico on the fifth 
 day of April A. D. 1831, between 
 the United States of America and 
 the United Mexican States, ex- 
 cept the additional Article, and 
 except so far as the stipulations 
 of the said treaty may be incom- 
 patible with any stipulation con- 
 tained in the present treaty, is 
 hereby revived for the period of 
 eight years from the day of the 
 exchange of ratifications of this 
 treaty, with the same force and 
 virtue as if incorporated therein; 
 
 reclamantes por conducto de ellos, 
 los pediran por escrito (dentro del 
 plazo que designe el Congreso) 
 dirigiendose al Ministro mexicano 
 de Relaciones Exteriores, a quien 
 transmitira las peticiones de esta 
 clase el Secretario de Estado de 
 los Estados Unidos: y el Gobierno 
 mexicano se compromete a en- 
 tregar a la mayor brevedad posible, 
 despues de recibida cada demanda, 
 los libros, papeles de archivo 6 
 documentos, asi especificados, que 
 posea 6 esten en su poder, 6 copias 
 6 extractos aut^nticos de los mis- 
 mos, con el objeto de que sean trans- 
 mitidos al Secretario de Estado, 
 quien los pasara inmediatamente 
 al expresado tribunal de comisa- 
 rios. Y no se hara peticion alguna 
 de los enunciados libros, papeles 6 
 documentos, por 6 a instancia de 
 ningun reclamante, sin que antes 
 se hay a aseverado bajo juramento 
 6 con afirmacion solemne la verdad 
 de los hechos que con ellos se pre- 
 tende probar. 
 
 Articulo XVI. 
 
 Cada una de las dos Republicas 
 se reserva la completa facultad de 
 f ortificar todos los puntos que para 
 su seguridad estime convenientes 
 en su propio territorio. 
 
 Articulo XVII. 
 
 El tratado de amistad, comer- 
 cio y navegacion, concluido en la 
 ciudad de Mexico el cinco de 
 Abril del ano del Senor 1831, 
 entre la Republica mexicana y 
 los Estados Unidos de America, 
 esceptuandose el articulo adi- 
 cional y cuanto pueda haber en sus 
 estipulaciones incompatible con 
 alguna de las contenidas en el 
 presente tratado, queda restable- 
 cido por el periodo de ocho anos 
 desde el dia del cange de las 
 ratificaciones del mismo presente 
 tratado, con igual fuerza y valor 
 que si estuviese inserto en 61 ; de- 
 
128 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1FOKNIAS. 
 
 it being understood that each of 
 the contracting parties reserves 
 to itself the right, at any time 
 after the said period of eight 
 years shall have expired, to ter- 
 minate the same by giving one 
 year's notice of such intention to 
 the other party. — 
 
 Article XVIII. 
 
 All supplies whatever for troops 
 of the United States in Mexico, 
 arriving at ports in the occupa- 
 tion of such troops, previous to 
 the final evacuation thereof, al- 
 though subsequently to the resto- 
 ration of the Custom Houses at 
 such ports, shall be entirely ex- 
 empt from duties and charges of 
 any kind: the Government of the 
 United States hereby engaging 
 and pledging its faith to establish 
 and vigilantly to enforce, all pos- 
 sible guards for securing the reve- 
 nue of Mexico, by preventing the 
 importation, under cover of this 
 stipulation, of any articles, other 
 than such, both in kind and in 
 quantity, as shall really be wanted 
 for the use and consumption of 
 the forces of the United States 
 during the time they may remain 
 in Mexico. To this end, it shall be 
 the duty of all officers and agents 
 of the United States to denounce 
 to the Mexican Authorities at the 
 respective ports, any attempts at 
 a fraudulent abuse of this stipu- 
 lation, which they may know of 
 or may have reason to suspect, 
 and to give to such authorities all 
 the aid in their power with regard 
 thereto: and every such attempt, 
 when duly proved and established 
 by sentence of a competent tribu- 
 nal, shall be punished by the con- 
 fiscation of the property so at- 
 tempted to be fraudulently intro- 
 duced. 
 
 biendo entenderse que cada una 
 de las partes contratantes se re- 
 serva el derecho de poner termino 
 al dicho tratado de comercio y 
 navegacion en cualquier tiempo 
 luego que haya expirado el perio- 
 do de las ocho anos, comuni- 
 cando su intencion a la otra parte 
 con un ano de anticipacion. 
 
 Articulo XVIII. 
 
 No se exigiran derechos ni 
 gravamen de ninguna clase a los 
 articulos todos que lleguen para 
 las tropas de los Estados Unidos 
 a, los puertos mexicanos ocupados 
 por ellas, antes de la evacuacion 
 final de los mismos puertos, y 
 despues de la devolucion a, Me- 
 xico de las aduanas situadas en 
 ellos. El Gobierno de los Estados 
 Unidos se compromete a, la vez, 
 y sobre esto empena su f6, a. es- 
 tablecer y mantener con vigilancia 
 cuantos guardas sean posibles 
 para asegurar las rentas de Me- 
 xico, precaviendo la importacion, 
 a la sombra de esta estipulacion, 
 de cualesquiera articulos que real- 
 mente no sean necesarios, 6 que 
 excedan en cantidad de los que se 
 necesiten para el uso y consumo 
 de las fuerzas de los Estados 
 Unidos mientras ellas permanez- 
 can en Mexico. A este efecto, 
 todos los oficiales y agentes de 
 los Estados Unidos tendran obli- 
 gacion de denunciar a las auto- 
 ridades mexicanas en los mismos 
 puertos, cualquier conato de 
 fraudalento abuso de esta esti- 
 pulacion que pudieren conocer 6 
 tuvieren motivo de sospechar; 
 asi como de impartir a las mismas 
 autoridades todo el auxilio que 
 pudieren con este objeto: y cual- 
 quier conato de esta clase, que 
 fuere legalmente probado, y de- 
 clarado por sentencia de tribunal 
 competente, sera castigado con 
 el comiso "de la cosa que se haya 
 intentado introducir fraudalenta- 
 mente. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 129 
 
 Article XIX. 
 
 With respect to all merchandise, 
 effects and property whatsoever, 
 imported into ports of Mexico, 
 whilst in the occupation of the 
 forces of the United States, 
 whether by citizens of either re- 
 public, or by citizens or subjects 
 of any neutral nation, the follow- 
 ing rules shall be observed: 
 
 I. All such merchandise, effects 
 and property, if imported previ- 
 ously to the restoration of the 
 Custom Houses to the Mexican 
 Authorities, as stipulated for in 
 the third Article of this treaty, 
 shall be exempt from confiscation, 
 although the importation of the 
 same be prohibited by the Mexi- 
 can tariff. 
 
 II. The same perfect exemption 
 shall be enjoyed by all such mer- 
 chandise, effects and property, 
 imported subsequently to the res- 
 toration of the Custom Houses, 
 and previously to the sixty days 
 fixed in the following Article for 
 the coming into force of the 
 Mexican tariff at such ports re- 
 spectively: the said merchandise, 
 effects and property being, how- 
 ever, at the time of their impor- 
 tation, subject to the payment of 
 duties as provided for in the said 
 following Article. 
 
 IH. All merchandise, effects 
 and property, described in'the two 
 rules foregoing, shall, during 
 their continuance at the place of 
 importation, and upon their leav- 
 ing such place for the interior, be 
 exempt from all duty, tax or 
 impost of every kind, under what- 
 soever title or denomination. 
 Nor shall they be there subjected 
 to any charge whatsoever upon 
 the sale thereof. 
 
 IV . All merchandise, effects and 
 
 property, described in the first and 
 
 second rules, which shall have been 
 
 removed to any place in the inte- 
 
 S. Doc. 28 9 
 
 Articulo XIX. 
 
 Respecto de los efectos, mercan- 
 cias y propiedades importados en 
 los puertos mexicanos durante el 
 tiempo que han estado ocupados 
 por las fuerzas de los Estados 
 Unidos, sea por ciudadanos de 
 cualquiera de las dos Republicas, 
 sea por ciudadanos 6 subditos de 
 alguna nacion neutral, se observa- 
 ran las reglas siguientes: 
 
 1. Los dichos efectos, mercan- 
 cias y propiedades siempre que se 
 hayan importado antes de la devo- 
 lucion de las aduanas a, las autori- 
 dades Mexicanas conforme a lo 
 estipulado en el articulo tercero 
 de este tratado, quedaran libres 
 de la pena de comiso, aun cuando 
 sean de los prohibidos en el aran- 
 cel mexicano. 
 
 2. La misma exencion goza- 
 ran los efectos, mercancias y 
 propiedades que lleguen a los 
 puertos mexicanos, despues de 
 la devolucion a Mexico de las 
 aduanas maritimas, y antes de 
 que expiren los sesenta dias que 
 van a fijarse en el articulo si- 
 guiente para que empiece a regir 
 el arancel mexicano en los puer- 
 tos; debiendo al tiempo de su 
 importacion sujetarse los tales 
 efectos, mercancias y propieda- 
 des, en cuanto al pago de dere- 
 chos, a lo que en el indicado 
 siguiente articulo se establece. 
 
 3. Los efectos, mercancias y 
 propiedades designados en las dos 
 reglas anteriores quedaran exen- 
 tos de todo derecho, alcabala 6 
 impuesto, sea' bajo el titulo de 
 internacion, sea bajo cualquiera 
 otro, mientras permanezcan en 
 los puntos donde se hayan im- 
 portado, y a su salida para el 
 interior; y en los mismos puntos 
 no podra, jamas exigirse impuesto 
 alguno sobre su venta. 
 
 4. Los efectos, mercancias y 
 propiedades designados en las re- 
 glas primera y segunda que hayan 
 sido internados a cualquier lugar 
 
130 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 rior, whilst such place was in the 
 occupation of the forces of the 
 United States, shall, during their 
 continuance therein, be exempt 
 from all tax upon the sale or con- 
 sumption thereof, and from every 
 kind of impost or contribution, 
 under whatsoever title or denomi- 
 nation. 
 
 V. But if any merchandise, ef- 
 fects or property, described in the 
 first and second rules, shall be re- 
 moved to any place not occupied 
 at the time by the forces of the 
 United States, they shall, upon 
 their introduction into such place, 
 or upon their sale or consumption 
 there, be subject to the same du- 
 ties which, under the Mexican 
 laws, they would be required to 
 pay in such cases, if they had been 
 imported in time of peace through 
 the Maritime Custom Houses, and 
 had there paid the duties, conform- 
 ably with the Mexican tariff. 
 
 VI. The owners of all mer- 
 chandise, effects or property, de- 
 scribed in the first and second 
 rules, and existing in any port of 
 Mexico, shall have the right to re- 
 ship the same, exempt from all 
 tax, impost or contribution what- 
 ever. 
 
 With respect to the metals, or 
 othgr property, exported from 
 any Mexican port, whilst in the 
 occupation of the forces of the 
 United States, and previously to 
 the restoration of the Custom 
 House at such port, no person 
 shall be required by the Mexican 
 Authorities, whether General or 
 State, to pay any tax, duty or 
 contribution upon any such ex- 
 portation, or in any manner to 
 account for the same to the said 
 Authorities. 
 
 Article XX. 
 
 Through consideration for the 
 interests of commerce generally, 
 it is agreed, that if less than sixty 
 
 ocupado por f uerzas de los Estados 
 Unidos, quedaran exentos de todo 
 derecho sobre su venta 6 consumo, 
 y de todo impuesto 6 contribucion 
 bajo cualquier titulo 6 denomina- 
 cion, mientras permanezcan en el 
 mismo lugar. 
 
 5. Mas si algunos efectos, mer- 
 cancias 6 propiedades de los de- 
 sign ados en las reglas primera y 
 segunda se trasladaren a algun 
 lugar no ocupado a la sazon por 
 las f uerzas de los Estados Unidos; 
 al introducirse a tal lugar 6 al 
 venderse 6 consumirse en el, que- 
 daran sujetos a los mismos dere- 
 chos que bajo las leyes mexicanas 
 deberian pagar en tales casos si 
 se hubieran importado en tiempo 
 de paz por las aduanas maritimas, 
 y hubiesen pagado en elles los 
 derechos que establece el arancel 
 mexicano. 
 
 6. Los duenos de efectos, mer- 
 cancias y propiedades designados 
 en las reglas primera y segunda, 
 y existentes en algun puerto de 
 Mexico, tienen derecho de reem- 
 barcarlos, sin que pueda exigir- 
 seles ninguna clase de impuesto, 
 alcabala o contribucion. 
 
 Respecto de los metales y de 
 toda otra propiedad exportados 
 por cualquier puerto Mexicano 
 durante su ocupacion por las fuer- 
 zas americanas, y antes de la 
 devolution de su aduana al Go- 
 bierno mexicano, no se exigira 
 a ninguna persona por las autori- 
 dades de Mexico, ya dependan 
 del Gobierno general, ya de algun 
 estado, que pague ningun impues- 
 to, alcabala 6 derecho por la indi- 
 cada exportacion, ni sobre ella 
 podra exigirsele por las dichas 
 autoridades cuenta alguna. 
 
 ARTfCULO XX. 
 
 Por consideracion a los intereses 
 del comercio de todas las naciones, 
 queda convenido que si pasaren 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 131 
 
 days should elapse between the 
 date of the signature of this treaty 
 and the restoration of the Custom- 
 Houses, conformably with the 
 stipulation in the third Article, in 
 such case, all merchandise, effects 
 and property whatsoever, arriving 
 at the Mexican ports after the res- 
 toration of the said Custom Houses, 
 and previously to the expiration of 
 sixty days after the day of the sig- 
 nature of this treaty, shall be ad- 
 mitted to entry ; and no other duties 
 shall be levied thereon than the du- 
 ties established by the tariff found 
 in force at such Custom Houses at 
 the time of the restoration of the 
 same. And to all such merchan- 
 dise, effects and property, the 
 rules established by the preceding 
 Article shall apply. 
 
 Article XXI. 
 
 If unhappily any disagreement 
 should hereafter arise between the 
 Governments of the two Repub- 
 lics, whether with respect to the in- 
 terpretation of any stipulations in 
 this treaty, or with respect to any 
 other particular concerning the 
 political or commercial relations 
 of the two Nations, the said * Gov- 
 ernments, in the name of those 
 Nations, do promise to each other, 
 that they will endeavour, in the 
 most sincere and earnest manner, 
 to settle the differences so arising, 
 and to preserve the state of peace 
 and friendship, in which the two 
 countries are now placing them- 
 selves: using, for this end, mutual 
 representations and pacific nego- 
 tiations. And if, by these means, 
 they should not be enabled to 
 come to an agreement, a resort 
 shall not, on this account, be had 
 to reprisals, aggression or hostil- 
 ity of any kind, by the one Repub- 
 lic against the other, until the 
 Government of that which deems 
 itself aggrieved, shall have ma- 
 turely considered, in the spirit of 
 peace and good neighbourship, 
 
 me'nos de sesenta dias desde la 
 fecha de la firma de este tratado 
 hasta que se haga la devolucion de 
 las aduanas maritimas, segun lo 
 estipulado en el articulo tercero; 
 todos los efectos, mercancias, y 
 propiedades que lleguen a lospuer- 
 tos mexicanos desde el dia en que 
 se verifique la devolucion de las 
 dichas aduanas hasta que se com- 
 pleten sesenta dias contados desde 
 la fecha de la firma del jpresente 
 tratado, se admitiran no pagando 
 otros derechos que los establecidos 
 en la tarif a que este vigente en las 
 expresadas aduanas al tiempo de 
 su devolucion, y se extenderan & 
 dichos efectos, mercancias, y pro- 
 piedades las mismas reglas esta- 
 blecidas en el articulo anterior, 
 
 Articulo XXI. 
 
 Si desgraciadamente en el tiem- 
 po f uturo se suscitare algun punto 
 de desacuerdo entre los gobi- 
 ernos de las dos Republicas, bien 
 sea sobre la inteligencia de alguna 
 estipulacion de este tratado, bien 
 sobre cualquiera otra materia 
 de las relaciones politicas 6 com- 
 erciales de las dos naciones, los 
 mismos Gobiernos, a nombre de 
 ellas, se comprometen & procu- 
 rar de la manera mas sincera y 
 empenosa allanar las diferencias 
 que se presenten y conservar el 
 estado de paz y amistad en que 
 ahora se ponen los dos paises, 
 usando al efecto de representacio- 
 nes mutuas y de negociaciones 
 pacificas. Y si por estos medios 
 no se lograre todavia ponerse de 
 acuerdo, no por eso se apelara a 
 represalia, agresion ni hostilidad 
 de ningun g^nero de una Repub- 
 lica contra otra, hasta que el Go- 
 bierno de la que se crea agraviada 
 haya considerado maduramente y 
 en espiritu de paz y buena vecin- 
 dad, si no seria mejor que la dife- 
 rencia se terminara por un arbi- 
 trament© de comisarios nombrados 
 
132 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 whether it would not be better that 
 such difference should be settled by 
 the arbitration of Commissioners 
 appointed on each side, or by that 
 of a friendly nation. And should 
 such course be proposed by either 
 party, it shall be acceded to by the 
 other, unless deemed by it alto- 
 gether incompatible with the na- 
 ture of the difference, or the cir- 
 cumstances of the case. 
 
 • Article XXII. 
 
 If (which is not to be expected, 
 and which God forbid!) war 
 should unhappily break out be- 
 tween the two Republics, they do 
 now, with a view to such calamity, 
 solemnly pledge themselves to 
 each other and to the world, to 
 observe the following rules: ab- 
 solutely, where the nature of the 
 subject permits, and as closely as 
 possible in all cases where such 
 absolute observance shall be im- 
 possible. 
 
 I. The merchants of either Re- 
 public, then residing in the other, 
 shall be allowed to remain twelve 
 months (for those dwelling in the 
 interior) and six months (for 
 those dwelling at the sea-ports) 
 to collect their debts and settle 
 their affairs; during which periods 
 they shall enjoy the same protec- 
 tion, and be on the same footing, 
 in all respects, as the citizens or 
 subjects of the most friendly 
 nations; and, at the expiration 
 thereof, or at any time before, 
 they shall have full liberty to de- 
 part, carrying off all their effects, 
 without molestation or hinder- 
 ance: conforming therein to the 
 same laws, which the citizens or 
 subjects of the most friendly na- 
 tions are required to conform to. 
 Upon the entrance of the armies 
 of either nation into the terri- 
 tories of the other, women and 
 children, ecclesiastics, scholars 
 of every faculty, cultivators of 
 
 por ambas partes, 6 de una nacion 
 amiga. Y si tal medio fuere pro- 
 puesto por cualquiera de las dos 
 partes, la otra accedera a 61, a no 
 ser que lo juzgue absolutamente 
 incompatible con la naturaleza y 
 circunstancias del caso. 
 
 AktIculo XXII. 
 
 Si (lo que no es de esperarse, y 
 Dios no permita) desgraciada- 
 mente se suscitare guerra entre 
 las dos Republicas, estas para el 
 caso de tal calamidad se compro- 
 meten ahora solemnemente, ante 
 si mismas y ante el mundo, a 
 observar las reglas siguientes de 
 una manera absoluta, si la natu- 
 raleza del objeto a que se contraen 
 lo permite; y tan estrictamente 
 como sea dable en todos los casos 
 en que la absoluta observancia de 
 ellas fuere imposible: 
 
 1. Los comerciantes de cada 
 una de las dos Republicas que a 
 la sazon residan en territorio de 
 la otra, podran permanecer doce 
 mesee los que residan en el inte- 
 rior, y seis meses los que residan 
 en los puertos, para recoger sus 
 deudas y arreglar sus negocios; 
 durante estos plazos disfrutaran 
 la misma proteccion, y estaran 
 sobre el mismo pie en todos res- 
 pectos que los ciudadanos 6 sub- 
 ditos de las naciones mas amigas; 
 y al expirar el t^rmino, 6 antes 
 de el, tendran completa libertad 
 para salir y llevar todos sus ef ectos 
 sin molesiia 6 embarazo, sujetan- 
 dose en este particular a las mis- 
 mas leyes a, que est^n sujetos y 
 deban arreglarse los ciudadanos 
 6 siibditos de las naciones mas 
 amigas. Cuando los ejercitos de 
 una de las dos naciones entren en 
 territorios de la otra, las mujeres 
 y ninos, los eclesiasticos, los es- 
 tudiantes de cualquier facultad, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 133 
 
 the earth, merchants, artisans, 
 manufacturers, and fishermen, un- 
 armed and inhabiting unfortified 
 towns, villages or places, and in 
 general all persons whose occu- 
 pations are for the common sub- 
 sistence and benefit of mankind, 
 shall be allowed to continue their 
 respective employments, unmo- 
 lested in their persons. Nor shall 
 their houses or goods be burnt, 
 or otherwise destroyed; nor their 
 cattle taken, nor their fields 
 wasted, by the armed force, into 
 whose power, by the events of 
 war, they may happen to fall; 
 but if the necessity arise to take 
 anything from them for the use 
 of such armed force, the same 
 shall be paid for at an equitable 
 price. All churches, hospitals, 
 schools, colleges, libraries, and 
 other establishments for chari- 
 table and beneficent purposes, 
 shall be respected, and all per- 
 sons connected with the same 
 protected in the discharge of their 
 duties and the pursuit of their 
 vocations. 
 
 II. In order that the fate of pris- 
 oners of war may be alleviated, all 
 such practices as those of sending 
 them into distant, inclement or 
 unwholesome districts, or crowd- 
 ing them into close and noxious 
 places, shall be studiously avoided. 
 They shall not be confined in dun- 
 geons, prison-ships, or prisons; 
 nor be put in irons, or bound, or 
 otherwise restrained in the use of 
 their limbs. The officers shall 
 enjoy liberty on their paroles, 
 within convenient districts, and 
 have comfortable quarters; and 
 the common soldier shall be dis- 
 posed in cantonments, open and 
 extensive enough for air and exer- 
 cise, and lodged in barracks as 
 roomy and good as are provided 
 by the party in whose power 
 they are for it's own troops. 
 But, if any officer shall break his 
 
 los labradores, comerciantes, 
 artesanos, manufactureros y Pes- 
 cadores que esten desarmados y 
 residan en ciudades, pueblos 6 
 lugares no fortificados, y en gene- 
 ral todas las personas cuya ocu- 
 pacion sirva para la comun sub- 
 sistencia y beneficio del genero 
 humano, podran continuar en sus 
 ejercicios, sin que sus personas 
 sean molestadas. No seran in- 
 cendiadas sus casas 6 bienes, 6 
 destruidos de otra manera; ni 
 seran tornados sus ganados, ni 
 devastados sus campos por la 
 fuerza armada en cuyo poder 
 puedan venir a caer por los acon- 
 tecimientos de la guerra; pero si 
 hubiere necesidad de tormarles al- 
 guna cosa para el uso de la mis- 
 ma fuerza armada, se les pagara 
 lo tornado a un precio justo. 
 Todas las iglesias, hospitales, 
 escuelas, colegios, librerias, y 
 demas establecimientos de cari- 
 dad y beneficencia seran respe- 
 tados; j todas las personas que 
 dependan de los mismos seran 
 protegidas en el desempeno de 
 sus deberes y en la continuacion 
 de sus profesiones. 
 
 2. Para aliviar la suerte de los 
 prisioneros de guerra, se evitaran 
 cuidadosamente las practicas de 
 enviarlos a distritos distantes, in- 
 clementes 6 malsanos, 6 de aglo- 
 merarlos en lugares estrechos y 
 enfermizos. No se confinaran en 
 calabozos, prisiones ni pontones; 
 no se les aherrojara ni se les atara, 
 ni se les impedira de ningun otro 
 modo el uso de sus miembros. 
 Los oficiales quedaran en libertad 
 bajo su palabra de honor, dentro 
 de distritos convenientes, y tend- 
 ran alojamientos comodos, y los 
 soldados rasos se colocaran en 
 acantonamientos bastante despe- 
 jados y extensos para la ventila- 
 cion y el ejercicio, y se alojaran 
 en cuarteles tan amplios y como- 
 dos como los que use para sus 
 propias tropas la parte que los 
 tenga en su poder. Pero si algun 
 
134 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 parole by leaving the district so 
 assigned him, or any other pris- 
 oner shall escape from the lim- 
 its of his cantonment, after they 
 shall "have been designated to 
 him, such individual, officer or 
 other prisoner, shall forfeit so 
 much of the benefit of this article 
 as provides for his liberty on pa- 
 role or in cantonment. And if 
 any officer so breaking his parole, 
 or any common soldier so escap- 
 ing from the limits assigned him, 
 shall afterwards be found in arms, 
 previously to his being regularly 
 exchanged, the person so offend- 
 ing shall be dealt with according 
 to the established laws of war. 
 The officers shall be daily fur- 
 nished by the party in whose 
 power they are, with as many ra- 
 tions, and of the same articles as 
 are allowed either in kind or by 
 commutation, to officers of equal 
 rank in it's own army; and all 
 others shall be daily furnished 
 with such ration as is allowed to 
 a. common soldier in it's own serv- 
 ice: the value of all which sup- 
 plies shall, at the close of the war, 
 or at periods to be agreed upon 
 between the respective command- 
 ers, be paid by the other party on 
 a mutual adjustment of accounts 
 for the subsistence of prisoners; 
 and such accounts shall not be 
 mingled with or set off against 
 any others, nor the balance due 
 on them be withheld, as a com- 
 pensation or reprisal for any 
 cause whatever, real or pre- 
 tended. Each party shall be al- 
 lowed to keep a commissary of 
 prisoners, appointed by itself, 
 with every cantonment of pris- 
 oners, in possession of the other: 
 which commissary shall see the 
 prisoners as often as he pleases; 
 shall be allowed to receive, ex- 
 empt from all duties or taxes, and 
 to distribute whatever comforts 
 may be sent to them by their 
 friends; and shall be free to trans- 
 
 oficial faltare a su palabra, salien- 
 do del distrito que se le ha sena- 
 lado; 6 algun otro prisonero se 
 fugare de los limites de su acanto- 
 namiento despues que estos se le 
 hayan fijado, tal oficial 6 prisio- 
 nero perdera el beneficio del pre- 
 sente articulo por lo que mira a su 
 libertad bajo su palabra 6 en acan- 
 tonamiento- Y si algun oficial 
 f altando asi a su palabra, 6 algun 
 soldado raso saliendo de los li- 
 mites que se le han asignado, fuere 
 encontrado despues con las armas 
 en la mano antes de ser debida- 
 mente canjeado, tal persona en 
 esta actitud. ofensiva sera tratada 
 conforme a las leyes comunes de 
 la guerra. A los oficiales se pro- 
 veera diariamente por la parte en 
 cuyo poder esten, de tantas ra- 
 ciones compuestas de los mismos 
 articulos como las que gozan en 
 especie 6 en equivalente los ofi- 
 ciales de la misma graduacion 
 en su propio ej^rcito: & todos.los 
 demas prisioneros se proveera dia- 
 riamente de una racion semejante 
 a la que se ministra al soldado 
 raso en su propio servicio: el valor 
 de todas estas suminstraciones se 
 pagara por la otra parte al con- 
 cluirse la guerra, 6 en los periodos 
 que se convengan entre sus res- 
 pectivos commandantes, prece- 
 diendo una mutua liquidacion de 
 las cuentas que se Ueven del man- 
 tenimiento de prisioneros: y tales 
 cuentas no se mezclaran ni com- 
 pensaran con otras; nielsaldoque 
 result© de ellas se reusara bajo 
 pretesto de compensacion 6 re- 
 presalia por cualquiera causa, real 
 6 figurada. Cada una de las 
 partes podra mantener un co- 
 misario de prisioneros nombrado » 
 por ella misma en cada acanto- 
 namiento de los prisioneros que 
 esten' en poder de la otra parte: 
 este comisario visitara a los pri- 
 sioneros siempre que quiera; ten- 
 dra facultad de recibir, libres de 
 todo derecho 6 impuesto, y de 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 135 
 
 mit his reports in open letters to 
 the party by whom he is employed. 
 
 And it is declared that neither 
 the pretence that war dissolves all 
 treaties, nor any other whatever 
 shall be considered as annulling or 
 suspending the solemn covenant 
 contained in this article. On the 
 contrary, the state of war is pre- 
 cisely that for which it is provided; 
 and during which its stipulations 
 are to be as sacredly observed as 
 the most acknowledged obliga- 
 tions under the law of nature or 
 nations. 
 
 Article XXIII. 
 
 This treaty shall be ratified by 
 the President of the United States 
 of America, by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate thereof; 
 and by the President of the Mexi- 
 can Republic, with the previous 
 approbation of it's General Con- 
 gress: and the ratifications shall 
 be exchanged in the City of Wash- 
 ington, or at the seat of govern- 
 ment of Mexico, in four months 
 from the date of the signature 
 hereof, or sooner if practicable. 
 
 In faith whereof, we, the respec- 
 tive Plenipotentiaries, have signed 
 this Treaty of Peace, Friendship, 
 Limits and Settlement, and have 
 hereunto affixed our seals respec- 
 tively. Done in Quintuplicate, at 
 the City of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
 on the second day of February in 
 the year of Our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and forty eight. 
 
 N. P. Tkist. 
 Luis G. Cuevas. 
 Bernardo Couto 
 Mig l . Atristain. 
 
 SEAL. J 
 SEAL.] 
 SEAL.] 
 
 SEAL.] 
 
 transmitir sus 
 abiertas a la 
 cual esta em- 
 
 distribuir todos los auxilios que 
 
 pueden enviarles sus amigos, y 
 
 podra libremente 
 
 partes en cartas 
 
 autoridad por la 
 
 pleado. 
 
 Y se declara que ni «el pretesto 
 de que la guerra destruye los tra- 
 tados, ni otro alguno, sea el que 
 fuere, se considerara, que anula 6 
 suspende el pacto solemne contre- 
 nido en este articulo. Por el con- 
 trario, el estado de guerra es 
 cabalmente el que se ha tenido pre- 
 sente al ajustarlo, y durante el 
 cual sus estipulaciones se han de 
 observar tan santamente como las 
 obligaciones mas reconocidas dela 
 ley natural 6 de gentes. 
 
 Articulo XXIII. 
 
 Este tratado sera ratificado por 
 el Presidente de la Jttepublica 
 mexicana, previa la aprobacion 
 de su Congreso general; y por el 
 Presidente de los Estados Unidos 
 de America con el consejo y con- 
 sentimiento del Senado: y las 
 ratificaciones se cangearan en la 
 ciudad de Washington, 6 donde 
 estuviere el Gobierno mexicano, 
 a los cuatro meses de la f echa de 
 la firma del mismo tratado, 6 antes 
 si fuere posible. 
 
 En f e de lo cual, nosotros los res- 
 pectivos plenipotenciarios hemos 
 firmado y sellado por quintuplica- 
 do este tratado de paz, amistad, 
 limites y arreglo definitivo, en la 
 ciudad de Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
 el dia dos de Febrero del ano de 
 nuestro Senor mil ochocientos 
 cuarenta y ocho. 
 
 Bernardo Couto. 
 Migl. Atristain. 
 Luis G. Cuevas. 
 N. P. Trist. 
 
 L. S. 
 
 L. S.~ 
 
 L. S.~ 
 
 L. 8." 
 
 And whereas the said Treaty, as amended, has been duly ratified on 
 both parts, and the respective ratifications of the same were exchanged 
 at Queretaro, on the thirtieth day of May last, by Ambrose H. Sevier 
 and Nathan Clifford, Commissioners on the part of the Government of 
 
136 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 the United States, and by Senor Don Louis de la Rosa, Minister of 
 Relations of the Mexican Republic, on the part of that Government: 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known, that I, James K. Polk, President of 
 the United States of America, have caused the said Treaty to be made 
 public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article thereof, 
 may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States 
 and the citizens thereof. 
 
 In witness whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand, and caused the 
 seal of tine United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the City of Washington, this fourth day of July, one thou- 
 r -, sand eight hundred and forty-eight, and of the Independence 
 
 LSeal. j of the ^ nited states tne S eventy-third. 
 
 James K. Polk. 
 By the President: 
 James Buchanan 
 
 Secretary of /State. 
 
 ARTICLES REFERRED TO IN THE FIFTEENTH ARTICLE OF THE PRECED- 
 ING TREATY. 
 
 First and Fifth Articles of the unratified Convention between the United 
 States and the Mexican Republic of November 20, 1843. 
 
 Article 1 st . 
 
 All claims of citizens of the 
 Mexican Republic against the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, 
 which shall be presented in the 
 manner and time hereinafter ex- 
 pressed, and all claims of citizens 
 of the United States against the 
 government of the Mexican Re- 
 public, which for whatever cause 
 were not submitted to, nor con- 
 sidered, nor finally decided by the 
 commission, nor by the arbiter 
 appointed by the Convention of 
 1839, and which shall be pre- 
 sented in the manner and time 
 hereinafter specified, shall be re- 
 ferred to four commissioners, who 
 shall form a Board, and shall be 
 appointed in the following man- 
 ner, that is to say: Two com- 
 missioners shall be appointed by 
 the President of the Mexican Re- 
 public, and the other two by the 
 President of the United States, 
 with the approbation and consent 
 of the Senate. The said commis- 
 sioners thus appointed shall, in 
 presence of each other, take an 
 
 ARTfCULO. 
 
 Todas las reclamaciones de ciu- 
 dadanos de la Republica mexi- 
 cana contra el Gobierno de los 
 Estados Unidos, que se presen- 
 taren del modo y en el tiempo 
 que en adelante se espresa, y 
 todas las reclamaciones de ciu- 
 dadanos de los Estados Unidos 
 contra el Gobierno de la Repu- 
 blica mexicana, que por cualquier 
 motivo no se presentaron a la 
 Junta 6 que no-fueronexaminadas 
 6 decididas finalmente por ella 6 
 por el arbitro establecido por la 
 convencion de 1839, y que se pre- 
 sentaren del modo y en el tiempo 
 que en adelante se espresara, se 
 someteran a cuatro comisionados 
 que formaran Junta, y seran nom- 
 drados del modo siguiente, a saber: 
 Dos comisionados seran nombrados 
 por el President de la Republica 
 mexicana, y los otros dos lo seran 
 por el Presidente de los Estados 
 Unidos, con consentimiento y ap- 
 robacion del Senado de'los mismos. 
 Los dichos comisionados, de ese 
 modo nombrados, prestaran jura- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 137 
 
 oath to examine and decide im- 
 partially the claims submitted to 
 them, and which may lawfully be 
 considered , according to the proof s, 
 which shall be presented, the prin- 
 ciples of right and justice, .the Law 
 of Nations, and the Treaties be- 
 tween the two Republics. 
 
 Article 5 th . 
 
 All claims of citizens of the 
 United States against the Govern- 
 ment of the Mexican Republic, 
 which were considered by the 
 commissioners, and referred to 
 the umpire appointed under the 
 convention of the 11 th April, 1839, 
 and which were not decided by 
 him, shall be referred to, and 
 decided by, the umpire to be ap- 
 pointed, as provided by this Con- 
 vention, on the points submitted 
 to the umpire under the late Con- 
 vention, and his decision shall be 
 final and conclusive. It is also 
 agreed, that if the respective 
 commissioners shall deem it ex- 
 pedient, they may submit to the 
 said arbiter new arguments upon 
 the said claims. 
 
 mento en presencia unos de otros, 
 de examinar y decidir imparcial- 
 mente las reclamaciones que se les 
 sometan y que legalmente deban 
 considerarse segun las pruebas que 
 se les presentaren y segun los 
 principios de derecho y justicia de 
 la Ley de las Naciones y de los 
 tratado entre ambas Repiiblicas. 
 
 Articudo V. 
 
 Todas las reclamaciones de ciu- 
 dadanos de los Estados Unidos 
 contra el Gobierno de la Repu- 
 blica mexicana, que fueron ex- 
 aminadas por los comisionados 
 y sometidas al Arbitro nombrado 
 con arreglo a la convencion de 
 once de Abril de 1839, y que no 
 fueron por el decididas, se some- 
 teran y decidiran por el Arbitro 
 que debe nombrarse conforme a 
 esta convencion por lo relativo 
 a los puntos que se sujetaron al 
 Arbitro establecido por la ante- 
 rior convencion; y su decision 
 sera final y definitiva. A la vez 
 se ha convenido que, si se juzga 
 oportuno por los comisionados 
 respectivos, podran someterse por 
 ellos al espresado Arbritro, nuevas 
 esposiciones sobre dichas recla- 
 maciones. 
 
 CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 
 MEXICO— ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS. 
 
 Concluded July If., 1868. 
 
 Ratification advised by Senate July 25, 1868. 
 
 Ratified hy President January 25, 1869: 
 
 Ratified hy President of Mexico December 26, 1868. 
 
 Ratifications exchanged at Washington February 1, 1869. 
 
 Proclaimed February 1, 1869. 
 
 By the President of the United States of America. 
 
 A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 Whereas a convention between the United States of America and 
 the republic of Mexico, providing for the adjustment of the claims of 
 citizens of either country against the other, was concluded and signed 
 by their respective plenipotentiaries, at the city of Washington, on 
 
138 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 the fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
 hundred and sixty-eight, which convention, being in the English and 
 Spanish language, is word for word as follows: 
 
 Whereas it is desirable to main- 
 tain and increase the friendly feel- 
 ings between the United States and 
 the Mexican republic, and so to 
 strengthen the system and prin- 
 ciples of republican government 
 on the American continent; and 
 whereas since the signature of the 
 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of the 
 2d of February, 1848, claims and 
 complaints have been made by 
 citizens of the United States, on ac- 
 count of injuries to their persons 
 and their property by authorities 
 of that republic, and similar claims 
 and complaints have been made on 
 account of injuries to the persons 
 and property of Mexican citizens 
 by authorities of the United States ; 
 the President of the United States 
 of America and the President of 
 the Mexican republic have resolved 
 to conclude a convention for the 
 adjustment of the said claims and 
 complaints, and have named as 
 their plenipotentiaries — the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, William 
 H. Seward, Secretary of State; and 
 the President of the Mexican re- 
 public, Matias Romero, accredited 
 as envoy extraordinary and min- 
 ister plenipotentiary of the Mexi- 
 can republic to the United States; 
 who, after having communicated 
 to each other their respective full 
 powers, found in good and due 
 form, have agreed to the following 
 articles: 
 
 Article I. 
 
 All claims on the part of cor- 
 porations, companies, or private 
 individuals, citizens of the United 
 States, upon thegovernment of the 
 Mexican republic arising from in- 
 juries to their persons or property 
 by authorities of the Mexican re- 
 
 Considerando que es conveniente 
 mantener y ensanchar los senti- 
 mientos amistosos entre la repiibli- 
 ca Mexicana y los Estados Unidos, 
 y afianzar asi el sistema y princi- 
 pios de gobierno republicano en el 
 continente Americano; y consi- 
 derando que con posterioridad a la 
 celebracion del tratado de Guada- 
 lupe Hidalgo, de 2 de Febrero de 
 1848, ciudadanos de la republica 
 Mexicana han hecho reclamaciones 
 y presentado quejas con motivo de 
 perjucios sufridos en sus personas 
 6 sus propiedades, por autoridades 
 de los Estados Unidos, y reclama- 
 ciones y quejas semejantes se han 
 hecho y presentado con motivo de 
 perjucios sufridos por ciudadanos 
 de los Estados Unidos, en sus per- 
 sonas 6 sus propiedades, por autori- 
 dades de la repiiblica Mexicana; el 
 Presidente de la republica Mexi- 
 cana y el Presidente de los Estados 
 Unidos de America han determi- 
 nado concluir una convencion para 
 el arreglo de dichas reclamaciones 
 y quejas, y han nombrado sus 
 plenipotenciarios; el Presidente de 
 la republica Mexicana, a Matias 
 Romero, acreditado como enviado 
 extraordinario y ministro plenipo- 
 tenciario de la republica Mexicana 
 en los Estados Unidos; y el Presi- 
 dente de los Estados Unidos, a 
 William H. Seward, Secretario de 
 Estado ; quienes despues de haberse 
 mostrado sus respectivos plenos 
 poderes y encontradolos en buena 
 y debida forma, han convenido en 
 los articulos siguientes: 
 
 Akt^culo I. 
 
 Todas las reclamaciones hechas 
 por corporaciones, companias 6 in- 
 dividuos particulares, ciudadanos 
 de la republica Mexicana, proce- 
 dentes de perjuicios sufridos en 
 sus personas 6 en sus propiedades, 
 por autoridades de los Estados 
 
PIOUS FtnSTD OF THE OALIPOEKIAS. 
 
 139 
 
 public, and all claims on the part of 
 corporations, companies, orprivate 
 individuals, citizens of the Mexican 
 republic, upon the government of 
 the United States, arising from in- 
 juries to their persons or property 
 by authorities of the United States, 
 which may have been presented to 
 either government for its interposi- 
 tion with the other since the signa- 
 ture of the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo between the United States 
 and the Mexican republic of the 2d 
 of February, 1848, and which yet 
 remain unsettled, as well as any 
 other such claims which may be 
 presented within the time herein- 
 after specified, shall be referred to 
 two commissioners, one to be ap- 
 pointed by the President of the 
 United States, by and'with the ad- 
 vice and consent of the Senate, and 
 one by the President of theMexican 
 republic. In case of the death, ab- 
 sence, or incapacity of either com- 
 missioner, or in the event of either 
 commissioner omitting or ceasing 
 to act as such, the President of the 
 United States or the President of 
 theMexican republic, respectively, 
 shall forthwith name another per- 
 son to act as commissioner in the 
 place or stead of the commissioner 
 originally named. 
 
 Thecommissionerssonamedshall 
 meet at Washington within six 
 months after the exchange of the 
 ratifications of this convention, and 
 shall, before proceeding to busi- 
 ness, make and subscribe a solemn 
 declaration that they will impar- 
 tially and carefully examine and de- 
 cide, to the best of their judgment, 
 and according to public law, jus- 
 tice, and equity, without fear, 
 favor, or affection to their own 
 country, upon all such claims above 
 specified as shall be laid before them 
 on the part of the governments of 
 the United States and of the Mexi- 
 
 Unidos, y todas las reclamaciones 
 hechas por corporaciones, compa- 
 fiias 6 individuos particulares, ciu- 
 dadanos de los Estados Unidos, 
 procedentes de perjuicios sufridos 
 en sus personas 6 en sus propie- 
 dades, por autoridades de la repu- 
 blica Mexicana, que hayan sido 
 presentados a cualquiera de los dos 
 gobiernos, solicitando la interposi- 
 cion para con el otro, con poste- 
 rioridad a la celebracion del tratado 
 de Guadalupe Hidalgo entrela re- 
 publica Mexicana y los Estados 
 Unidos, de 2 de Febrero de 1848, y 
 queaunpermanecen pendientes, de 
 la misma manera que cualesquiera 
 otras reclamaciones que se presen- 
 taren dentro del tiempo que mas 
 adelante se especificara, se referi- 
 ran a dos comisionados, uno de los 
 cuales sera nombrado por el Presi- 
 dente de la republica Mexicana y 
 el otro por el Presidente de los 
 Estados Unidos, con el consejo y 
 aprobacion del Senado. En caso 
 de muerte, ausencia 6 incapacidad 
 de alguno de los comisionados, 6 
 en caso de que alguno de los co- 
 misionados cese de f uncionar como 
 tal, 6 suspenda el ejercicio de sus 
 funciones, el Presidente de la re- 
 publica Mexicana 6 el Presidente 
 de los Estados Unidos, respectiva- 
 mente, nombraran desdeluegootra 
 persona que haga de comisionado 
 en lugar del que originalmente f ue 
 nombrado. 
 
 Los comisionados nombrados de 
 esta manera, se reuniran en Wash- 
 ington dentro de seis meses, des- 
 pues de cangeadas lasratificaciones 
 de esta convencion, y antes de de- 
 sempenar sus funciones, haran y 
 suscribiran una declaracion so- 
 lemne de queexaminarany decidi- 
 ran imparcial . y cuidadosamente, 
 segun su mejor saber, y conforme 
 con el derecho publico, la justicia y 
 equidad, y sin temor 6 afeccion a 
 su respectivo pais, sobre todas las 
 reclamaciones antes especificadas, 
 que seles sometan por los gobiernos 
 de la republica Mexicana y de 
 
140 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 can republic, respectively; and 
 such declaration shall be entered on 
 the record of their proceedings. 
 
 The commissioners shall then 
 name some third person to act as 
 an umpire in any case or cases on 
 which they may themselves differ 
 in opinion. If they should not be 
 able to agree upon the name of such 
 third person, they shall each name 
 a person , and in each and every case 
 in which the commissioners may 
 differ in opinion as to the decision 
 which they ought to give, it shall 
 be determined by lot which of the 
 two persons so named shall be um- 
 pire in that particular case. The 
 person or persons so to be chosen 
 to be umpire shall, before proceed- 
 ing to act as such in any case, make 
 and subscribe a solemn declaration 
 in a form similar to that which 
 shall already have been made and 
 subscribed by the commissioners, 
 which shall be entered on the rec- 
 ord of their proceedings. In the 
 event of the death, absence, or in- 
 capacity of such person or persons, 
 or of his or their omitting, or de- 
 clining, or ceasing to act as such 
 umpire, another and different per- 
 son shall be named, as aforesaid-, 
 to act as such umpire, in the place 
 of the person so originally named, 
 as aforesaid, and shall make and 
 subscribe such declaration as afore- 
 said. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 ' The commissioners shall then 
 conjointly proceed to the investi- 
 gation and decision of the claims 
 which shall be presented to their 
 notice, in such order and in such 
 manner as they may conjointly 
 think proper, but upon such evi- 
 dence or information only as shall 
 be furnished by or on behalf of 
 their respective governments. 
 They shall be bound to receive and 
 peruse all written documents or 
 statements which may be pre- 
 
 los Estados Unidos, respectiva 
 mente, y dicha declaracion se asen 
 tara en la acta de sus procedi 
 mientos. 
 
 Los comisionados procederan en 
 tonces a nombrar una tercera per 
 sona que hara de arbitro en el case 
 6 casos en que difieran de opinion 
 Si no pudieren convenir en e 
 nombre de esta tercera persona 
 cada uno de ellos nombrara um 
 persona, y en todos y cada uno d« 
 los casos en que los comisionadof 
 defieran de opinion respecto de h 
 decision que deban dar, se deter 
 minara por suerte quien de las dos 
 personas asi nombradas hara, dc 
 arbitro en ese caso particular, 
 La persona 6 personas que se eli- 
 gieren de esa manera, para ser ar- 
 bitros, haran y suscribiran antes 
 de obrar como tales, en cualquiei 
 caso, una declaracion solemne en 
 una forma, semejante a la que de- 
 bera haber sido y a hecha y suscrita 
 por los comisionados, lo cual se 
 asentara tambien en la acta de los 
 procedimientos. En caso de muer- 
 te, ausencia 6 incapacidal de la per- 
 sona 6 personas nombradas arbi- 
 tros, 6 en caso de que suspendac 
 el ejercicio de sus funciones, se 
 rehusen a, desempenarlas 6 cesen en 
 ellas, otra persona sera, nombrado 
 arbitro de la manera, que queda 
 dicha, en lugar de la persona origi- 
 nalmente nombrada, y hara y sus- 
 cribira, la declaracion antes men- 
 cionada. 
 
 Articulo II. 
 
 En seguida procederan junta- 
 mente los comisionadas a la inves- 
 tigation y decision de las reclama- 
 ciones que se les presenten en el 
 orden y de la manera que de comun 
 acuerdocreyerericonveniente,pero 
 recibiendo solamente las pruebas 
 6 informes que se les ministren 
 por los respectivos gobiernos 6 en 
 su nombre. Tendran obligacion 
 de recibir y leer todas las manifes- 
 taciones 6 documentosescritosque 
 se le presenten por sus gobiernos 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 141 
 
 sented to them by or on behalf of 
 their respective governments in 
 support of or in answer to any 
 claim, and to hear, if required, one 
 person on each side on behalf of 
 each government on each and 
 every separate claim. Should 
 they fail to agree in opinion 
 upon any individual claim, they 
 shall call to their assistance the 
 umpire whom they may have 
 agreed to name, or who may be 
 determined by lot, as the case may 
 be; and such umpire, after having 
 examined the evidence adduced for 
 and against the claim, and after 
 having heard, if required, one per- 
 son on each side as aforesaid, and 
 consulted with the commissioners, 
 shall decide thereupon finally and 
 without appeal. The decision of 
 the commissioners and of the um- 
 pire shall be given upon each claim 
 in writing, shall designate whether 
 any sum which may be allowed 
 shall be payable in gold or in the 
 currency of the United States, and 
 shall be signed by them respec- 
 tively. It shall be competent for 
 each government to name one per- 
 son to attend the commissioners as 
 agent on its behalf, to present and 
 support claims on its behalf, and 
 to answer claims made upon it, 
 and to represent it generally in all 
 matters connected with the inves- 
 tigation and decision thereof. 
 
 The President of the United 
 States of America and the Presi- 
 dent of the Mexican republic here- 
 by solemnly and sincerely engage 
 to consider the decision of the com- 
 missioners conjointly or of the 
 umpire, as the case may be, as ab- 
 solutely final and conclusive upon 
 each claim decided upon by them 
 or him respectively, and to give 
 full effect to such decisions with- 
 out any objection, evasion, or de- 
 lay whatsoever. 
 
 It is agreed that no claim arising 
 
 respectivos, 6 en su nombre, en 
 apoyo 6 respuesta a cualquiera 
 reclamacion, y de oir, si se les pi- 
 diere, k una persona por cada lado, 
 en nombre de cada gobierno, en 
 todas y cada una de las reclama- 
 cionesseparadamente. Sidejaren 
 de convenir sobre alguna reclama- 
 cion particular, llamaran en suau- 
 silio al arbitro que havan nombrado 
 de comun acuerdo, 6 a quien la 
 suerte haya designado segun f uere 
 el caso, y el arbitro, despues de 
 haber examinado las pruebas pro- 
 ducidas en favor y en contra de la 
 reclamacion, y despues de haber 
 oido, si se le pidiere, a, una persona 
 por cada lado, como queda dicho 
 y consultado con los comisionados, 
 decidira sobre el la finalamente y 
 sin apelacion. La decision de los 
 comisionados y del arbitro se dara 
 en cada reclamacion por escrito, 
 especificara si la suma que se con- 
 cediere se pagara en oro 6 en 
 moneda corriente de los Estados 
 Unidos, y sera firmada por ellos 
 respectivamente. Cada gobierno 
 podra nombrar una persona que 
 concurra a la comision en nombre 
 del gobierno respectivo, como 
 agente; que presente 6 defienda 
 las' reclamaciones en nombre del 
 mismo gobierno, y que responda a 
 las reclamaciones hechas contra el, 
 y que le represente en general en 
 todos los negocios que tengan re- 
 lacion con la investigacion y deci- 
 sion de reclamaciones. 
 
 El Presidente de la republica 
 Mexicana y el Presidente de los 
 Estados Unidos de America se com- 
 prometen solemne y sinceramente 
 en esta convencion, a considerar la 
 decision de los comisionados de 
 acuerdo, 6 del arbitro, segun f uere 
 el caso, como absolutamente final 
 y definitiva, respecto de cada una 
 de las reclamaciones falladas por 
 los comisionados 6 el arbitro respec- 
 tivamente, y a dar entero cumpli- 
 miento a tales decisiones sin obje- 
 cion, evasion ni dilacion ninguna. 
 
 Se conviene que ninguna recla- 
 
142 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 out of a transaction of a date prior 
 to the2d of February, 1848, shall be 
 admissible under this convention. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 Every claim shall be presented 
 to the commissioners within eight 
 months from the day of their first 
 meeting, unless in any case where 
 reasons for delay shall be estab- 
 lished to the satisfaction of the com- 
 missioners, or of the umpire in the 
 event of the commissioners differ- 
 ing in opinion thereupon, and then 
 and in any such case the period for 
 presenting the claim may be ex- 
 tended to any time not exceeding 
 three months longer. 
 
 The commissioners shall be 
 bound to examine and decide upon 
 every claim within two years and 
 six months from the day of their 
 first meeting. It shall be compe- 
 tent for the commissioners con- ■ 
 jointly, or for the umpire if they 
 differ, to decide in each case 
 whether any claim has or has not 
 been duly made, preferred, and 
 laid before them, either wholly or 
 to any and what extent, according 
 to the true intent and meaning of 
 this convention. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 When decisions shall have been 
 made by the commissioners and the 
 arbiter in every case which shall 
 have been laid before them, the 
 total amount awarded in all the 
 cases decided in favor of the citi- 
 zens of the one party shall be 
 deducted from the total amount 
 awarded to the citizens of the 
 other party, and the balance, to 
 the amount of three hundred thou- 
 sand dollars, shall be paid at the 
 city of Mexico, or at the city of 
 Washington, in gold or its equiv- 
 alent, within twelve months from 
 the close of the commission, to the 
 
 macion que emane de aconteci- 
 mientos de f echa anterior al 2 de 
 Febrero de 1848, se admitira con 
 arreglo a esta convencion. 
 
 Art*culo III. 
 
 Todas las raclamaciones se pre- 
 senteran a los comisionados dentro 
 de ocho meses contados desde el 
 dia de su primera reunion, a no ser 
 en los casos en que se manifieste 
 que haya habido razones para di- 
 latarlas, siendoestas satisfactorias 
 para los comisionados 6 para el 
 arbitro, si los comisionados no se 
 convinieren, y en ese y otros casos 
 semejantes, el periodo para la pre- 
 sentacion de las reclamaciones po- 
 dra estenderse por un plazo que no 
 exceda de tres meses. 
 
 Los comisionados tendran la obli- 
 gacion de examinar y decidir todas 
 las reclamaciones dentro de dos 
 anos y seis meses, contados desde 
 el dia desu primera reunion. Los 
 comisionados de comun acuerdo 
 6 el arbitro, si ellos difirieren, po- 
 dran decidir en cada caso, si una 
 reclamacion ha sido 6 no debida- 
 mente hecha, comunicada y some- 
 tida a la comision, ya sea en su 
 totalidad 6 en parte y cual sea esta, 
 con arreglo al verdadero espiritu 
 y a letra de esta convencion. 
 
 ARTfcULO IV. 
 
 Cuando los comisicnados y el 
 arbitro hayan decidido todos los 
 casos que les hayan sido debida- 
 mente sometidos, la suma total fa- 
 llada en todos los casos decididos 
 en favor de los ciudadanos de una 
 parte, se deducira de la suma total 
 fallada en favor de los ciudadanos 
 de la otra parte, y la diferencia 
 hasta la cantidad de trescientos 
 mil pesos en oro, 6 su equivalente, 
 se pagara, en la ciudad de Mexico 
 6 en la ciudad de Washington, al 
 gobierno en favor de cuyos ciuda- 
 danos se haya f allado la mayor can- 
 tidad, sin interes, ni otra deduc- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 143 
 
 government in favor of whose cit- 
 izens the greater amount may 
 have been awarded, without in- 
 terest or. any other deduction than 
 that specified in Article VI of this 
 convention. The residue of the 
 said balance shall be paid in an- 
 nual installments to an amount 
 not exceeding three hundred thou- 
 sand dollars in gold or it equiva- 
 lent, in any one year until the 
 whole shall have been paid. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 The high contracting parties 
 agree to consider the result of the 
 proceedings of this commission as 
 a full, perfect, and final settlement 
 of every claim upon either govern- 
 ment arising out of any transaction 
 of a date prior to the exchange of 
 the ratifications of the present con- 
 vention; and further engage that 
 every such claim, whether or not 
 the same may have been presented 
 to the notice of, made, preferred, 
 or laid before the said commission, 
 shall, from and after the conclusion 
 of the proceedings of the said com- 
 mission, be considered and treated 
 as finally settled, barred, and 
 thenceforth inadmissible. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 The commissioners and the um- 
 pire shall keep an accurate record 
 and correct minutes of their pro- 
 ceedings, with the dates. For that 
 purpose they shall appoint two sec- 
 retaries versed in the language of 
 both countries to assist them in the 
 transaction of the business of the 
 commission. Each government 
 shall pay to its commissioner an 
 amount of salary not exceeding 
 forty -five hundred dollars a year in 
 the currency of the United States, 
 which amount shall be the same for 
 both governments. The amount 
 of compensation to be paid to the 
 umpire shall be determined by 
 mutual consent at the close of the 
 
 eion que la especificada en el Ar- 
 ticulo VI de esta convencion. El 
 resto de dicha diferencia se pagara 
 en abonos anuales que no excedan 
 de trescientos mil pesos en oro, 6 
 su equivalente, hasta que se haya 
 pagado el total de la diferencia. 
 
 ARTfCULO V. 
 
 Las altas partes contratantes con- 
 vienen en considerar el resulta do 
 de los procedimientos de esta co- 
 mision, como arreglo completo, 
 perfecto y final, de toda reclama- 
 tion contra cualquiera gobierno, 
 que proceda de acontecimientos de 
 fecha anterior al canje de las ratifi- 
 caciones de la presente convencion; 
 y se comprometen ademas a que 
 toda reclamation, ya sea que se 
 haya presentado 6 no a la referida 
 comision, sera considerada y tra 7 
 tada, concluidos los procedimien- 
 tos de dicha comision, como final - 
 mente arreglada, desechada y para 
 siempre inadmisible. 
 
 ARTfCULO VI. 
 
 Los comisionados y el arbitro 
 Uevaran una relation fiel y actas 
 esactas de sus procedimientos con 
 especificacion de las fechas; con 
 este objeto nombraran dos secreta- 
 ries versados en las lenguas de am- 
 bos paises, para que les ayuden en 
 el arreglo de los asuntos de la 
 comision. Cada gobierno pagara 
 a su comisionado un sueldo que no 
 exceda de cuatro mil quinientos 
 pesos al ano, en moneda corriente 
 de los Estados Unidos, cuya canti- 
 dad sera la misma para am bos 
 gobiernos. La compensation que 
 haya de pagarse al arbitro se de- 
 terminant por consentimiento mu- 
 tuo, al terminarse la comision ; pero 
 
144 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 commission, but necessary and 
 reasonable advances may be made 
 by each government upon the joint 
 recommendation of the commis- 
 sion. The salary of the secretaries 
 shall not exceed the sum of twenty- 
 five hundred dollars a year in the 
 currency of the United States. 
 The whole expenses of the com- 
 mission, including contingent ex- 
 penses, shall be defrayed by a 
 ratable deduction on the amount 
 of the sums awarded by the com- 
 mission, provided always that such 
 deduction shall not exceed five per 
 cent, on the sums so awarded. 
 The deficiency, if any, shall be 
 defrayed in moieties by the two 
 governments. 
 
 podran hacerse por cada gobierne 
 adelantos necesarios y razonable: 
 en virtud de la recomendacion d< 
 los dos comisionados. El sueld< 
 de los secretaries no excedera d< 
 la suma de dos mil quinientos peso: 
 al ano, en moneda corriente de lo: 
 Estados Unidos. Losgostostodof 
 de la comision, incluyendo los con 
 tingentes, se pagaran con una re 
 duccion proporcionalde lacantidac 
 total f allada por los comisionados 
 siempre que tal deduccion no ex 
 ceda del cinco por ciento de las 
 cantidades falladas. Si hubiere 
 algun deficiente, lo cubriran ambos 
 gobiernos por mitad. 
 
 Article VII. 
 
 The present convention shall be 
 ratified by the President of the 
 United States, by and with the 
 advice and consent of the Senate 
 thereof, and by the President of 
 the Mexican republic, with the ap- 
 probation of the Congress of that 
 republic, and the ratifications shall 
 be exchanged at Washington with- 
 in nine months from the date 
 hereof, or sooner if possible. 
 
 In witness whereof the respec- 
 tive plenipotentiaries have signed 
 the same and have affixed thereto 
 the seals of their arms. 
 
 Done at Washington the fourth 
 day of July, in the year of our 
 Lord one thousand eight hundred 
 and sixty -eight. 
 
 William H. Seward, [l. s. 
 M. Romero. [l. s, 
 
 And whereas the said convention has been duly ratified on both 
 parts, and the respective ratifications of the same have this day beer 
 exchanged: 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President o] 
 the United States of America, have caused the said convention to be 
 made public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article 
 thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Unitec 
 States and the citizens thereof. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the 
 seal of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Artictjlo VII. 
 
 La presente convencion sera ra 
 tificada por el Presidente de la re 
 piiblica Mexicana, con aprobacior 
 del Congreso de la misma, y por e 
 Presidente de los Estados Unidos, 
 con el consejo y aprobacion de 
 Senado de los mismos, y las rati 
 ficaciones se cangearan en Wash 
 ington dentro de nueve meses 
 contados desde la fecha de la con 
 vencion, 6 antes, si fuere posible, 
 
 En f 6 de lo cual, los respectivos 
 plenipotenciarios la hemos firmadc 
 y sellado con nuestros sellos respec- 
 tivos. 
 
 Hecho en Washington el dia cua- 
 tro de Julio, del alio del Senor mi 
 ochocientos sesenta y ocho. 
 
 M. Romero. 
 William H. Seward. 
 
 [l. s. 
 [l. s. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 145 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this first day of February, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty - 
 
 [seal.] nine, and of the Independence of the United States of 
 America the ninety-third. 
 
 Andrew Johnson. 
 By the President: 
 
 William H. Seward, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 
 THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO— EXTENSION OF THE DURA- 
 TION OF THE JOINT COMMISSION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS. 
 
 Signed April 19, 1871. 
 Ratified December 15, 1871. 
 Exchanged February 8, 1872. 
 Proclaimed February 8, 1872. 
 
 By the President or the United States of America. 
 A PKOCLAMATION. 
 
 Whereas a convention between the United States of America and the 
 United States of Mexico was concluded and signed by their respective 
 plenipotentiaries, at the city of Mexico, on the nineteenth day of 
 April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sev- 
 enty-one, for extending the time limited by the convention between 
 the two countries of the 4th of July, 1868, for the termination of the 
 proceedings of the joint commission provided for by the latter instru- 
 ment; which convention, being in the English and Spanish languages, 
 is word for word as follows: 
 
 Whereas a convention was con- 
 cluded on the4thday of July, 1868, 
 between the United States of 
 America and the United States of 
 Mexico, for the settlement of out- 
 standing claims that have origi- 
 nated since the signing of the treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 2d 
 of February, 1848, by amixed com- 
 mission limited to endure for two 
 years and six months from the day 
 of the first meeting of the commis- 
 sioners; and whereas doubts have 
 arisen as to the practicability of the 
 business of the said commission 
 being concluded within the period 
 assigned: 
 
 The President of the United 
 States of America and the Presi- 
 dent of the United States of Mex- 
 
 Considerando que f ue concluida, 
 en 4 de Julio de 1868, una conven- 
 cion entre los EstadosUnidos Mexi- 
 canos y los Estados Unidos de 
 America, para el arreglo de las 
 reclamaciones pendientes que se 
 habian originado despues de ftrma- 
 do el tratado de Guadalupe Hidal- 
 go en 2 de Febrero de 1848, por 
 medio de una comision mixta, cuya 
 duracion f ue limitada por el ter- 
 mino de dos anos y seis meses, con- 
 tados desde el dia de la primera 
 reunion de los comisionados; y 
 considerando que se ha puesto en 
 duda la posibilidad de qu e sean con- 
 cluidos dentro del termino senalado 
 los negocios pendientes ante dicha 
 comision: 
 
 El Presidente de los Estados 
 Unidos Mexicanos y el Presidente 
 de los Estados Unidos de America 
 
 S. Doc. 28- 
 
 -10 
 
146 
 
 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 ico are desirous that the time orig- 
 inally fixed for the duration of the 
 said commission should be ex- 
 tended, and to this end have named 
 plenipotentiaries to agree upon the 
 best mode of effecting this object, 
 that is to say: The President of the 
 United States of America, Thomas 
 H. Nelson, accredited as Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plen- 
 ipotentiary of the United States 
 of America to the Mexican Repub- 
 lic; and the President of the 
 United States of Mexico, Manuel 
 Azpiroz, Chief Clerk and in charge 
 of the Ministry of Foreign Rela- 
 tions of the United States of Mex- 
 ico; who, after having presented 
 their respective powers, and find- 
 ing them sufficient and in due 
 form, have agreed upon the follow- 
 ing articles: 
 
 Article I. 
 
 The high contracting parties 
 agree that the term assigned in the 
 convention of the 4th of July, 1868, 
 above referred to, for the duration 
 of the said commission, shall be ex- 
 tended for a time not exceeding 
 one year from the day when the 
 functions of the said commission 
 would terminate according to the 
 convention referred to, or for a 
 shorter time if it should be deemed 
 sufficient by the commissioners, or 
 the umpire, in case of their dis- 
 agreement. 
 
 It is agreed that nothing con- 
 tained in this article shall in any 
 wise alter or extend the time origi- 
 nally fixed in the said convention 
 for the presentation of claims to 
 the mixed commission. 
 
 Akticle II. 
 
 The present convention shall be 
 ratified, and the ratifications shall 
 be exchanged at Washington, as 
 soon as possible. 
 
 In witness whereof the above- 
 mentioned plenipotentiaries have 
 
 desean que el tiempo primitiva- 
 mente fijado para la duracion de 
 dicha comision sea prorogado, y 
 para alcanzar este fin de mejor 
 modo por medio de una convencion 
 han nombrado plenipotenciarios, a 
 saber El Presidente de los Esta- 
 dos Unidos Mexicanos a Manuel 
 Azpiroz, Oficial Mayor encargado 
 del Ministerio de relaciones Exte- 
 riores de los Estados Unidos Mexi- 
 canos; y el Presidente de los Esta- 
 dos Unidos de America a Thomas 
 H. Nelson, acreditado como Envia- 
 do Extraordinario v Ministro 
 Plenipotenciario de los Estados 
 Unidos de America en Mexico; 
 quienes, despues de haberse mos- 
 trado sus respectivos poderes y de 
 haberlos hallado bastantes y en 
 debida forma, han convenido en 
 los articulos siguientes: 
 
 ARTfCTTLO I. 
 
 Las altas partes contrate"ntes con- 
 vienen en que el termino senalado 
 en la convencion de 4 de Julio de 
 1868,arriba citada, para la duracion 
 de dicha comision, sea prorogado 
 por un tiempo que no exceda de un 
 ano, contado desdeel dia en que, se- 
 gun la convencion citada, deberian 
 terminarlas funcionesde lamisma 
 comision, 6 por un tiempo menor 
 que sea bastante a, juicio de los 
 comisionados, 6 del arbitro en caso 
 de discordia entre ellos. 
 
 Queda convenido, que por este 
 articulo no se alteran 6 prorogan 
 de ningun modo los terminos pre- 
 fijados en la citada convencion para 
 la presentacion de reclamaciones 
 ante la comision mixta. 
 
 Articulo II. 
 
 La presente convencion sera rati- 
 ficada, y las ratificaciones seran 
 cangeadas en Washington, a la 
 mayor brevedad. 
 
 En f e* de lo cual los plenipoten- 
 ciarios arriba nombrados firman 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKWIAS. 147 
 
 signed the same and affixed their la presente convencion, poniendo 
 
 respective seals. en ella sus sellos respectivos. 
 
 Done in the city of Mexico the Hecha en Mexico el dia diez y 
 
 19th day of April, in the year nuevedeAbrildelanomilochocien- 
 
 one thousand eight hundred and tos setenta y uno. 
 
 seventy -one. [seal." 
 
 seal. 
 
 SEAL. 
 
 Manuel Azpiroz. 
 Thomas H. Nelson. [seal.] Thomas H. Nelson. 
 
 Manuel Azpiroz. 
 
 And whereas the said convention has been duly ratified in both parts, 
 and the respective ratifications of the same have been exchanged: 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I. Ulysses S. Grant, President of 
 the United States of America, have caused the said convention to be 
 made public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article 
 thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good "faith by the United 
 States and the citizens thereof. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the 
 seal of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this eighth day of February, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
 [seal.J two, and of the Independence of the United States of America 
 the ninety-sixth. 
 
 U. S. Grant. 
 
 By the President: 
 Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 
 THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO.— REVIVAL AND FURTHER 
 EXTENSION OF DURATION OF THE JOINT COMMISSION FOR THE 
 SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS. 
 
 Concluded November 27, 1872. 
 
 Ratification advised by Senate with amendment, March 9. 1873. 
 
 Ratified by President March 10, 1873. 
 
 RaUficaiions exchanged at Washington July 17, 1873. 
 
 Proclaimed July 24, 1873. . 
 
 By the President of the United States of America. 
 
 A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 Whereas a convention between the United States of America and the 
 United States of Mexico, for further extending the time fixed by 
 the convention between the same parties of the 4tn July, 1868, for the 
 duration of the joint commission on the subject of claims, was con- 
 cluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries, at Washington, 
 on the twenty-seventh day of November last, which convention, after 
 having been amended and ratified by the contracting parties, is word 
 for word as follows: 
 
 Whereas, by the convention con- Considerando que por la conven- 
 cluded between the United States cion celebrada entre la Republica 
 and the Mexican Republic on the Mejicana y los Estados Unidos el 4 
 
148 
 
 PIOITS FOND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 fourth day of July, 1868, certain 
 claims of citizens of the contracting 
 parties were submitted to a joint 
 commission, whose functions were 
 to terminate within two years and 
 six months , reckoning from the day 
 of the first meeting of the commis- 
 sioners; and whereas the functions 
 of the aforesaid joint commission 
 were extended, according to the 
 convention concluded between the 
 same parties on the nineteenth day 
 of April, 1871, for a term not ex- 
 ceeding one year from the day on 
 which they were to terminate ac- 
 cording to the first convention ; and 
 whereas the possibility of said com- 
 mission's concluding its labors even 
 within the period fixed by the 
 aforesaid convention of April nine- 
 teenth, 1871, is doubtful: 
 
 Therefore, the President of the 
 United States of America and the 
 President of the United States of 
 Mexico, desiring that the term of 
 the aforementioned commission 
 should be again extended, in order 
 to attain this end, have appointed, 
 the President of the United States 
 Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, 
 and the President of the United 
 States of Mexico Ignacio Mariscal, 
 accredited to the Government of 
 the United States as Envoy Ex- 
 traordinary and Minister Pleni- 
 potentiary, of said United States of 
 Mexico, who, having exchanged 
 their respective powers, which 
 were found sufficient and in due 
 form, have agreed upon the fol- 
 lowing articles: 
 
 Article I. 
 
 The high contracting parties 
 agree that the said commission be 
 revived and that the time fixed by 
 the convention of April nineteenth, 
 1871, for the duration of the com- 
 mission aforesaid, shall be ex- 
 tended for a term not exceeding 
 two years from the day on which 
 the functions of the said commis- 
 sion would terminate according to 
 
 de Julio de 1868, ciertas reclama- 
 cione's delos ciudadanos de las par- 
 tes contratantes f ueron sometidas & 
 una comision mixta cuyas f unciones 
 habian de concluir dentro de dos 
 anos y seis meses contados desde el 
 dia de la primera reunion de los co- 
 misionados; que las f unciones de la 
 expresada comision mixta fueron 
 prorogadas, en virtud de la conven- 
 cion celebrada entre las mismas 
 partes el 19 de Abril de 1871, por 
 un termino que no pasase de un ano 
 contado desde el dia en que debian 
 terminar con arreglo a la primera 
 convencion; y por cuanto a que es 
 dudosa la posibilidad de que dicha 
 comision concluya sus trabajos aun 
 dentro del periodo fijado por la 
 mencionada convencion del 19 de 
 Abril de 1871. 
 
 El Presidente de los Estados 
 Unidos Mejicanos y el Presidente 
 de los Estados Unidos de America, 
 deseosos de que el termino de la 
 referida comision sea nuevamente 
 
 Erorogado, para llegar a este fin 
 an nombrado Plenipotenciarios, 
 el Presidente de los Estados Unidos 
 Mejicanos a Don Ignacio Mariscal, 
 a jreditado ante el Gobierno de los 
 Estados Unidos como Enviado Ex- 
 traordinario y Ministro Plenipo- 
 tenciario de dichos Estados Unidos 
 Mejicanos, y el Presidente de los 
 Estados Unidos a Hamilton Fish, 
 Secretario de Estado, quienes, 
 habiendo cangeado sus respectivos 
 podefes, que se encontraron bas- 
 tantes y en debida forma, han con- 
 venido en los siguientes articulos: 
 
 Articulo I. 
 
 Las altas partes contratantes 
 conyienen en que reviva dicha 
 comision y en que el tiempo desig- 
 nado en la convencion del 19 de 
 Abril de 1871, para la duracion de 
 la comision expresada, se prorogue 
 por un termino que no exceda de 
 dos anos contados des de el dia en 
 que las funciones de la comision 
 referida deberian concluir con 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 149 
 
 that convention, or for a shorter 
 time if it should be deemed suf- 
 ficient by the commissioners or the 
 umpire, in case of their disagree- 
 ment. 
 
 It is agreed that nothing con- 
 tained in this article shall in any 
 wise alter or extend the time orig- 
 inally fixed in the said convention 
 for the presentation of claims to 
 the commission. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 The present convention shall be 
 ratified and the ratifications shall 
 be exchanged at Washington as 
 soon as possible. 
 
 In witness whereof, the above- 
 named Plenipotentiaries have sign- 
 ed the same and affixed their respec- 
 tive seals. 
 
 Done in the city of "Washington 
 the twenty-seventh day of Novem- 
 ber, in the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and seventy-two. 
 
 [seal.] Hamilton Fish. 
 
 [seal.] Igno. Mariscal. 
 
 arreglo a esa convencion, 6 por 
 menos tiempo si lo creyeren 
 bastante los comisionados, 6 el 
 arbitro en caso de disentimiento. 
 
 Queda convenido que nada de lo 
 que contiene este articulo alterara' 
 de modo alguno, 6 extendera el 
 plazo fijado en dicha convencion 
 para presentar reclamaciones ante 
 la comision mixta. 
 
 Articulo II. 
 
 La presente convencion sera ra- 
 tificada y las ratificaciones cangea- 
 das en Washington a la mayor 
 brevedad posible. 
 
 En testimonio de lo cual, los 
 referidos Plenipotenciarios han 
 firmado esta convencion, y puestole 
 sus respectivos sellos. 
 
 Fecha en la ciudad de Washing- 
 ton el dia veinte y siete de Noviem- 
 bre del ano mil ochocientos setenta 
 y dos. 
 
 Hamilton Fish. [seal.] 
 
 Igno. Mariscal. [seal.] 
 
 And whereas the said convention, as amended, has been duly ratified 
 on both parts, and the respective ratifications of the same were 
 exchanged at Washington on the 17th instant: 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I, Ulysses S. Grant, President 
 of the United States of America, have caused the said convention to 
 be made public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article 
 thereof, may be observed and fulfilled by the United States and the 
 citizens thereof. 
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal 
 of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this twenty-fourth day of July, 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 [seal.] seventy-three, and of the Independence of the United States 
 the ninety-eighth. 
 
 FT ci n 
 
 U. S. Grant. 
 By the President: 
 
 J. C. Bancroft Davis, 
 
 Acting Secretary of State. 
 
150 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 
 THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC FOR THE FURTHER EXTENSION OF 
 THE DURATION OF THE JOINT COMMISSION RESPECTING 
 CLAIMS, ORIGINALLY FIXED BY THE CONVENTION OF JULY 
 4, 1868. 
 
 Concluded November 20, 1874.. 
 
 Ratification advised by Senate January W, 1875. 
 
 Ratified by President January M, 1875. 
 
 Ratified by President of Mexico December SI, 18? %. 
 
 Ratifications exchanged at Washington January %8, 1875. 
 
 Proclaimed January %9, 1875. 
 
 By the President of the United States of America. 
 
 A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 Whereas a convention between the United States of America and 
 the Mexican Republic for further extending the time originally fixed 
 by the convention between the same parties of the 4th of July, 1868, 
 and extended by those of the 19th of April, 1871, and of the 27th of 
 November, 1872, for the duration of the joint commission on the subject 
 of claims, was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries 
 at Washington on the 20th day of November, 1874, the original of 
 which convention, being in the English and Spanish languages, is word 
 for word as follows: 
 
 Convention between the United 
 States of America and the Mex- 
 ican Republic. 
 
 Whereas, pursuant to the con- 
 vention between the United States 
 and the Mexican Republic of the 
 19th day of April, 1871, the func- 
 tionsofthejointcommisssionunder 
 the convention between the same 
 parties of the 3th of July, 1868, 
 were extended for a term not ex- 
 ceeding one year from the day on 
 which they were to terminate 
 according to the convention last 
 named; 
 
 And whereas, pursuant to the 
 first article of the convention be- 
 tween the same parties, of the 
 twenty-seventh day of November, 
 one thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy -two, the joint commission 
 above referred to was revived and 
 again extended for a term not ex- 
 ceeding two years from the day 
 on which the functions of the said 
 
 Convencion entra la Republica 
 Mexicana y los Estados Uhidos 
 de America. 
 
 Considerando: Que, conf orme a 
 la convencion celebrada entre la 
 Republica Mexicana y los Estados 
 Unidos el 19 de Abril de 1871, las 
 funciones de la comision mista 
 establecida por la convencion entre 
 las mismas partes, del 4 de Julio 
 de 1868, f ueron prorogadas por un 
 termino que no excediera de un ano 
 contado desde el dia en que debian 
 terminar con arreglo a la conven- 
 cion ultimamente citada; 
 
 Y que, si bien conf orme al arti- 
 culo prime ro de la convencion entre 
 las mismas partes, del veintisiete 
 de Noviembre de mil ochocientos 
 setenta y dos, la ref erida comision 
 mista fue revivida y de nuevo pro- 
 rogada por un te"rmino que no 
 excediese de dos anos contados 
 desde el dia en que las funciones 
 de dicha comision habian de ter- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 151 
 
 commission would terminate pur- 
 suant to the said convention of the 
 nineteenth day of April, 1871 ; but 
 whereas the said extensions have 
 not proved sufficient for the dis- 
 posal of the business before the 
 said commission, the said parties 
 being equally animated by a desire 
 that all that business should be 
 closed, as originally contemplated, 
 the President of the United States 
 has for this purpose conferred full 
 powers on Hamilton Fish, Sere- 
 tary of State, and the President 
 of the Mexican Republic has con- 
 ferred like powers on Don Ignacio 
 Mariscal, Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister Plenipotentiary of 
 that republic to the United States; 
 and the said Plenipotentiaries hav- 
 ing exchanged their full powers, 
 which were found to be in due 
 form, have agreed upon the fol- 
 lowing articles: 
 
 Article I. 
 
 The high contracting parties 
 agree that the said commission 
 shall again be extended, and that 
 the time now fixed for its duration 
 shall be prolonged for one year 
 from the time when it would have 
 expired p ursuant to the con ventio n 
 of the twenty -seventh of Novem- 
 ber, 1872; that is to say, until the 
 thirty -first clay of January, in the 
 year one thousand eight hundred 
 and seventy-six. 
 
 It is, however, agreed that noth- 
 ing contained in this article shall 
 in any wise alter or extend the time 
 originally fixed by the convention 
 of the 4th July, 1868, aforesaid, 
 for the presentation of claims to 
 the commission. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 It is further agreed that, if at the 
 expiration of the time when, pur- 
 suant to the first article of this con- 
 
 minar segun la citada convencion 
 del diez y nueve de Abril de 1871, 
 dichas prorogas no han sido sufi- 
 cientas para el despacho de los 
 negocios pendientes ante dicha 
 comision, hallandose las referidas 
 partes igualmente animadas del 
 deseo de que todos esos negocios 
 queden concluidos como seestipul6 
 originalmente, el Presidente de la 
 Republica Mexicana ha conferido 
 con este fin plenos poderas a, Don 
 Ignacio Mariscal, Enviado Extra- 
 ordinario y Ministro Plenipoten- 
 ciaro de dicha Republica en los 
 Estados Unidos, y el Presidente 
 de los Estados Unidos ha conferido 
 iguales poderes a Hamilton Fish, 
 Secretario de Estado. Y estos 
 Plenipotenciarios, habiendo can- 
 geado sus poderes plenos, que 
 se encontraron en debida forma, 
 han convenido en los articulos 
 siguientes: 
 
 Articulo I. 
 
 Las altas partes contratantes 
 eonvienen en que el termino ahora 
 fijado para la duracion de la co- 
 mision mencionada se extienda de 
 nuevo, prorogandose por un ano 
 contado desde el tiempo en que 
 espiraria con arreglo a, la conven- 
 cion del veintisiete de Noviembre 
 de mil ochocientos setenta y dos: 
 es decir, hasta el treinta y uno de 
 Enero de mil ochocientos setenta y 
 seis. 
 
 Queda sin embargo convenido 
 que nada de lo que contiene este 
 articulo alterara 6 extendera de 
 modo alguno el termino original- 
 mente frjado por la convencion del 
 cuatro de Julio de mil ochocientos 
 sesenta y ocho, ya referida, para 
 presentar reclamaciones ante la 
 comision. 
 
 Articulo II. 
 
 Se conviene ademas en que, si al 
 espirar el tiempo en que conforms 
 al articulo primero de la presente 
 
152 
 
 PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 vention, the functions of the com- 
 missioners will terminate, the um- 
 pire under the convention should 
 not have decided all the cases 
 which may then have been referred 
 to him, he shall be allowed a fur- 
 ther period of not more than six 
 months for that purpose. 
 
 convencion terminen las f unciones 
 de los comisionados, el arbitro es- 
 tablecido por la convencion no 
 hubiese decidido todos los casos que 
 se le hubieren sometido hasta en- 
 t6nces, quedara facultado para ha- 
 cerlo en un nuevo periodo que no 
 exceda de seis meses. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 All cases which have been de- 
 cided by the commissioners or by 
 the umpire heretofore, or which 
 shall be decided prior to the ex- 
 change of the ratifications of this 
 convention, shall from the date of 
 such exchange be regarded as defin- 
 itively disposed of, and shall be 
 considered and treated as finally 
 settled, barred, and thenceforth in- 
 admissible. And, pursuant to the 
 stipulation contained in the fourth 
 article of the convention of the 
 fourth day of July, one thousand 
 eight hundred and sixty-eight, the 
 total amount awarded in cases 
 already decided, and which may 
 be decided before the exchange of 
 ratifications of this convention, 
 and in all cases which shall be de- 
 cided within the times in this con- 
 vention respectively named for 
 that purpose, either by the com- 
 missioners or by the umpire, in 
 favor of citizens of the one party 
 shall be deducted from the total 
 amount awarded to the citizens of 
 the other party, and the balance, 
 to the amount of three hundred 
 thousand dollars, shall be paid at 
 the city of Mexico, or at the city of 
 Washington, in gold or its equiva- 
 lent, within twelve months from 
 the 31st day of January, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and seventy- 
 six, to the government in favor of 
 whose citizens the greater amount 
 may have been awarded, without 
 interest or any other deduction 
 than that specified in article VI of 
 that convention. The residue of 
 
 AKTfCULO III. 
 
 Todas las reclamaciones que han 
 sido sentenciadas por los comisio- 
 nados 6 por el arbitro hasta la pre- 
 sentefecha, 6 que sean sentenciadas 
 antes del cange de las ratificaciones 
 de esta convencion, seran consi- 
 deradas desde la f echa de ese cange 
 como definitivamente resueltas, y 
 se consideraran y trataran como 
 finalmente arregladas y en lo 
 f uturo inadmisibles. Y, conf orme 
 a la estipulacion contenida en el 
 articulo cuarto de la convencion 
 del cuatrode Julio del 868, lasuma 
 total f allada en casos ya decididos, 
 y que se decidan antes del cange de 
 ratificaciones de esta convencion, y 
 en todos los casos que estuvieren 
 decididos dentro de los plazos res- 
 pectivamente fijados con tal fin 
 en la convencion presente, ya sea 
 por los comisionados 6 por el arbi- 
 tro, en favor de ciudadanos de 
 una de las partes, sera deducida 
 de la suma total fallada en favor 
 de los ciudadanos de la otra parte, 
 y la dif erencia hasta la cantidad de 
 trescientos mil pesos, se pagara 
 en la ciudad de Mexico 6 en la de 
 Washington, en oro 6 su equiva- 
 lente, dentro de doce meses con- 
 tados desde el 31 de Enero de mil 
 ochocientos setentay seis, al gobier- 
 no en favor de cuyos ciudadanos se 
 hubiere fallado la mayor cantidad, 
 sin interes, ni otra deduccion que 
 la especificada en el articulo VI de 
 aquella convencion. El resto de 
 dicha dif erencia se pagara en 
 abonos anuales que no excedan de 
 trescientos mil pesos en oro, 6 su 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 153 
 
 the said balance shall be paid in 
 annual instalments, to an amount 
 not exceeding three hundred thou- 
 sand dollars, in gold or its equiva- 
 lent, in any one year, until the 
 whole shall have been paid. 
 
 equivalente, hasta que se ... 
 pagado el total de la diferencia 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 The present convention shall be 
 ratified!, and the ratification shall 
 be exchanged at Washington, as 
 soon as possible. 
 
 In witness whereof the above- 
 named Plenipotentiaries have 
 signed the same and affixed thereto 
 their respective seals. 
 
 Done in Washington the twen- 
 tieth day of November, in the year 
 one thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy- four. 
 
 seal.] Hamilton Fish. 
 
 SEAL.] IgNO. MaRISCAL. 
 
 Art*culo IV. 
 
 La presente convencion sera rati- 
 ficada y las ratificaciones se can- 
 gearan en Washington a la breve- 
 dad posible. 
 
 En testimonio de lo cual, los 
 Plenipotenciarios antes menciona- 
 dos firmaron la presente y le pusie- 
 ron sus respectivos sellos. 
 
 Hecho en Washington el dia 
 veinte de Noviembre del ano mil 
 ochocientos setenta y cuatro. 
 
 [sello.] 
 
 [SELLO.] 
 
 Igno. Marisoal. 
 Hamilton Fish. 
 
 And whereas the said convention has been duly ratified on both 
 parts, and the respective ratifications were exchanged in this city on 
 the 28th instant: 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I, Ulyssus S. Grant, President 
 of the United States of America, have caused the said convention to 
 be made public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article 
 thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United 
 States and the citizens thereof. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the 
 
 seal of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-ninth day of January, 
 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 
 [seal.] seventy -five, and of the Independence of the United States 
 
 the ninety-ninth. 
 
 U. S. Grant. 
 By the President: 
 
 Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
154 
 
 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 
 THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC FOR EXTENDING THE FUNCTIONS OF 
 THE UMPIRE UNDER THE CONVENTION OF JULY 4, 1868. 
 
 Concluded April 29, 1876. 
 
 Ratification advised by Senate May 24-, 1876. 
 
 Ratified by the President June $7, 1876. 
 
 Ratified by the President of Mexico May 30, 1876. 
 
 Ratifications exchanged at Washington June 29, 1876. 
 
 Proclaimed June 29, 1876. 
 
 By the President of the United States of America. 
 
 A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 Whereas a Convention between the United States of America and 
 the Mexican Republic for extending the functions of the Umpire under 
 the Convention between the two countries of the 4th of July, 1868, 
 was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries, at the 
 city of Washington, on the twenty-ninth day of April, eighteen hun- 
 dred and seventy-six, which Convention, being in the English and 
 Spanish languages, is word for word as follows: 
 
 Convention between the United 
 States of America and the Mex- 
 ican Republic. 
 
 Whereas pursuant to the conven- 
 tion between the United States and 
 the Mexican Republic of the 19th 
 day of April, 1871, the functions 
 of the joint commission under the 
 convention between the same par- 
 ties of the 4th of July, 1868, were 
 extended for a term not exceeding 
 one year from the day on which 
 they were to terminate according 
 to the convention last named; 
 
 And whereas, pursuant to the 
 first article of the convention be- 
 tween the same parties, of the 
 twenty-seventh day of November, 
 one thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy-two, the joint commission 
 above referred to was revived and 
 again extended for a term not ex- 
 ceeding two years from the day on 
 which the functions of the said 
 commission would terminate pur- 
 suant to the said convention of the 
 nineteenth day of April, 1871; 
 
 And whereas pursuant to the 
 convention between the same par- 
 
 Convencion entre la RepubUca 
 Mexicana y los Estados Uhidos 
 de America. 
 
 Considerando: Que, conforme a 
 la convencion celebrada entre la 
 Republica Mexicana y los Estados 
 Unidos el 19 de Abril de 1871, las 
 f unciones de la comision mixta es- 
 tablecida por la convencion entre 
 las mismas partes, del 4 de Julio 
 de 1868, fueron prorogadas por un 
 t^rmino que no excediera de un 
 ano, contado desde el dia en que 
 debian terminar con arreglo a la 
 convencion ultimamente citada: 
 
 Que, conforme al articulo pri- 
 mer o de la convencion concluida 
 entre las mismas partes el vein- 
 tisiete de Noviembre de mil ocho- 
 cientos sentata y dos, la comision 
 mista antes mencionada fu6" re- 
 vivida y prorogada de nuevo por 
 un t^rmino que no excediera de 
 dos anos, contados desde el dia en 
 que las f unciones de dicha comision 
 terminasen con arreglo & la citada 
 convencion del diez y nueve de 
 Abril de 1871: 
 
 Que, conforme a la convencion 
 celebrada entre las mismas partes 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 155 
 
 ties, of the twentieth day of No- 
 vember, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and seventy-four, the said 
 commission was again extended for 
 one year from the time when it 
 would have expired pursuant to the 
 convention of the twenty-seventh 
 of November, one thousand eight 
 hundred and seventy-two, that is 
 to say, until the thirty -first day of 
 January, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and seventy -six; and it was 
 provided that if at the expiration 
 of that time, the umpire under the 
 convention should not have decided 
 all the cases which may then have 
 been referred to him, he should be 
 allowed a further period of not 
 more than six months for that pur- 
 pose: 
 
 And whereas it is found to be im- 
 practicable for the umpire appoint- 
 ed pursuant to the convention ad- 
 verted to, to decide all the cases re- 
 ferred to him, within the said period 
 of six months prescribed by the 
 convention of the twentieth of No- 
 vember, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and seventy -four; 
 
 And the parties being still ani- 
 mated by a desire that all that busi- 
 ness should be closed as originally 
 contemplated, the President of the 
 United States has for this purpose 
 conferred full powers on Hamilton 
 Fish, Secretary of State, and the 
 President of the Mexican Republic 
 has conferred like powers on Don 
 Ignacio Mariscal, Envoy Extraor- 
 dinary and Minister Plenipoten- 
 tiary of that Republic to the United 
 States; and the said Plenipotentia- 
 ries having exchanged their full 
 powers, which were found to be in 
 due form, have agreed upon the 
 following articles: 
 
 Article I. 
 
 The high contracting parties 
 agree that if the umpire appointed 
 under the convention above re- 
 ferred to shall not. on or before the 
 
 el veinte de Noviem bre de mil ocho- 
 cientos setenta y cuatro, dicha 
 comision fu6 de nuevo prorogada 
 por un ano contado desde el tiem- 
 po en que habria espirado con arre- 
 glo a la convencion del veinti- 
 siete de Noviembre de mil ocho- 
 cientos setenta y dos, es decir, hasta 
 el dia trienta y uno de Enero de 
 mil ochocientos setenta y seis; y 
 se dispuso que si, al expirar aquel 
 termino, el arbitro nombrado en 
 virtud de la convencion no hubiese 
 decidido todos los caso que hasta 
 ent6nces se le hubieran sometido, 
 se le concederia un nuevo periodo 
 que no excediera de seis meses, 
 para ese objeto: 
 
 Que ya se conoce la imposibili- 
 dad de que el arbitro nombrado en 
 virtud de la convencion a que se 
 alude decida todos los casos que se 
 le han sometido, dentro de dicho 
 periodo de seis meses senalado por 
 la convencion del veinte de Noviem- 
 bre de mil ochocientos setenta y 
 cuatro; 
 
 Y hallandose las ref eridas partes 
 igualmente animadas del deseo de 
 que todos esos negocios queden con- 
 cluidos como se estipul6 original- 
 mente, el Presidente de la Republi- 
 ca Mexicana ha conf erido con este 
 fin plenos poderes a Don Ignacio 
 Mariscal, Enviado Extraordinario 
 y Ministro Plenipotenciario de 
 dicha Republica en los Estados 
 Unidos, y el Presidente de los Es- 
 tados Unidos ha conferido iguales 
 poderesaHamilton Fish,Secretario 
 de Estado. Y estos Plenipoten- 
 ciarios, habiendo cangeado sus po- 
 deres plenos, que se encontraron 
 en debida forma, han convenido en 
 los articulos siguientes: 
 
 Aeticulo I. 
 
 Las altas partes contratantes 
 convienen en que si el arbitro nom- 
 brado en virtud de la convencion a 
 que antes se alude no hubiere de- 
 
156 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 expiration of the six months al- 
 lowed for the purpose by the second 
 article of the convention of the 
 twentieth of November, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and seventy- 
 four, have decided all the cases 
 referred to him, he shall then be 
 allowed a further period until the 
 twentieth day of November, one 
 thousand eight hundred and sev- 
 enty-six, for that purpose. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 It is further agreed that so soon 
 after the twentieth day of Novem- 
 ber, one thousand eight hundred 
 and seventy-six, as may be practi- 
 cable, the total amount awarded in 
 all cases already decided, whether 
 by the commissioners or by the 
 umpire, and which may be decided 
 before the said twentieth day of 
 November, in favor of citizens of 
 the one party, shall be deducted 
 from the total amount awarded to 
 the citizens of the other party, and 
 the balance, to the amount of three 
 hundred thousand dollars, shall be 
 paid at the city of Mexico, or at 
 the city of Washington, in gold or 
 its equivalent, on or before the 
 thirty-first day of January, one 
 thousand eight hundred and sev- 
 enty-seven, to the government in 
 favor of whose citizens the greater 
 amount may have been awarded, 
 without interest or any other de- 
 duction than that specified in arti- 
 cle VI of the said convention of 
 July, 1868. The residue of the said 
 balance shall be paid in annual in- 
 stalments on the thirty-first day of 
 January in each year, to an amount 
 not exceeding three hundred thou- 
 sand dollars, in gold or its equiva- 
 lent, in any one year, until the 
 whole shall have been paid. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 The present convention shall be 
 patified, and the ratifications shall 
 be exchanged at Washington, as 
 soon as possible. 
 
 cidido todos los casos que se le 
 hayan sometido, al espirarlos seis 
 meses concedidos contal objeto por 
 el articulo segundo de la conven- 
 cion del veinte de Noviembre de 
 mil ochocientos setenta y cuatro, 
 se le conceded un nuevo termino 
 hasta el veinte de Noviembre de 
 mil ochocientos setenta y seis, con 
 el referido objeto. 
 
 ARTfCULO II. 
 
 Se conviene ademas en que a la 
 mayor brevedad posible despues 
 del veinte de Noviembre de mil 
 ochocientos setenta y seis, elmonto 
 total fallado en todos los casos ya 
 decididos, bien sea por los comi- 
 sionados, 6 bien por el arbitro, y 
 que fueren decididos antes del 
 mencionado dia del mes de No- 
 viembre en favor de ciudadanos de 
 una de las partes, sera deducido 
 del monto total concedido a los ciu- 
 dadanos de la otra parte, y la dif e- 
 rencia hasta la suma de trescientos 
 mil pesos, sera pagada en la ciudad 
 de Mexico, 6 en la ciudad de Wash- 
 ington, en oro 6 su equivalente, el 
 treinta y uno de Enero de mil ocho- 
 cientos setenta y siete, 6 antes, al 
 gobierno en favor de cuyos ciuda- 
 danos se hubiere fallado la cantidad 
 may or , sin interes ni otra deduccion 
 que no sea la especificada en el. 
 articulo VI de dicha convencion 
 deJuliode!868. El restode dicha 
 dif erencia sera pagado en anuali- 
 dades el dia treinta y uno de Enero 
 de cada ano, no excediendo nin- 
 guna anualidad de trescientos mil 
 pesos en oro 6 su equivalente, hasta 
 que el total quedare cubierto. 
 
 Articulo III. 
 
 La presente convencion serd 
 ratificada y las ratificaciones se 
 cangearan en Washington tan 
 pronto como sea posible. 
 
PIOTJS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 157 
 
 In witness whereof the above- 
 named plenipotentiaries have 
 signed the same and affixed thereto 
 their respective seals. 
 
 Done in Washington the twenty- 
 ninth day of April, in the year one 
 thousand eight hundred and sev- 
 enty-six. 
 
 Hamilton Fish, [seal.] 
 Ign°. Maeiscal. [seal.] 
 
 En testim'onio de lo cual los Ple- 
 nipotenciarios antes mencionados 
 han iirmado la presente y puestole 
 sus respectivos sellos. 
 
 Fech° en Washington el dia 
 veintinueve de Abril del ano de 
 mil ochocientos ^etenta y seis. 
 
 Ign°. Maeiscal. [seal. 
 Hamilton Fish. [seal. 
 
 And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratified on both 
 parts, and the respective ratifications of the same have this day been 
 exchanged: 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I, Ulysses S. Geant, President 
 of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention to 
 be made public, to the end that the same, and everv clause and article 
 thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United 
 States by the citizens thereof. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the 
 seal of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this twenty-ninth day of June, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy -six, 
 [seal.] and of the Independence of the United States of America the 
 one hundreth. 
 
 U., S. Geant. 
 By the President: 
 Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 PROTOCOL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
 AND THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF 
 CERTAIN CONTENTIONS ARISING UNDER WHAT IS KNOWN AS 
 "THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS." 
 
 Signed at Washington May 22, 1902. 
 
 peotocol of an agbeement be- 
 tween THE UNITED STATES OF 
 AMEEICA AND THE EEPUBLIO OF 
 MEXICO FOE THE ADJUSTMENT 
 OF CEETAIN CONTENTIONS AEIS- 
 ING UNDEE WHAT IS KNOWN AS 
 ' ' THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALI- 
 FOENIAS. " 
 
 Whereas, under and by virtue 
 of the provisions of a convention 
 entered into between the High 
 Contracting Parties above named, 
 of date July 4, 1868, and subse- 
 quent conventions supplementary 
 
 PEOTOCOLO DE COMPEOMISO ENTEE 
 LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AME- 
 EICA T LA BEPUBLICA DE MEXICO 
 PAEA LA DECISI6N DE CIEETAS 
 CUESTIONES SUSCITADAS CON EE- 
 SPECTO AL LLAMADO " FONDO 
 PIADOSO DE LAS CALIFOENIAS. " 
 
 Por cuanto, en virtud de las 
 disposiciones de una Convencion 
 ajustada entre las Altas Partes 
 Contratantes arriba mencionadas, 
 con fecha 4 de Julio de 1868, y 
 siguientes convenciones suplemen- 
 
158 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 thereto, there was submitted to 
 the Mixed Commission provided 
 for by said Convention, a certain 
 claim advanced by and on behalf 
 of the prelates of the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church of California against 
 the Republic of Mexico for an 
 annual interest upOn a certain fund 
 known as "The Pious Fund of the 
 Californias," which interest was 
 said to have accrued between Feb- 
 ruary 2, 1848, the date of the sig- 
 nature of the Treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, and February 1, 1869, 
 the date of the exchange of the 
 ratifications of said Convention 
 above referred to; and 
 
 Whereas, said' Mixed Commis- 
 sion, after considering said claim, 
 the same being designated as No. 
 493 upon its docket, and entitled 
 Thaddeus Amat, Roman Catholic 
 Bishop of Montery, a corporation 
 sole, and Joseph S. Alemany, Ro- 
 man Catholic Bishop of San Fran- 
 cisco, a corporation sole, against 
 The Republic of Mexico, adjudged 
 the same adversely to the Repub- 
 lic of Mexico and in favor of said 
 claimants, and made an award 
 thereon of Nine Hundred and 
 Four Thousand, Seven Hundred 
 and 99/100 (904,700.99) Dollars; 
 the same, as expressed in the find- 
 ings of said Court, being for 
 twenty-one years' interest of the 
 annual amount of Forty-three 
 Thousand and Eighty and 99/100 
 (43,080.99) Dollars upon Seven 
 Hundred and Eighteen Thousand 
 andSixteen and 50/100 (718,016.50) 
 Dollars, said award being in Mex- 
 ican gold dollars, and the said 
 amount of Nine Hundred and 
 Four Thousand, Seven Hundred 
 and 99/100 (904,700.99) Dollars 
 having been fully paid and dis- 
 charged in accordance with the 
 terms of said convention ; and 
 
 Whereas, the United States of 
 Am erica on behalf of said Roman 
 Catholic Bishops, above named, 
 
 tarias de ella, foe" sometida £ la 
 Comision Mixta establecida ppr 
 dicha Convencion una reclamacion 
 presentada por parte y en favor 
 de los prelados de la Iglesia Cato- 
 lica Romana de California contra 
 la Republica de Mexico, por re"di- 
 tos anuales de cierto f ondo llamado 
 el "Fondo Piadoso de las Califor- 
 nias," los cuales reditos se con- 
 sideraron devengados desde el 2 
 de Febrero de 1848, fecha de la 
 firma del tratado de Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, hasta el 1° de Febrero 
 de 1869, fecha del canje de las 
 ratificaciones de la Convencion 
 arriba referida; y 
 
 Por cuanto la indicada Comision 
 Mixta, despues de examinar dicha 
 reclamacion, que fue senalada en 
 el libro de registro con el numero 
 493 e intitulada ' ' Thaddeus Amat 
 Obispo Catolico Romano de Mon- 
 terrey, por la corporacion unitaria 
 que representa, y Joseph S. Ale- 
 many Obispo Catolico Romano de 
 San Francisco, por la corporacion 
 unitaria que representa, contra la 
 Republica de Mexico " decidio la 
 reclamacion contra la Republica 
 de Mexico, y en favor de dichos 
 reclamantes, dando un laudo por 
 novecientos cuatro mil setecientos 
 
 f>esos noventa y nueve centavos 
 904,700.99); los cuales, como se 
 expresa en la exposicion de dicho 
 tribunal, fueron el importe de 
 reditos vencidos en veintiun anos 
 a razon de cuarenta y tres mil 
 ochenta pesos noventa y nueve 
 centavos (|43,080.99) anuales sobre 
 la suma de setecientos diez y ocho 
 mil diez y seis pesos cincuenta 
 centavos ($718,016.50) y habian de 
 pagarse en oro mexicano; y dicha 
 suma de novecientos cuatro mil 
 setecientos pesos noventa y nueve 
 centavos ($904,700.99) fue com- 
 pletamente pagada y finiquitada 
 en conformidad con los t^rminos 
 de dicha Convencion; y 
 
 Por cuanto los Estados Unidos 
 de America por los Obispos Cat6- 
 licos Romanos arriba nombrados 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 159 
 
 and their successors in title and 
 interest, have since such award 
 claimed from Mexico further in- 
 stalments of said interest, and have 
 insisted that the said claim was 
 conclusively established, and its 
 amount fixed as against Mexico 
 and in favor of said original claim- 
 ants and their successors in title 
 and interest under the said first 
 mentioned convention of 1868 by 
 force of the said award as res 
 judicata; and have further con- 
 tended that apart from such former 
 award their claim against Mexico 
 was just, both of which proposi- 
 tions are controverted and denied 
 by the Republic of Mexico, and the 
 High Contracting Parties hereto, 
 animated by a strong desire that 
 the dispute so arising may be ami- 
 cably, satisfactorily and justly set- 
 tled, have agreed to submit said 
 controversy to the determination 
 of Arbitrators, who shall, unless 
 otherwise herein expressed, be con- 
 trolled by the provisions of the 
 International Convention for the 
 pacific settlement of international 
 disputes, commonly known as The 
 Hague Convention, and which 
 arbitration shall have power to 
 determine: 
 
 1. If said claim, as a conse- 
 quence of the former decision, is 
 within the governing principle of 
 res judicata; and, 
 
 2. If not, whether the same be 
 just. 
 
 And to render such judgment or 
 award as may be meet and proper 
 under all the circumstances of the 
 case. 
 
 It is therefore agreed by and 
 between the United States of 
 America, through their represent- 
 ative, John Hay, Secretary of 
 State of the United States of 
 America, and the Republic of 
 Mexico, through its representa- 
 tive, Manuel de Azpiroz, Ambas- 
 
 y sus sucesores con el mismo titulo 
 e interes han reclamado a, Mexico 
 despues de dicho laudo los sucesi- 
 vOs vencimientos de dichos reditos 
 y han insistido en que la expresada 
 reclamacion fu6 definitivamente 
 juzgada y su monto fijado en con- 
 tra de Mexico y a favor de los 
 primitivos reclamantes y de sus 
 sucesores con el mismo titulo e 
 interes, conforme a la primera 
 Convencion mencionada de 1868, 
 en virtud de dicho laudo como res 
 judicata; y han sostinido ademas 
 que independientemente de tal lau- 
 do su reclamacion contra Mexico 
 era j.usta; aserciones ambas que 
 han sido controvertidas e impug- 
 nadas por la Republica de Mexico, 
 y las Altas Partes signatarias de 
 este Compromiso, animadas de un 
 vivo deseo de que la controversia 
 asi suscitada sea amigable, satis- 
 factoria y justamente resuelta, han 
 convenido en someter dicha con- 
 troversia a la decision de arbitros, 
 quienes se ajustaran en todo lo que 
 no se disponga de otro modo por 
 el presente instrumento, a las pre- 
 venciones de la Convencion inter- 
 national para el arreglo pacifico 
 de controversias internacionales 
 comunmente denominada " Con- 
 vencion de La Haya" y estaran 
 facultados para resolver: 
 
 1°. Si dicha reclamacion como 
 consecuencia del laudo anterior 
 esta regida por el principio de res 
 judicata; y 
 
 2°. De no estarlo, si es justa la 
 misma reclamacion. 
 
 Y para pronunciar un fallo 6 
 laudo tal que sea adecuado y con- 
 veniente a todas las circumstancias 
 del caso: 
 
 Por tanto, se conviene entre los 
 EstadosUnidos de America, repre- 
 sentados por John Hay, Secretario 
 de Estado de los Estados Unidos 
 de America, y la Republica de Me- 
 xico, representada por Manuel de 
 Azpiroz, Embajador Extraordina- 
 rio y Plenipotenciario de la Repu- 
 
160 
 
 PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 sador Extraordinary and Plenipo- 
 tentiary to the United States of 
 America for the Republic of Mex- 
 ico as follows: 
 
 blica de Mexico en los Estados Uni- 
 dos de America, en lo siguiente: 
 
 That the said contentions be re- 
 ferred to the special tribunal here- 
 inafter provided, for examination, 
 determination and award. 
 
 II. 
 
 The special tribunal hereby con- 
 stituted shall consist of four arbi- 
 trators, (two to be named by each 
 of the High Contracting Parties) 
 and an umpire to be selected in 
 accordance with the provisions of 
 the Hague Convention. The arbi- 
 trators to be named hereunder 
 shall be signified by each of the 
 High Contracting Parties to the 
 other within sixty days after the 
 date of this protocol. None of 
 those so named shall be a native 
 or citizen of the parties hereto. 
 Judgment may be rendered by a 
 majority of said court. 
 
 All vacancies occurring among 
 the members of said court because 
 of death, retirement or disability 
 from any cause before a decision 
 shall be reached, shall be filled in 
 accordance with the method of 
 appointment of the member affect- 
 ed as provided by said Hague 
 Convention, and if occurring after 
 said court shall have first assem- 
 bled, will authorize in the judg- 
 ment of the court an extension of 
 time for hearing or judgment, as 
 the case may be, not exceeding 
 thirty days. 
 
 III. 
 
 Las referidas cuestiones seran 
 sometidas al tribunal especial que 
 en seguida se autoriza para exami- 
 narlas, determinarlas y fallarlas. 
 
 II. 
 
 El tribunal especial constituido 
 por esteinstrumento se compondra 
 de cuatro arbitros, debiendo ser 
 dos nombrados por cada una de las 
 altas partes contratantes y un arbi- 
 tro superior que sera elegido con 
 arreglo a las disposiciones de la 
 Convention de La Haya. Los 
 arbitros nombrados, como se ha 
 dicho, por cada una de las Altas 
 Partes Contratantes seran dados a 
 conocer por la parte que los nom- 
 bro a la otra parte dentro de sesenta 
 dias que correran desde la fecha 
 de este protocolo. Ninguno de los 
 arbitros nombrados como se ha 
 dicho sera oriundo 6 ciudadano de 
 las partes contratantes. El laudo 
 podraser pronunciado por mayoria 
 de votos de dicho tribunal. Todas 
 las vacantes que ocurran entre los 
 miembros de dicho tribunal por 
 causa de muerte, separation 6 in- 
 habilidad que provenga de causa 
 anterior al pronunciamiento del 
 laudo seran cubiertas del mismo 
 modo que f ue" nombrado el miem- 
 bro cesante, como se dispone en la 
 Convenci6n de La Haya, y si ocu- 
 rrieren despues que dicho tribunal 
 so haya instalado podran justifi- 
 car, a, juicio del tribunal, una pro- 
 rroga del termino senalado para la . 
 audiencia 6 resolution, segun sea 
 el caso, con tal que ella no pase 
 de treinta dias. 
 
 III. 
 
 All pleadings, testimony ,proofs, Todas las alegaciones, testimo- 
 arguments of counsel and findings nios, pruebas, informes en dere- 
 or awards of commissioners or cho y conclusiones 6 laudos de los 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 161 
 
 umpire, filed before or arrived at 
 by the Mixed Commission above 
 referred to, are to be placed in 
 evidence before the Court herein- 
 before provided for, together with 
 all correspondence between the 
 two countries relating to the sub- 
 ject matter involved in this arbi- 
 tration; originals or copies thereof 
 duly certified by the Departments 
 of State of the High Contracting 
 Parties being presented to said 
 new tribunal. Where printed 
 books are referred to in evidence 
 by either party, the party offering 
 the same shall specify volume, 
 edition and page of the portion 
 desired to be read, and shall fur- 
 nish the Court in print the ex- 
 tracts relied upon; their acctirac}^ 
 being attested by affidavit. If the 
 original work is not already on 
 file as a portion of the record of 
 the former Mixed Commission, the 
 book itself shall be placed at the 
 disposal of the opposite party in 
 the respective offices of the Secre- 
 tary of State or of the Mexican 
 Ambassador in Washington, as the 
 case may be, thirty days before 
 the meeting of the tribunal herein 
 provided for. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Either party may demand from 
 the other the discovery of any fact 
 or of any document deemed to be 
 or to contain material evidence for 
 the party asking it; the document 
 desired to be described with suffi- 
 cient accuracy for identification, 
 and the demanded discovery shall 
 be made by delivering a statement 
 of the fact or by depositing a copy 
 of such document (certified by its 
 lawful custodian, if it be a public 
 document, and verified as such by 
 the possessor, if a private one), 
 and the opposite party shall be 
 given the opportunity to examine 
 
 Comisionados" 6 del tercero en dis- 
 cordia, presentados ante la Comi- 
 sioh Mixta arriba referida 6 acor- 
 dados por ella, son de aducirse coino 
 pruebas ante el tribunal que ahora 
 se nombra, juntamente con todala 
 correspondencia habida entre los 
 dos paises concerniente a los pun- 
 tos comprendidos en este arbitra- 
 mento; exhibiendose al nuevo tri- 
 bunal dichos documentos origina- 
 les 6 copias de ellos debidamente 
 certificados por los Departamentos 
 de Estado respectivos de las Altas 
 Partes Contratantes. Cuando cual- 
 quiera de las dos partes cite libros 
 impresos por via de prueba, la que 
 ofrezca tal prueba especificara el 
 volumen, edition y pagina de la 
 parte que quiera se lea, y propor- 
 cionara al tribunal impresos de los 
 pasajes que deseare hacer valer, 
 cuya exactitud sera comprobada 
 con testimonio legal ; y si la obra 
 original no esta ya f ormando parte 
 del archivo de la primera Comi- 
 sion Mixta, el libro mismo sera 
 puesto a, disposition de la parte 
 contraria, en los despachos respec- 
 tivos del Secretario de Estado 6 
 del Embajador Mexicano en Wash- 
 ington, segtin sea el caso, treinta 
 dias antes de la reunion de tri- 
 bunal que aqui se nombra. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Cada parte podra pedir a, la otra 
 que de a conocer cualquier hecho 
 6 documento considerado como 
 prueba 6 que contenga materia de 
 prueba interesante a, la parte que 
 la solicita; debiendo ser descrito 
 el documento deseado con sufi- 
 ciente exactitud para su identifica- 
 tion ; y se dara la noticia se hara la 
 exhibition pedida, mediante una 
 relation del hecho, 6 el deposito 
 de una copia de dicho documento 
 (certificada por quien lo tenga 
 legalmente en guarda si es un 
 documento publico, y autorizada 
 por su poseedor si el documento 
 
 S. Doc. 28- 
 
 -11 
 
162 
 
 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 the original in the City of Wash- 
 ington at the Department of State, 
 or at the office of the Mexican 
 Ambassador, as the case may be. 
 If notice of the desired discovery 
 be given too late to be answered 
 ten days before the tribunal herein 
 provided for shall sit for hearing, 
 then the answer desired thereto 
 shall be filed with or documents 
 produced before the court herein 
 provided for as speedily as possi- 
 ble. 
 
 Any oral testimony additional 
 to that in the record of the former 
 arbitration may be taken by either 
 party before any Judge or Clerk 
 of Court of Record, or any Notary 
 Public, in the manner and with the 
 precautions and conditions pre- 
 scribed for that purpose in the 
 rules of the Joint Commission of 
 the United States of America, and 
 the Republic of Mexico, as or- 
 dered and adopted by that tribunal 
 August 10, 1869, and so far as the 
 same may be applicable. The tes- 
 timony when reduced to writing, 
 signed by the witness, and authen- 
 ticated by the officer before whom 
 the same is taken, shall be sealed 
 up, addressed to the court consti- 
 tuted hereby, and deposited so 
 sealed up in the Department of 
 State of the United States, or in 
 the Department of Foreign Rela- 
 tions of Mexico to be delivered 
 to the Court herein provided for 
 when the same shall convene. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Within sixty days from the date 
 hereof the United States of Amer- 
 ica, through their agent or coun- 
 sel, shall prepare and furnish to 
 the Department of State aforesaid, 
 
 fuero privado) y a la parte con- 
 traria se debera dar la oportu- 
 nidad de examinar el original en 
 la ciudad de Washington en el 
 Departamento de Estado 6 en el 
 despacho del Embajadorde Mexico 
 segun fuere el caso. Si la noticia 
 6 exhibicion deseada se obtuviere 
 demasiado tarde para que pueda 
 ser contestada diez dias antes que 
 el tribunal acqui establecido abra la 
 audiencia, en tal caso la contesta- 
 cion que se de al pedimento, 6 el 
 documento que se produzca, se 
 presentara al tribunal acqui esta- 
 blecido, tan pronto como fuere 
 posible. 
 
 V. 
 
 Todo testimonio oral que no 
 conste en el archivo del primer 
 arbitramento podra rendirse por 
 cualquiera de las partes ante algiin 
 juez 6 secretario de juzgado de 
 letras 6 notario publico, de la 
 man era, con las precauciones y 
 baj'o las condiciones prescritas para 
 tal caso en las reglas de la Comi- 
 sion Mixta de Mexico y los Estados 
 Unidos de America, y adoptadas 
 por dicho tribunal el iO de Agosto . 
 de 1869," en todo lo que sean apli- 
 cables. Cuando el testimonio se 
 extienda por escrito, firmado que 
 sea por el testigo y legalizado por 
 el f uncionario ante quien se haya 
 rendido, debera ser sellado, diri- 
 gido al tribunal que aqui se esta- 
 blece, y asi sellado se entregara en 
 dep6sito en el Despacho de Rela- 
 ciones exteriores de Mexico 6 en 
 el Departamento de Estado de los 
 Estados Unidos a, fin de que sea 
 remitido al tribunal que aqui se 
 establece cuando el mismo se retina. % 
 
 * 
 
 VI. 
 
 Dentro de sesenta dias desde la 
 fecha de este instrumento la parte 
 de los Estados Uuidos de America, 
 por medio de su agente 6 abogado, 
 debera preparar y entregar al 
 
PIOUS FUJSTD OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 163 
 
 a memorial in print of the origin 
 and amount of their claim, accom- 
 panied by references to printed 
 books, and to such portions of the 
 proofs or parts of the record of the 
 former arbitration, as they rely on 
 in support of their claim, deliver- 
 ing copies of the same to the Em- 
 bassy of the Republic of Mexico 
 in Washington, for the use of the 
 agent or counsel of Mexico. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Within forty days after the de- 
 livery thereof to the Mexican Em- 
 bassy the agent or counsel for the 
 Republic of Mexico shall deliver 
 to the Department of State of the 
 United States of America in the 
 same manner and with like refer- 
 ences a statement of its allegations 
 and grounds of opposition to said 
 claim. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 The provisions of paragraphs 
 VI and Vll shall not operate to 
 prevent the agents' or counsel for 
 the parties hereto from relying at 
 the hearing or submission upon 
 any documentary or other evidence 
 which may have become open to 
 their investigation and examina- 
 tion at a period subsequent to the 
 times provided for service of me- 
 morial and answer. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The first meeting of the arbitral 
 court hereinbefore provided for 
 shall take place for the selection of 
 an umpire on September 1, 1902, 
 at the Hague in the quarters which 
 may be provided for such purpose 
 by the International Bureau at the 
 Hague, constituted by virtue of the 
 Hague convention hereinbefore 
 referred to, and for the commence- 
 
 Departamento de Estado arriba 
 dicho un memorial impreso del 
 origen y monto de la reclamacion, 
 acompanado de las citas de libros 
 impresos y de aquellas partes de 
 las pruebas 6 piezas del archivo 
 del primer arbitramento, en que 
 quiera fundar su reclamaci6n, 
 dando copias de los mismos docu- 
 mentos a la Embajada de la Re- 
 publica Mexicana en Washington 
 para uso del agente 6 abogado de 
 Mexico. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Dentro de cuarenta dias despues 
 de la entrega del memorial a la 
 Embajada Mexicana, el agente 6 
 abogado de la Republica de Mexico 
 entregara al Departamento de Es- 
 tado de los Estados Unidos de 
 America, de la misma manera y 
 con iguales referencias, un memo- 
 rial de sus alegaciones y razones 
 de oposicion a, la reclamacion dicha. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Las prevenciones de los parraf os 
 VI y VH no impediran a los 
 agentes 6 abogados de las partes 
 contratantes reforzar oralmente 
 6 por escrito sus argumentos 
 citando cualesquiera documentos 
 probatorios 6 otras pruebas que 
 consideren utiles y les haya sido 
 dado conocer y examinar en un 
 periodo subsiguiente a los terminos 
 senalados para el traslado del 
 memorial y la contestation. 
 
 IX. 
 
 La primera reunion del tribunal 
 arbitral arriba nombrado se veri- 
 ficara con objeto de elejir un ar- 
 bitro superior el 1° de Septiembre 
 de 1902 en la Haya en el local que 
 al efecto destine la Oficina Inter - 
 nacional de la Haya constituida en 
 virtud de la convention de la Haya, 
 antes ref erida y para dar principio 
 a, las audiencias del tribunal se de- 
 
164 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 ment of its hearings September 15, 
 1902, is designated, or, if an um- 
 pire may not be selected by said 
 date, then as soon as possible there- 
 after, and not later than October 
 15, 1902, at which time and place 
 and at such other times as the 
 court may set (and at Brussels if 
 the court should determine not to 
 sit at the Hague) explanations and 
 arguments shall be heard or pre- 
 sented as the court may determine, 
 and the cause be submitted. The 
 submission of all arguments, state- 
 ments of facts, and documents 
 shall be concluded within thirty 
 days after the time provided for 
 the meeting of the court for hear- 
 ing (unless the court shall order 
 an extension of not to exceed 
 thirty days) and its decision and 
 award announced within thirty 
 days after such conclusion, and 
 certified copies thereof delivered 
 to the agents or counsel of the 
 respective parties and forwarded 
 to the Secretary of State of the 
 United States and the Mexican 
 Ambassador at Washington, as 
 well as filed with the Netherland 
 Minister for Foreign Affairs. 
 
 X. 
 
 Should the decision and award 
 of the tribunal be against the Re- 
 public of Mexico, the findings 
 shall state the amount and in what 
 currency the same shall be pay- 
 able, and shall be for such amount 
 as under the contentions and evi- 
 dence may be just. Such final 
 award, if any, shall be paid to the 
 Secretary of State of the United 
 States of America within eight 
 months from the date of its mak- 
 ing. 
 
 XI, 
 
 The agents and counsel for the 
 respective parties may stipulate 
 for the admission of any facts, and 
 
 signa el 15 de Septiembre de 1902, 
 6 si en esa fecha no estuviere ya 
 electo el arbitro superior, las au- 
 diencias comenzarian tan pronto 
 como sea posible y no despues del 
 15 de Octubre de 1902, en cuyo 
 tiempo y lugar 6 en otras fechas 
 que el tribunal disponga (y en 
 Bruselas, si el tribunal determi- 
 nare no tener sus sesiones en la 
 Haya) explicaciones y alegatos, 
 que se presenten segtin lo deter- 
 mine el tribunal, y el caso le que- 
 dara sometido. Esta sumision 
 con todos los alegatos, relacion de 
 hechos y presentacion de docu- 
 mentos estara concluida dentro de 
 los treinta dias siguientes al ter- 
 mino senalado para las audiencias 
 del tribunal (a no ser que e"ste 
 acuerde una prorroga que no ex- 
 cedera de treinta dias) y el laudo 
 se pronunciara dentro de treinta 
 dias despues de cerradas las au- 
 diencias. Copias certificadas del 
 laudo se daran a los agentes 6 
 abogados de las respectivas partes 
 y se enviaran al Embajador de 
 Mexico en Washington y al Se- 
 cretario de Estado de los Estados 
 Unidos, asi como al Ministro de 
 Negocios Extranjeros de los Paises 
 Bajos para su archivo. 
 
 X. 
 
 Si el laudo del tribunal fuere 
 adverso n. la Republica Mexicana, 
 sus conclusiones expresaran la 
 suma, la especie de moneda en que 
 ha de ser pagada, y la suma sera la 
 que se considere justa conforme 
 a lo probado y alegado. La suma, 
 si alguna fuere definitivamente fa- 
 llada, sera pagada al Secretario de 
 Estado de los Estados Unidos de 
 America dentro de ocho meses des- 
 de la fecha del laudo. 
 
 XL 
 
 Los agentes y abogados de las 
 respectivas partes podran conve- 
 nir en la admision de cualesquiera 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 165 
 
 such stipulation, duly signed, shall 
 be accepted as proof thereof. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Each of the parties hereto shall 
 pay its own expenses, and one- 
 half of the expenses of the arbitra- 
 tion, including the pay of the arbi- 
 trators; but such costs shall not 
 constitute any part, of the judg- 
 ment. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Revision shall be permitted as 
 provided in Article LV of The 
 Hague Convention, demand for 
 revision being made within eight 
 days after announcement of the 
 award. Proofs upon such demand 
 shall be submitted within ten days 
 after revision be allowed (revision 
 only being granted, if at all, within 
 five days after demand therefor) 
 and counterproof s within the fol- 
 lowing ten days, unless further 
 time be granted by the Court. 
 Arguments shall be submitted 
 within ten days after the presenta- 
 tion of all proofs, and a judgment 
 or award given within ten days 
 thereafter. All provisions appli- 
 cable to the original judgment or 
 award shall apply as far as possi- 
 ble to the judgment or award on 
 revision. Provided that all pro- 
 ceedings on revision shall be in 
 the French language. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 The award ultimately given 
 hereunder shall be final and con- 
 clusive as to the matters presented 
 for consideration. 
 
 Done in duplicate of English 
 and Spanish at Washington, this 
 22d day of May, A. D. 1902. 
 
 John Hat 
 
 hechos, y tal convenio debida- 
 mente firmado sera admitido como 
 prueba de los mismo hechos. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Cada una de las partes contra- 
 tantes pagara sus propios gastos y 
 la mitad de los comunes del arbi- 
 trage, incluyendo la remuneracion 
 de los arbitros; mas estas costas no 
 constituiran parte de la suma 
 fallada. 
 
 ' XIII. 
 
 Habra, lugar a revision conf orme 
 a lo prevenido en el articulo 55 de 
 la Convencion de La Haya, si 
 fuere promovida dentro de ocho 
 dias desde la notificacion del laudo. 
 Las pruebas admisibles en este 
 recurso se presentaran dentro de 
 diez dias desde la fecha en que se 
 concediere (el cual solamente se 
 otorgara, si asi se acordare, den- 
 tro de cinco dias despues de su 
 promocion) y las pruebas de la 
 parte contraria dentro de los diez 
 dias siguientes a, no ser que se 
 conceda mayor plazo por el tri- 
 bunal. Los alegatos se produciran 
 dentro de diez dias despues de la 
 presentacion de todas las pruebas, 
 y el fallo 6 laudo se dara dentro 
 de los diez dias siguientes. Todas 
 las disposiciones aplicables al fallo 
 6 laudo recurrido se aplicaran en 
 lo posible al fallo 6 laudo de revi- 
 sion; bien entendido que en los 
 procedimientos de este recurso se 
 empleara la lengua francesa. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 El laudo ultimo dado conforme 
 a este compromiso sera, definitivo 
 y concluyente en todos los puntos 
 propuestos a, la consideration del 
 tribunal. 
 
 Hecho por duplicado en ingles 
 y en espanol en Washington hoy 
 dia 22 de Mayo, A. D. 1902. 
 
 [seal] 
 
 DE AZPIKOZ [SEAL] 
 
166 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONERS UNDER THE 
 CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 AND THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO OF JULY 4, 1868. 
 
 1. All claims filed with the commission by the respective Governments 
 shall be entered in duplicate dockets, one kept. by each of the two 
 secretaries, in his respective language, in the order in which they are 
 referred. 
 
 Separate dockets shall be kept for the claims, respectively', of citizens 
 of the United States, and for those of citizens of the Mexican Republic. 
 
 Duplicate records shall be kept in like manner of all the proceedings 
 of the commissioners. 
 
 2. All claims provided for by the convention shall be presented, 
 through the respective Governments, on or before the 31st day of 
 March, 1870, unless at a later day, for special cause shown to the sat- 
 isfaction of the commissioners. 
 
 3. All persons having claims shall file memorials of the same with 
 the respective secretaries. 
 
 Every memorial shall be signed and verified by the claimant, or, in 
 his absence from the District of Columbia, by his attorney in fact, 
 such absence being averred by such attorney, and it shall be sub- 
 scribed by his solicitor or counsel. 
 
 It shall set forth particularly the origin, nature, and amount of the 
 claim, with other circumstances, as follows: 
 
 (a) The amount of the claim; the time when and place where it 
 arose; the kind or kinds and amount of property lost or injured; the 
 facts and circumstances attending the loss or injury out of which the 
 claim arises, and all the facts upon which the claim is founded. 
 
 (b) For and on behalf of whom the claim is preferred. 
 
 (c) Whether the claimant is now a citizen of the United States or of 
 the Mexican Republic, as the case may require ; and if so, whether he is a 
 native or a naturalized citizen, and where is now his domicile; and if 
 he claims in his own right, then whether he was a citizen when the 
 claim had its origin, and where was then his domicile; and if he claims 
 in right of another, then whether such other was a citizen when the 
 claim had its origin, and where was then, and where is now, his domi- 
 cile; and if in either case the domicile of claimant, at the time the claim 
 had its origin, was in any foreign country, then whether such claim- 
 ant was then a subject of the government of such country, or had 
 taken any oaths of allegiance thereto. 
 
 (d) Whether the entire amount of the claim does now, and did at 
 the time when it had its .origin, belong solely and absolutely to the 
 claimant; and if any other person is or has been interested therein, or 
 in any part thereof, then who is such other person, and what is or was 
 the nature and extent of his interest; and how, when, and by what 
 means and for what considerations the transfer of rights or interests, 
 if any such was made, took place between the parties. 
 
 (e) Whether the claimant or any other who may have been entitled 
 to the amount claimed, or any part thereof, had ever received any, 
 and if any what, sum of money, or other equivalent or indemnifica- 
 tion, for the whole or any part of the loss or injury upon which the 
 claim is founded; and if so, when and from whom the same was 
 received. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. l6V 
 
 (f) Whether the claim was presented prior to the 1st of February, 
 1869, to the Department of State of either Government, or to the 
 minister of the United States at Mexico, or that of the Mexican 
 Republic at Washington, and to which and at what time. 
 
 4. All motions and arguments addressed to the commissioners shall 
 be made in writing and filed with the secretaries, who shall note thereon 
 the time when they are received. 
 
 Brief verbal explanations may be made after the opening of each 
 day's session, by or on behalf of the agents of the respective Govern- 
 ments. 
 
 5. All testimony and proofs hereafter taken, other than papers and 
 documents referred by either Government, whether taken in support 
 of or in opposition to pending claims, will be taken and filed subject 
 to the following regulations: 
 
 (a) Proofs in support of claims shall be filed with the memorial; no 
 proofs will be received subsequently, except such as may be responsive 
 to proofs presented on the part of either Government, unless for spe- 
 cial cause shown, and supported by affidavit or affirmation, according 
 to the law of the respective countries. 
 
 (b) All testimony must be in writing, and upon oath or affirmation 
 duly administered according to the laws of the place where the same is 
 taken, by a magistrate competent by such laws to take depositions, 
 having no interest in the claim to which the testimony relates, and not 
 being the agent or attorney of any person having such interest, and it 
 must be certified by him that such is the case. The credibility of the 
 affiant or deponent, if known to such magistrate or 1 other person 
 authorized to take such testimony, must be certified by him, and if 
 not known, must be certified on the same paper upon oath, by some 
 other person known to such magistrate, having no interest in such 
 claim, and not being the agent or attorney of any person having such 
 interest, whose credibility must be certified by such magistrate. The 
 deposition must be reduced to writing by the person taking the same, 
 or by some person in his presence having no interest, and not being 
 the agent or attorney of any person having an interest in the claim, 
 and must be carefully read to the deponent by the magistrate before 
 being signed by him, and must be signed by him in the presence of 
 the officer, and this must be certified. 
 
 (c) Depositions taken in any city, port, or place, neither within the 
 limits of the United States nor within those of the Mexican Republic, 
 may be taken before any diplomatic or consular officer of either Gov- 
 ernment residing in such city, port, or place, he having no interest 
 and not being agent or attorney of any person having an interest in 
 the claim to which the testimony so taken relates. In all other cases, 
 whether in the United States or in the Mexican Republic, or any other 
 foreign place, the right of the person taking the same to administer 
 oaths by the laws of the place must be proved. 
 
 (d) Every affiant or deponent is required to state in his deposition 
 his age, place of birth, residence, and occupation, and where was his 
 residence and what was his occupation at the time the events took 
 place in regard to which he deposes, and must also state if he have 
 any, and if any what, interest in the claim to support which his testi- 
 mony is taken, and if he have any contingent interest in the same, to 
 what extent, and upon the happening of what event he will be entitled 
 
168 PIOUS FUND OF THE CAJ^lFUiUMAO. 
 
 to receive any part of the sum which may be awarded by the Commis- 
 sioners. He must also be required to state whether he be the agent 
 or attorney of the claimant or of any person having an interest in the 
 claim. 
 
 (e) Original papers or other documents exhibited in proof must be 
 certified as required in the second of these rules; but when the fact is 
 within the exclusive knowledge of the claimant, it may be verified by 
 his own oath or affirmation. Papers in the handwriting of any person 
 deceased, or whose residence is unknown to the claimant, may be verified 
 by proof of such handwriting, and of the death of the party, or his 
 removal to places unknown. 
 
 (f) When the claim arises from seizure or loss of any vessel, or cargo 
 of any ship or vessel, a certified copy of the enrollment or registry of 
 such ship or vessel must be produced, together with the original clear- 
 ance, manifest, and all other papers and documents required by the 
 laws of the United States or of the Mexican Republic, as the case may 
 be, which she possessed on her last voyage, when the same are in the 
 possession of the claimant, or can be obtained by him; andwhen not, 
 certified copies of the same must be produced, together with oath or 
 affirmation, according to the law of the respective countries, that the 
 originals are not in his possession and can not be obtained by him. 
 
 (g) In all cases where property of any description, for the seizure 
 or loss of which a claim has been presented, was at the time of such 
 seizure or loss insured, the original policy of insurance or a certified 
 copy thereof must be produced. 
 
 (h) If the claimant be a naturalized citizen of the United States or 
 of the Mexican Republic, as the case may be, a copy of the record of 
 his naturalization, duly certified, must be produced. 
 
 6. Of all memorials, twenty printed copies in quarto form in Eng- 
 lish and twenty in Spanish shall be tiled with the respective secretaries. 
 
 Citizens of the United States ma} r file their documents and proofs 
 in English, and citizens of the Mexican Republic may file theirs in 
 Spanish, and in both cases in manuscript, subject to the further order 
 of the commissioners in this respect. 
 
 7. When a claimant shall have filed his proofs in chief, and ai'gu- 
 ment in support thereof, the adverse proofs and argument on the part 
 of the United States, or of the Mexican Republic, shall be filed within 
 the terms of four mouths; but upon good cause shown on either side 
 this period may be extended in particular cases. 
 
 Ordered, That when the Commission shall close its present session 
 it will adjourn to meet in this city on the first Monday of December 
 next, and will then proceed to consider whether the memorials which 
 shall then have been filed with the secretaries are in due form and 
 proper to be received for examination; and all such papers are hereby 
 set down for hearing at that time; and if any claimant desires a longer 
 time in which to file a memorial, or present arguments, he must file a 
 written motion to that effect, setting forth the reasons for the same * 
 on or before said day.' 
 
 By order of the commissioners: 
 
 George G. Gaither, 
 J. Carlos Mexia, 
 
 Secretaries. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 169 
 
 CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN 
 POWERS FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL 
 DISPUTES. 
 
 Signed at The Hague July #5, 1899. 
 
 Ratification advised by the Senate February 5, 1900. 
 
 Ratified by the President of the United States April 7, 1900. 
 
 Ratification deposited with the Netherlands Government September 
 
 4, 1900. 
 Proclaimed November 1, 1901. 
 
 By the President of the United States. 
 
 A PROCLAMATION. 
 
 Whereas a Convention for the pacific settlement of international 
 disputes was concluded and signed on July 29, 1899, by the Plenipo- 
 tentiaries of the United States of America, Germany, Austria-Hungary, 
 Belgium, China, Denmark, Spain, the United Mexican States', France, 
 Great Britain and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan , Luxembourg, Monte- 
 negro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, 
 Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Bulgaria, the 
 original of which Convention, in the French language, is word for 
 word aw follows: 
 
 CONVENTION TOUR EE REGLEMENT 
 PACIFIQUE DES CONFLITS INTER- 
 NATION AUX. 
 
 Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'Alle- 
 magne,RoidePrusse; Sa Majeste 
 l'empereur d'Autriche, Roi de 
 Boheme etc. et Roi Apostolique 
 de Hongrie; Sa Majeste le Roi des 
 Beiges; Sa Majeste l'Empereur 
 de Chine; Sa Majeste le Roi de 
 Danemark; Sa Majeste le Roi 
 d'Espagne et en Son Nom Sa Ma- 
 jeste la Reine-Regente du Roy- 
 aume; le President des Etats- 
 Unis d'Amerique; le President 
 des Etats-Unis Mexicains; le 
 President de la Republique Fran- • 
 caise; Sa Majeste la Reine du 
 Royaume-Uni de la Grande Bre- 
 tagne et d'Irlande, Imperatrice 
 des Indes; Sa Majeste le Roi des 
 Hellenes; Sa Majeste le Roi 
 d'ltalie; Sa Majeste l'Empereur 
 du Japon; Son Altesse Roy ale 
 le Grand-Due de Luxembourg, 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 His Majesty the Emperor of Ger- 
 many, King of Prussia; His Maj- 
 •esty the Emperor of Austria, 
 King of Bohemia etc." and Apos- 
 tolic King of Hungary; His Maj- 
 esty the King of the Belgians; 
 His Majesty the Emperor of 
 China; His Majesty the King of 
 Denmark; His Majesty the King 
 of Spain and in his name Her 
 Majesty the Queen Regent of 
 the Kingdom; the President of 
 the United States of America; 
 the President of the United 
 Mexican States; the President of 
 the French Republic; Her Maj- 
 esty the Queen of the United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland, Empress of India; His 
 Majesty the King of the Hel- 
 lenes; His Majesty the King of 
 Italy; His Majesty the Emperor 
 
170 
 
 PIOXJ^ FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Due de Nassau; Son Altesse le 
 Prince de Montenegro; Sa Ma- 
 jeste la Heine des Pays-Bas; Sa 
 Majeste Imperiale le Schah de 
 Perse; Sa Majeste le Roi de Por- 
 tugal et des Algarves etc.; Sa 
 Majeste - le Roi de Roumanie; Sa 
 Majeste l'Empereur de Toutes 
 les Russies; Sa Majeste" le Roi 
 de Serbie; Sa Majeste" le Roi 
 de Siam; Sa Majeste le Roi de 
 Suede et de Norvege; le Conseil 
 Federal Suisse; Sa Majeste l'Em- 
 pereur des Ottomans et Son 
 Altesse Royale le Prince de Bul- 
 garie 
 
 Animes de la f erme volonte de 
 concourir au maintien de la paix 
 generate; 
 
 Resolus a favoriser de tous leurs 
 efforts le reglement aimable des 
 conn its internationaux; 
 
 Reconnaissant la solidarity qui 
 unit les membres de la soci^te des 
 nations civilisees; 
 
 Voulant etendre l'empire du 
 droit et fortifier le sentiment de la 
 justice internationale; 
 
 Convaincus que l'institutionper- 
 manente d'une juridiction arbi- 
 trale, accessible a, tous, au sein des 
 Puissances independantes peut con- 
 tribuer efficacement a ce resultat; 
 
 Considerant les avantages d'une 
 organisation generale et reguliere 
 de la procedure arbitrate; 
 
 Estimant avec l'Auguste Initia- 
 teur de la Conference Internatio- 
 nale de la Paix qu'il importe de 
 consacrer dans un accord interna- 
 tional les principes d'dquite et de 
 droit sur lesquels reprosent la se- 
 curity des Etats et le bien-etre des 
 Peuples; 
 
 Desirant conclure une Conven- 
 
 of Japan; His Royal Highness 
 the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, 
 Duke of Nassau; His Highness 
 the Prince of Montenegro; Her 
 Majesty the Queen of the Neth- 
 erlands; His Imperial Majesty 
 the Shah of Persia; His Majesty 
 the King of Portugal and of the 
 Algarves etc. ; His Majesty the 
 King of Roumania; His Majesty 
 the Emperor of all the Russias; 
 His Majesty the King of Servia; 
 His Majesty the King of Siam; 
 His Majesty the King of Swe- 
 den and Norway ; the Swiss Fed- 
 eral Council; His Majesty the 
 Emperor of the Ottomans and 
 His Royal Highness the Prince 
 of Bulgaria 
 
 Animated by a strong desire to 
 concert for the maintenance of the 
 general peace; 
 
 Resolved to second by their best 
 efforts the friendly sentiment of 
 international disputes; 
 
 Recognizing the solidarity 
 which unites the members of the 
 society of civilized nations; 
 
 Desirous of extending the em- 
 pire of law, and of strengthening 
 the appreciation of international 
 justice; 
 
 Convinced that the permanent 
 institution of a Court of Arbitra- 
 tion, accessible to all, in the midst 
 of the independent Powers, will 
 contribute effectively to this re- 
 sult; 
 
 Having regard to the advan- 
 tages attending the general and 
 regular organization of arbitral 
 procedure; 
 
 Sharing the opinion of the au- 
 gust Initiator of the International 
 Peace Conference that it is expe- 
 dient to record in an international ' 
 Agreement the principles of equity 
 and right on which are based the 
 security of States and the welfare 
 of peoples; 
 
 Being desirous of concluding a 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 171 
 
 tion a cet effet ont nomme pour 
 Leurs pldnipotentiaires, savoir: 
 
 Sa Majesty l'Empereur d'Al- 
 
 LEMAGNE, Roi DE PrUSSE". 
 
 Son Excellence le Comte de 
 Munster, Prince de Derneburg, 
 Son Ainbassadeur a Paris. 
 
 Sa Majeste l'Empereur d'At- 
 
 TRICHE, Roi DE BOHEME ETC., ET 
 
 Roi Apostoliqtie de Hongrie: 
 
 Son Excellence le Comte R, de 
 Welsersheimb, Son Ambassadeur 
 extraordinaire et plenipotentiaire. 
 
 M. Alexandre Okolicsanti 
 d'Okolicsna, Son Envoye extraor- 
 dinaire et Ministre plenipoten- 
 tiaire a la Haye. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi des Belges: 
 
 Son Excellence M. Auguste 
 Beernaert, Son Ministre d'Etat, 
 President de la Chambre des Re- 
 presentants. 
 
 M. le Comte De Grelle 
 Rogier, Son Envoye" extraordi- 
 naire et Ministre plenipotentiaire 
 a la Haye. 
 
 M. le Chevalier Descamps, 
 Senateur. 
 
 Sa Majeste l'Empereur de 
 Chine : 
 
 M. Yang YtJ, Son Envoye ex- 
 traordinaire et Ministre plenipo- 
 tentiaire & St. P6tersbourg. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi De Dane- 
 mark: 
 
 Son Chambellan Er. E. de Bille, 
 Son Envoye extraordinaire et Mi- 
 nistre plenipotentiaire a Londres. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi d'Espagne 
 et en Son Nom, Sa Majeste la 
 Reine-Regente du Royaume: 
 
 Son Excellence le Due de 
 Tetuan, Ancien Ministre des 
 Affaires Etrangesres. 
 
 M. W. Ramirez de Villa Urru- 
 tia, Son Envoye" extraordinaire 
 
 Convention to this effect, have ap- 
 pointed as their Plenipotentiaries, 
 to- wit: — 
 
 His Majesty the Emperor of 
 Germany, King of Prussia: 
 
 His Excellency Count de 
 MtiNSTER, Prince of Derneburg, 
 His Ambassador at Paris. 
 
 His Majasty the Emperor of 
 Austria, King of Bohemia etc. , 
 and Apostolic King of Hungary : 
 
 His Excellency Count R. De 
 Welsersheimb, His Ambassador 
 Extraordinary and Plenipoten- 
 tiary. 
 
 Mr. Alexander Okolicsanyi 
 d'Okolicsna, His Envoy Extraor- 
 dinary and Minister Plenipoten- 
 tiary at The Hague. 
 
 His Majesty the King of the 
 Belgians: 
 
 His Excellency Mr. Auguste 
 Beernaert, His Minister of State, 
 President of the Chamber of Rep- 
 resentatives. 
 
 Count De Grelle Rogier, His 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
 ter Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 
 
 The Chevalier Descamps, Sen- 
 ator. 
 
 His Majesty the Emperor of 
 China: 
 
 Mr. Yang Yu, His Envoy Ex- 
 traordinary and Minister Plenipo- 
 tentiary at St. Petersburg. 
 
 His Majesty the King of 
 Denmark: 
 
 His Chamberlain Fr. E. de 
 Bille, His Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister Plenipotentiary at 
 London. 
 
 His Majesty the King of Spain 
 and in His Name, Her Majesty 
 the Queen Regent of the King- 
 dom: 
 
 His Excellency the Duke of 
 Tetuan, formerly Minister of 
 Foreign Affairs. 
 
 Mr. W. Ramirez de Villa 
 Urrutia, His Envoy Extraordi- 
 
172 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 et Ministre plenipotentiaire a 
 Bruxelles. 
 
 M. Arthur de Baguer, Son 
 Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 
 
 Le President des Etats-Unis 
 d'Amerique: 
 
 Son Excellence M. Andrew D. 
 White, Ambassadeur des Etats- 
 Unis a Berlin. 
 
 M. Seth Low, President de 
 l'Universite "Columbia" a New- 
 York. 
 
 M. Stanford Newel, Envoye 
 extraordinaire et Ministre pleni- 
 potentiaire a la Haye. 
 
 M. Alfred T. Mahan, Capitaine 
 de Vaisseau. 
 
 M. William Crozier, Capitaine 
 d'Artillerie. 
 
 Le President des Etats-Unis 
 Mexicains: 
 
 M. de Mier, Envoye extraor- 
 dinaire et Ministre plenipoten- 
 tiaire a Paris. 
 
 M. Zenil, Ministre-Resident a 
 Bruxelles. 
 
 Le President de la Repu- 
 
 BLIQUE FRANgAISE: 
 
 M. Leon Bourgeois, Ancien 
 President du Conseil, Ancien Mi- 
 nistre des Affaires Etrangeres, 
 Membre de la Chambre des De- 
 putes. 
 
 M. Georges Bihourd, Envoye 
 extraordinaire et Ministre pleni- 
 potentiaire a la Haye. 
 
 M. le Baron d'Estouenelles 
 de Constant, Ministre plenipo- 
 tentiaire, Ministre de la Chambre 
 des Deputes. 
 
 Sa Majeste la Reine du Roy- 
 aume Uni de la Grande Bre- 
 tagne et d'Irlande, Imperatrice 
 des Indes: 
 
 Son Excellence le Tres Honora- 
 ble Baron Pauncefote de Pres- 
 ton, Membre du Conseil Prive de 
 Sa Majeste, Son Ambassadeur ex- 
 traordinaire et plenipotentiaire a 
 Washington. 
 
 Sir Henry Howard, Son En- 
 voye' extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 
 
 nary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 at Brussels. 
 
 Mr. Arthur de Baguer, His 
 Envoy Extraordinaryand Minister 
 Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 
 
 The President of the United 
 States of America: 
 
 His Excellency Mr. Andrew D. 
 White, Ambassador of the United 
 States at Berlin. 
 
 Mr. Seth Low, President of 
 Columbia University, New York. 
 
 Mr. Stanford Newel, Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
 potentiary at The Hague. 
 
 Captain Alfred T. Mahan. 
 
 Captain William Crozier. 
 
 The President of the United 
 Mexican States: 
 
 Mr. de Mier, Envoy Extraor- 
 dinary and Minister Plenipoten- 
 tiary at Paris. 
 
 Mr. Zenil, Minister Resident 
 at Brussels. 
 
 The President of the French 
 Republic: 
 
 Mr. Leon Bourgeois, formerly 
 President of the Council, former- 
 ly Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
 Member of the Chamber of Depu- 
 ties. 
 
 Mr. Georges Bihourd, Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
 potentiary at The Hague. 
 
 The Baron d'Estournelles de 
 Constant, Minister Plenipoten- 
 tiary, Member of the Chamber of 
 Deputies. 
 
 Her Majesty the Queen of 
 the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, Empress 
 of India: 
 
 His Excellency the Right Hon- 
 orable Baron Pauncefote of 
 Preston, Member of her Majes- 
 ty's Privy Council, Her Ambassa- 
 dor Extraordinary and Plenipo- 
 tentiary at Washington. 
 
 Sir Henry Howard, Her En- 
 voy Extraordinary and Minister 
 Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 173 
 
 Sa Majesty le Roi des Hel- 
 lenes: 
 
 M. N. Delyanni, Ancien Presi- 
 dent du Conseil, Ancien Ministre 
 des Affaires Etrangeres, Son En- 
 voye" extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a Paris. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi d'Italie: 
 
 Son Excellence le Comte Nigra, 
 Son Ambassadeur a Vienne, Sena- 
 teur du Royaume. 
 
 M. le Comte A. Zannini, Son 
 Envoy e" extraordinaire en Ministre 
 plenipotentaire a la Haye. 
 
 M. le COMMANDEUR GtJIDO POM- 
 
 pilj, Depute au Parlementltalien. 
 
 Sa Majeste l'Emfereur du 
 Japon: 
 
 M. I. Motono, Son Envoye ex- 
 traordinaire et Ministre plenipo- 
 tentiaire a, Bruxelles. 
 
 Son Altesse Rotale le Grand 
 Due de Luxembourg, Duo de 
 Nassau: 
 
 Son Excellence M. Eysohen, 
 Son Ministre d'Etat, President du 
 Gouvernement Grand-Ducal. 
 
 Son Altesse le Prince de 
 Montenegro: 
 
 Son Excellence M. le Conseil- 
 
 LER PRIVE AOTUEL DE StAAL, 
 
 Ambassadeur de Russie a Lon- 
 dres. 
 
 Sa Majeste la Relne des Pays- 
 Bas: 
 
 M. le JONKHEER A. P. C. VAN 
 
 Karnebeek, Ancien Ministre des 
 Affaires Etrangeres, Membre de la 
 Seconde Chambre des Etats-Gene- 
 raux. 
 
 M. le General J. C. C. den 
 Beer Poortugael, Ancien Minis- 
 tre de la Guerre, Membre du-Con- 
 seil d'fitat. 
 
 M. T. M. C. Asser, Membre du 
 Conseil d'Etat. 
 
 M. E. N. Rahusen, Membre de 
 la Premiere Chambre des Etats- 
 Genefaux. 
 
 Sa Majeste Imperiale le 
 Schah de Perse: 
 
 Son Aide de Camp General 
 Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dov- 
 
 His Majesty the King of the 
 Hellenes: 
 
 Mr. N. Delyanni, formerly 
 President of the Council, formerly 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs, His 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minis- 
 ter Plenipotentiary at Paris. 
 
 His Majesty the King of 
 Italy: 
 
 His Excellency Count Nigra, 
 His Ambassador at Vienna, Sena- 
 tor of the Kingdom. 
 
 Count A. Zannini, His Envoy 
 Extraordinaiy and Minister Pleni- 
 potentiary at The Hague. 
 
 Commander Guido Pompilj, 
 Deputy in the Italian Parliament. 
 
 His Majesty the Emperor of 
 Japan: 
 
 Mr. I. Motono, His Envoy Ex- 
 traordinaiy and Plenipotentiary 
 at Brussels. 
 
 His Royal Highness the 
 Grand Duke of Luxemburg, 
 Duke of Nassau: 
 
 His Excellency Mr. Eyschen, 
 His minister of State, President of 
 the Grand Ducal Government. 
 
 His Highness the Prince of 
 Montenegro: 
 
 His Excellency the present 
 Privy Councillor De Staal, 
 Ambassador of Russia at Lon- 
 don. 
 
 Her Majesty the Queen of 
 the Netherlands: 
 
 jonkheer a. p. c. van kar- 
 nebeek, formerly Minister of 
 Foreign Affairs, Member of the 
 Second Chamber of the States- 
 General. 
 
 General J. C. C. den Beer 
 Poortugael, formerly Minister 
 of War, Member of the Council 
 of State. 
 
 Mr. T. M. C. Asser, Member 
 of the Council of State. 
 
 Mr. E. N. Rahusen, Member 
 of the First Chamber of the States- 
 General. 
 
 His Imperial Majesty the 
 Shah of Persia: 
 
 His Aid -de -Camp General 
 Mirza Riza Khan, Arfa-ud-Dov- 
 
174 
 
 PIO0S FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 leh, Son Envoy6 extraordinaire et 
 Ministre plenipotentiaire a St. P6- 
 tersbourg et a Stockholm. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi de Portu- 
 gal ET DES ALGARVES, ETC. : 
 
 M. le Comte de Macedo, Pair 
 du Royaume, Ancien Ministre de 
 la Marine et des Colonies, Son 
 Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire & Madrid. 
 
 M. d'Ornellas et Vasconcel- 
 los, Pair du Royaume, Son En- 
 voye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a St. P6tersbourg. 
 
 M. le Comte de Selir, Son En- 
 voye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi de Rou- 
 manie: 
 
 M. Alexandre Beldiman, Son 
 Envoye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiarie a Berlin. 
 
 M. Jean N. Papiniu, Son En- 
 voye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a la Haye. 
 
 Sa Majeste l'Empereur de 
 Toutes les Russies: 
 
 Son Excellence M. le Conseil- 
 ler Prtve Actuel de Staal, Son 
 Ambassadeur a Londres. 
 
 M. de Martens, Dembre Per- 
 manent du Conseil du Ministere 
 Imperial des Affaires Etrangeres, 
 Son Conseiller Prive. 
 
 Son Conseiller d'Etat Actuel 
 de Basily, Chambellan, Directeur 
 du Premier D6partement du Mi- 
 nistere Imperial des Affaires 
 Etrangeres. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi de Serbie: 
 
 M. Mitatovitch, Son Envoye 
 extraordinaire et Ministre plenipo- 
 tentiaire a Londres et a la Haye. 
 
 Sa Majeste le Roi de Siam: 
 
 M. Phta Suriya Nuvatr, Son 
 
 Envoye* extraordinaire et Ministre 
 
 plenipotentiaire a St. P^tersbourg 
 
 et a Paris. 
 
 M. Phta Visuddha Suriya- 
 sakti, Son Envoye" extraordinaire 
 et Ministre plenipotentiaire a la 
 Haye a, Londres. 
 
 leh, His Envoy Extraordinary and 
 Minister Plenipotentiary at St. 
 Petersburg and at Stockholm. 
 
 His Majesty the King of Por- 
 tugal AND OE THE ALGARVES, 
 
 etc.: 
 
 Count de Macedo, Peer of the 
 Kingdom, formerly Minister of 
 the Navy and of the Colonies, His 
 Envoy Extraordinary. and Minis- 
 ter Plenipotentiary at Madrid. 
 
 Mr. d'Ornellas et Vascon- 
 cellos, Peer of the Kingdom, His 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
 Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg. 
 
 Count de Selir, His Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plen- 
 ipotentiary at The Hague. 
 
 His Majesty the King of Rou- 
 mania: 
 
 Mr. Alexander Beldiman, His 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
 Plenipotentiary at Berlin. 
 
 Mr. Jean N. Papiniu, His En- 
 voy Extraordinary and Minister 
 Plenipotentiary at The Hague. 
 
 His Majesty the Emperor of 
 All the Russias: 
 
 His Excellency the present 
 Privy Councillor de Staal, His 
 Ambassador at London. 
 
 Mr. de Martens, Permanent 
 Member of the Council of the Im- 
 perial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 
 His Privy Councillor. 
 
 His present Councillor of 
 State de Basily, Chamberlain, 
 Director of the First Department 
 of the Imperial Ministry of For- 
 eign Affairs. 
 
 His Majesty the King of 
 Servia: 
 
 Mr. Miyatovitch, His Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plen- 
 ipotentiary at London and at The 
 Hague. 
 
 His Majesty the King of Siam: 
 
 Phya Suriya Nuvatr, His En- 
 voy Extraordinary and Minister 
 Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg 
 and at Paris. 
 
 Phya. Visuddha Suriyasakti, 
 His Envoy Extraordinary and 
 Minister Plenipotentiary at The 
 Hague and at London. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 175 
 
 Sa Majesty le Roi de Suede 
 et de Norvege : 
 
 M. le Baron de Bildt, Son En- 
 voye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a, Rome. 
 
 Le Conseil Federal Suisse: 
 
 M. le Dr. Arnold Roth, En- 
 voye extraordinaire et Ministre 
 plenipotentiaire a Berlin. 
 
 Sa Majeste l'Empereur des 
 Ottomans: 
 
 Son Excellence Turkhan Pa- 
 cha, Ancien Ministre des Affaires 
 Etrangeres, Membre de Son Con- 
 seil d'Etat. 
 
 Noury Bet, Secretaire-General 
 au Ministere des Affaires fitran- 
 geres. 
 
 Son Altesse Royale le Prince 
 de Bulgarie: 
 
 M. le Dr. Dimitri Stancioff, 
 Agent Diplomatique a, St. Peters- 
 bourg. 
 
 M. le Major Christo Hessapt- 
 chieff, Attache Militaire a Bel- 
 grade. 
 
 Lesquels, apres s'etre communi- 
 que leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouves 
 en bonne et due forme, sont con- 
 venus des dispositions suivantes: 
 
 His Majesty the King of 
 Sweden and Norway: 
 
 Baron de Bildt, His Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plen- 
 ipotentiary at Rome. 
 
 The Swiss Federal Council: 
 
 Dr. Arnold Roth, Envoy Ex- 
 traordinary and Minister Plenipo- 
 tentiary at Berlin. 
 
 His Majesty the Emperor of 
 the Ottomans: 
 
 His Excellency Turkhan Pa- 
 cha, formerly Minister of Foreign 
 Affairs, Member of His Council 
 of State. 
 
 Noury Bey, Secretary-General 
 at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 His Royal Highness the 
 Prince of Bulgaria: 
 
 Dp. Dimitri Stancioff, Diplo- 
 matic Agent at St. Petersburg. 
 
 MajorChristoHessaptchieff, 
 Military Attache" at Belgrade. 
 
 Who, after communication of 
 their full powers, found in good 
 and due form have agreed on the 
 following provisions: 
 
 Titre I. — Du Maintien de la 
 Paix Generale. 
 
 Title I. — On the Maintenance 
 of the General Peace. 
 
 Article 1. 
 
 Article I. 
 
 En vue de prevenir autant que 
 possible le recours a la force dans 
 les rapports entre les Etats, les 
 Puissances signataires conviennent 
 d'employer tous leurs efforts pour 
 assurer le reglement pacifique des 
 differends internationaux. 
 
 With a view to obviating, as far 
 as possible, recourse to force in 
 the relations between States, the 
 Signatory Powers agree to use 
 their best efforts to insure the 
 pacific settlement of international 
 differences. 
 
 Titre H. — Des Bons Offices et Title II. — On Good Offices and 
 de la Mediation. Mediation. 
 
 Article 2. 
 
 En cas de dissentiment grave ou 
 de conflit, avant d'en appeler aux 
 armes, les Puissances signataires 
 conviennent d'avoir recours, en 
 tant que les circonstances le per- 
 
 Article II. 
 
 In case of serious disagreement 
 or conflict, before an appeal to 
 arms, the Signatory Powers agree 
 to have recourse, as far as circum- 
 stances allow, to the good offices 
 
176 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 mettront, aux bons offices ou a la 
 mediation d'une ou de plusieurs 
 Puissances amies. 
 
 Article 3. 
 
 Independamment de ce recours, 
 les Puissances signataires jugent 
 utile qu'une ou plusieurs Puis- 
 sances etrangeres au conflit 
 offrent de leur propre initiative, 
 en tant qui les circonstances s'y 
 pretent, leurs bons offices ou leur 
 mediation aux Etats en conflit. 
 
 Le droit d'offrir les bons offices 
 ou la mediation appartient aux 
 Puissances etrangeres au conflit, 
 meme pendant le cours des hos- 
 tilites. 
 
 L'exercice de ce droit ne peut 
 jamais etre considere par Tune ou 
 i'autre des Parties en litige comme 
 un acte peu amical. 
 
 Article 4. 
 
 Le r61e de mediateur consiste a, 
 concilier les pretentions opposees 
 et a. apaiser les ressentiments qui 
 peuvent s'etre produits entre les 
 Etats en conflit. 
 
 Article 5. 
 
 Les fonctions du mediateur ces- 
 sent du moment ou il est constate 
 soit par Tune des Parties en litige, 
 soit par le mediateur lui-meme, 
 que les moyens de conciliation 
 proposes par lui ne sont pas 
 acceptes. 
 
 Article 6. 
 
 Les bons offices et la mediation, 
 soit sur le recours des Parties en 
 conflit, soit sur 1'initiative des 
 Puissances etrangeres au conflit, 
 ont exclusivement le caractere de 
 conseil et n'ont jamais force obli- 
 gatoire. 
 
 Article 7. 
 
 or mediation of one or more 
 friendly Powers. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 Independently of this recourse, 
 the Signatory Powers recommend 
 that one or more Powers, strangers 
 to the dispute, should, on their 
 own initiative, and as far as cir- 
 cumstances may allow, offer their 
 good offices or mediation to the 
 States at variance. 
 
 Powers, strangers to the dis- 
 pute, have the right to offer good 
 offices or mediation, even during 
 the course of hostilities. 
 
 The exercise of this right can 
 never be regarded by one or the 
 other of the parties in conflict as 
 an unfriendly act. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 The part of the mediator con- 
 sists in reconciling the opposing 
 claims and appeasing the feelings 
 of resentment which may have 
 arisen between the States at vari- 
 
 ance. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 The functions of the mediator 
 are at an end when once it is de- 
 clared, either by one of the parties 
 to the dispute, or by the mediator 
 himself, that the means of recon- 
 ciliation proposed by him are not 
 accepted. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 _ Good offices and mediation, 
 either at the request of the parties* 
 at variance, or on the initiative of 
 Powers strangers to the dispute, 
 have exclusively the character of 
 advice and never having binding 
 force. 
 
 Article VII. 
 
 L'acceptation de la mediation The acceptance of mediation can 
 
 no T"»£»n'f QirAiP n/^nv t\-ffls\4- 
 
JflOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 177 
 
 vention contraire, d interrompre, 
 de retarder ou d'entraver la mobi- 
 lisation et autres mesures prepara- 
 toires a, la guerre. 
 
 Si elle intervient apres l'ouver- 
 tures des hostility, elle n'inter- 
 rompt pas, sauf convention con- 
 traire, les operations militaires en 
 cours. 
 
 Article 8. 
 
 Les Puissances signataires sont 
 d'accord pour recommander 1' ap- 
 plication, dans les circonstances 
 qui le permettent, d'une Media- 
 tion speciale sous la sorme sui- 
 vante. 
 
 En cas de differend grave com- 
 promettant la Paix, les Etats en 
 conflit choisissent respectivement 
 une Puissance a laquelle ils con- 
 fient la mission d'entrer en rapport 
 direct avec la Puissance choisie 
 d'autre part, a l'effet de prevenir 
 la rupture des relations pacifiques. 
 
 Pendant la dur^e de ce mandat 
 dont le terme, sauf stipulation 
 contraire, ne peut exceder trente 
 jours, les Etats en litige cessent 
 tout rapport direct au sujet du con- 
 flit, lequel est considere comme 
 defere" exclusivemgnt aux Puis- 
 sances mediatrices. Celles-ci doi- 
 vent appliquer tous leurs efforts a 
 regler le differend. 
 
 En cas de rupture effective des 
 relations pacifiques, ces Puissances 
 demeurent chargees de la mission 
 commune de profiter de toute occa- 
 sion pour r^tablir la paix. 
 
 Tithe III. — Des Commissions In- 
 ternationales d'Enquete. 
 
 Article 9. 
 
 Dans les litiges d'ordre interna- 
 tional n engageant ni l'honneur ni 
 des int^rets essentiels et provenant 
 d'une divergence d'appreciation 
 sur des points de fait, les Puis- 
 
 S. Doc. 28 12 
 
 to the contrary, have the effect of 
 interrupting, delaying, or hinder- 
 ing mobilization or other measures 
 of preparation for war. 
 
 •If mediation occurs after the 
 commencement of hostilities it 
 causes no interruption to the mili- 
 tary operations in progress, unless 
 there be an agreement to the con- 
 trary. 
 
 Article VIII. 
 
 The Signatory Powers are 
 agreed in recommending the appli- 
 cation, when circumstances allow, 
 of special mediation in the follow- 
 ing form : — 
 
 In case of a serious difference 
 endangering the peace, the States 
 at variance choose respectively a 
 Power, to whom they intrust the 
 mission of entering into direct com- 
 munication with the Power chosen 
 on the other side, with the object 
 of preventing the rupture of pa- 
 cific relations. 
 
 For the period of this mandate, 
 the term of which, unless other- 
 wise stipulated, cannot exceed 
 thirty days, the States in conflict 
 cease from all direct communica- 
 tion on the subject of the dispute, 
 which is regarded as referred ex- 
 clusively to the mediating Powers, 
 who must use their best efforts to 
 settle it. 
 
 In case of a definite rupture of 
 pacific relations, these Powers are 
 charged with the joint task of tak- 
 ing advantage of any opportunity 
 to restore peace. 
 
 Title III. — On International 
 Commissions of Inquiry. 
 
 Article IX. 
 
 In differences of an international 
 nature involving neither honour 
 nor vital interests, and arising from 
 a difference of opinion on points of 
 fact, the Signatory Powers recom- 
 
178 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 sances signataires jugent utile que 
 les Parties qui n'auraient pu se 
 mettre d'accord par les voies diplo- 
 matiques instituent, en taut que 
 les circonstances le permettront', 
 une Commission internationale 
 d'enquete chargee de faciliter la 
 solution de ces litiges en eclaircis- 
 sant, par un examen impartial et 
 consciencieux, les questions de fait. 
 
 Article 10. 
 
 Les Commissions internationales 
 d'enquete sont constitutes par con- 
 vention speciale entre les Parties 
 en litige. 
 
 La convention d'enquete precise 
 les faits a examiner et l'etendue 
 des pouvoirs des commissaires. 
 
 Elle regie la procedure. 
 
 L'enquSte a lieu contradictoire- 
 ment. 
 
 La forme etles delais a observer, 
 en tant qu'ils ne sont pas fixes par 
 la convention d'enquete, sont de- 
 termines par la commission elle- 
 meme. 
 
 Article 11. 
 
 Les Commissions internation- 
 ales d'enquete sont formees, sauf 
 stipulation contraire, de lamaniere 
 determinee par Particle 32 de le 
 presente Convention. 
 
 Article 12. 
 
 Les Puissances en litige s'enga- 
 gent a fournir a la Commission 
 internationale d'enquete, dans la 
 plus large mesure qu'Elles juge- 
 ront possible, tous les moyens et 
 toutes les f acilites necessaires pour 
 la connaissance complete et l'appre- 
 ciation exacte des faits en question. 
 
 Article 13. 
 
 La Commission internationale 
 d'enquete presente aux Puissances 
 en litige son rapport signe par 
 tous les membres de la Commis- 
 sion. 
 
 mend that the parties, who have 
 not been able to come to an agree- 
 ment by means of diplomacy, 
 should as far as circumstances 
 allow, institute an International 
 Commission of Inquiry, to facili- 
 tate a solution of these differences 
 by elucidating the facts by means 
 of an impartial and conscientious 
 investigation. 
 
 Article X. 
 
 The International Commissions 
 of Inquiry are constituted by spe- 
 cial agreement between the parties 
 in conflict. 
 
 The Convention for an inquiry 
 defines the facts to be examined 
 and the extent of the Commission- 
 ers' powers. 
 
 It settles the procedure. 
 
 On the inquiry both sides must 
 be heard. 
 
 The form and the periods to be 
 observed, if not stated in the 
 inquiry Convention, are decided 
 by the Commission itself. 
 
 Article XL 
 
 The Internationa] Commissions 
 of Inquiry are formed, unless 
 otherwise stipulated, in the man- 
 ner fixed by Article XXXII of 
 the present convention. 
 
 Article XII. 
 
 The powers in dispute engage 
 to supply the International Com- 
 mission of Inquiry, as fully as 
 they may think possible, with all 
 means and facilities necessary to 
 enable it to be completely ac- 
 quainted with and to accurately • 
 understand the facts in question. > 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 The International Commission 
 of Inquiry communicates its Ker 
 port to the conflicting Powers, 
 signed by all the members of the 
 Commission. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 179 
 
 Article 14. 
 
 Le rapport de la Commission 
 internationale d'enquete, limits a 
 la constatation des faits, n'a nulle- 
 ment le caractere d'une sentence 
 arbitrale. II laisse aux Puissances 
 en litige une entiere liberty pour 
 la suite a donner a cette constata- 
 tion. 
 
 Article XIV. 
 
 The report of the International 
 Commission of Inquiry is limited 
 to a statement of facts, and has in 
 no way the character of an Arbi- 
 tral Award. It leayes the con- 
 flicting Powers entire freedom as 
 to the effect to be given to this 
 statement. 
 
 Titre IV. — De l' Arbitrage In- 
 ternational. 
 
 Chapitre I. — De la Justice Arbi- 
 trale. 
 
 Article 15. 
 
 L'arbitrage international a pour 
 objet le reglement de litiges entre 
 les Etats par des j uges de leur choix 
 et sur la base du respect du droit. 
 
 Article 16. 
 
 Dans les questions d'qrdre juri- 
 dique, et en premier lieu dans les 
 questions d'interpreStation ou d'ap- 
 plication des conventions interna- 
 tionales, l'arbitrage est reconnu par 
 les Puissances signataires comme le 
 moyen le plus efficace et en mSme 
 temps le plus equitable de regler 
 les litiges qui n'ont pas e"te" resolus 
 par les voies diplomatiques. 
 
 Article 17. 
 
 La convention d'arbitrage est 
 conclue pour des contestations deja 
 ne"es ou pour des contestations 
 eventuelles. 
 
 Elle peut concerner tout litige 
 ou seulement les litiges d'une cate- 
 gorie determinee. 
 
 Article 18. 
 
 La convention d'arbitrage im- 
 plique l'engagement de se soumet- 
 tre de bonne foi a la sentence 
 arbitrale. 
 
 Title IV. — On International 
 Arbitration. 
 
 Chapter I. — On the System of 
 Arbitration. 
 
 Article XV. 
 
 International arbitration has for 
 its object the settlement of differ- 
 ences between States by judges of 
 their own choice, and on the basis 
 of respect for law. 
 
 Article XVI. 
 
 In questions of a legal nature, 
 and especially in the interpretation 
 or application of International 
 Conventions, arbitration is recog- 
 nized by the Signatory Powers as 
 the most effective, and at the same 
 time the most equitable, means of 
 settling disputes which diplomacy 
 has failed to settle. 
 
 Article XVII. 
 
 The Arbitration Convention is 
 concluded for questions already 
 existing or for questions which 
 may rise eventually. 
 
 It may embrace any dispute or 
 only disputes of a certain category. 
 
 Article XVIII. 
 
 The Arbitration Convention im- 
 plies the engagement to submit 
 loyally to the Award. 
 
180 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Article 19. 
 
 Independamment des trails ge*- 
 n^raux ou particuliers qui stipu- 
 lent actuellement l'obligation du 
 recours a 1'arbitrage pour les Puis- 
 sances signataires, ces Puissances 
 se r&ervent de conclure, soit avant 
 la ratification du present Acte, soit 
 posterieurement, des accords nou- 
 veaux, geneVaux ou particuliers, 
 en vue d'etendre l'arbitrage obli- 
 gatoire a tous les cas qu'Elles juge- 
 ront possible de lui soumettre. 
 
 Chapitkb II. — De La Cour Per- 
 manente d^ Arbitrage. 
 
 Article 20. 
 
 Dans le butde f aciliter le recours 
 immediat a, l'arbitrage pour les 
 differends internationaux qui n'ont 
 pu etre regies par la voie diplo- 
 matique, les Puissances signataires 
 s'engagent a organiser une Cour 
 permanente d'arbitrage, accessible 
 en tout temps et f onctionnant, sauf 
 stipulation contrairie des Parties, 
 conform^ment aux Regies de pro- 
 cedure inserees dans la presente 
 Convention. 
 
 Article 21. 
 
 La Cour permanente sera com- 
 petente pour tous les cas d'arbi- 
 trage, a moins qu'il n'y ait entente 
 entre les Parties pour l'etablisse- 
 ment d'une juridiction speciale. 
 
 Article 22. 
 
 Un Bureau international e"tabli 
 a, la Haye sert de greffe a la Cour. 
 
 Ce Bureau est l'intermediaire 
 des communications relatives aux 
 reunions de celle-ci. 
 
 II a la garde des archives et la 
 gestion de toutes les affaires ad- 
 ministratives. 
 
 Les Puissances signataires s'en- 
 gagent a communiquer au Bureau 
 international de la Haye une copie 
 
 Article XIX. 
 
 Independently of general or pri- 
 vate Treaties expressly stipulating 
 recourse to arbitration as obliga- 
 tory on the Signatory Powers, 
 these Powers reserve to themselves 
 the right of concluding, either 
 before the ratification of the pres- 
 ent Act or later, new Agreements, 
 general or private, with a view to 
 extending obligatory arbitration 
 to all cases which they may con- 
 sider it possible to submit to it. 
 
 Chapter II. — On the, Permanent 
 Court of Arbitration. 
 
 Article XX. 
 
 With the object of facilitating 
 an immediate recourse to arbitra- 
 tion for international differences, 
 which it has not been possible to 
 settle by diplomacy, the Signatory 
 Powers undertake to organize a 
 permanent Court of Arbitration, 
 accessible at all times and operat- 
 ing, unless otherwise stipulated by 
 the parties, in accordance with the 
 Rules of Procedure inserted in the 
 present Convention. 
 
 Article XXI. 
 
 The Permanent Court shall be 
 competent for all arbitration cases, 
 unless the parties agree to insti- 
 tute a special tribunal. 
 
 Article XXII. 
 
 An International Bureau, estab- 
 lished at The Hague, serves as 
 record office for the Court. 
 
 This Bureau is the channel for 
 communications relative to the 
 meetings of the Court. 
 
 It has the custody of the ar- 
 chives and conducts all the admin- 
 istrative business. 
 
 The Signatory Powers under- 
 take to communicate to the Inter- 
 national Bureau at The Hague a 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 181 
 
 certifiee conforme de toute stipu- 
 lation d'arbitrage intervenue entre 
 elles et de toute sentence arbitrale 
 les concernant et rendue par des 
 juridictions sp^ciales. 
 
 Elles s'engagent a communiquer 
 de m§me au Bureau, les lois, regle- 
 ments et documents constatant 
 eventuellementl' execution des sen- 
 tences rendues par la Cour. 
 
 Aktiole 23. 
 
 Chaque Puissance signataire de"- 
 signera, dans les trois mois qui 
 suivront la ratification par elle du 
 present acte, quatre personnes au 
 plus, d'une competence reconnue 
 dans les questions de droit inter- 
 national, jouissant de la plus haute 
 consideration morale et disposees 
 a accepter les fonctions d'arbitres. 
 
 Les personnes ainsi designees 
 seront inscrites, au titre de mem- 
 bres de la Cour, sur une liste qui 
 sera notified a toutes les Puissances 
 signataires par les soins du Bureau. 
 
 Toute modification a la liste des 
 arbitres est portee, par les soins 
 du Bureau, a la connaissance des 
 Puissances signataires. 
 
 Deux ou plusieurs Puissances 
 peuvent s'entendre pour la desi- 
 gnation en commun d'un ou de plu- 
 sieurs membres. 
 
 La meme personue peut etre de- 
 signee par des Puissances diffe- 
 rentes. 
 
 Les membres de la Cour sont 
 nommes pour un terme de six 
 ans. Leur mandat peut etre re- 
 nouvele. 
 
 En cas de d^ces ou de retraite 
 d'un membre de la Cour, il est 
 
 {>ourvu a son remplacement selon 
 e mode fixe" pour sa nomination. 
 
 Article 24. 
 
 Lorsque les Puissances signa- 
 taires veulent s'adresser a la Cour 
 permanente pour le reglement d'un 
 differend survenu entre elles, le 
 
 duly certified copy of any condi- 
 tions of arbitration arrived at 
 between them, and of any award 
 concerning them delivered by 
 special Tribunals. 
 
 They undertake also to commu- 
 nicate to the Bureau the Laws, 
 Regulations, and documents even- 
 tually showing the execution of 
 the awards given by the Court. 
 
 Article XXITI. 
 
 Within the three months follow- 
 ing its ratification of the present 
 Act, each Signatory Power shall 
 select four persons at the most, of 
 known competenc} r in questions of 
 international law, of the highest 
 moral reputation, and disposed to 
 accept the duties of Arbitrators. 
 
 The persons thus selected shall 
 be inscribed, as members of the 
 Court, in a list which shall be 
 notified by the Bureau to all the 
 Signatory Powers. 
 
 Any alteration in the list of Ar- 
 bitrators is brought by the Bureau 
 to the knowledge of the Signatory 
 Powers. 
 
 Two or more Powers may agree 
 on the selection in common of one 
 or more Members. 
 
 The same person can be selected 
 by different Powers. 
 
 The Members of the Court are 
 appointed for a term of six years. 
 Their appointments can be re- 
 newed. 
 
 In case of the death or retire- 
 ment of a member of the Court, 
 his place shall be filled in accord- 
 ance with the method of his ap- 
 pointment. 
 
 Article XXIV. 
 
 When the Signatory Powers # 
 desire to have recourse to the Per- 
 manent Court for the settlement of 
 a difference that has arisen between 
 
182 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE ALIFORM AS. 
 
 choix des arbitres appeles a former 
 le Tribunal competent pour statuer 
 sur ce differend, doit etre fait dans 
 la liste generate des membres de la 
 Cour. 
 
 A defaut de constitution du 
 Tribunal arbitral par l'accord im- 
 me"diat des Parties, il est procede 
 de la maniere suivante: 
 
 Chaque Partie nomme deux ar- 
 bitres et ceux-ci choisissent ensem- 
 ble un surarbitre. 
 
 En cas de partage des voix, le 
 choix de surarbitre est confie a une 
 Puissance tierce, designee de com- 
 mun accord par les Parties. 
 
 Si l'accord ne s'e*tablit pas a ce 
 sujet, chaque Partie d^signe une 
 Puissance differente et le choix du 
 surarbitre est fait de concert par 
 les Puissances ainsi designees. 
 
 Le Tribunal 6tant ainsi compost, 
 les parties notifient au Bureau 
 leur decision de s'adresser a la 
 Cour et les noms des arbitres. 
 
 Le Tribunal arbitral se reunit a 
 la date fix<?e par les Parties. 
 
 Les membres de la Cour, dans 
 l'exercice de leurs fonctions et en 
 dehors de leur Pays, jouissent 
 des privileges et immunites diplo- 
 matiques. 
 
 Article 25. 
 
 Le Tribunal arbitral siege d'or- 
 dinaire a la Haye. 
 
 La siege ne peut, sauf le cas de 
 force majeure, etre change" par le 
 Tribunal que de l'assentiment des 
 Parties. 
 
 Article 26. 
 
 Le Bureau international de la 
 Haye est autorise" a mettre ses 
 locaux et son organisation a la dis- 
 position des Puissances signataires 
 pour le fonctionnement de toute 
 juridiction speciale d'arbitrage. 
 
 La juridiction de la Cour per- 
 manente peut 6tre etendue, dans 
 
 them, the Arbitrators called upoi 
 to form the competent Tribunal t< 
 decide this difference, must b< 
 chosen from the general list o: 
 members of the Court. 
 
 Failing the direct agreement 01 
 the parties on the composition o] 
 the Arbitration Tribunal, the fol 
 lowing course shall be pursued:— 
 
 Each party appoints two Arbi- 
 trators, and these together choose 
 an Umpire. 
 
 If the votes are equal, the choice 
 of the Umpire is intrusted to a 
 third Power, selected by the par- 
 ties by common accord. 
 
 If an agreement is not arrived 
 at on this subject, each party se- 
 lects a different Power, and the 
 choice of the Umpire is made in 
 concert by the Powers thus se- 
 lected. 
 
 The Tribunal being thus com- 
 posed, the parties notify to the 
 Bureau their determination to 
 have recourse to the Court and 
 the names of the Arbitrators. 
 
 The Tribunal of Arbitration as- 
 sembles on the date fixed by the 
 parties. 
 
 The Members of the Court, in 
 the discharge of their duties and 
 out of their own country, enjoy 
 diplomatic privileges and immu- 
 nities. 
 
 Article XXV. 
 
 The Tribunal of Arbitration has 
 its ordinary seat at The Hague. 
 
 Except in cases of necessity, the 
 place of session can only be altered 
 by the Tribunal with the assent of 
 the parties. 
 
 Article XXVI. 
 
 The International Bureau at The 
 Hague is authorized to place its 
 premises and its staff at the dis- 
 posal of the Signatory Powers for 
 the operations of any special Board 
 of Arbitration. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Perma- 
 nent Court, may, within the con- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 183 
 
 les conditions prescrites par les 
 Reglements, aux litiges existant 
 entre des Puissances non signa- 
 taires ou entre des Puissances si- 
 gnataires et des Puissances non 
 signataires, si les Parties sont con- 
 venues de recourir a cette juridic- 
 tion. 
 
 Article 27. 
 
 Le Puissances signataires con- 
 sidered comme un devoir, dans le 
 eas ou un conflit aigu menacerait 
 d'<3clater entre deux ou plusieurs 
 d'entre Elles, de rappeler a celles- 
 ci que la Cour permanente leur est 
 ouverte. 
 
 En consequence, Elles d^clarent 
 que le fait de rappeler aux Parties 
 en conflit les dispositions de la 
 pr^sente Convention, et le conseil 
 donne - , dans l'inter&t superieur de 
 la paix, de s'adresser a la Cour 
 permanente ne peuvent §tre con- 
 siders que comme actes de Bons 
 Offices. 
 
 Article 28. 
 
 Un Conseil admiriistratif per- 
 manent compost des representants 
 diplomatiques des Puissances si- 
 gnataires accredited a la Haye et 
 du Ministre des Affaires Etran- 
 geres des Pays-Bas qui remplira les 
 fonctions de President, sera cons- 
 titue dans cette ville le plus t6t 
 possible apr&s la ratification du 
 present Acte par neuf Puissances 
 au moins. 
 
 Ce Conseil sera charge d'etablir 
 et d'organiser le Bureau interna- 
 tional, lequel demeurera sous sa 
 direction et sous son contr61e. 
 
 II notifiera aux Puissances la 
 constitution de la Cour et pour- 
 voira & ^installation de celle-ci. 
 
 II arr£tera son r&glementd'ordre 
 ainsi que tous autres reglements 
 ne"cessaires. 
 
 II decidera toutes les questions 
 administratives qui pourraient 
 
 ditions laid down in the Regula- 
 tions, be extended to disputes be- 
 tween non-Signatory Powers, or 
 between Signatory Powers and 
 non- Signatory Powers, if the par- 
 ties are agreed on recourse to this 
 Tribunal. 
 
 Article XXVII. 
 
 The Signatory Powers consider 
 it their duty, if a serious dispute 
 threatens to break out between 
 two or more of them, to remind 
 these latter that the Permanent 
 Court is open to them. 
 
 Consequently, they declare that 
 the fact of reminding the conflict- 
 ing parties of the provisions of 
 the present Convention, and the 
 advice given to them, in the high- 
 est interests of peace, to have re- 
 course to the Permanent Court, 
 can only be regarded as friendly 
 actions. 
 
 Article XXVIIL 
 
 A Permanent Administrative 
 Council, composed of the Diplo- 
 matic Representatives of the Sig- 
 natory Powers accredited to The 
 Hague and of the Netherland Min- 
 ister for Foreign Affairs, who will 
 act as President, shall be insti- 
 tuted in this town as soon as pos- 
 sible after the ratification of the 
 present Act by at least nine 
 Powers. 
 
 This Council will be charged 
 with the establishment and organi- 
 zation of the International Bureau, 
 which will be under its direction 
 and control. 
 
 It will notify to the Powers the 
 constitution of the Court and will 
 provide for its installation. 
 
 It will settle its rules of Pro- 
 cedure and all other necessary 
 Regulations. 
 
 It will decide all questions of 
 administration which may arise 
 
184 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 surgir touchant le fonctionnement 
 de la Cour. 
 
 II aura tout pouvoir quant a la 
 nomination, la suspension ou la 
 revocation des fonctionnaires et 
 employes du Bureau. 
 
 II fixera les traitements et sa 
 laires et contr61era la depense ge- 
 ne"rale. 
 
 La presence de cinq membres 
 dans les reunions dument con- 
 voqu^es suffit pour permettre au 
 Conseil de delibe"rer valablement. 
 Les decisions sont prises a la ma- 
 jorite des voix. 
 
 Le Conseil communique sans 
 delai aux Puissances signataires 
 les reglements adoptes par lui. II 
 leur adresse chaque ann6e un rap- 
 port sur les travaux de la Cour, sur 
 le fonctionnement des services 
 administratifs et sur les depenses. 
 
 Article 29. 
 
 Les f rais du Bureau seront sup- 
 ported par les Puissances signa- 
 taires dans la proportion etablie 
 pour le Bureau international de 
 l'Union postale universelle. 
 
 Chapitre III. — De la Procedure 
 Arbitrale. 
 
 Article 30. 
 
 En vue de favoriser le develop- 
 pement de l'arbitrage, les Puis- 
 sances signataires ont arr^te les. 
 regies suivantes qui seront appli- 
 cables a la procedure arbitrale, en 
 tant que les Parties ne sont pas 
 convenues d'autres regies. 
 
 Article 31. 
 
 with regard to the operations of 
 the Court. 
 
 It will have entire control over 
 the appointment, suspension or 
 dismissal of the officials and em- 
 ployes of the Bureau. 
 
 It will fix the payments and sala- 
 ries, and control the general ex- 
 penditure. 
 
 At meetings duly summoned the 
 presence of five members is suffi- 
 cient to render valid the discus- 
 sions of the Council. The deci- 
 sions are taken by a majority of 
 votes. 
 
 The Council communicates to 
 the Signatory Powers without de- 
 lay the Regulations adopted by 
 it. It furnishes them with an an- 
 nual Report on the labours of the 
 Court, the working of the admin- 
 istration, and the expenses. 
 
 Article XXIX. 
 
 The expenses of the Bureau 
 shall be borne by the Signatory 
 Powers in the proportion fixed for 
 the International Bureau of the 
 Universal Postal Union. 
 
 Chapter III. — On Arbitral Pro- 
 cedure. 
 
 Article XXX. 
 
 With a view to encourage the 
 development of arbitration, the 
 Signatory Powers have agreed on 
 the following Rules which shall be 
 applicable to arbitral procedure, 
 unless other rules have been agreed 
 on by the parties. 
 
 Article XXXI. 
 
 Les Puissances qui recourent a, 
 l'arbitrage signent un acte special 
 (compromis) dans lequel sont net- 
 tement determines l'objet du litige 
 ainsi que l'^tendue des pouvoirs 
 des arbitres. Cet acte implique 
 l'engagement des Parties de se 
 soumettre de bonne foi a la sen- 
 tence arbitrale. 
 
 The Powers who have recourse 
 to arbitration sign a special Act 
 (" Compromis"), in which the sub- 
 ject of the difference is clearly de- 
 fined, as well as the extent of the 
 Arbitrators' powers. This Act im- 
 plies the undertaking of the parties 
 to submit loyally to the award. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 185 
 
 Article 32. 
 
 Article XXXII. 
 
 Lea f onctions arbitrales peuvent 
 Stre conferees a un arbitre unique 
 ou a plusieurs arbitres designes 
 par les Parties a leur gre, ou choi- 
 sis par Elles parmi les membres de 
 la Cour permanente d'arbitrage 
 etablie par le present Acte. 
 
 A d6f aut de constitution du Tri- 
 bunal par l'accord immediat des 
 Parties, ilest procedede lamaniere 
 suivante: 
 
 Chaque Partie nomme deux ar- 
 bitres et ceux-ci choisissent ensem- 
 ble un surarbitre. 
 
 En cas de partage des voix, le 
 choix de surarbitre est confie a une 
 Puissance tierce, designee de com- 
 mun accord par les Parties. 
 
 Si l'accord ne s'6tablit pas a" ce 
 sujet, chaque Partie designe une 
 Puissance differente et le choix du 
 surarbitre est fait de concert par 
 les Puissances ainsi designees. 
 
 Article 33. 
 
 Lorsqu'un Souverain ou un Chef 
 d'Etat est choisi pour arbitre, la 
 procedure arbitrale est r%le"e par 
 Lui. 
 
 Article 34. 
 
 Le surarbitre est de droit Presi- 
 dent du Tribunal. 
 
 Lorsque le Tribunal ne com- 
 prend pas de surarbitre il nomme 
 lui-meme son president. 
 
 Article 35. 
 
 Eh cas de deces, de demission 
 ou d'empechement, pour quelque 
 cause que ce soit, de l'un des arbi- 
 tres, il est pourvu a son remplace- 
 ment selon le mode fixe - pour sa 
 nomination. 
 
 Article 36. 
 
 Le siege du Tribunal est de"signe 
 par les Parties. A defaut de cette 
 
 The duties of Arbitrator may be 
 conferred on one Arbitrator alone 
 or on several Arbitrators selected 
 by the parties as they please, or 
 chosen by them from the members 
 of the Permanent Court of Arbi- 
 tration established by the present 
 Act. 
 
 Failing the constitution of the 
 Tribunal by direct agreement be- 
 tween the parties, the following 
 course shall be pursued: 
 
 Each party appoints two arbi- 
 trators, and these latter together 
 choose an Umpire. 
 
 In case of equal voting, the 
 choice of the Umpire is intrusted 
 to a third Power, selected by the 
 parties by common accord. 
 
 If no agreement is arrived at on 
 this subject, each party selects a 
 different Power, and the choice of 
 the Umpire is made in concert by 
 the Powers thus selected. 
 
 Article XXXIII. 
 
 When a Sovereign or the Chief 
 of a State is chosen as Arbitrator, 
 the arbitral procedure is settled 
 by him. 
 
 Article XXXIV. 
 
 The Umpire is by right Presi- 
 dent of the Tribunal. 
 
 When the Tribunal does not in- 
 clude an Umpire, it appoints its 
 own President. 
 
 Article XXXV. 
 
 In case of the death, retirement, 
 or disability from any cause of 
 one of the Arbitrators, his place 
 shall be filled in accordance with 
 the method of his appointment. 
 
 Article XXXVI. 
 
 The Tribunal's place of session 
 is selected by the parties. Failing 
 
186 
 
 PIOTJS FUND OP THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 designation le Tribunal si&ge a la 
 Haye. 
 
 Le siege ainsi fixe" ne peut, sauf 
 le cas de force majeure, etre change 
 par le Tribunal que de l'assenti- 
 ment des Parties. 
 
 Article 37. 
 
 Les Parties ont le droit de nom- 
 mer aupres du Tribunal des den- 
 gues ou agents sp^ciaux, avec la 
 mission de servir d'intermediaires 
 entre Elles et le Tribunal. 
 
 Elles sont en outre autorise'es a 
 charger de la defense de. leurs 
 droits et int^rets devant le Tribu- 
 nal, des conseils ou avocats nom- 
 mes par Elles a cet effet. 
 
 Article 38. 
 
 Le tribunal decide du choix des 
 langues dont il fera usage et dont 
 1'emploi sera autorise devant lui. 
 
 Article 39. 
 
 La procedure arbitrale com- 
 prend en regie generale deux 
 
 f)hases distinctes: l'instruction et 
 es debats. 
 
 L'instruction consiste dans la 
 communication f aite par les agents 
 respectifs, aux membres du Tri- 
 bunal et a la Partie adverse, de 
 tous actes imprimis ou Merits et de 
 tous documents contenant les 
 moyens invoques dans la cause. 
 Cette communication aura lieu 
 dans la forme et dans les delais 
 de"termin6s par le Tribunal en 
 vertu de Particle 49. 
 
 Les debats consistent dans le 
 deVeloppement oral des moyens 
 des Parties devant le Tribunal. 
 
 Article 40. 
 
 Toute pi&ce produite par l'une 
 des Parties doit Stre communique^ 
 a l'autre Partie. 
 
 this selection the Tribunal sits at 
 The Hague. 
 
 The place thus fixed cannot, 
 except in case of necessity, be 
 changed by the Tribunal without 
 the assent of the parties. 
 
 Article XXXVII. 
 
 The parties have the right to 
 appoint delegates or special agents 
 to attend the Tribunal, for the 
 purpose of serving as intermedi- 
 aries between them and the Tri- 
 bunal. 
 
 They are further authorized to 
 retain, for the defense of their 
 rights and interests before the 
 Tribunal, counsel or advocates ap- 
 pointed by them for this purpose. 
 
 Article XXXVIII. 
 
 The Tribunal decides on the 
 choice of languages to be used by 
 itself, and to be authorized for 
 use before it. 
 
 Article XXXIX. 
 
 As a general rule the arbitral 
 procedure comprises two distinct 
 phases; preliminary examination 
 and discussion. 
 
 Preliminary examination con- 
 sists in the communication by the 
 respective agents to the members 
 of the Tribunal and to the oppo- 
 site party of all printed or written 
 Acts and of all documents contain- 
 ing the arguments invoked in the 
 case. This communication shall 
 be made in the form and within 
 the periods fixed by the Tribunal 
 .in accordance with Article XLIX. 
 
 Discussion consists in the oral 
 development before the Tribunal 
 _of the arguments of the parties. 
 
 Article XL. 
 
 Every document produced by 
 one party must be communicated 
 to the other party. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 187 
 
 Article 41. 
 
 Les d^bats sont diriges par 
 President. 
 
 lis ne sont publics quien vertu 
 d'une decision du Tribunal, prise 
 avec l'assentiment des Parties. 
 
 lis sont consigned dans des pro- 
 ces-verbaux redige"s par des secre- 
 taires que nomme 1 e President. Ces 
 proces-verbaux ont seuls caractere 
 authentique. 
 
 Article XLI. 
 
 The discussions are under the 
 direction of the President. 
 
 They are only public if it be so 
 decided by the Tribunal, with the 
 assent of the parties. 
 
 They are recorded in the proces- 
 verbaux drawn up by the Secre- 
 taries appointed by the President. 
 These proces-verbaux alone have an 
 authentic character. 
 
 Article 42. 
 
 Article XLII. 
 
 L'instruction etant close, le Tri- 
 bunal a le droit d'^carter du debat 
 tous actes ou documents nouveaux 
 qu'une des Parties voudrait lui 
 soumettre sans le consentement de 
 l'autre. 
 
 Article 43. 
 
 When the preliminary examina- 
 tion is concluded, the Tribunal has 
 the right to refuse discussion of 
 all fresh Acts or documents which 
 one party may desire to submit to 
 it without the consent of the other 
 party. 
 
 Article XLIII. 
 
 Le Tribunal demeure libre de 
 prendre en consideration les actes 
 ou documents nouveaux sur les- 
 quels les agents ou conseils des 
 Parties appelle raient son attention . 
 
 En ce cas, le Tribunal a le droit 
 de requ^rir la production de ces 
 actes ou documents, sauf l'obliga- 
 tion d'en donner connaissance a la 
 Partie adverse. 
 
 The Tribunal is free to take 
 into consideration fresh Acts or 
 documents to which its attention 
 may be drawn by the agents or 
 counsel of the parties. 
 
 In this case, the Tribunal has 
 the right to require the production 
 of these Acts or documents, but is 
 obliged to make them known to 
 the opposite party. 
 
 Article 44. 
 
 Article XLIV. 
 
 Le Tribunal peut, en outre, re- 
 querir des agents des Parties la pro- 
 duction de tous actes et demander 
 toutes explications necessaires. En 
 cas de rerus le Tribunal en prend 
 acte. 
 
 The Tribunal can, besides, re- 
 quire from the agents of the par- 
 ties the production of all Acts, and 
 can demand all necessary explana- 
 tions. In case of refusal, the Tri- 
 bunal takes note of it. 
 
 Article 45. 
 
 Les agents et les conseils des 
 Parties sont autoris^s a presenter 
 oralement au Tribunal tous les 
 moyens qu'ils jugent utiles a la de- 
 fense de leur cause. 
 
 Article XLV. 
 
 The agents and counsel of the 
 parties are authorized to present 
 orally to the Tribunal all the argu- 
 ments they may think expedient 
 in defence of their case. 
 
188 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 
 
 Article 46. 
 
 Us ont le droit de soulever des 
 exceptions et incidents. Lea de- 
 cisions du Tribunal sur ces points 
 sont definitives et ne peuvent don- 
 ner lieu a aucune discussion ulte"- 
 rieure. 
 
 Article 47. 
 
 Les membres du Tribunal ont le 
 droit de poser des questions aux 
 agents et aux conseils des Parties 
 et de leur demander des 6claircisse- 
 ments sur les points douteux. 
 
 Ni les questions posees, ni les 
 observations faites par les mem- 
 bres du Tribunal pendant le cours 
 des debats ne peuvent &tre regar- 
 ded comme l'expression des opi- 
 nions du Tribunal en general ou de 
 ses membres en particulier. 
 
 Article XLVI. 
 
 They have the right to raise ob- 
 jections and points. The decisions 
 of the Tribunal on those points are 
 final, and cannot form the subject 
 of any subsequent discussion. 
 
 Article XL VII. 
 
 The members of the Tribunal 
 have the right to put questions to 
 the agents and counsel of the par- 
 ties, and to demand explanations 
 from them on doubtful points. 
 
 Neither the questions put nor 
 the remarks made by members of 
 the Tribunal during the discussions 
 can be regarded as an expression 
 of opinion by the Tribunal in gen- 
 eral, or by its members in particu- 
 lar. 
 
 Article 48. 
 
 Le Tribunal est autorise a de- 
 terminer sa competence- en inter- 
 pretant le compromis ainsi que les 
 autres traites qui peuvent etre 
 invoqu^s dans la matiere, et en 
 appliquant les principes du droit 
 international. 
 
 Artice XLVIII. 
 
 The Tribunal is authorized to 
 declare its competence in inter- 
 preting the " Compromis" as well 
 as the other Treaties which may 
 be invoked in the case, and in 
 applying the principles of inter- 
 national law. 
 
 Article 49. 
 
 Le Tribunal a le droit de rendre 
 des ordonnances de procedure pour 
 la direction due proces, de deter- 
 miner les formes et delais dans 
 lesquels chaque Partie devra pren- 
 dre ses conclusions et de proceder 
 a toutes les formalites que com- 
 porte l'administration des preuves. 
 
 Article XLIX. 
 
 The Tribunal has the right to 
 issue Rules of Procedure for the " 
 conduct of the case, to decide the 
 forms and periods within which 
 each party must conclude its argu- 
 ments, and to arrange all the for- 
 malities required for dealing with 
 the evidence. 
 
 Article 50. 
 
 Les agents et les conseils des 
 Parties ayant pr^sente tous les 
 eclaircissements et preuves a l'ap- 
 pui de leur cause, le President pro- 
 nonce la cldture des debats. 
 
 Article L. 
 
 When the agents and counsel of 
 the parties have submitted all ex- 
 planations and evidence in sup- 
 port of their case, the President 
 pronounces the discussion closed. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 189 
 
 Article 51. 
 
 Les deliberations du Tribunal 
 ont lieu a, huis clos. Toute deci- 
 sion est prise a la majorite des 
 membres du Tribunal. 
 
 Le refus d'un membre de pren- 
 dre part au vote doit §tre constate 
 dans le proces-verbal. 
 
 Article 52. 
 
 La sentence arbitrate, votee a la 
 majority des voix, est motivee. 
 Elle est r£digee par ecrit et signee 
 par chacun des membres du Tri- 
 bunal. 
 
 Ceux des membres qui sont 
 restes en minorite" peuvent consta- 
 ter, en signant, leur dissentiment. 
 
 Article 53. 
 
 La sentence arbitrale est lue en 
 seance publique du Tribunal, les 
 agents et les conseils de Parties 
 presents ou dument appele"s. 
 
 Article 54. 
 
 La sentence arbitrale, dument 
 prononcee et notifiee aux agents 
 des Parties en litige decide defini- 
 tivement et sans appel la contesta- 
 tion. 
 
 Article 55. 
 
 Les Parties peuvent se r^server 
 dans le compromis de demander la 
 revision de la sentence arbitrale. 
 
 Dans ce cas et sauf convention 
 contraire, la demande doit §tre ad- 
 ress^e au Tribunal qui a rendu la 
 sentence. Elle ne peut 6tre mo- 
 tive© que par la decouverte d'un 
 fait nouveau qui eut ete de nature 
 & exercer une influence decisive 
 sur la sentence et, qui, lors de la 
 cl6ture des debats, etait inconnu 
 du tribunal lui-m^me et de la Par- 
 tie qui a demande" la revision. 
 
 Article LI. 
 
 The deliberations of the Tribu- 
 nal take place in private. Every 
 decision is taken by a majority of 
 members of the Tribunal. 
 
 The refusal of a member to vote 
 must be recorded in the proces- 
 verbal. 
 
 Article LII. 
 
 The award, given by a majority 
 of votes, is accompanied by a state- 
 ment of reasons. It is drawn up 
 in writing and signed by each 
 member of the Tribunal. 
 
 Those members who are in the 
 minority may record their dissent 
 when signing. 
 
 Article LIII. 
 
 The award is read out at a public 
 meeting of the Tribunal, the agents 
 and counsel of the parties being 
 present, or duly summoned to 
 attend. 
 
 Article LIV. 
 
 The award, duly pronounced and 
 notified to the agents of the parties 
 at variance, puts an end to the dis- 
 pute definitely and without appeal. 
 
 Article LV. 
 
 The parties can reserve in the 
 "Compromis" the right to de- 
 mand the revision of the award. 
 
 In this case, and unless there 
 be an agreement to the contrary, 
 the demand must be addressed to 
 the Tribunal which pronounced 
 the award. It can only be made 
 on the ground of the discovery of 
 some new fact calculated to exer- 
 cise a decisive influence on the 
 award, and which, at the time 
 the discussion was closed, was un- 
 known to the Tribunal and to the 
 party demanding the revision. 
 
190 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALlFORNIAS. 
 
 La procedure de revision ne 
 peut etre ouverte que par une 
 decision du Tribunal constatant 
 expressement l'existence du fait 
 nouveau, lui reconnaissant les car- 
 acteres prevus par le paragraphe 
 precedent et declarant a ce titre la 
 demande recevable. 
 
 Le compromis determine le delai 
 dans lequel la demande de revision 
 doit 6tre formee. 
 
 Proceedings for revision can 
 only be instituted by a decision of 
 the Tribunal expressly recording 
 the existence of the new fact, 
 recognizing in it the character de- 
 scribed in the foregoing para- 
 graph, and declaring the demand 
 admissible on this ground. 
 
 The " Compromis " fixes the 
 period within which the demand 
 for revision must be made. 
 
 Article 56. 
 
 Aeticle LVI. 
 
 La sentence arbitrale n'est obli- 
 gatoire que pour les Parties qui 
 ont conclu le compromis. 
 
 Lorsqu'il s'agit de l'interpreta- 
 tion d'une convention a laquelle 
 ont participe d'autres Puissances 
 que les Parties en litige, celles-ci 
 notifient aux premieres le compro- 
 mis qu'elles ont conclu. Chacune 
 de ces Puissances a le droit d'in- 
 tervenir au proces. Si une ou 
 plusieurs d'entre elles ont profite 
 de cette faculty, Interpretation 
 contenue dans la sentence est ega- 
 lement obligatoire a leur egard. 
 
 Aeticle 57. 
 
 Chaque Partie supporte ses pro- 
 pres frais et une part egale des 
 frais du Tribunal. 
 
 Dispositions generates. 
 
 Aeticle 58. 
 
 La pr^sente Convention sera 
 ratifiee dans le plus bref delai 
 possible. 
 
 Les ratifications seront d6pos6es 
 a la Haye. 
 
 II sera dresse du depot de chaque 
 ratification un proces-verbal, dont 
 une copie, certified conforme, sera 
 remise par la voie diplomatique a 
 toutes les Puissances, qui ont 6te 
 representees si la Conference Inter- 
 nationale de la Paix de la Haye. 
 
 The award is only binding on 
 the parties who concluded the 
 "Compromis." 
 
 When there is a question in- 
 terpreting a Convention to which 
 Powers other than those con- 
 cerned in the dispute are parties, 
 the latter notify to the former the 
 "Compromis" they have con- 
 cluded. Each of these Powers has 
 the right to intervene in the case. 
 If one or more of them avail 
 themselves of this right, the inter- 
 pretation contained in the award is 
 equally binding on them. 
 
 Aeticle LVII. 
 
 Each party pays its own ex- 
 penses and an equal share of those 
 of the Tribunal. 
 
 General provisions. 
 
 Aeticle LVIII. 
 
 The present Convention shall be 
 ratified as speedily as possible. 
 
 The ratifications shall be depos- 
 ited at The Hague. 
 
 A proces-verbal shall be drawn 
 up recording the receipt of each 
 ratification, and a copy duly certi- 
 fied shall be sent, through the 
 diplomatic channel, to all the 
 Powers who were represented at 
 the International Peace Confer- 
 ence at The Hague. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 
 
 191 
 
 Article 59. 
 
 Les Puissances non signataires 
 qui ont 6te" representees a la Con- 
 ference Internationale de la Paix 
 pourront adherer a la presente 
 Convention. Elles auront a, cet 
 effet a fair connaitre leur adhe- 
 sion aux Puissances contractantes, 
 au moyen d'une notification ecrite, 
 adress^e au Gouvernement des 
 Pays-Bas et communique'e par 
 celui-ci a toutes les autres Puis- 
 sances contractantes. 
 
 Article 60. 
 
 Les conditions auxquelles les 
 Puissances qui n'ont pas ete repre- 
 sentees a la Conference Interna- 
 tionale de la Paix, pourront ad- 
 herer a la -presente Convention, 
 formeront l'objet d'une entente 
 ulterieure entre les Puissances 
 contractante,-. 
 
 Article 61. 
 
 S'il arrivait qu'une des Hautes 
 Parties contractantes d^noncat la 
 presente Convention, cette denon- 
 ciation ne produirait ses effets 
 qu'un an apres la notification f aite 
 par ecrit au Gouvernement des 
 Pays-Bas et communiquee imme- 
 diatement par celui-ci a toutes les 
 autres Puissances contractantes. 
 * Cette denonciation ne produira 
 ses effets qu'a l'egard de la Puis- 
 sance qui l'aura notified. 
 
 En foi de quoi, les Plenipoten- 
 tiaires ont signe la presente Con- 
 vention et Font revenue de leurs 
 sceaux. 
 
 Fait a la Haye, le vingt-neuf 
 juillet mil huit cent quatre-vingt 
 dix-neuf, en un seul exemplaire 
 qui restera depose dans les ar- 
 chives du Gouvernement des Pays- 
 Bas et dont des copies, certifiers 
 conformes, seront remises par la 
 voie diplomatique aux Puissances 
 contractantes. 
 Pour lAUemagne: 
 
 (l. s.) Munstee Derneburg, 
 
 Article LIX. 
 
 The non-Signatory Powers who 
 were represented at the Interna- 
 tional Peace Conference can ad- 
 here to the present Convention. 
 For this purpose they must make 
 known their adhesion to the Con- 
 tracting Powers by a written noti- 
 fication addressed to the Nether- 
 lands Government, and communi- 
 cated by it to all the other Con- 
 tracting Powers. 
 
 Article LX. 
 
 The conditions on which the 
 Powers who were not represented 
 at the International Peace Confer- 
 ence can adhere to the present 
 Convention shall form the subject 
 of a subsequent Agreement among 
 the Contracting Powers. 
 
 Article LXI. 
 
 In the event of one of the High 
 Contracting Parties denouncing 
 the present Convention, this de- 
 nunciation would not take effect 
 until a year after its notification 
 made in writing to the Netherlands 
 Government, and by it communi- 
 cated at once to all the other Con- 
 tracting Powers. 
 
 This denunciation shall only af- 
 fect the notifying Power. 
 
 In faith of which the Plenipo- 
 tentiaries have signed the present 
 Convention and affixed their seals 
 to it. 
 
 Done at The Hague the 29th 
 July, 1899, in a single copy, which 
 shall remain in the archives of 
 the Netherlands Government, and 
 copies of it, duly certified, be sent 
 through the diplomatic channel to 
 the Contracting Powers. 
 
 For Germany: 
 (l. s.) Munster Derneburg. 
 
192 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 Pour l'Autriche-Hongrie: 
 
 (l. s.) Welseksheimb. 
 
 (l. s.) Okolicsanyi. 
 Pour la Belgique: 
 
 (l. s.) A. Beernaert. 
 
 (l. s.) Cte de Grelle ROGIER. 
 
 (l. s.) Chk Descamps. 
 Pour la Chine: 
 
 (l. s.) Yang Yu. 
 Pour le Danemark: 
 
 (l. s.) F. Bille. 
 Pour l'Espagne: 
 
 (l. s.) El Duque De Tetuan. 
 
 (l, s.) W.R.de Villa Urrutia. 
 
 (l. s.) Aktuko de Baguer. 
 Pour les Etats-Unis d'Amerique: 
 
 (l. s.) Andrew D. White. 
 
 (l. s.) Seth Low. 
 
 (l. s.) Stanford Newel. 
 
 (l. s.) A. T. Mahan. 
 
 (l. s.) William Crozier. 
 Sous reserve de la declaration faite 
 
 dans la stance pleniere de la 
 
 Conference de 25 juillet 1899. 
 
 Pour les Etats-Unis Mexicains: 
 
 A. de Mier. 
 
 J. Zenil. 
 Pour la' France: 
 
 (l. s.) Leon Bourgeois. 
 
 (l. s.) G. Bihourd. 
 
 (l. s.) D'Estournellesde Con- 
 stant. 
 Pour la Grande Bretagne et l'lr- 
 lande : 
 
 (l. s.) Paunoefote. 
 
 (l. s.) Henry Howard. 
 Pour la Grece: 
 
 (l. s.) N. Dalyanni. 
 Pour l'ltalie: 
 
 (l. s.) Nigra. 
 
 (l. s.) A. Zannini. 
 
 (l. s.) G. Pompilj. 
 Pour le Japon: 
 
 (l. s.) I. Motono. 
 Pour le Luxembourg: 
 
 (l. s.) Eyschen. 
 Pour le Montenegro: 
 
 (l. s.) Staal. 
 Pour les Pays-Bas: 
 
 (l. s.) v. Karnebeek. 
 
 (l. s.) den Beer Poortugael. 
 
 (l. s.) T. M. C. Asser. 
 
 (l. s.) E. N. Rahusen. 
 
 For Austria-Hungary: 
 
 (l. s.) Welsersheimb. 
 
 (l. s.) Okolicsanyi. 
 For Belgium: 
 
 (l. s.) A. Beernaert. 
 
 (l. s.) Cte. de Grelle Rogier. 
 
 (l. s.) Chr. Descamps. . 
 For China: 
 
 (l. s.) Yang Yu. 
 For Denmark: 
 
 (l. s.) F. Bille. 
 For Spain : 
 
 (l. s.) El Duque de Tetuan. 
 
 (l. s.) W.R.de Villa Urrutia. 
 
 (l. s.) Arturo de Baguer. 
 For the United States of America: 
 
 (l. s.) Andrew D. White. 
 
 (l. s.) Seth Low. 
 
 (l. s.) Stanford Newel. 
 
 (l. s.) A. T. Mahan. 
 
 (l. s.) William Crozier. 
 Under reserve of the declaration 
 
 made at the plenary sitting of 
 
 the Conference on the 25th of 
 
 July, 1899. 
 For the United Mexican States: 
 
 (l. s.) A. de Mier. 
 
 (l. s.) J. Zenil. 
 For France: 
 
 (l. s.) Leon Bourgeois. 
 
 (l. s.) G. Bihourd. 
 
 (l. s.) D'Estournellesde Con- 
 stant. 
 For Great Britain and Ireland: 
 
 (l. s.) Pauncefote. 
 
 (l. s.) Henry Howard. 
 For Greece: 
 
 (l. s.) N. Delyanni. 
 For Italy: 
 
 (l. s.) Nigra. 
 
 (l. s.) A. Zannini. 
 
 (l. s.) G. Pompilj. 
 For Japan: 
 
 (l. s.) I. Motono. 
 For Luxemburg: 
 
 (l. s.) Eyschen. 
 For Montenegro: 
 
 (l. s.) Staal. 
 For the Netherlands: 
 
 (l. s.) v. Karnebeek. 
 
 (l. s.) den Beer Poortugael. 
 
 (l. s.) T. M. C. Asser. 
 
 (l. s.) E. N. Rahusen. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 193 
 
 Pour la Perse: 
 (l. s.) Mieza Risa Khan, Arfa- 
 ud-Dovleh. 
 Pour le Portugal: 
 
 (l. 8.) CONDE DE MACEDO. 
 
 (l. s.) Agostinho d'Oenellas 
 de Vasconcellos. 
 
 (l. s.) Conde de Selie. 
 Pour la Roumanie: 
 
 (l. s.) A. Beldiman. 
 
 (l. s.) J. N. Papiniu. 
 Sous les reserves, formulees aux 
 
 articles 16, 17 et 19 de la pre- 
 
 sente Couvention (15, 16 et 18 
 
 du projet presente par le Comite - 
 
 d'Examen) et consignees aux 
 
 proces-verbal de la seance de la 
 
 Troisieme Commission du 20 
 
 juillet 1899. 
 Pour la Russie: 
 
 (l. s.) Staal. 
 
 (l. s.) Martens. 
 
 (l. s.) A. Basely. 
 Pour la Serbie: 
 
 (l. s.) Chedo Miyatovitch. 
 Sous les reserves, consignees au 
 
 proces-verbal de la Troisieme 
 
 Commission du 20 juillet 1899. 
 Pour le Siani: 
 
 (l. s.) Phya Sueiya Nuvatb. 
 
 (l. s.) Visuddha: 
 Pour les Royaumes Unis de Suede 
 et de Norvege: 
 
 (l. s.) Bildt. 
 Pour la Suisse: 
 
 (l. s.) Roth. 
 Pour la Turquie: 
 
 (l. s.) Tdekhan. 
 
 (l. s.) Mehemed Nouby. 
 Sous reserve de la declaration faite 
 
 dans la seance pMniere de la 
 
 Conference du 25 juillet 1899. 
 Pour la Bulgarie: 
 
 (l. s.) D. Stancioff. 
 
 (l. s.) Majoe Hessaptchieff. 
 Certifi^ pour copie conforme, 
 Le Secretaire General du Departe- 
 ment des Affaires Etrangeres, 
 (l. s.) L. H. Ruyssenaebs. 
 
 La Ha ye, le 31 Janvier, 1900. 
 S. Doc. 28 13 
 
 For Persia: 
 
 (l. s.) Mieza Riza Khan, Arfa- 
 ud-Dovleh. 
 For Portugal: 
 
 (l. s.) Conde de Macedo. 
 
 (l. s.) Agostinho d'Oenellas 
 de Vasconcellos. 
 
 (l. s.) Conde de Selie. 
 For Roumania: 
 
 (l. s.) A. Beldiman. 
 
 (l. s.) J. N. Papiniu. 
 Under the reserves formulated in 
 
 Articles 16, 17 and 19 of the 
 
 present Convention (15, 16 and 
 
 18 of the project presented by 
 
 the Committee on Examination) 
 
 and recorded in the proces- 
 verbal of the sitting of the Third 
 
 Commission of 'July 20, 1899. 
 For Russia: 
 
 (l. s.) Staal. 
 
 (l. s.) Maetens. 
 
 (l. s.) A. Basely. 
 For Servia: 
 
 (l. s.) Chedo Miyatovitch. 
 Under the reserves recorded in 
 
 the proces-verbal of the Third 
 
 Commission of July 20, 1899. 
 For Siam: 
 
 (l. s.) Phya Sueiya Nuvate. 
 
 (l. s.) Visuddha. 
 For the United Kingdoms of Swe- 
 den and Norway: 
 
 (l. s.) Bildt. 
 For Switzerland: 
 
 (l. s.) Roth. 
 For Tuekey: 
 
 (l. s.) Tuekhan. 
 
 (l. s.) Mehemed Nouey. 
 Under reserve of the declaration 
 
 made in the plenary sitting of 
 
 the Conference of July 25, 1899. 
 For Bulgaria: 
 
 (l. s.) D. Stancioff. 
 
 (l. s.) Major Hessaptchieff. 
 
 Certified as a true copy, The 
 Secretary General of the Depart- 
 ment of Foreign Affairs, 
 
 (l. s.) L. H. Ruyssenaebs. 
 
 The Hague, January 31, 1900. 
 
194 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 And whereas the said Convention was signed by the Plenipoten- 
 tiaries of the United States of America under reservation of the fol- 
 lowing declaration: 
 
 "Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to 
 require the United States of America to depart from its traditional 
 policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in 
 the political questions of policy or internal administration of any for- 
 eign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be con- 
 strued to imply a relinquishment by the United States of America of 
 its traditional attitude toward purely American questions;" 
 
 And whereas the said Convention was duly ratified by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent 
 of the Senate thereof, and by the Governments of the other Powers 
 aforesaid with the exception of China and Turkey; 
 
 And whereas, in pursuance of the stipulations of Article LVIII of 
 the said Convention the ratifications of the said Convention were depos- 
 ited at The Hague on the 4th. day of September, 1D00, by the Plenipoten- 
 tiaries of the Governments of the United States of America, Germany, 
 Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, 
 Italy, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, 
 Sweden and Norway and Bulgaria; on the 6th. day of October, 1900, by 
 the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Japan; on the 16th. day of 
 October, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Monte- 
 negro; on the 29th. day of December, 1900, by the Plenipotentiary of 
 the Government of Switzerland; on the 4th. day of April, 1901, by the 
 Plenipotentiary of the Government of Greece; on the 17th. day of 
 April, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government of Mexico; on 
 the 11th. day of May, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary of the Government 
 of Servia; and on the 12th. day of July, 1901, by the Plenipotentiary 
 of the Government of Luxembourg. 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President 
 of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention to 
 be made public, to the end that the same and every clause thereof may 
 be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the 
 citizens thereof, subject to the reserve made in the aforesaid declaration 
 of the Plenipotentiaries of the United States. 
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal 
 of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the City of Washington this first day of November in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and one, and of 
 
 [l. s.j the Independence of the United States, the one hundred and 
 twenty-sixth. 
 
 Theodore Roosevelt. 
 By the President: 
 
 John Hay, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
PAET I"V. 
 
 BRIEFS SUBMITTED TO THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRA- 
 TION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Statement and brief of agent and counsel of the United States. 
 Brief of Senator William M. Stewart and Mr. C. J. Kappler. 
 Brief of Messrs. Doyle & Doyle. 
 Brief of Mr. Garret W. McEnerney. 
 Supplemental brief of Messrs. Doyle & Doyle. 
 
 195 
 
BEFORE THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION UNDER THE 
 HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1899. 
 
 THE CASE OF THE PIOUS FID OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 V. 
 REPUBLIC OF MEXICO. 
 
 STATEMENT AND BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Jackson H. Ralston, William L. Penfield, 
 
 Agent of the United States and of Counsel. Solicitor of the Departhcent of State. 
 
 197 
 
STATEMENT AND BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The present case comes before this honorable tribunal through joint 
 reference to it by the United States and Mexico under the terms of 
 what is known as the The Hague Convention, except in so far as the 
 provisions of such convention may have been departed from by the 
 express language of the protocol. 
 
 The matter at issue has relation to what is known as the Pious Fund 
 of the Californias, the history of which, as well as the history of all 
 prior litigation relating thereto, will hereafter be related. For the 
 moment it is sufficient to say that some, and, as the United States 
 contends, practically all, of the matters at issue were formerly passed 
 upon by what was known as the American and Mexican Mixed Claims 
 Commission, established under the terms of a convention entered into 
 between the United States and Mexico in 1868, and the iinal ratifica- 
 tions of which were exchanged at Washington February 1, 1869, and 
 that by the terms of the protocol under which this tribunal acts it has 
 power to decide — 
 
 (1) If said claim, as a consequence of the former decision, is within 
 the governing principle of res judicata; and 
 
 (2) If not, whether the same be just; 
 
 And to render such judgment and reward as may be meet and proper 
 under all the circumstances of the case. 
 
 With these preliminary remarks, we may proceed to the consideration 
 of the case from the point of view of the complaining Government. 
 
 JUDICIAL HISTOKY OF THE PIOUS FUND CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE 
 
 TWO NATIONS. 
 
 The Pious Fund case was first brought to the attention of the Ameri- 
 can Government through a letter addressed by Mr. John T. Doyle, 
 on behalf of the bishops of California, to the Hon. Lewis Cass, Secre- 
 tary of State of the United States, which letter was dated July 20, 
 1859, and is to be found on page 5 of the transcript of record. This 
 letter asked for the "enforcement of" the rights of the bishops 
 "against the Government of Mexico," stated briefly the facts in the 
 case, and requested the interposition of the Government. No steps 
 seem to have been taken based upon this letter. 
 
 Later, differences arising between the two countries because of griev- 
 ances complained of by the citizens of each country against the other, a 
 convention was agreed upon between the United States and Mexico, this 
 convention being concluded July 4, 1868, and ratifications exchanged 
 February 1, 1869. By virtue of its terms the first session of the Com- 
 mission thereunder took place in Washington July 31, 1869. Subse- 
 quent agreements between the two countries extending the operations 
 of the tribunal so created are summed up elsewhere in this brief. 
 
 199 
 
200 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Within eight months after the first meeting provided for, and on March 
 30, 1870, the bishops of California, by Mr. Eugene Casserly, again 
 made the State Department acquainted with the fact that they were the 
 owners of a large claim against Mexico, his letter being found on page 
 8 of the transcript. The letter was followed by a memorial, complete 
 in all particulars, and filed before the arbitrators December 31, 1870 
 (Transcript, p. 9). A large amount of evidence was filed with the 
 memorial, and, apparently assuming that all the evidence on behalf of 
 the claimants was in, Mr. Cushing on April 24, 1871, filed a motion to 
 dismiss for the following reasons (Transcript, p. 67) : 
 
 (1) Because the act of incorporation of the petitioners as corpora- 
 tion sole did not authorize them to claim property beyond the limits 
 of the State of California. 
 
 (2) Because the petitioners show no legal interest in or title to the 
 "Pious Fund" in controversy. 
 
 (3) Because the petitioners had a legal remedy in the Mexican courts 
 which they were bound to pursue and exhaust before coming here. 
 
 (4) Because the injuries complained of were done before February 
 8, 1848, and this Commission has no jurisdiction of the claim. 
 
 In his brief accompanying said motion Mr. Cushing discussed at 
 length the evidence already before the Commission, insisting that it 
 was insufficient to make a case of which that body should take cogni- 
 zance, as well as that the petitioners were without legal right for the 
 reasons above indicated. Briefs were filed in reply, followed by addi- 
 tional evidence on behalf of the complainants, and succeeded by a brief 
 with extensive evidence relating to the facts of the case furnished by 
 the Mexican Government. 
 
 The case, therefore, being fully placed before the court on both the 
 law and the' facts, was considered by the arbitrators; the American 
 arbitrator finding on behalf of the complainants for $904,700.99 and 
 the Mexican arbitrator finding for the defendant. 
 
 The case thereupon went to the umpire, and before him extended 
 arguments were filed on behalf of the parties in interest: John T. 
 Doyle (Transcript, p. 557), Nathaniel Wilson and P. Phillips (Tran- 
 script, p. 575), and Eugene Casserly (Transcript, p. 594) all presenting 
 briefs, and Sr. Eleuterio Avila, on behalf of the Mexican Government 
 (Transcript, p. 546), presenting an exhaustive argument. After having 
 considered the case, the umpire, Sir Edward Thornton, on November 
 11, 1875, awarded against Mexico and in favor of the claimants the 
 sum of $904,700.99 in Mexican gold (p. 606). 
 
 On January 29, 1876, the agent for Mexico filed a motion for rehear- 
 ing, supported by a lengthy argument (pp. 615-647). This motion 
 was, on November 18, 1876, denied by the umpire (p. 647), although 
 on the same day, by a further order, he made a correction of an error 
 in computation to which his attention had been called (p. 650). 
 
 The award was duly paid by Mexico in conformity with the terms 
 of the several conventions, although some correspondence ensued with 
 reference thereto, which correspondence is to be found in the latter 
 part of Diplomatic Correspondence. By a letter on pages 77 and 78 
 of Diplomatic Correspondence the Mexican secretary of foreign affairs 
 declared that — 
 
 Though the final award in the case (Pious Fund) only refers to interest accrued in 
 a fixed period, said claim should be considered as finally settled in toto, and any 
 other fresh claim in regard to the capital of said fund or its interest accrued or to accrue 
 as forever inadmissible. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 201 
 
 To this Secretary Fish, under date of December 4, 1876 (Diplo- 
 matic Correspondence, p. 79), replied, among other things, as follows: 
 
 I must decline, however, to entertain the consideration of any question which may 
 contemplate any violation of or departure from the provisions of the convention as 
 to the final and binding nature of the awards, or to pass upon, or by silence to be 
 considered as acquiescing in, any attempt to determine the effect of any particular 
 award 
 
 In his reply in turn to the foregoing, Senor Mariscal (Diplomatic 
 Correspondence, p. 80) said: 
 
 It is not my intention, nor the intention of Senor Avila, to open any question what- 
 ever, nor to put in doubt the final and conclusive character of the above-mentioned 
 award. (Pious Fund. ) * * * 
 
 In a further letter Senor Villarta (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 81) 
 replied at length. 
 
 After the letter last mentioned no further correspondence with rela- 
 tion to the Pious Fund took place between the two countries until the 
 letter of Mr. Ryan to Senor Mariscal, dated August 17, 1891. (Diplo- 
 matic Correspondence, p. 8.) 
 
 From the date last named until the signing of the protocol by vir- 
 tue of which this court is convened the correspondence between the 
 two countries was quite active, leading up finally to the making of the 
 present arrangements. 
 
 DATES OF CONVENTION OF 1868 AND SUPPLEMENTS THERETO WITH 
 RELATION TO THE SITUATION OF THE " PIOUS FUND" CASE. 
 
 Ratifications of the convention of 1868 were exchanged at Wash- 
 ington February 1, 1869. The first meeting of the arbitrators under 
 this convention took place on the last day of the six months allowed 
 therefor — that is, on July 31, 1869. This convention provided, Sec- 
 tion III, that every case should be examined and decided within two 
 3 r ears and six months from the date last mentioned — that is to say, the 
 proceedings under the convention were to terminate January 31, 1872. 
 
 The Pious Fund case was referred to the commission August 13, 1869; statement 
 filed March 31, 1870; memorial filed December 31, 1870, and on January 31, 1872, the 
 cause was pending on motion to dismiss, filed by Mr. Cushing on April 24, 1871. 
 
 A convention providing for the extension- of the time within which 
 the joint commission should settle claims was signed between the two 
 countries April 19, 1871, and ratifications exchanged February 8, 1872, 
 eight days after the original convention had expired by limitation. 
 This extended the first commission for not exceeding one year from 
 January 31, 1872, or, in other words, to January 31, 1873. 
 
 On January 31, 1873, motion to dismiss, filed by Mr. Cushing, was still pending 
 and undetermined, although on March 1, 1872, a reply thereto had been filed. 
 
 On November 27, 1872, a further convention was concluded, reviving 
 and extending the duration of the joint commission for a period not 
 exceeding two years from the day on which the functions of the com- 
 mission would have terminated according to the convention of April 
 19, 1871. In other words, the commission was extended until Janu- 
 ary 31, 1875. Ratifications of this convention were exchanged July 
 17, 1873, nearly six months after the commission had expired by virtue 
 of the convention of April 19, 1871, and it was proclaimed July 24, 
 1873. 
 
 At the time of the expiration of the functions of the commission by the conven- 
 
202 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 tion signed April 27, 1872, and ratified July 17, 1873, to wit, on January 31, 1875, final 
 argument for the claimants and an exhibit attached thereto had been offered by the 
 agent of the United States (January 25, 1875). 
 
 By further convention concluded November 20, 1874, ratifications of 
 which were exchanged January 28, 1875, and proclamation issued Jan- 
 uary 29, 1875, the functions of the commission were extended until 
 January 31, 1876. 
 
 At the time the last extension went into effect the Pious Fund case was still pend- 
 ing and undetermined, the difference in opinion being announced May 19, 1875, and 
 arguments on behalf of Mexico and the United States being submitted, respectively, 
 on July 10 and July 19, 1875, the award by the umpire being made November 11, 
 1875. 
 
 By convention entered into April 29, 1876, and ratifications exchanged 
 June 29, 1876, the umpire was allowed until November 20, 1876, for the 
 performance of his duties, he having been allowed by the treaty con- 
 cluded November 20, 1874, to conclude his reports by July 31, 1876. 
 
 On January 31, 1876, the motion of the agent for rehearing was pending and unde- 
 termined, the same having been filed on January 29, 1876. On November 18, 1876, 
 this motion was denied, although on the same day an arithmetical error was corrected 
 by the umpire. 
 
 STATEMENT OF FACTS. 
 
 The circumstances out of which grew the formation of what became 
 known as "The Pious Fund" date back to the close of the seventeenth 
 century. In the year 1697 Fathers Juan Maria Salvatierra and Euse- 
 bio Francisco Kino (or Quino), members of the Order of Jesus, pre- 
 sented a memorial to the King of Spain asking permission to undertake 
 the conversion of the heathen of California, and that monarch, recog- 
 nizing the fact that prior expenditures on the part of the royal treas- 
 ury for the purpose of obtaining the subjugation of California had 
 proven a failure, and that it was not proper to expend additional public 
 property to make new conquests in that neighborhood, and that the 
 fathers had by their own exertion succeeded in converting more than 
 5,000 unbelievers, and that their missions and conversions were to be 
 undertaken upon the charitable contributions which the Christian zeal 
 of certain persons had offered to supply therefor, acceded to their 
 prayers until he could decide further what might be his pleasure in 
 the premises. This was, however, upon the condition that the rev- 
 erend fathers should not have power, without order from him, to draw 
 against or from the royal revenues for such ' ' conquests. " He further 
 provided that all that might be conquered should be taken possession 
 of in his name, and that the fathers should have absolute control of the 
 expedition, with the right to arm soldiers for their protection. Addi- 
 tion No. 1. (Transcript, pp. 254, 401.) 
 
 The reverend fathers collected considerable sums of money for the 
 purposes of their expedition,- having obtained prior leave therefor 4 
 from their superiors, and in the latter part of October, 1697, they 
 landed at the little harbor of San Dionysio, constructed "a small 
 intrenchment, in the middle of which they erected a tent as temporary 
 chapel and in front of it planted a cross crowned with flowers," and 
 thereafter, on October 25, took possession of the country in the name 
 of the King. For some time the whole expenses of the missions 
 founded by the reverend fathers referred to and their successors and 
 all the soldiers and sailors employed were defrayed from the charitable 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 203 
 
 contributions which formed the nucleus of the Pious Fund. Later, 
 however, the missionaries appealed to the King, and he consented to 
 take upon himself the expense of the soldiers and sailors employed 
 and to allow the missionaries for their personal support the same 
 modest stipend of $200 per year which he granted through the rest 
 of the viceroyalty. (Venegas, vol. 2, p. 58.) Even as late as 1734 
 we find that the missions occasioned no expense to the royal treasury, 
 and no mOney had been furnished the missionaries as salary or stipend. 
 (Transcript, p. 438.) 
 
 Down to 1731 the total of contributions for the development of the 
 missions of California was $120,000. (Noticias de la Provincia de Cal- 
 if ornias, Carta 2% p. 48.) It is supposed, however, that by judicious 
 investments this amount had been somewhat augmented. 
 
 On June 8, 1735, was created a donation evidenced in writing, and 
 which has generally been regarded as the foundation deed of the Pious 
 Fund. We refer to the deed from the Marquis de Villapuente and his 
 wife Marquesa de las Torres De Rada, found in the record in English 
 at pages 104 and 452, and in Spanish at pages 99 and 309. The essen- 
 tial portions of this instrument should be quoted somewhat at length. 
 It recites among other things the desires or the donors to labor — 
 
 to the utmost for His holy service and the glory of His most holy name, and to use 
 all our power and faculties to cause Him to be known and adored as the true God, 
 which He is, and Creator of all things, visible and invisible; and whereas the Rev- 
 erend Society of Jesus, with its well-known religious zeal, has been heretofore 
 employed and steadily engaged in the conversion of the heathen natives of the Cali- 
 fornias, and its members, by preaching and instruction, have drawn into the fold of 
 our holy Catholic faith great numbers of those barbarous people to whom they have 
 devoted and are devoting themselves according to their institute, sacrificing their 
 lives and exposing themselves to contumely from the heathens, solely for the greater 
 glory of our Lord God; and whereas in the propagation of His holy faith (which at 
 the sacrifice of so much labor they have established), and in order also that the many 
 other tribes which are now at the doors of the church, as well as those remaining 
 yet undiscovered, may not be deprived of the same advantages, they need human 
 aid as a means of successfully prosecuting their labors. 
 
 The deed then continues with recitals of the source of title, indi- 
 cates that the value of one-half of the premises conveyed is $204,000, 
 and conveys "to the missions of the Society of Jesus founded, and 
 which in aftertimes the said society may found in said Californias," the 
 estate known as San Pedro de Ibarra, with the annexed estate known 
 as Ricon de Ibarra, with the buildings and appurtenances, supplies, 
 and cattle and other animals, etc. , and also a tract of land called San 
 Antonio de los Llanos, a second tract situate at Los Alamos, and a 
 third tract in the jurisdiction of San Pedro Guadalcazar. The total 
 areas of the land so conveyed were estimated to exceed considerably 
 450,000 acres. 
 
 The trusts upon which said properties were to be held by the donees 
 were as follows: 
 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be founded 
 in the Californias, as well as for the maintenance of their religious, and to provide 
 for the ornament and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the native 
 converts and catechumens with food and clothing, according to the custom of that 
 country, so that if hereafter, by God's blessing, there be means of support in the 
 "reductions" and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their 
 lands, thus obviating the necessity of sending from this<country provisions, clothing, 
 and other necessaries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new 
 missions to be established hereafter in the unexplored parts of the said Californias, 
 according to the discretion of the Father Superior of said missions; and the estates 
 aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that, even in 
 
204 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic faith, the 
 profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their 
 support; and in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compul- 
 sion, should abandon said missions of the Calif ornias or (which God forbid) the 
 natives of that country should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any 
 other such contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the rev- 
 erend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain, for the time being, 
 to apply the profits of said estates, their products and improvements, to other mis- 
 sions in the undiscovered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of 
 the world, according as he may deem most pleasing to Almighty God; and in such 
 ways that the dominion and government of said estates be always and perpetually 
 continued in the reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesi- 
 astical or secular, shall exercise any control thereon, or intervene in or about the 
 same; and all such rents and profits shall be applied to the purposes and objects 
 herein specified, i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. And by this deed 
 of gift we, the said grantors, both divest ourselves of and renounce absolutely all 
 property, dominion, ownership, rights, and actions, real and personal, direct and 
 executive, thereover, and all others whatever which belong to us, or which from any 
 other cause, title, or reason may belong, appertain to us; and we cede, renounce, 
 and transfer the whole thereof to said reverend Society of Jesus, its missions of Cali- 
 fornias, its prelates and religious, under whose charge may happen to be the govern- 
 ment of said missions and of this province of New Spain, now and at all times here- 
 after, in order that from the profits of said estates and the increase of their cattle, 
 large and small, their other gains, natural or otherwise, they may maintain said mis- 
 sions in the manner above proposed, indicated, denned, and laid down forever. 
 
 This donation was accepted by the Society of Jesuits. (Transcript, 
 p. 108.) 
 
 We have already adverted to the fact that before the making of this 
 deed a number of contributions had been received by the Jesuits, gen- 
 erally for the purpose of providing for particular missions, and we 
 have mentioned their aggregate. Such detailed list as we are able to 
 call to the attention of this tribunal is to be found on page 202 of the 
 transcript, being an extract from the work entitled "Documentos 
 para la Historia de Mexico. " Shortly after the deed referred to, we 
 find on page 203 of the transcript that the Marquis de Villapuente 
 founded (in 1746) an eleventh mission with the sum of $10,000, and that 
 in 1747 Dona Maria de Borja, Duquesa de Gandia, by her will, furnished 
 the missions with a very substantial contribution of $62,000, which, 
 after the falling in of annuities left servants, was increased to over 
 $120,000. (Transcript, p. 198.) During all of the years indicated and 
 the following years the work of the Jesuits, or those who succeeded to 
 them, steadily progressed; the missions ultimately established in Upper 
 and Lower California being indicated on pages 150, 270, and 418 of the 
 transcript. 
 
 In the year 1767 a royal decree was passed directing the banishment 
 of the Jesuits and the taking possession of their temporalities by the 
 Government (Transcript, pp. 262 and 410), and in 1773 another decree 
 enforcing the same (Transcript, pp. 266 and 410). The order itself 
 was abolished by the Papal decree dated July 21, 1773 (Transcript, 
 pp. 323 and 461). Three of the missions which had been established 
 were suppressed, and after some royal decrees covering the matter 
 (pp. 426, 278) the missions of northern California were established by 
 the Franciscans, being supported, as is said (Transcript, pp. 272 and 
 420), " out of the enormous Pious Fund acquired by the Jesuit fathers." 
 
 After the missions of California and the other missions of the Jesuits 
 had been taken charge* of by the orders of the King, he declared 
 (Transcript, p. 456) that he had "subrogated in my royal person all 
 the rights of patronage, which belonged to the regulars of the said 
 order, and also those which they might possess in common with those 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 205 
 
 other orders, without prejudice to these being devoted to the same 
 purpose which they were before the time of the expulsion." 
 
 Shortly after this time the Pious Fund received the benefit of another 
 large contribution, being from the estate of Dona Josefa Paula de 
 Arguelles, a full account of which appears on pages 458 to 460 of the 
 transcript. The court finally adjudged, in 1784, that after deducting 
 $10,000 for one special purpose, and one-fourth going to the heir at law 
 of Mrs. Arguelles because of the failure of one legacy, the remaining 
 three-fourths should be devoted "to the conversion of the infidels in 
 this kingdom and in the Philippines, half and half, at the disposal of 
 the King." The estate left by her in Mexico consisted of several haci- 
 endas and pieces of city property, and to this fact we shall have occa- 
 sion hereafter to refer. The King directed investment of the estate on 
 the security of good real estate at 5 per cent interest for the purpose 
 of employing the proceeds in the maintenance and increase of the fis- 
 sions of the Californias (Transcript, pp. 317 and 477). 
 
 After the revolution, by virtue of which Mexico threw off the power 
 of Spain, the Mexican Government assumed the administration of the 
 Pious Fund; the first law with relation thereto being passed on May 
 25, 1832 (Transcript, p. 579), and reading, in English and Spanish, as 
 follows: 
 
 Mayo 25 de 1832. — Ley: Que el gobierno proceda al arrendamiento de las fincas r&slicas 
 perlenecientes al fondo piadoso de Californias. 
 
 Akt. 1. El gobierno procedera al arrendamiento de las tineas rusticas perteneci- 
 entes al fondo piadoso de Californias, por termino que no pase de siete afios. 
 
 2. Estos arrendamientos se contrataran precisamente en publica subasta, en. las 
 ■ capitales de los Estados 6 Territorios, 6 en la ciudad Federal, segun la ubicacion de 
 
 las fincas. 
 
 3. Estos arrendamientos se sacaran al pregon dentro de tres meses de la fecha de 
 este decreto, por treinta dias, y a lo menos con el mismo termino se anunciaran por 
 rotulones en la ciudad Federal, en las capitales de los Estados y Territorios, en las 
 cabeceras de los Partidos, Departamentos 6 Oantones en que se hallen ubicadas las 
 fincas, y en los demas lugares que tuviere a bien el gobierno; y estos anuncios se 
 inserteran a lo menos en un peri6dico de la ciudad Federal. 
 
 4. Se sacaran tambien al pregon dentro de tres meses de concluido cualquier arren- 
 damiento, 6 cada seis meses si no hubiere arrendatario. 
 
 5. La aprobacion del remate de arrendamiento se hara previa la del gobierno, a 
 cuyo efectose le remitira el expediente dentro de quince dias de verificado aquel. 
 
 6. Los productos de estos bienes se depositaran en la casa de moneda de la ciudad 
 Federal, para destinarlos linica y precisamente a las misiones de Californias. 
 
 7. Lo directivo y econ6mico de estos bienes, asf por lo tocante a su administracion, 
 como para conservar 6 invertir sus productos, estara a cargo de una junta dependiente 
 del gobierno por la Secretaria del despacho de Eelaciones. 
 
 8. Esta junta se compondra de tres mdividuos, uno de ellos eclesiastico, nombrados 
 por el gobierno, que se renovaran saliendo uno cada afio, comenzando por el ultimo, 
 y podran ser continuados. 
 
 9. Esta junta tendra un secretario, con la dotacion de 600 pesos anuales, pagaderos 
 de los fondos de que se trata. 
 
 10. Las atribuciones de la junta seran: 
 
 Primera. Cuidar de que se arrienden con oportunidad las fincas rusticas y urbanas, 
 pertenecientes al fondo piadoso de que se trata. 
 
 Segunda. Proponer al gobierno las condiciones con que hayan de hacerse los 
 arrendamientos, y la cantidad a que por lo menos debera ascender la renta de cada 
 finca. 
 
 Tercera. Examinar los expedientes de los remates, y consultar al gobierno si es de 
 aprobarse el arrendamiento, 6 si las propuestas hecbas por algun otro licitante son 
 mas ventajosas. 
 
 Cuarta. Proponer al gobierno el numero de individuos que juzgue absolutamente 
 necesarios para la administracion de las fincas rusticas, cuando no puedan arrendarse 
 por falta de postores. 
 
206 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Quinta. Proponer el sueldo de los administradorea, y la cantidad con que cadauno 
 haya de caucionar su manejo. . 
 
 Sexta. Cuidar de que los arrendatarios 6 administradores presenten la informacion 
 de idoneidad de sus respectivos fiadores, y la certiflcacion de supervivencia. 
 
 Setima. Presentar a" la contaduria general de propioa, la cuenta general de los pro- 
 ductos de los bienes del f ondo piadoso, acompanando las de los administradores cuando 
 los haya, &. cuyo efecto las exigird de estos con la oportunidad necesaria. 
 
 Octavo. Ouidar de que los arrendatarios y los administradores, & su vez, verifiquen 
 &. su debido tiempo los enteros en la casa de moneda. 
 
 Novena. Proponer al gobierno las cantidades que puedan remitirse & cada una de 
 las Californias, segun sus respectivos gastos, y la existencia que haya de caudales. 
 
 11. El secretario llevara un libro de actas de la junta, otro de los caudales que 
 entraren en deposito en la casa de moneda, cuyas partidas se comprobaran con los 
 recibos que expida el superintendente de ella, y otro de las cantidades que se libraren 
 contra este. Todas las partidas, sean de cargo 6 data, & la casa de moneda, las firma- 
 rdn los individuos de la junta. 
 
 12. El superintendente de la casa de moneda se abonard el 1 por ciento de premio 
 sobre las cantidadades que recibiere en dep6sito, serf, responsable de estas, y solo se le 
 pasardn en data pagos que hiciere en virtud de libramiento firmado por los indivi- 
 duos de la junta, autorizado por el secretario de ella, y con el dese del secretario del 
 despacho de relaciones. 
 
 13. La junta, dentro de los tres meses siguientes d su instalacion, formard su regla- 
 mento interior, y lo pasard d la probacion del gobierno. 
 
 (Se circul6 por la Secretaria de relaciones en dicho dia 25, v se public6 en bando 
 del 1° de Junio. ) 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 May 25, 1832. — Law: That the Government proceed with the lease of the rural property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 Article 1. The Government shall proceed with the lease of the rural property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias, for a term which shall not exceed 
 seven years. 
 
 2. These leases shall be contracted by public sale, in the capitals of the States or 
 Territories or in the Federal city, according to the location of the property. 
 
 3. The^e leases shall be announced by the public crier within three months of the 
 date of this decree during thirty days, and at least for the same period shall be 
 announced by printed notices in the Federal city, in the capitals of the States and 
 Territories, and in the principal places of the districts, departments, or cantons in 
 which the property may be situate, and in such other places as the Government may 
 deem expedient, and these announcements shall be inserted at least in one newspa- 
 per of the Federal city. 
 
 4. There shall be also announced by public crier within three months the conclu- 
 sion of any lease whatsoever, or every six months if there should be no lease. 
 
 5. The approval of the letting of the lease shall be effected upon the sanction of 
 the Government, to which the papers in the case shall be submitted for the purpose 
 within fifteen days of the making of the lease. 
 
 6. The proceeds of such property shall be deposited in the mint of the Federal 
 city, to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions of the Californias. 
 
 7. The disposal and management of such property, as well as matters relative to 
 their administration, such as converting or disposing of its proceeds, shall be in the 
 charge of a board, depending on the Government through the office of the secretary 
 of foreign affairs. 
 
 8. This board shall consist of three persons, one of them an ecclesiastic, appointed 
 by the Government, who shall be renewed by the retirement of one each year, com- 
 mencing with the last, and who may be continued in office. 
 
 9. This board will have a secretary, with a compensation of 600 pesos per annum, 
 payable from the funds in question. 
 
 10. The powers of the board shall be as follows: 
 
 First. To see that the rural and city property belonging to the Pious Fund in ques- 
 tion be suitably leased. 
 
 Second. To submit to the Government the terms under which the leases are to be 
 made and the minimum rental for each piece of property. 
 
 Third. To examine the papers relative to the letting of the leases, and to consult 
 with the Government as to the approval of the leases, or whether the propositions 
 made by some other applicant are more advantageous. 
 
 Fourth. To submit to the Government the number of persons that it deems abso- 
 
PIOUS FUND OK THE CALIFORNIAS. 207 
 
 lutely necessary for the administration of the rural property when the said property 
 can not be leased for want of bidders. 
 
 Fifth. To submit the amount of the compensation of the administrators and of the 
 bond with which each must guarantee his management. 
 
 Sixth. To see to it that the lessees or administrators submit information as to the 
 qualifications of their respective sureties and the certification of survivorship. 
 
 Seventh. To lay before the auditor-general a general account of the proceeds of the 
 property of the Pious Fund accompanying those of the administrators, if any, for 
 which purpose said accounts shall be demanded of such administrators in good time. 
 
 Eighth. To see to it that the lessees and administrators on their part shall turn 
 into the mint in due time moneys due by them. 
 
 Ninth. To name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each 
 one of the Californias, in accordance with their respective expenses and their avail- 
 able funds. 
 
 11. The secretary shall keep a journal of the proceedings of the board, a book of 
 moneys deposited in the mint, the entries whereof shall be supported by the vouch- 
 ers delivered by the superintendent of said mint, and another book of the amounts 
 that may be drawn from the same. All the entries, whether of debit or credit, in 
 the mint shall be signed by the members of the board. 
 
 12. The superintendent of the mint shall receive 1 per cent premium on the 
 amounts that may be deposited with him, shall be responsible for the same, and 
 such payments only shall be credited to him as he may make under warrants signed 
 by the members of the board, authorized by the secretary of the said board, and 
 with the vis6 of the secretary of foreign affairs. 
 
 13. The board shall within three months after its organization frame its internal 
 regulations and submit the same to the approval of the Government. 
 
 (Was published by the department of foreign affairs on the said 25th "day, and 
 promulgated by proclamation on the 1st of June. ) 
 
 In 1836 Mexico took under consideration the formation of a bishopric 
 of California, passing the law hereafter given, pursuant to which 
 Francisco Garcia Diego, last president of the missions, was made the 
 first incumbent of the bishopric, assuming his office about 1840. The 
 law (Transcript, pp. 469 and 580) reads as follows: 
 
 LEY SOBRE ERECCION DE UN OBISPADO EN LAS DOS CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Art. 1. El gobierno, oyendo a los que por derecho toque, y a los demas que jusgue 
 oportuno, formara un expediente instructivo de la necesidad que haya de erigir un 
 obispado en las dos Californias. 
 
 Art. 2. Si del expediente resultare haber aquella necesidad, dara cuenta con el a 
 la Santa Sede para la aprobacion y ereccion de dicha mitra. 
 
 Art, 3. El gobierno escogerd. la persona que creyere mas conveniente, de la terna 
 que al afecto forme el cabildo metropolitano, y la propondra &, su Santidad. 
 
 Art. 4. Al electo se la acudira del erario publico con seis mil pesos anuales mientras 
 el obispado no cuente con rentas sufficientes. 
 
 Art. 5. Durante las mismas circumstancias se le auxiliara del propio erario con 
 tres mil pesos para la expedicion de las bulas y traslacion a su silla episcopal. 
 
 Art. 6. Se pondran a disposicion del nuevo obispo y de sus sucesores, los bienes 
 pertenecientes al fondo piadoso de Californias, para que los administren e inviertan 
 en sus objetos li otros analogos, respetando siempre la voluntad de los fundadores. 
 
 Se circul6 en el mismo dia 19 por la secretaria de justicia, y se publico en Vando 
 de 22. (Colleccion de leyes y decretos Julio a Diciembre de 1836, p. 107. ) 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 LAW CONCERNING THE ERECTION OP A BISHOPRIC IN THE TWO CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Article I. The Government, after hearing such parties as by law may be entitled 
 to a hearing on the subject, and such other persons as it may think proper to hear, 
 shall thereupon make a report with regard to the necessity of creating a bishopric 
 for the two Californias. 
 
 Art. II. If the report should show that there is such a necessity, the Pope should 
 be duly informed of the report, for him to approve of it, and create such a see. 
 
 Art. III. The Government shall select from three nominees, presented by the 
 archbishop's council, the person whom it thinks most suitable, and submit his name 
 for appointment to His Holiness. 
 
208 PIOUS FUPTD OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 Art. IV. The person elected shall receive from the public revenue six thousand 
 dollars per annum, until such time as the bishopric shall be in receipt of a sufficient 
 income. 
 
 Art. V. During a continuation of the same circumstances the public revenue shall 
 furnish a subsidy of three thousand dollars per annum for the despatching of bulls 
 and the traveling expenses of the episcopate. 
 
 Art. VI. The property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Califormas 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 present was put in circulation on the same day — the 19th — by the department 
 of justice, and was officially made public on the 22d. 
 
 While the fund was under the administration of the bishop we are 
 informed that he paid off a mortgage held by Mexico amounting to 
 $28,233, and that the income for the year 1841 amounted to over 
 $34,000 (Transcript, p. 149). The agent of the bishop in Mexico from 
 1840 to 1842, while the fund was being administered by him, was Don 
 Pedro Ramirez, and his special agent for the rural estates was Miguel 
 Balaunzaran. In the year 1842, without any cause therefor appearing 
 from the record, the Mexican Government determined to take posses- 
 sion of the Pious Fund. Prior to the taking of such possession and on 
 February 5, 1842 (Transcript, p. 501), it called upon Eamirez for a 
 statement of the goods and properties constituting it. This he fur- 
 nished on the same day, but in an informal and very defective manner 
 (Transcript, p. 501), as appears from his comment apparently thereon 
 (Transcript, p. 508). Considerable correspondence followed between 
 Ramirez and the representative of the Government, and on February 
 8, 1842, the following decree was passed providing for the resumption 
 by the Government of the management of the Pious Fund (Transcript, 
 pp. 39, 469, 580): 
 
 DECRETO POR EL QUE REASUMI6 EL GOBIERNO LA ADMINISTRACION E INVERSION DEL 
 FONDO PIADOSO DE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, etc., sabed: 
 
 Que siendo de un interes .y verdaderamente nacionales todos los objetos a que estii 
 destinado el fondo piadoso de California^, y debiendo por lo mismo estar bajo el 
 inmediato cuidado y administration del supremo gobierno, como antes lo habia 
 estado, he venido en decretar: 
 
 Art. 1. Se deroga el Art. 6 del decreto de 19 setiembre, 1836, en que se priv6 al 
 gobierno de la administration del fondo piadoso de Californias, y se puso a disposition 
 del K. obispo de esa nueva di6cesis. 
 
 Art. 2. En consecuencia volverd a estar &, cargo del supremo gobierno nacionalja 
 administration 6 inversion de estos bienes en el modo y terminos que este disponea, 
 para llenar el objeto que se propuso el donante, con la civilizacion y conversion de los 
 barbaros. 
 
 Por tanto, mando se imprima, publique, circule y se le de" el debido cumplimiento. 
 
 (Decretos y ordenes del gobierno provisional, de diciembre 14 a iunio de 1842, p. 
 334.) 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 DECREE UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT REASSUMED THE MANAGEMENT AND DISBURSING 
 OF THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, etc., greeting: 
 
 Whereas all the purposes for which the Pious Fund of the Californias is intended 
 is really of a general and national importance, and should therefore be under the 
 immediate care and management of the supreme government as it formerly was, I 
 have made the following decree: 
 
 Article I. The sixth article of the law of the 19th of September, 1836, by which 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 209 
 
 the Government relinquished the management of the Pious Fund of the Californias, 
 and the same was then placed at the disposal of the right reverend bishop of the 
 new diocese is hereby repealed. 
 
 Art. II. The management and disbursing of the proceeds of this property shall 
 therefore again become the charge of the supreme government, in such way and 
 manner as it shall direct, for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the donor 
 in the. civilization and conversion of the savages. 
 
 Wherefore I order the present to be printed, published, and duly observed. 
 
 In the further correspondence between Ramirez and the representa- 
 tives of the Government we find a very full and exact statement of 
 the properties of the Pious Fund at the time it was taken by Mexico. 
 We learn from this that the various pieces of real estate yielded to 
 the Pious Fund annually as follows: 
 
 Three-fourths of houses on Vergara street $2, 625 
 
 Three-fourths of estate of Cienaga del Pastor 12, 825 
 
 Estate of San Pedro de Ibarra 2, 000 
 
 Estates of San Augustin de Amoles et al 12, 705 
 
 Total 30,155 
 
 The foregoing would represent, capitalized at 6 per cent per annum, 
 $502,583.33. To this Senor Ramirez adds as due from the public 
 treasury (principal and interest) $1,082,078 3 gr., and from private 
 individuals $71,464 1 real, and deducts as due by the fund $32,380 4 r. 
 3 g., leaving, according to his figures, the value of the Pious Fund 
 at $1,656,125.33 at the time it was taken possession of by the Republic 
 of Mexico. 
 
 The Mexican Government continued to administer the fund for only 
 a short time, and on October 24, 1842, passed a decree incorporating 
 its property into the treasury, a copy of said decree appearing in full 
 in the transcript in English and Spanish in several places, and reading 
 as follows (Transcript, p. 469) : 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, etc., sabed: 
 
 Que teniendo en consideracion que el decreto de 8 de Febrero del presente afio que 
 dispuso volviera i, continuar al cargo del supremo gobierno el cuidado y administra- 
 cion del fondo piadoso de Californias, como lo habia estado anteriormente, se dirige 
 &, que se logren con toda exactitud los ben^ficos y nacionales objetos que se propuso 
 la fundadora, sin la menor perdida de los bienes destinados al intento; y considerando 
 asi mismo, que esto solo puede conseguirse capitalizando los propios bienes 6 impo- 
 niehdolos &, r<jdito, bajo las debidas seguridades, para evitar asf los gastos de puedan 
 sobrevenir; usando de las facultades que me concede la s^ptima de las bases acorda- 
 das en Tacubaya ysancionadas por la nacion, he tenido & bien decretar lo siguiente: 
 
 Art. 1°. Las fincas rdsticas y urbanas, los cr^ditos activos y demas bienes pertene- 
 cientes al fondo piadoso de Californias, quedan incorporados al erario nacional. 
 
 2°. Se procederd, por el ministerio de hacienda & la venta de las fincas y demas 
 bienes pertencientes al fondo piadoso de Californias, por el capital que representen al 
 6 por 100 de sus productos anuales, y la hacienda piiblica reconocerd al r^dito del 
 mismo 6 por 100 el total producido de estas enagenaciqnes. 
 
 3°. La renta del tabaco queda hipotecada especialmente al pago de los reditos cor- 
 respondientes al capital del referido fondo de Californias, y la direccion del ramo 
 entregara las cantidades necesarias para cumplir los objetos & que esta destinado el 
 mismo fondo, sin deduccion alguna por gastos de administracion, ni otro alguno. 
 Por tanto, etc. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, etc. : 
 
 Whereas the decree of February 8 of the present year, directing that the adminis- 
 tration and care of the Pious Fund of the Californias should redevolve on and con- 
 tinue in the charge of the Government, as had previously been the case, was intended 
 
 S. Doc. 28 14 
 
210 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 to fulfill most faithfully the beneficent and national objects designed by the found- 
 ress without the slightest diminution of the properties destined to the end; and 
 whereas the result can only be attained by capitalizing the funds and placing them 
 at interest on proper securities, so as to avoid the expenses of administration and the 
 like, which may occur, in virtue of the power conferred on me by the seventh article 
 of the Bases of Tacubaya, and sanctioned by the nation, I have determined to decree 
 as follows: 
 
 1. The real estate, urban and rural, the debits and credits, and all other property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Oalifornias are incorporated into the national 
 treasury. 
 
 2. The minister of the treasury will proceed to sell the real estate and other prop- 
 erty belonging to the Pious Fund of the Oalifornias for the capital represented by 
 their annual product at 6 per cent per annum. And the public treasury will 
 acknowledge an indebtedness of 6 per cent per annum on the total proceeds of the 
 sales. 
 
 3. The revenue from tobacco is specially pledged for the payment of the income 
 corresponding to the capital of the said fund. of the Oalifornias, and department in 
 charge thereof will pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which 
 said fund is destined without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or 
 otherwise. 
 
 Wherefore, etc. 
 
 Orders upon the revenue for tobacco were given from time to time 
 for the benefit of the Bishop of California. We read a copy of one of 
 them for $8,000, on page 149 of the Transcript, described as given 
 "on account of the income belonging to the Pious Fund of California, 
 the properties of which were incorporated into the national treasury." 
 
 We are not greatly concerned in the disposition which the Govern- 
 ment made of the various properties taken by it, their capitalized 
 value having been fully shown, as already appears by the statement 
 of Sr. Ramirez, to which statement there was no demur on the part 
 of the Mexican Government, in fact the inventory having been made 
 upon its demand (Transcript, p. 505). We may note, however, that in 
 two places in the record some references are made to the sale or pur- 
 chase of the several properties. In the extract from the work of 
 M. Duflot de Maf ras, entitled "Exploration duTerritoire del'Oregon," 
 at page 216, it is stated that President Santa Anna sold the entire fund 
 to the houses of Baraio and to Rubio Brothers, and in a note on page 
 476 reference is made to the treasury report of December 31, 1843, 
 acknowledging in favor of the Pious Fund of the Californias the 
 receipt of §323,274.51, and from a like report, dated June 20, 1844, the 
 further sum of $124,726.01 is acknowledged. 
 
 The last legislation had by Mexico with reference to the Pious Fund 
 appears to have been a decree of April 3, 1845, which is to be found in 
 the record on page 581, and which, in English and Spanish, reads as 
 follows: 
 
 Abbil 3 de 1845. — Ley: Sobre devolution de creditos y bienes del fondo piadoso de 
 
 Californias. 
 
 El Excmo. Sr. presidente interino se ha servido dirigirme el decreto que sigue: * 
 " Jose" Joaquin de Herrera, general de division y presidente interino de la Repu- 
 blica mexicana, a los habitantes de ella, sabed: 
 
 "Que el congreso general ha decretado y el ejecutivo sancionado, lo siguiente: 
 " 'Los creditos y los demas bienes del fondo piadoso de Californias que existan 
 invendidos, se devolverah inmediatamente al reverendo obispo de aquella mitra y 
 sus sucesores, para los objetos de que habla el art. 6° de ley de 19 de Setiembre de 
 1836, sin perjuicio de lo que el congreso resuelva acerca de los bienes que estan 
 enajenados.'" 
 
PIOTJS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 211 
 
 April 3, 1845. — Law: Concerning the restitution of debts and property of the Pious Fund 
 
 of the Californias. 
 
 The most excellent president ad interim has been pleased to forward to me the 
 following decree: 
 
 " Jos6 Joaquin de Herrera, general of division and president ad interim of the Mex- 
 can Republic, to the inhabitants thereof: 
 
 "Know ye that the general Congress has decreed and the executive sanctioned the 
 following: 
 
 " 'The debts and other properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias which are 
 now unsold shall be immediately returned to the reverend bishop of that see and his 
 successors for the purpose mentioned in article 6 of the law of September 19, 1836, 
 without prejudice to what Congress may resolve in regard to the property that has 
 been alienated.' " 
 
 We are unable to learn that any property whatsoever was turned 
 over to the bishops or other action taken because of or consequent 
 upon this law. 
 
 Something should be added at this time with relation to the estate 
 of Cie"naga del Pastor, referred to by Sr. Ramirez in his report to the 
 Mexican Government. At the time the report was made it was_ 
 embargoed or attached for a heavy debt, but notwithstanding such" 
 embargo, as we expect the evidence will show, it was sold by the Mexi- 
 can Government, and so far as the interest of the Pious Fund was con- 
 cerned it produced $213,750, and, aggregating with this the original 
 claim as finally adjudicated by the Mixed Commission, the sums claimed 
 by the memorial in this case because of the larger amount than for- 
 merly allowed, which was received from the property donated by Dona 
 Josefa de Arguelles, erroneous deductions for a so-called debt, addi- 
 tional loans not credited, and personal property sold at the same time 
 with Cienaga del Pastor, we find as the sum total of the Pious Fund 
 the sum of $1,853,361. 57. 
 
 It is to be noted that a difficulty arose between the Spanish and the 
 Mexican Governments similar in nature to that now presented; such 
 difficulty, however, arising out of the fact that under the terms of the 
 settlement of the estate of Senora Arguelles the Philippine and the 
 California missions were entitled to equal interests in three-fourths 
 thereof. Spain, as the representative of the interests of the Philippine 
 church, demanded that there be paid to her the sums properly belong- 
 ing to the Philippine portion of the fund. We ask that the same treat- 
 ment as to the California branch of the claim be accorded us, regard- 
 ing such settlement equally applicable in the one case as in the other. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 The United States confidently rely upon the findings of the former 
 Mixed Commission as settling beyond the need of argument upon other 
 points the issues now presented, and offer the considerations following 
 in support of the position that — 
 
 THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPER JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE IS FIXED BY 
 THE TERMS OF THE FORMER AWARD. 
 
 Let us first consider, therefore, as this court is authorized to do by 
 the terms of the protocol, the question as to whether the decision of 
 the former Mixed Commission may be regarded as constituting as to 
 any of the. facts passed upon by it what is known to the common law 
 
212 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 as res judicata, or to the "ivil law as chose jugee, and if so, what facts 
 are to be treated as settled thereby and what consequences flow from 
 such settlement as affecting the subject-matter submitted to the present 
 tribunal. 
 
 According to the first edition of the American and English Encyclo- 
 pedia of Law, Title "Res Judicata," volume 21, page 128 — 
 
 When a matter has once passed to final judgment without fraud or collusion in a 
 court of competent or concurrent jurisdiction it has become res judicata, and the same 
 matter between the sam& parties can not be reopened or subsequently considered. 
 
 To somewhat similar effect article 1351 of the French Code Civil 
 says: 
 
 L'autorite' de la chose jug6e n'a lieu qu'a l'egard de ce qui a fait l'objet du juge- 
 ment. II faut que la chose demanded soit la meme, que la demande soit fondee sur 
 la m£me cause, que la demande soit entre les mfimes parties, et formed par elles et 
 contre elles en la m£me quality. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the common law and the civil law view the 
 subject-matter in similar lights. 
 
 • We may fairly deduce from the citations above given that the first 
 question to be considered is whether the former Mixed Commission 
 was a court competent to render the decision at which it arrived, and 
 to determine this we must reach a just conclusion as to whether it was 
 authorized to pass upon, and did adjudicate, its own jurisdiction. If 
 we give an affirmative answer to this proposition, then as a matter of 
 interest, but necessarily of lesser importance in view of the conclusion 
 reached, we might fairly consider whether the judgment of the tribunal 
 as to its own competency was correct as a matter of law. This branch 
 of the discussion is, however, fully covered by the Messrs. Doyle in 
 their brief to be filed herein. 
 
 When a tribunal exists there must of necessity be authority in some 
 person or body to judge whether the questions raised before it prop- 
 erty come within the purview of the powers with which it is invested. 
 Sometimes the reviewing authority consists of an appellate or other 
 tribunal superior by virtue of the general theory of the law control- 
 ling judicatory bodies. Sometimes the review is expressly provided 
 for by the instrument 'constituting the court, and in cases such as that 
 we are now examining it is always proper for the high contracting 
 parties to retain a power of review, acceptance, or rejection of the 
 conclusions reached by the commission, such power being reserved in 
 the instrument creating it. Still another course is permissible, accord- 
 ing to many authorities, when it is found that a court of arbitration is 
 likely to exceed its just powers, and this is to withdraw the matters 
 concerning which the exercise of excess of power is to be feared from 
 the examination of the commission, and thereafter to decline to recog- 
 nize judgments which may be reached. This course appears to be 
 recognized by many writers on the subject of international law as 
 proper, for they find, as we shall hereafter see, that a judgment ren- 
 dered when one party or the other has not been heard or has withdrawn 
 is a nullity. 
 
 Withdrawal from the Geneva Tribunal was threatened by England 
 when the question of consequential or indirect damages was raised, and 
 her right so to do has been questioned by scarcely any writer, if we 
 may except M. Rolin-Jaequemyns, who, in an article published in 
 volume 4, Revue de Droit International, denies that England was at 
 liberty to take this course, the contention raised by her coming fairly 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFORNIAS. 213 
 
 within the powers of the arbitrators to decide as being one relating to 
 their jurisdiction. 
 
 The treaty between the United States and Mexico did not provide 
 for any reviewing power, did not reserve a right of ultimate rejection 
 or dissent, and Mexico did not decline or refuse at any stage to proceed 
 with the submission to the former Mixed Commission of the Pious 
 Fund Claim. None of the things happened, therefore, which might 
 have had a tendency to invalidate the former award, or to diminish its 
 effect as res judicata. Furthermore, while Mexico formally filed a 
 motion to dismiss, that country, the question yet remaining undeter- 
 mined, proceeded to submit a great variety of testimony touching 
 the contentions directly raised by the memorial and to argue as to 
 its effect. This very course showed that Mexico recognized to" the 
 fullest the authority of the commission to render a final judgment 
 upon the merits of the dispute, her conduct amounting to a practical 
 waiver of any objection to the jurisdiction. We say this not unmind- 
 ful of the fact that particularly in the argument on revision an attempt 
 was made to renew her former objections, to enlarge their scope and 
 to reinforce the motion to dismiss by additional arguments, but such 
 motion could not revivify and strengthen a position finally and defi- 
 nitely abandoned, as her former contention had been, by an entry upon 
 a discussion of the merits of the controversy. We shall find occasion 
 later to enlarge upon this view of the question. 
 
 But if Mexico had not confessed jurisdiction, as she did by her 
 actions more than twenty -five years ago, there would then have been 
 left to us to consider as of the highest moment the questions hereto- 
 fore raised. As it is, we would not be justified in passing them by 
 without careful examination. 
 
 HAS AN ARBITRAL COURT INHERENT POWER TO PASS UPON ITS OWN 
 
 JURISDICTION % 
 
 We have adverted to the principle that power must rest somewhere 
 to determine the jurisdiction of an arbitral court, and in the case under 
 consideration, this power not having been reserved for anj^ other 
 authority, must, as we believe, be considered to rest in the court 
 itself. 
 
 The analogy existing between international and private arbitrations 
 is such that we are justified in believing that if private arbitrators 
 possess the power to determine their own jurisdiction and to interpret 
 the instrument creating them, for stronger reasons must the same 
 power be regarded as resting in international arbitral courts, bodies 
 of infinitely greater dignity and importance, and from whose actions 
 consequences may flow of vastly more importance to the welfare of 
 mankind. 
 
 We read in Repertoire General Alphabetique du Droit Francais, 
 volume 12, title "Competence Civile et Commerciale," paragraph 44, 
 as follows: 
 Tout tribunal a le droit et la devoir de statuer sur sa propre competence. 
 
 Civil law judges have many times passed upon the powers of arbi- 
 tral courts in this respect, and have held (Repertoire General de 
 Jurisprudence, Volume IV, title "Arbitrage," sec. 572) — 
 
 Que les arbitres peuvent connaitre de leur competence bien qu'ila n'y soient pas 
 express6ment autorises par le compromis, ce n'est pas la juger hors des ternies du 
 
214 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALJFORNIAS. 
 
 compromis: le droit de juger de leur propre competence est la consequence naturelle 
 du caractere de juges dont ils sont investis par les parties. 
 
 From this flow, of course, the natural consequences expressed under 
 the same title in paragraph 60: 
 
 Lorsque le tribunal se declare competent il doit n^cessairement statuer sur la cause 
 qui lui est soumise a peine de deni de justice. (Garsonnet, titre 1, sec. 186, p. 752.) 
 
 The question as to the right of a mixed commission or interna- 
 tional board of arbitrators to pass upon its own powers has several 
 times been under active consideration. The earliest example in 
 American practice is discussed in Moore's International Arbitrations, 
 and relates to the commission formed under Article VII of the treaty 
 between the United States and- Great Britain of November 19, 1794. 
 In that case the. British commissioners attempted by withdrawal to 
 deny the power of the court to determine its own jurisdiction, but the 
 British Government refused to sustain them in their position. We 
 read that Mr. Gore, one of the American commissioners, held that — 
 
 A power to decide whether a claim referred to this board is within its jurisdiction 
 appears to me inherent in its very constitution and indispensably necessary to the 
 discharge of any of its duties. * * * 
 
 To decide on the justice of the claim, it is absolutely necessary to decide whether 
 it is a case described in the article. It is the first quality to be sought for in the 
 examination. To say that power is given to decide on the justice of the claim, and 
 according to all the merits of the case, and yet no power to decide or examine if the 
 claim has any justice, any merit even sufficient to be the subject of consideration, is 
 to offer in terms a substance, in truth a phantom. * * * 
 
 To my mind there can be no greater absurdity than to conceive that these two 
 nations appointed commissioners with power to examine and decide claims, prescribe 
 the rules by which they were to examine them, authorize them for this purpose to 
 receive books, papers, and testimony, examine persons on oath, award sums of 
 money, and solemnly pledge their faith to each other that the award should be final 
 and conclusive, both as to the justice of the claim and to the amount of the sum to 
 be paid, and yet gave them no power to decide whether there was any claim in 
 question. * * * 
 
 It is a contradiction in terms to say that a measure adopted shall terminate all 
 differences, and yet that the very measure presupposes a new negotiation on what 
 are the differences. * * * 
 
 The objection that the board is incompetent to decide whether these cases or any 
 of them are within the description submitted arrests and stops all proceedings, and, 
 in fact, renders the article null and illusive. * * * 
 
 To say that the board has authority to decide that a cause is not within its juris- 
 diction, and yet no authority to decide that a case is within its jurisdiction appears 
 to be a contradiction too glaring to be persisted in. That the commissioners have a 
 right to decide in favor of one party only — in favor of the party complained against, 
 but not in favor of the complainant — can not be true. 
 
 Mr. Pinkney, the remaining American commissioner, entertained a 
 similar view, and in part expressed it as follows: 
 
 I think that we are of ourselves, and without consulting the high contracting 
 parties, the proper judges (at least in the first instance) of the nature and extent of 
 our powers under the seventh article of the treaty, or, in other words, that it belongs 
 to us, and is our indispensable duty in the first instance to decide in every case 
 referred to us, without reference to the contracting parties, whether the claim is such 
 a one as the treaty submits to our award. * * * * 
 
 Without such a power it is extremely obvious that the authority expressly com- 
 municated by the treaty to decide the merits of a claim and the amount of compen- 
 sation to be awarded is completely nominal and illusory. 
 
 * * * If a reference to arbitrators takes place between individuals the arbitra- 
 tors are always in the first instance the judges of the scope of the submission without 
 any specific provision to that effect in the instrument of reference 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 215 
 
 The question arising as above was referred to Lord Chancellor 
 Loughborough, who said: 
 
 The doubt respecting the authority of the commissioners to settle their own juris- 
 diction was absurd; and they must necessarily decide upon a case being within or 
 without their competency. 
 
 Wharton's International Law Digest, volume 2, section 221, page 
 568. 
 
 ' The note to the above reference shows that the view so expressed 
 was adopted by Lord Grenville, then minister for foreign affairs. 
 (See 2 American State Papers (Foreign Relations), 398.) 
 
 The question arose and was distinctly passed upon with reference to 
 certain parts of the claim of the Venezuela Steam Transportation 
 Company, although the reasoning of the court is not given. On page 
 26 of Morse's Report, as agent and counsel for the United States, we 
 read that, an objection being raised by the agent on the part of Vene- 
 zuela to the jurisdiction of the Commission over certain parts of the 
 claim, the court "do hereby unanimously declare ourselves competent 
 on the said portions of the claim." 
 
 Instances might, in fact, be multiplied indefinitely of cases where 
 arbitral commissions have accepted or rejected jurisdiction, but we 
 fail to find a precedent for the denial of the authority of arbitrators 
 to pass upon the interpretation of the instrument creating them, or a 
 case until the present where their incapacity has been urged finally by 
 the losing government to invalidate the effect of their awards. 
 
 In Chronique des Faits Inter nationaux, Revue G6n6rale de Droit 
 International, volume 1, 1894, p. 284, it is said: 
 
 L'arbitrage tend a devenir de plus en,plus le droit commun international pour la 
 solution judiciaire des conflits entre les Etats; si cela est, ne faut-il pas, dans le doute, 
 se prononcer pour tout ce qui peut en favoriser 1' extension? 
 
 Les arbitres doivent done etre seuls juges de leur competence. Cette doctrine est 
 conforme a la nature des choses; T affirmation de ses pouvoirs est un attribut naturel 
 de toute autorite. La regie que le juge de Taction est aussi le juge de l'exception 
 est universellement admise dans les rapports de droit civil; pourquoi en serait-il 
 difteremment dans l'ordre international? 
 
 Telle est au surplus l'opinion de la plupart des ecrivains du droit des gens; et l'ln- 
 stitut de droit international, reunion des jurisconsultes les plus considerables du 
 monde entier, a donne a cette these l'appui de son autorite; le 28 aout 1875, dans sa 
 session de la Haye, il a en effet declare, a Tunanimite, que "les arbitres doivent 
 prononcer sur les exceptions tirees de 1' incompetence du tribunal arbitral. * * * 
 Dans le cas ou le doute sur la competence depend de 1'interpretation d'une clause du 
 compromis, les parties sont censees avoir donne aux arbitres la faculte de trancher la 
 question, sauf clause contraire." (Art. 14, sees. 2, 4.) 
 
 The opinion of Calvo is expressed in section 1768 as follows: 
 
 Us ont le droit d' interpreter le compromis prealable intervenu entre les parties, et 
 par consequent de prononcer sur leur propre competence. 
 
 Goldschmidt, in discussing the matter as quoted in the Revue de 
 Droit International for 1872, page 440, says: 
 
 Le danger d'un exces de competence ne Justine point une immixtion prejudicielle 
 du tribunal offlciel. Dans l'arbitrage international il y a cette raison de plus, qu'une 
 procedure judiciaire preiiminaire est impossible. 
 
 Citing further from text writers, we would refer to Pradier-Fod^re", 
 who, in his Traite - de Droit International Public, section 2622, says: 
 
 En principe l'arbitre, ou les arbitres, sont juges de leur competence; la regie du 
 droit commun que le juge de Taction est aussi le juge de l'exception leur est appli- 
 cable; ils ont le droit d' interpreter le compromis en se sens que, lorsque les parties 
 
216 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKJNlAa. 
 
 pretendent que telles reclamations, tela point du differend, ne sont pas soumis a 
 l'arbitrage, et par consequent ne sont point deferes a l'arbitre, ou aux arbitres, ces 
 derniers peuvent examiner si cette exception est fondee: es dans le cas ou elle leur 
 paraitrait sans fondement, ils peuvent retenir ces reclamations, ces points du ditterent, 
 pour les comprendre dans leur decision. Cette doctrine est conf orme a la nature des 
 choses, car 1' affirmation de ces pouvoirs est un attribut naturel de tout autonte. 
 
 The author continues in the same section on page 424 as follows: 
 
 Les arbitres doivent done etre considered comme juges de leur competence avec le 
 consentement tacite des parties, dans le silence du compromis et en 1' absence de toute 
 clause ulterieure; de plus ce consentement tacite produit son effet autant que les 
 parties donnent suite a l'arbitrage sans manif ester une volonte contraire. 
 
 So far as we have had an opportunity personally of examining the 
 publications of leading text writers upon the subject of international 
 law, there are but two who entertain a view at all contrary to that 
 expressed by those whom we have cited, and the positions taken by 
 them deserve some analysis. 
 
 M. Rivier, in his Principes du Droit des Gens, volume 2, page 174, 
 
 says: 
 
 En cas de silence ou d'obscurite du compromis, l'arbitre n'est pas juge de sa propre 
 competence. En effet il n'est qu'un mandataire, et n'a d'autres pouvoirs que ceux 
 qui lui sont conferes par la volonte des Etats parties au compromis. II devra done, 
 la cas echeant, demander a ceux-ci de preciser le compromis ou de le completer. 
 
 Waiving for the moment the discussion of the suggestion contained 
 in the foregoing, it is worthy of note that according to the Revue de 
 Droit International for 1875, page 277, M. Rivier was, with MM. 
 Bulmerincq and Marquardsen, membre adjoint a la commission de la 
 Procedure Arbitrate Internationale; the members of the commission 
 being Messrs. Dudley Field, De Laveleye, and Pierantoni, and article 
 14, proposed by these gentlemen with apparent unanimity, provides 
 as follows: 
 
 Les exceptiones tirees de P incapacity des arbitres, doivent £tre opposees avant toute 
 autre. Dans le silence des parties toute contestation ulterieure est excluse, sauf les 
 cas d'incapacite posterieurement survenus. Les arbitres doivent prononcer sur les 
 exceptiones tirees de 1' incompetence du tribunal arbitral, sauf le recours dont il est 
 question a l'art. 24, 2me al., et conformement aux dispositions du compromis. 
 Aucune voie de recours ne sera ouverte contre des jugements preliminaires sur la 
 competence, sice n'est cumulativement avec le recours contre le jugement arbitral 
 definitif. Dans le cas ou le doute sur la competence depend de Interpretation d'une 
 clause du compromis, les parties sont censees avoir donne aux arbitres la faciilt6 de 
 trancher la question, sauf clause contraire. 
 
 We may, we think, fairly regard article 14, in the position of which 
 M. Rivier joined, as offsetting the expression of opinion given by him 
 in his Principes, and which we have already quoted. 
 
 The only other notable writer whose works we have had an oppor- 
 tunity of examining, and whose expressions tend to deny the right of 
 arbitrators to pass upon their own jurisdiction, is M. Bonfils, who in 
 his Droit International Public, third edition, section 951, says: 
 
 Les pouvoirs des arbitres sont determines par le compromis qui les en investit. 
 Les arbitres ne peuvent pas statuer eux-memes sur leurs pouvoirs et determiner les ' 
 limites de leur competence. Bluntschli pensait autrement (op. cit., art. 492 bis); 
 mais son opinion est erronee. Un mandataire ne saurait fixer lui-mfime la portee et 
 l'etendue de son mandat. Si des doutes se produisent, les arbitres doivent en referer 
 a leurs mandants et leur demander l'extension de leurs pouvoirs et une fixation plus 
 nette et plus precise de l'objet du compromis. 
 
 The editor, commenting upon the above, finds that article 48 of The 
 Hague Convention "a consacre" l'opinion de Bluntschli." 
 
PIOTIS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 217 
 
 The very statement by M. Bonfils of the ground of his opinion 
 appears to us to demonstrate its erroneous character, for if, whenever 
 the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal be challenged, the arbitrators 
 are obliged to refer to their so-called mandants for permission to pro- 
 ceed, their operations will be paralyzed, and through the efflux of tame, 
 in many cases, the obtention of a final judgment rendered impossible. 
 
 But the fundamental idea expressed by MM. Rivier and Bonfils is 
 fatally erroneous in that it does not correctly express the character to 
 be accorded to an arbitral tribunal. We do not recognize the court 
 before which we have the honor of appearing as a collection of agents, 
 incapable of determining their own powers and compelled in cases of 
 doubt to appeal to the countries creating them. It is true that the 
 jurisdiction of this court is limited, but within the bounds of such jur- 
 isdiction we believe its powers to be plenary. Its judgments should 
 be recognized like the judgments of all other arbitral courts as binding 
 upon the parties appealing to it, even though the results in particular 
 instances may not be such as would be desired by one of the litigants. 
 
 The opinion we express as to the dignity of the present court applies 
 with equal force to the former Mixed Commission, formed as it was 
 with the free consent of the same parties, and exercising similar, 
 though in some respects even more extended, powers, and the reasons 
 which will justly operate to give solemnity and finality to the findings 
 of this honorable court must equally as well serve to maintain the 
 integrity and sanctity of the judgment of the Mixed Commission. 
 
 Without elaborating the" discussion at this moment, we are justified 
 in inviting your attention to certain expressions of distinguished pub- 
 licists in marked opposition to the idea that arbitral courts are assem- 
 blages of agents. 
 
 Says Hall in his International Law, chapter 11, section 119: 
 
 The arbitrating person or body forms a true tribunal, authorized to render a deci- 
 sion obligatory upon the parties with reference to the issues before it. It settles its 
 own procedure, when none has been prescribed by the preliminary treaty; and when 
 composed of several persons it determines by a majority of voices. 
 
 The opinion of M. Calvo is also to the point. He says in section 
 1768: 
 
 Les arbitres, une fois nommes, forment bien qu'ils ne tiennent leurs pouvoirs que 
 des parties, un corps independant, un veritable tribunal judiciaire. lis ont le droit 
 d' interpreter le compromis prealable intervenu entre les parties et par consequent 
 de prononcer sur leur propre competence. 
 
 In his Essai sur l'Organisation de 1' Arbitrage International, M. Le 
 Chevalier Descamps says: 
 
 L'arbitrage n'est pas une tentative de conciliation. L'arbitre est juge et statue 
 comme tel. 
 
 He cites with approval M. Le Baron Lambermont, who, in address- 
 ing to the German and English Governments his sentence in the arbi- 
 tration of Lamu, says: 
 
 Arbitre et non m^diateur, je n'avais a dire que le droit. 
 
 We will refer again to section 572, title "Arbitrage," Volume IV, 
 Repertoire Ge"ne>ale de Jurisprudence, for the expression of many 
 judges that: 
 
 Le droit de juger leur propre competence est la consequence naturelle du caractere 
 dejuges dont Us sont investispar les parties. 
 
218 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 The same work under the same title says (sec. 1107) : 
 
 11 est vrai que les arbitres ne sont pas revfitus de fonctions publiques et que leurs 
 pouvoirs n'ont d'autre source que la volonte des parties. Mais il faut remarquer que 
 le legislateur ne considere pas les arbitres comme de simples mandataires; leur 
 sentence a par elle-meme autorite de chose jug6e; de plus, elle ne peut pas fitre revi- 
 s<5e, quant au fond, par le juge qui est charge d'y apposer son ordonnance d' exequatur. 
 C'est done que les arbitres ne sont pas seulement des mandataires, mais aussi des 
 juges; et par consequent, leur sentence doit avoir la m£me force probante que les 
 jugements. 
 
 As apropos, might in fact be cited all the authorities already quoted, 
 showing that arbitrators have a full right to pass upon their own com- 
 petency, for this is a power never possessed by or accorded to agents 
 or mandataries, but pertaining to courts in the fullest sense of the 
 word. 
 
 RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPROMIS. 
 
 Some of the writers upon international law have laid down a rule 
 for the interpretation of the compromis, which rule seems to us in 
 accord with common sense and with the necessities of the situation 
 and presents to us the point of view from which the former Mixed 
 Commission may properly have regarded the instrument they were 
 called upon to construe. Calvo says (Sec. 1757): 
 
 Dans tous les cas ou le tribunal arbitral entretient des doutes sur l'etendue du 
 compromis, il doit 1' interpreter dans son sens le plus large. 
 
 M. Kolin-Jaequemyns, in La Revue de Droit International, Volume 
 IV, page 13, says, in effect, that: 
 
 La qnestion de competence ne doit pas 6tre resolue par une stricte interpretation 
 du compromis, mais qu'il faut dans le doute la trancher afirmativement. En effet 
 cette affirmation ne porte aucune atteinte a la connaissance d'un tribunal ordinaire. 
 Elle rend au contraire possible la decision judiciaire d'un point qui, sans cela, 
 demeurerait litigieux. La jurisprudence Anglo-Americaine reconnait, mSme en 
 matiere d'arbitrage civil, le principe que "a fair and liberal construction is allowed 
 in its interpretation." (Bouvier au mot Submission No. 7.) 
 
 Inasmuch as without reserve Mexico submitted to the former tribu- 
 nal the question of its own powers, it is not inappropriate at this time 
 to refer to Gueret-y. Andoury, Ct. of Ap. (Eng.), 62 L. J., 633, wherein 
 it was held that where parties to a contract have referred to arbitra- 
 tors the question of its construction, their award is conclusive evidence 
 as to the construction in a subsequent action brought for other breaches 
 of the same contract. 
 
 MEXICO WAIVED THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE 
 
 MIXED COMMISSION. 
 
 Without any reservation as to her rights, Mexico presented to the 
 former tribunal a motion to dismiss, not raising but, by failure so to 
 do, waiving the question of jurisdiction. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that in submitting this point we rely upon a 
 technicality, for it would seem that if there be any intention on the part 
 of one party not to allow a given claim to go to arbitration, or under 
 certain circumstances not to recognize the full validity of a judgment 
 which may be rendered by the arbitrators, it is his duty to announce 
 such fact in the beginning, since if such announcement be made the 
 opposing party may at once agree to" the withdrawal of the subject- 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 219 
 
 matter and make the claim the foundation of a separate convention. To 
 permit arbitrators to assume jurisdiction, and, a decision adverse to him 
 being reached, to allow one party thereafter to aver that the arbitra- 
 tion has been without validity, is to give him a double chance of success. 
 The common law requires that all questions of a dilatory nature 
 (including, first of all, jurisdictional ones) should be presented to the 
 court before an entry upon the merits of the controversy, and that 
 the same course should be taken before arbitral tribunals can be 
 demonstrated by reference to several of the authors who have treated 
 of this particular subject. According to the project of Goldschmidt, 
 afterwards substantially adopted at The Hague, and to be found in 
 Revue de Droit International for 1874, page MO, section 18, it is pro- 
 vided that — 
 
 Le tribunal arbitral est juge de sa competence. Si l'exception d'incompetence 
 n'est pas opposed au premier moment opportun ou si l'exception opposed en temps 
 utile ayant ete repouss6e par le tribunal arbitral, les parties passent outre sans faire 
 de reserves, toute contestation ulterieure de la competence est exclue. 
 
 A view indicated by M. Rolin-Jaequernyns as that proper to be 
 taken by international courts is to be found in Volume IV, Revue de 
 Droit International, page 139, wherein he says: 
 
 4. La partie qui souleve devant des arbitres internationaux une exception d' incom- 
 petence, a le droit d'y ajouter des reserves formelles de nullite totale ou partielle de 
 la sentence pour le cas ou l'exception serait rejetee par les arbitres. Faute de pareil- 
 les reserves, elle est censee avoir accepte d'avance la decision arbitrale comme defini- 
 tive et sans appel. 
 
 According to Calvo, section 1757 of his work upon international law: 
 
 Lorsque l'un des contestants pretend que tout ou partie des demandes de 1' autre 
 ne rentre pas dans les termes du compromis, cette pretention doit etre produite 
 devant les arbitres, au debut de la cause, comme exception d' incompetence, et il 
 appartient aux arbitres d'en connaitre. 
 
 La partie qui souleve ainsi devant les arbitres une exception d'incompetence a le 
 droit d'y ajouter des reserves formelles de nullite totale ou partielle de la sentence a 
 intervenir pour le cas ou l'exception serait rejetee par les arbitres. A defaut de pre- 
 senter de pareilles reserves, la partie qui souleve l'exception est censee avoir accepte 
 d'avance la decision arbitrale comme definitive et sans appel. 
 
 The language of M. Pradier-Fode"re* is somewhat similar, for he says 
 (sec. 2622, Traite" de Droit International Public) that — 
 
 Lorsque, done, 1' une des parties soutient que la demande ou certains points de la 
 demande de son adversaire ne rentrent pas dans les termes du compromis, cette 
 affirmation constitue une exception d'incompetence dont il appartient a l'arbitre, ou 
 aux arbitres, de connaitre. Mais les Etats contendants sont maitres d'enlever ce 
 droit a l'arbitre, ou aux arbitres, dans le compromis ou dans une convention ulteri- 
 eure, et, s'ils ne l'ont pas fait expressement, ils peuvent toujours, en renoncant &, 
 l'arbitrage, empecher l'arbitre, ou les arbitres, d'interpreter le compromis et de pro- 
 noncer sur leur competence. 
 
 As we have already noted, the course taken by England with relation 
 to consequential damages claimed in connection with the Alabama arbi- 
 tration was quite in the line of the suggestion of MM. Rolin-Jaequemyns 
 and Pradier-Fod6r6, and in the spirit of the opinion expressed by M. 
 Goldschmidt and M. Calvo, but no such course was taken by Mexico 
 before the former tribunal. Mexico entered upon the consideration 
 of the facts without the formal reservations indicated as possible, and 
 without withdrawing from the tribunal, because of its lack of juris- 
 diction, the consideration of the Pious Fund case. 
 
 Having therefore failed to take any of the precautions or to avail 
 herself of any of the courses indicated as open to her by the various 
 
220 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 writers on international law, she must be conceived to have waived all 
 of her rights to object to the jurisdiction of the former tribunal. 
 
 For the purpose of meeting all suggestions which may by any pos- 
 sibility be made, let us next examine the question — 
 
 DOES THE DOCTRINE OF EES JUDICATA APPLY TO ARBITRAL DECISIONS? 
 
 According to the decisions of civil law courts, an arbitral sentence 
 in a private dispute has all the force of res judicata possessed by any 
 other judgment, for it is said in Kepertoire Generate de Jurisprudence, 
 Volume IV, title "Arbitrage," section 1082: 
 
 Lea sentences arbitrates acquierent autorite' de chose juge^e comme les autres juge- 
 ments, d§s qu'elles sont devenues inattaquables par 1' expiration de delais 6tablies. 
 (See also sec. 1083.) 
 
 The same work, title "Chose jugee," at paragraph No. 204, says: 
 
 Les sentences arbitrates sont de ventables jugements; elles sont done investies de 
 1'antorite' de la chose jugee. 
 
 The common law holds to the same view of the matter, for it is said 
 in American and English Encyclopaedia of Law (2d edition), title 
 "Jurisdiction," Volume XVII, page 1055: 
 
 An award of arbitrators with jurisdiction can not be collaterally impeached for 
 errors or irregularities in the proceedings. 
 
 And again (page 1056): 
 
 Whenever any person is given authority to hear and determine any question, such 
 determination is in effect a judgment, having all the properties of a judgment pro- 
 nounced in a legally created court of limited jurisdiction. 
 
 The matter is further made the subject of discussion in the same 
 work under the title of "Arbitration and award," Volume II, page 
 778, the following conclusion being reached: 
 
 The weight of authority in the United States leans toward making absolute the 
 certain and simple rule that the award of arbitrators, when made in good faith, is final, 
 and that it can not be questioned or set aside for a mistake, either of law or of fact. 
 
 In the case of Boston Water Power Co. v. Cray, 6 Metcalf (Mass.), 
 131, Chief Justice Shaw, one of the most eminent of American jurists, 
 speaking of the weight to be attached to the finding of arbitrators, said: 
 
 It is within the principle of res judicata. It is the final judgment for that case and 
 between these parties. * * * It would be as contrary to principle for a court of 
 law or equity to rejudge the same question as for an inferior court to rejudge the 
 decision of a superior, or for one court to overrule the judgment of another, where 
 the law has not given an appellate jurisdiction or a revising power acting directly 
 upon the judgment alleged to be erroneous. 
 
 We thus see that the civil and the common law are entirely in accord 
 upon the question of the weight to be attached to the findings of arbi- 
 trators, and this question being beyond dispute, as it seems to us, 
 either from the standpoint of precedents and opinion or of natural rea- 
 son, we may pass quickly to the consideration of the more important 
 question: 
 
 DOES THE AUTHORITY OF RES JUDICATA ATTACH TO THE FINDINGS OF 
 INTERNATIONAL BOARDS OF ARBITRATION? 
 
 Let us now investigate and determine whether there may be invoked 
 as a consequence of the judgment of the Mixed Commission the results 
 which would attach to the judgment of any court of competent juris- 
 diction. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 221 
 
 We believe that we have already shown that the commission referred 
 to was entirely competent to pass upon the question of its own juris- 
 diction, particularly as the question raised depended practically alto- 
 gether upon the proper construction and application of the powers 
 given it under the language of the treaty of 1868. Let us, therefore, 
 see the results attendant upon this conclusion. 
 
 We may refer with propriety to article 18 of The Hague convention, 
 under which the present tribunal operates, and which says: 
 
 La convention d'arbitrage implique 1'engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi a la 
 sentence arbitrate. 
 
 The foregoing article was adopted in the form reported to the dele- 
 gates by M. Chevalier Descamps, who in his report presented to the 
 body in question, which report is to be found in La Revue de Droit 
 International for 1900, page 225, says: 
 
 Dans l'arbitrage les Etats en litige deierent conventuellement la solution de leur 
 contestations au jugementd'une ou de plusieurs personnes chargers de "dire le droit" 
 pour les parties en cause. 
 
 L' obligation de se soumettre de bonne foi a la sentence arbitrale est dans ces con- 
 ditions une obligation positive impliqu6e dans la convention intervenue. Un arbi- 
 trage n'est pas une tentative de conciliation. Le trait caractenstique de l'arbitrage 
 est pr^cisement la soumission commune des Etats a un juge de leur choix, avec 
 1'engagement a la sentence. A. moins de dispositions speciales du compromis atta- 
 chant tel ou tel eff et particulier a une sentence arbitrale et sauf usage de voies legitimes 
 de recours, l'inex^cution de la decision des arbitres n'est pas plus admissible en droit 
 que la violation des contrats, et cela par la raison qu'elle est precisement la violation 
 d'un contrat. 
 
 A careful consideration of the foregoing paragraphs must make it 
 evident that M. Descamps and his associates upon the committee did 
 not understand that they were creating a new law applicable only to 
 decisions which might be reached under the court they were seeking 
 to create, but rather announcing a condition which was believed by 
 them to attach to all conventions for the settlement of disputes. Any 
 other interpretation would render meaningless the words: 
 
 L' obligation de se soumettre de bonne foi a la sentence arbitrale est dans ces con- 
 ditions une obligation positive impliquee dans la convention intervenue. 
 
 Further commenting upon article 18, M. Descamps says: 
 
 La redaction primitive de Particle 18 6tait celle-ci: "La convention d'arbitrage 
 renferme 1'engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi a la sentence arbitrale." Lemot 
 "implique" substitue au mot "renferme" sur la proposition de M. Rolin accentue 
 nettement, au point de vue qui nous occupe, le caractere et les consequences du con- 
 trat d'arbitrage. 
 
 The action of The Hague convention in adopting article 18 shows 
 clearly the authority which, in the opinion of the eminent gentlemen 
 constituting that convention, should be accorded to arbitral decisions. 
 The reason for establishing this rule as to future conventions is no 
 greater, of course, than the reason for regarding it as existing with 
 relation to the conventions of the past, for it is not to be conceived 
 that the delegates desired to claim for subsequent arbitral commissions 
 a greater power and authority than they were willing to accord to 
 those of times past. The view of the committee upon this point we 
 have already seen. 
 
 Commenting upon the article now under consideration, M. Merign- 
 hac, in his La Conference Internationale de la Paix, on page 296, says: 
 
 Ainsi la decision arbitrale, qu'elle denve d'un compromis fait apres ou avant la 
 naissance du litige, est obligatoire pour les parties, a, la difference de la mediation 
 facultative. Tous les auteurs sont unanimes a reconnaitre que la sentence de l'arbitre 
 
222 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 est un jugement, qu'elle a l'autorite de la chose jugee; et, a cet egard, on pourrait 
 multiplier les citations. Le fait du reste est ici d' accord avec le droit; et u n y a pas 
 d'exemple d'une nation ayant refuse d'executer une sentence prononcant contre elle 
 une condamnation, sentence qui n'gtait d'ailleurs victee par aucune cause de nullity. 
 On doit done se soumettre a la sentence arbitrate et on doit s' y soumettre de bonne foi, 
 conformement au principe qui regit 1' execution de toutes les conventions interna- 
 tionales. L'article 18 precite ne fait qu'appliquer a l'institution de l'arbitrage ce 
 principe general II faut neanmoins reserver le cas ou le compromis contiendrait des 
 clauses speciales relativement a 1' execution et aussi il 1' application des votes de recours 
 qui y auraient e'te prevues. Mais, en dehors de ces circonstances exceptionelles, le 
 compromis constituant un contrat par lequel on accepte a l'avance la decision d'un 
 arbitre, doit etre execute de la meme facon que les autres contrats internationaux. 
 L'arbitrage de 1' Alabama nous fournit un exemple memorable de cette soumission 
 unanime et necessaire aux decisions arbitrates. L'arbitre anglais, sir Cockburn, 
 
 juges avec la soumission et le respect 
 senti a accepter librement l'arr£t." 
 
 WHEN MAY ARBITRAL SENTENCES BE ATTACKED. 
 
 Having therefore established the duty of all persons appealing to 
 courts of this nature to submit loyally to the award, let us examine 
 and discover, if we may, in what cases it has been considered such 
 sentences may be the subject of attack, to the end that we may learn 
 whether the findings of the former Mixed Commission were open to 
 revision or were of such a nature as to require those submitting to the 
 tribunal to recognize the decision as having in all respects the force 
 of res judicata. 
 
 The general subject of the weight to be given arbitral sentences was 
 under consideration by the Institute of International Law at The Hague 
 in 1875, and in article 27 of the rules there established (see Revue de 
 Droit International, Volume VII (1875), p. 282) it was provided that — 
 
 La sentence arbitrate est nulle en cas de compromis nul, ou d'exces du pouvoir, ou 
 de corruption prouvee d'un des arbitres, ou d'erreur essentielle. 
 
 It is interesting to note that the foregoing paragraph omits (the 
 reason for such omission not being explained) the explanatory words 
 contained in the first draft by Goldschmidt, following the word 
 "erreur" his draft making the sentence close — 
 erreur essentiellement causee par la production de faux documents. 
 
 The expression ' ' erreur essentielle " has been severely criticised as 
 leaving it uncertain whether the error in question be one of law or fact 
 and as permitting possibly the continuance of the dispute for the 
 determination of which the arbitration was formed, one side or the 
 other claiming that there was essential error in the findings of the 
 court, and for that reason proposing to refuse adhesion thereto. This 
 weakness has been discussed quite at length by Merignhac in his Traite" 
 de 1' Arbitrage, section 333, as follows: 
 
 La qualification "d'erreur essentielle" employee par Hnstitut est vague; l'erreur 
 dont il s'agit portera-t-elle sur le droit ou sur le fait; et, en outre, a quoi reconnaitra- 
 t-on qu'elle est essentielle? On se rend compte que les opinions varieront necessaire- 
 ment dans une large mesure; et qu'une telle formule porte, par suite, en elle les 
 germes de discorde d'autant plus dangereuxqu'ilspourrontfacilementae transformer 
 en causes de guerres! D' autre part, le point de savoir si la sentence emaneedes 
 arbitres prives donne lieu a un recours pour cause d'erreur, a ete resolu de facons 
 diverses par les legislations positives; toutefois, quelque solution de principe qu'on 
 accepte a cet egard, on constate tout au moins qu'en droit prive le recours pourra etre 
 porte devant une jurisdiction offlcielle placee au-dessus de l'arbitre et qui statuera 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 223 
 
 sur 1' articulation d'erreur. Mais, oette juridiction qui serait chargee d'apprecier 
 l'erreur commise par l'arbitre, n'existe pas, on le sait, dans le domain international, 
 a moins que les parties n'aient pris soin de la preVoiret del' organiser dans le com- 
 promis. En l'6tat actuel des choses, les parties demeureraient done elles-m£mes 
 juges de l'appreciation de l'erreur invoqu6e et partant de la validity de la sentence. 
 Or, s'il est des cas dans lesquels ou pourra surement afflrmer que le droit a 6t6 viol6, 
 ou que les faits ont 6t& mal apprecies, ces cas constitueront la grande exception; le 
 plus souvent, par contre, la question sera douteuse, et delicate. Admettre que la 
 partie condamnee tranchera souverainement ce point, e'est livrer l'arbitrage a sa dis- 
 cretion, et denaturer son caractere obligatoire. 
 
 To our mind we may treat the words in question either as still qual- 
 ified by the clause attached by Mr. Goldschmidt or as referring by 
 "erreur essentielle" to what we might call fundamental or jurisdictional 
 error as distinguished from error as to the law or fact occurring dur- 
 ing the trial of the cause, and this latter interpretation might appear 
 to be almost of necessity the true one, for otherwise this very impor- 
 tant point is but inadequately covered, inasmuch as "exces du jpovmoir'''' 
 may very well relate to cases where the arbitrators have had the right 
 to exercise some power, but in this exercise have passed the limits set 
 for them, as was the case in the noted arbitration by the King of the 
 Netherlands of the dispute between the United States and England 
 with relation to the St. Croix Eiver, while "erreur essentielle" or, as 
 we would suggest, jurisdictional error, would prohibit the arbitrators 
 from proceeding at all. 
 
 We shall have occasion to advert to this subject at a later period, 
 meanwhile noting that in its present form, open as it is to discussion 
 and dispute, the paragraph in question was adopted "a la simple 
 majorite." (Revue de Droit International (1875), p. 277.) 
 
 Let us briefly collate the expressions of the leading writers on inter- 
 national law, indicating their opinions as to the circumstances under 
 which an arbitral sentence might be made the subject of attack. 
 
 Rivier, in his Principes du Droit des Gens, Volume II, page 185, finds 
 that the state against which sentence has been rendered may have just 
 grounds for refusing execution if the compromis be null or extinct, 
 if the arbitrators have been deceived or have permitted themselves to 
 be corrupted, if the sentence has been obtained by trickery or is 
 materially unjust, and, as is most frequently the case, he says, if the 
 arbitrators have exceeded their powers or have not conformed to the 
 directions of the compromis. 
 
 Taylor, in his International Public Law, page 379, finds that — 
 
 If that expedient (proposition for equitable settlement) fails, then a definite award 
 should be rendered, which has all the moral force of a judgment at law, provided 
 that the procedure of which it is the culmination has been justly and legally con- 
 ducted. It is generally admitted that the arbitral decision of award may be honor- 
 ably disregarded when the tribunal has exceeded the powers conferred upon it by 
 the articles of submission, when the award has been procured through fraud or cor- 
 ruption, when there has been a flagrant denial of justice, or when the terms of the 
 award are equivocal. Bluntschli claims that it may also be disregarded "if the 
 arbitral decision is contrary to international law. But the decision of the arbitra- 
 tors can not be attacked under the pretext that it is erroneous or contrary to equity, 
 save for errors of calculation." 
 
 Bonfils, in his Droit International Public, third edition, section 955, 
 says: 
 
 Est-ce a dire que la sentence de l'arbitre sera toujours et dans tous les cas forc6- 
 ment obligatoire? Non assurement faut-il encore que la sentence soit valable en elle- 
 meme et reguli&rement rendue. Les auteurs sont geheralement d' accord pour recon- 
 naltre que la sentence arbitrale n'est point obligatoire: 1. Si les arbitres ont status 
 
224 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 ultra petita; 2. Si Tune des parties n'a pas ete entendue et mise a meme de faire valoir 
 ses moyens et ses preuves; 3. Si la sentence est le resultat de la fraude et de la deloy- 
 aute de l'arbitre. * * * 
 
 Monsieur Feraud - Giraud, in an essay upon Traites d' Arbitrage 
 General et Permanent, to be found in Revue de Droit International 
 for 1897, page 333, finds that the majority of publicists have agreed in 
 admitting several causes of nullity, but he does not specify in detail 
 what he considers sufficient cause. 
 
 Heffter, in his Droit International d'Europe, Birgson's edition, page 
 210, says, in effect, that it may be attacked if rendered without a valid 
 compromis or beyond its premises; if rendered by arbitrators abso- 
 lutely incapable; if the arbitrator or other party has not acted in good 
 faith; if the parties or one of them have not been heard; if it has 
 been pronounced upon things not asked for, and if its provisions are 
 contrary in an absolute manner to the rules of justice, and can not 
 consequently form the object of an agreement; but he finds that 
 errors which may be alleged against the sentence when they are not 
 the result of a partial spirit do not constitute a cause of nullity, but 
 nevertheless an error of calculation in the undertakings, which he 
 described under the name of "arbitratio," will justify a demand for 
 rectification. 
 
 Phillimore says, Volume III, page 3: . 
 
 It should be observed that if any arbitrator be appointed the terms of the appoint- 
 ment will, of course, limit his authority, and if his award exceed or be inconsistent 
 with those limits it will be altogether null. * * * 
 
 The sentence, once given, is binding upon the parties whose own act has created 
 a jurisdiction over them. The extreme "case may be indeed supposed of a sentence 
 bearing upon its face glaring partiality and attended with circumstances of such 
 evident injustice as to be null. " Nee tamen ( Voet observes ) , executioni danda erit, 
 si per sordes, aut per manifestam gratiam vel inimicitiam probetur lata." 
 
 In an article entitled ' ' De Certains Dangers de 1' Arbitrage Interna- 
 tional," by Darras, contained in La Revue General de Droit Interna- 
 tional Public, volume 6, page 547 (1899), the writer refers to a large 
 number of authorities to support the contention that a sentence in 
 which an arbitrator has determined upon points not submitted to him is 
 a nullity. 
 
 In Hall's International Law, chapter 11, page 379, we find that — 
 
 An arbitral decision may be disregarded in the following cases, viz: When the tri- 
 bunal has clearly exceeded the powers given to it by the instrument of submission, 
 when it is guilty of an open denial of justice, when its award is proved to have been 
 obtained by fraud or corruption, and when the terms of the award are equivocal. 
 Some writers add that the decision may also be disregarded if it is absolutely con- 
 trary to the rules of justice, and M. Bluntschh considers that it is invalidated by 
 being contrary to international law; he subsequently says that nothing can be imposed 
 by an arbitral decision which the parties themselves can not stipulate in a treaty. 
 It must be uncertain whether in making this statement he intends to exemplify his 
 general doctrine or to utter it in another form. Whatever may be the exact scope of 
 these latter reserves, it is evident that an arbitral decision must for practical purposes 
 be regarded as unimpeachable, except in the few cases first mentioned, and that there 
 is therefore ample room for the commission, under the influence of sentiment, of 
 personal or national prejudices, of erroneous theories of law, and views unconsciously 
 biased by national interests, of grave injustice, for which the injured State has no 
 remedy. 
 
 Reenforcing the comments of Mr. Hall upon the position taken by 
 Bluntschli, Mr. Geffcken remarks: 
 
 Que la partie condamnee par la sentence pourrait trop facilement pretendre qui le 
 jugement est contraire au droit international, ce serait perpetuer les conflits. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 225 
 
 Halleck (chap. 4, sec. 11, p. 87), whose doctrines receive the approval 
 of Ferguson in Volume II, Manual of International Law, p. 208, 
 says: 
 
 But if such proffered or invited mediation is of the nature of an arbitration, in 
 which the question of difference is submitted to the decision of the mediating power 
 as an arbitrator, with an agreement to abide by such decision, neither party can 
 properly refuse to abide by the result of the reference, unless it be shown that the 
 award has been made in collusion with one of the parties, or that it exceeds the terms 
 of the submission. 
 
 Kamarowsky (Westman's edition, 1887, p. 348) in a note quotes M. 
 Chrabro -Wassilewsky as saying: 
 
 La decision arbitrate 6tant obligatoire pour les deux parties pour les raisons si- 
 gnages, elle ne saurait etre meconnue a raison de motifs concernant la substance de 
 cette decision. 
 
 Kamarowsky himself (Westman's edition, p. 355), after discussing the 
 opinions of Vattel, Calvo, Heffter, Bluntschli, Fiore, Pierantoni, Bulme- 
 rincq, and Goldschmidt as to when findings of arbitrators may be 
 attacked, says: 
 
 L' enumeration des motifs de cassation que nous venons de reproduire epuise com- 
 pl£tement la question. Nous pouvons, en resume, les require aux trois points fonda- 
 mentaux suivants: 
 
 1. La violation par le tribunal du compromis, sous quelque rapport que se soit. 
 
 2. La nonobservation des principes generaux et fondamentaux de la procedure, en 
 general. 
 
 3. Une decision incompatible avec les principes du droit international. 
 
 Vattel says, section 329, book 2, chapter 18: 
 
 In order to obviate all difficulty and cut off every pretext of which fraud might 
 make a handle, it is necessary that the arbitration articles should precisely specify 
 the subject in dispute, the respective and opposite pretensions of the parties, the 
 demands of the one and the objections of the other. These constitute the whole of 
 what is submitted to the decision of the arbitrators; and it is upon these points alone 
 that the parties promise to abide by their judgment. If, then, their sentence be con- 
 fined within these precise bounds, the disputants must acquiesce in it. They can not 
 say that it is manifestly unjust, since it is pronounced on a question which they have 
 themselves rendered doubtful by the discordance of their claims, and which has been 
 referred as such to the decision of the arbitrators. Before they can pretend to evade 
 such a sentence they should prove by incontestable facts that it was the offspring of 
 corruption or flagrant partiality. 
 
 Calvo (sec. 1756) finds that the parties who have presented a demand 
 to arbitration have submitted morally in advance and are held bound 
 to execute the conclusions reached. 
 
 As grounds for attacking the judgment of an arbitral court he gives 
 the following (sec. 1774) : 
 
 1°. Si la sentence a 6t6 prononcee sans que les arbitres y aient 6t6 suffisam- 
 ment autorises, ou lorsqu'elle a status en dehors ou au dela des termes du 
 compromis. * * * 
 
 2°. Lorsqu'il estprouve' que ceux qui ont rendu la sentence se trouvaient dans une 
 situation d'incapacit^ legale ou morale, absolue ou relative, par exemple s'ils 6taient 
 lies par des engagements anterieurs ou avaient dans les conclusions formulees un 
 interet direct ignore 1 des parties qui les avaient choisis. 
 
 3°. Lorsque les arbitres ou l'une des parties ad verses n'ont pas agi de bonne foi: si 
 l'on peut prouver, par exemple, que les arbitres se sont laisse corrompre ou acheter 
 par l'une des parties. Heureusement il serait difficile de mentionner un cas d'arbi- 
 trage ayant ce caract&re dans nos temps modernes; depuis le commencement du 
 siecle quarante differends internationaux au moins ont 6t6 regies par des arbitres, et 
 nous ne sachions pas qu'il se soit eleve 1 le plus leger soupcon que leurs jugements 
 n'aient pas <zt& entierement impartiaux. II faut remonter jusqu'au moyen-age pour 
 rencontrer des exemples de fraude et de corruption; ainsi Pufendorf cite celui de 
 l'empereur Maximilien et du doge de Venise soumettant leurs differends a 1' arbitrage 
 
 S. Doc. 28 15 
 
226 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 du pape Leon X, tandis que chacun d'eux intriguait en particulier auprSs du pontife 
 romain pour qu'il se declarat en sa faveur. 
 
 4°. Lorsque l'un ou 1' autre des Etats interesses dans la question n'a pas 6te entendu 
 ou mis a meme de justifier de ses droits. 
 
 5°. Lorsque la sentence porte sur des questions non pertinentes, c'est-a-dire n'ayant 
 pas trait au litige, ou sur des choses qui n'ont pas 6te demandees. 
 
 6°. Lorsque la teneur de la sentence est absolument contraire aux regies de la jus- 
 tice et ne peut des lors faire l'objet d'une transaction, comme dans le cas ou l'arbitre, 
 appele a prononcer sur la satisfaction, qu'un Etat doit a un autre pour une offense, 
 condamnerait l'offenseur a une reparation qui porterait atteinte a son honneur ou a 
 son independance; ou bien encore dans le cas ou l'arbitre aurait en vue quelque 
 avantage qu'il pourrait tirer d'une decision injuste, et serait assez puissant pour ne 
 craindre pas le ressentiment des parties qui ont deier6 a son jugement le reglement 
 de leurs reclamations en litige: ainsi fut la decision du peuple romain, lorsque les 
 villes italliennes d'Ardee et d'Aricie ayant remis a son arbitrage leur contestation.au 
 sujet de la souverainet6 sur un certain territoire, 1' assembled des tribus romaines 
 adjugea a l'Etat romain la propria du territoire contests. 
 
 II convient de faire observer que la decision des arbitres ne saurait etre attaquee 
 pour un simple vice de forme, sous le pr^texte qu'elle est erronn^e, ou contraire a 
 l'6quite, ou pregudiciable aux inte>6ts de l'une des parties. Neanmoins les erreurs de 
 calcul et du reste toutes les erreurs de fait constatees peuvent toujours etre rectifiees. 
 
 According to M. Pradier-Fodere" (sec. 2628), an arbitral sentence is 
 null if it is in derogation in any respect whatever of the terms of the 
 compromis, or if the universal or fundamental principles of procedure 
 have not been observed, or if there has been partiality on the part of 
 the arbitrator or bad faith on his part or on the part of the parties, 
 or if the decision is absolutely incompatible with the principles of 
 justice and international law. 
 
 According to M. Goldschmidt, the arbitral sentence duly pronounced 
 can be attacked and held for naught (Revue de Droit International for 
 1874, p. 447): 
 
 _ 1°. Si le compromis n'a pas &t& conclu valablement. Oe motif ne peut £tre invoque' 
 si le recourant a pris part a la procedure devant le tribunal arbitral, sans opposer la 
 nullity du compromis. 
 
 2°. Si le compromis valablement conclu s'est ensuite 6teint: a, par convention des 
 parties intervenue avant le prononcSde la sentence; 6, parcequ'on n'a pas pu former 
 le tribunal arbitral, ou parce que le tribunal arbitral valablement forme s'est ensuite 
 dissous; c, parce que le delai prescrit pour le prononce' de la sentence est expir6 avant 
 ce prononc6. 
 
 3°. Si le tribunal arbitral n'a pas delibere" et statue tous les membres presents et 
 votants. 
 
 4°. Si, le compromis prescrivant 1' expose" des motifs, la sentence a 6te rendue sans 
 motifs. 
 
 5°. Si le tribunal arbitral a decide sans aucunement entendre le recourant. Est 
 assimile au cas de refus d' audition celui oil la personne qui s'est geree en represent- 
 ant du recourant n'en a recu mandat ni expres ni tacite; sa gestion n'ayant 6te non 
 plus ratifiee ni expressement ni tacitement par le recourant. 
 
 6°. Si le tribunal arbitral a excede les limites de la competence que lui donnait le 
 compromis. 
 
 7°. Si le tribunal arbitral a, par sa decision, accorde a la partie adverse plus qu'elle 
 ne demandait. 
 
 8°. Si les regies de procedure ou les principes de droit expressement presents a 
 1 observation du tribunal arbitral dans le compromis ou une convention subsequente 
 des compromettants, ou les principes de procedure poses par le tribunal lui-meme et 
 notifies aux parties, ont 6te manifestement negliges ou violet. 
 
 9°. Si la sentence arbitrale ordonne un acte reconnu gdneralement pour immoral 
 ou prohibe. 
 
 10°. Si, a l'insu du recourant et avant le prononce de la sentence, un des arbitres a 
 recu de la partie adverse un avantage ou la promesse d'un avantage. 
 
 11". S ll est etabli que le tribunal arbitral a ete trompe par la partie adverse, par 
 exemple, au moyen d'actes faux ou alters ou de temoins corrompus. 
 
 Summing up the various grounds for supposed just denial of the 
 authority of the decisions of arbitral courts, we find that many relate 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CAElFOBNTAS. 227 
 
 to questions of departure from the terms of the compromise, and others 
 to the exercise, or attempted exercise, by the arbitrators of powers 
 beyond those conferred upon them by that instrument, although to 
 the latter point the writers instance but a single case, such bemg the 
 action of the King of Holland in connection with the arbitration 
 between England and America for the settlement of the St. Croix 
 River difficulty, before referred to. 
 
 The authors are further in substantial accord to the point that the 
 decision may be rejected on the ground of partiality, bad faith, or 
 corruption, but fortunately again in the history of arbitrations no 
 instance is cited of partiality or bad faith, and but one of attempted 
 corruption. 
 
 According to some writers, the award may be rejected when contrary 
 to the principles of international law, but unless this expression be 
 given a narrow interpretation this opinion may be regarded as doubtful 
 and dangerous. Properly interpreted, it may be esteemed as referring 
 to cases where the award would involve, without its express consent, 
 the territorial impairment or the infringement of the independence of 
 a state. 
 
 Writers generally agree that an award may be attacked for errors 
 of calculation, but the good faith of nations, of course, permits cor- 
 rections of this sort to be made without involving serious trouble, and 
 the point may be dismissed as of minor importance. 
 
 It is to be noted that; the point being considered by him, no author 
 believes that the award of arbitrators may be attacked because of 
 erroneous appreciation either of the facts or of the law as applicable 
 to them. We have seen that upon this point Bluntschli argues that a 
 decision may not be attacked on the pretext that it is erroneous or 
 contrary to equity save for errors of calculation; while Heffter finds 
 that errors which may be alleged against the sentence, when they are 
 not the result of a partial spirit, do not constitute a cause of nullity. 
 Kamarowsky quotes Chrabro-Vassilewsky as contending that the effect 
 of an arbitral sentence can not be lost on account of reasons affecting 
 its substance. Vattel declares that the parties may not say " it is mani- 
 festly unjust, since it is pronounced on a question which they have 
 themselves rendered doubtful by the discordance of their claims, and 
 which has been referred as such to the decision of the arbitrators." 
 Calvo is of the opinion that the decision of arbitrators can not be 
 attacked on the pretext that it is erroneous or contrary to equity or 
 prejudicial to the interests of one of the parties. 
 
 It is true that, in the opinion of the Institute of International Law, 
 arbitral sentences may be disputed for " erreur essentielle." We have 
 already adverted to the possibility that these words are to be inter- 
 preted with reference to the original u pro jet" of Goldschmidt, and 
 intended to refer to the production of false documents; but if this 
 meaning be not given the words, then we must understand by " erreur 
 essentieUe" a fundamental error — one which is of the nature known to 
 the common law as jurisdictional, and therefore vitiating the whole 
 proceedings, and not such error as might arise from a miscitation of 
 the facts or misapplication of the law of the particular case. It must 
 be, in other words, such an error as is criticised by some authors as 
 constituting an infraction of public international law, which subject we 
 have already briefly discussed. 
 
 The distinction can not be too strongly emphasized between errors 
 
228 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 involving a subversion of what we might term natural law of nations 
 and errors which rest upon matters of judgment, with relation to which 
 men may differ, and which are only regarded among men and nations as 
 set at rest by the judgment of a competent tribunal. That the decision 
 under consideration was subversive in any degree of the fundamental 
 principles of international law we think can scarcely be contended. 
 
 That Mexico will insist that the former arbitrators erred in their 
 appreciation of the facts submitted to them seems probable, but that 
 such a contention is sufficient to justify the rejection of an award can 
 not, we think, in view of the foregoing considerations, be sustained 
 from the standpoint either of law or reason. 
 
 We do not believe it can or will be seriously argued that Mexico 
 was bound by the decision formerly had, in so far as that decision 
 related to the payment of the sum of $900,000, but would not be bound 
 for any other consequences to flow therefrom. It will not do, we 
 think, to say that while Mexico was bound to abide by the former 
 decision and pay the award then rendered, nevertheless the conse- 
 quences which might naturally flow from such award, constituting res 
 judicata, may not follow. If the former award was valid, then it may 
 not be invalid as to the incidents attaching to it. 
 
 It is to be noted that the new protocol does not authorize this court 
 to review or revise in any manner the judgment of the former Mixed 
 Commission, but to determine whether it is res judicata of the matters 
 at issue, and what are the consequences of its being res judicata, and" 
 if it be not res judicata, then what are the merits of the claim sub- 
 mitted to this court. This very statement emphasizes that a revision 
 of the former adjudication is not one of the things asked at your 
 hands, and, further, implies that except there be such fundamental 
 error attaching to the former award as absolutely vitiates it then its 
 conclusions are to be given their full force and effect, whatever such 
 force and effect may be, which subject we reserve for later discussion. 
 
 Mexico's official view of the sanctity of the award of the mixed 
 
 commission. 
 
 Reference to the diplomatic correspondence between the United 
 States and Mexico occurring at the close of the year 1876 demon- 
 strates the fact that Mexico did not consider the award in this case 
 properly attackable. Sr. Mariscal stated that Mexico did not "pre- 
 tend to put in doubt the present award," and his correspondence shows 
 that, although Mexico sought to minimize its future effect, she did not, 
 nevertheless, deny its absolute sanctity. 
 
 If Mexico had at any time intended to question or thought there 
 was reasonable ground for questioning the jurisdiction of the former 
 tribunal, surely it would have been at such a moment as this, but she 
 merely denied the right to claim the capital upon which the interest 
 then awarded was based. Our position in this respect is all the 
 stronger, because, believing that the Weil and La Abra awards were 
 obtained by fraud, Mexico expressed certain hopes of a reconsidera- 
 tion as to them. Again, we believe that, recognizing, as the Mexican 
 commissioner did, that the award would place upon Mexico "the per- 
 petual tribute of a rent," the Mexican Government, had it conceived 
 that there was vital error in the award itself, would not have failed to 
 note the fact and to announce its intention of future resistance. Instead 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1FORNIAS. 229 
 
 of such an attitude being assumed, we are left simply to infer that the 
 only position taken by Mexico was that any claim for the capital which 
 might thereafter be made would be opposed, and possibly that the 
 contention would be made that the award then obtained amounted to a 
 conclusive settlement of the whole transaction, although as to this lat- 
 ter suggestion the view of Mexico was not clearly defined. 
 
 Considering the point last above mentioned, we believe we might well 
 have waived all of the argument up to this point and limited ourselves 
 to the questions we are about to discuss; for if Mexico, immediately 
 upon the rendition of the decision of the umpire, did not contend, as 
 we have endeavored to show she could not, that the award was con- 
 trary to public international law, or was based upon errors of law or 
 of fact, or was vitiated or inoperative for some other reason, surely 
 now, after a lapse of twenty-six years, and without the discovery of 
 any new fact affecting the sanctity of the former adjudication, which 
 new fact was not at that time discoverable, Mexico will not be per- 
 mitted to attack as invalid the finding of the Mixed Commission. 
 
 We may with propriety at this point quote Lord Cairns, who, in 
 Dundas v. Waddell (5 Appeal Cases, 263), said: 
 
 I can not imagine anything more unsafe than to attempt to cut down the effect of 
 judgments, distinct and absolute on the face of them, on a surmise that a case was 
 imperfectly considered, or that the court had not proper materials for a judgment. 
 Especially does it appear to me unsafe to enter on such speculations after the lapse 
 of nearly a century, when every source of information, except what is retained in 
 the judgment, has been dried up by lapse of time. 
 
 THE EFFECT OF THE ARBITRAL DECISION IN THIS CASE AS RES JUDICATA. 
 
 By reference to the protocol it will appear that the former Mixed 
 Commission adjudged the claim of the Catholic bishops of California 
 submitted to it adversely to the Republic of Mexico, and made an 
 award thereon of $904,700.99, the same being, as expressed in the find- 
 ings of the court, for twenty-one years' interest of the annual amount 
 of $43,080.50 upon $718,016.50 in Mexican gold. Subsequently this 
 award was reduced, because of an error of calculation, to $904,070.79 
 Mexican gold, representing a diminution in the total amount of princi- 
 pal upon which interest should be recovered of $500. (Transcript, p. 
 650.) This award was paid, and in view of the demonstration in which 
 we believe we have successfully indulged of the fact that the former 
 award constituted res judicata as to the amount of 3 r early installments 
 which could be claimed on behalf of the bishops of California, the 
 question arises as to the consequences which flow therefrom. We 
 have introduced in evidence the former adjudication for the purpose 
 of establishing conclusively the amount of yearly interest we now have 
 a right to claim. This done, Mexico would still be privileged to show, 
 if such were the fact, that the interest had been paid. The protocol 
 admits that this interest has not been paid or released. 
 
 Before entering into a discussion of the legal consequences of the 
 former decision, it is worth noting the opinion expressed at the time 
 of its rendition by the representatives of Mexico. Said Senor de 
 Zamacona, in his opinion as commissioner: 
 
 When Mexico and the United States liquidated, so to say, their accounts in 1848, 
 binding themselves not to seek in the past for any cause of complaint or reclamation, 
 the Fund of California was already incorporated into the national revenues of the 
 Republic, and the Government of Mexico had only allotted certain subsidies to the 
 
230 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 ecclesiastical functionaries who served it as auxiliaries in that part of the confederacy. 
 This situation the claimants now desire to alter and to oblige Mexico to pay the perpet- 
 ual tribute of a rent to certain American corporations. (Transcript, p. 542.) 
 
 Again, he asks: 
 
 What is there in common between that case and that of the claimants? What do 
 they give Mexico? What do they offer her in exchange for a sort of perpetual annuity 
 which they want to secure in favor of their churches? (Transcript, p. 543.) 
 
 For citations to similar effect from the argument of Sr. Avila, we 
 refer to the brief of the Messrs. Doyle, where they are collated. 
 
 It is evident that Senor de Zamacona believed that an award against 
 his country for past interest necessarily involved the payment of future 
 interest, which he terms "the perpetual tribute of a rent," or, in other 
 words, "a perpetual annuity." His view of the law upon this point 
 was absolutely correct, as we shall now proceed to show. 
 
 THE FORMER AWARD BEING RES JUDICATA, ESTABLISHES CONCLUSIVELY 
 THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OE INTEREST TO BE PAID. 
 
 By reference to the protocol we find the recital that in the former 
 controversy the Mixed Commission — 
 
 adjudged the same adversely to the Republic of Mexico and in favor of said claim- 
 ants, and made an award thereon of nine hundred and four thousand seven hundred 
 and x 9 ^ (904,700.99) dollars, the same, as expressed in the findings of said court, 
 being for twenty-one years' interest of the annual amount of forty-three thousand 
 and eighty and -ffo (43,080.99) dollars upon seven hundred and eighteen thousand 
 and sixteen and T \\ (718,016.50) dollars. 
 
 A slight correction is properly to be made in the foregoing as above 
 indicated, inasmuch as the umpire, upon his attention being called to 
 an arithmetical error, reduced the sum total to $904,070.79. 
 
 The language of the protocol above quoted indicates that by agree- 
 ment of the two nations it is covenanted that the former tribunal 
 adjudged not only the annual interest to be paid, but also the amount 
 of principal upon which it was based, and we might well rely upon 
 this single fact as a complete answer to the suggestion on behalf of 
 the Mexican Republic that the decisory or dispositif 'part of the judg- 
 ment had reference only to the question of interest. 
 
 But for a few moments, even though it be contrary to the actual 
 facts of the situation, let us assume that the two Governments have not 
 agreed as to the points upon which the decision was reached, and 
 further assume that it is open to this court to investigate and rede- 
 termine upon the different findings of the former tribunal, provided, 
 however, the doctrine of res judicata does not prevent such reexami- 
 nation. We shall lay it down as a principle equally well established 
 by the civil law and by the common law of England and America that 
 the things which are of necessity implied in a decision, and without 
 which the decision could not have had an existence, are as much an 
 integral part of it as if they had entered into the last words spoken 
 and the last action taken by the court. 
 
 Quoting from an eminent American authority (Freeman on Judg- 
 ments, sec. 256), we may say that — 
 
 A judgment is conclusive upon every matter actually and necessarily decided in 
 the former suit, though not then directly the point in issue. If the facts involved in 
 the second suit are so cardinal that without them the former decision can not stand, 
 they must now be taken as conclusively settled. In an order of settlement J. G. and 
 W. G. were adjudged to be the lawful children of William G. and Esther G. and to 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNTAS. 281 
 
 « 
 have their settlement in a certain township. Afterwards a contest arose in relation 
 to the settlement of Esther G., whereupon it was considered that as the settlement 
 of the children depended on that of their father and on his marriage with their mother, 
 Esther, the father's settlement and marriage must have been decided as the ground- 
 work of the former order, and that as those facts which upheld the order of settle- 
 ment of the children were necessarily and exclusively applicable to their mother, her 
 settlement was fixed by the decision in relation to that of her children. (Eegina v. 
 Hartington, 4 El. and Bl., 780.) 
 
 Again we read in the same work in section 258: 
 
 In ascertaining whether a particular matter has become res judicata, the reasoning 
 of the court is less to be regarded than the judgment itself, and the premises which 
 its existence necessarily affirms. 
 
 As inf erentially bearing upon the point now under consideration we 
 may cite Doty v. Brown (4 New York, 71; 53 American Decisions. 
 350) as authority to the proposition that the former judgment is con- 
 clusive when the parties and the question involved in the two suits are 
 the same, notwithstanding the property claimed in them may be dif- 
 ferent. To the same proposition we cite Keown v. Murdock (10 Ohio 
 State, 606). 
 
 In the case of Reynolds v. Mandel (73 Illinois Appeals, 379) it was 
 decided that where a question material to the determination of both 
 causes has been adjudicated in the former suit by a competent court, 
 and the same question is again at issue between the same parties, its 
 adjudication in the former case is conclusive in the latter whether the 
 cause of action be the same in both suits or not. 
 
 The language of the court of appeals of New York in the case of 
 Manufacturing Company v. Walker (114 New York, 7) is much in point: 
 
 The estoppel of a former judgment extends to every material matter within the 
 issues which was expressly litigated and determined, and also to those matters which, 
 although not expressly determined, were comprehended and involved in the thing 
 expressly stated and decided, whether they were or not actually litigated or consid- 
 ered. It is not necessary that issue should have been taken upon the precise point 
 controverted in the second action. 
 
 In passing to a brief consideration of the position of the English 
 courts, we may refer to the fact that in Cromwell v. County of Sac 
 (4 Otto, Supreme Court U. S. , 351) the Supreme Court quotes approv- 
 ingly the opinion of the chancellor in Henderson v. Henderson (3 
 Hare, Eng., 100) as follows: 
 
 In trying this, question I believe I state the rule of court correctly that when a 
 given matter becomes the subject of litigation in and of adjudication by a court of com- 
 petent jurisdiction the court requires the parties to bring forward their whole case, 
 and will not, except under special circumstances, permit the same parties to open the 
 same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought for- 
 ward as part of the subject in controversy, but which was not brought forward only 
 because they have from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident omitted part of 
 the case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to the 
 points upon which the court was required by the parties to form an opinion and pro- 
 nounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of 
 litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought 
 forward at the time. 
 
 The general rule is again indicated by the language of Lord Mellish 
 in Bank of Hindustan, China, and Japan, Allison's case (L. K. Ch. 
 Appeal Cases, vol. 9, p. 1), as follows: 
 
 It is clear, I apprehend, that the judgment of the courts of common law is not only 
 conclusive with reference to the actual matter decided, but that it is also conclusive 
 with reference to the grounds of the decision, provided that from the judgment itself 
 the actual grounds of the decision can be clearly discovered. 
 
232 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 As supplying us with a general rule, the application of which is 
 explained by the cases already given and those hereafter to be adduced, 
 we may with advantage refer to the much cited opinion of Lord De 
 Grey in The Duchess of Kingston's case (20 Howell's State Trials, 538), 
 as follows: 
 
 From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil 
 suits these two deductions seem to follow as generally true: First, that the judgment 
 of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon the point is as a plea a bar, or as 
 evidence, conclusive between the same parties upon the same matter directly in 
 question in another court; secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive juris- 
 diction directly upon the point is in like manner conclusive upon the same matter 
 between the same parties coming incidentally in question in another court for a 
 different purpose. 
 
 Let us now consider whether the civil law treats this subject-matter 
 in the same manner, bearing in mind the citation made by Senor 
 Mariscal (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 32) from the work of Pro- 
 fessor Laurent to the effect that — 
 
 The creditor sues his debtor for interest of a principal sum; the judge condemns 
 the debtor to pay. Is there res judicata in respect to the principal? It is supposed 
 that the decisory part of the decision affects the amount of the principal, and it has 
 been decided that a decision in these terms does not give the force of res judicata with 
 respect to the principal itself. (Citing decision August 25, 1829, Dalloz, Chose 
 Jugee, No. 24.) 
 
 When, however, we examine the work of Dalloz itself, we find that 
 the citation was simply that of a case in which judgment for compound 
 interest had been rendered by default, and Dalloz contended that the 
 authority of res judicata did not attach to the points or reasons 
 announced in connection with the judgment relative to facts or ques- 
 tions which had not been specially submitted to the examination of the 
 judge, even if these announcements were found in the " dispositif" 
 of the judgment. Thus he continues: 
 
 Judgment by default which results from a demand tending solely to produce inter- 
 est upon interest of a capital has not the effect of chose jugie as to the quantity of the 
 capital, although this capital may be expressed in the judgment. 
 
 Looking at the reason suggested, we may readily grant the conclu- 
 sion. No question as to the amount of the capital was " specially sub- 
 mitted to the examination of the judge." He was only asked to 
 determine the amount of interest accruing upon another alleged 
 amount of interest, and the judgment in the case being by default, 
 there was no contest before him tending to bring out all the facts of 
 the case. That we have correctly stated the reason for the position 
 taken by Dalloz sufficiently appears from a further citation from par- 
 agraph 32, in which Senor Mariscal found the quotation applied by 
 him. There M. Laurent says: 
 
 Un jugement accorde a une personne des aliments en qualite d' enfant, A-t-il l'au- 
 torite de chose jugee sur la question d' affiliation? Si la question a 6te dSbattue entre 
 les parties l'affirmative n'est point douteuse. 
 
 Let us apply the last citation to the case at issue. Mexico discussed 
 fully before the former tribunal the question of her obligation to pay 
 the interest finally awarded against her, and the finding of the tribunal 
 was contrary to. her contentions. The question, therefore, of her lia- 
 bility to pay interest " a ete debattue entre les parties," and, according 
 to M. Laurent, the proposition of res judicata under such circumstances 
 "n'est point douteuse." 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 233 
 
 As a preliminary proposition we may say that the civil law has deter- 
 mined that the authority of chose jugee — 
 
 Pouvant etre invoquee par le demandeur aussi bien que le delendeur, n' est pas toujours 
 invoquee sous la forme d'une exception. (Repertoire General Alphabetique du Droit 
 Francais, vol. 11, Chose Jugee, sec. 767. ) 
 
 Addressing ourselves now to the underlying principle to which we 
 are giving consideration, we read from the Dictionnaire General de 
 Droit et de Jurisprudence de M. Bertheau, in sec. 15535, as follows: 
 
 II y a des motifs qui sont en quelque sorte l'ame de la sentence, qui sont avec elle 
 dans un rapport si etroit qu'ils participent necessairement a l'autorite attachee au 
 dispositif. Exemple: vous me demandez le paiement d'une sommede tan t. Jevous 
 oppose la compensation; mais le jugement, ecartant mon moyen de defense dans ses 
 motifs, me condamne, dans son dispositif, a vous payer la somme reclamee. Je ne 
 pourrais ensuite vous demander ladite somme que je pretends m'fitre due par vous, 
 car il resulte des motifs du jugement que vous ne me la devez pas. On voit done 
 qu'ici les motifs ont indirectement autorite de chose jugee, parce qu'ils se trouvent 
 avoir un lien necessaire avec la sentence. 
 
 Again he says: 
 
 § 15537. Les decisions formellement exprimees dans le jugement ne sont pas les 
 seules qui beneflcient de la presomption de verity. II en est de meme de celles que 
 le jugement implique necessairement, sans les declarer cependant d'une facon 
 expresse. 
 
 § 15538. Ainsi le jugement qui valide les poursuites dirigees en vertu d'un litre 
 implique que le titre est valable. V. M. Demolombe, XXX. No. 294; Cass., 4 dec. 
 1837, (S. 38. 1. 233.) 
 
 Continuing our citations, we beg to refer to Repertoire General 
 Alphabetique du Droit Francois (vol. 11, title "Chose Jugee," sec. 
 213), which says: 
 
 L'autorite de la chose jugee ne s' attache pas dans une sentence a toutes les paroles 
 du juge; elle ne s' attache pas en principe aux motifs du jugement; elle ne s' attache 
 pas non plus aux enonciations; mais elle appartient aux decisions implicites aussi 
 bien qu'aux decisions expresses. 
 
 In the same line is the expression found, under the same title, in 
 section 228, which reads: 
 
 D'autre part, alors meme que le dispositif contient tout ce qui a 6te deiide, les 
 motifs d'un jugement peuvent servir a eclairer le dispositif. Ce dernier est souvent 
 tres bref et ne ferait pas suffisamment connaftre ce qui a 6t& juge. On peut, pour 
 completer le sens d'une decision et determiner la chose jugee par elle, en interroger 
 les motifs lorsqu'ils sont en harmonie avec le dispositif. 
 
 Again, we add from section 237: 
 
 * * * Aussi les decisions implicites sont-elles admises par la jurisprudence et 
 par tous les auteurs. (Aubry et Bau, t. 8, p. 371, s. 769; Larombiere, art. 1351, n. 
 27; Laurent, t. 20, n. 34; Demolombe, t. 30, n. 294; Garsonnet, t. 3, p. 240, s. 465, 
 n. 13. ) >,*>,, 
 
 Volume 25 of the same work, title "Jugement et Arret," section 
 392, says: ' 
 
 La regie que l'autorite de la chose jugee ne s'attache qu'au dispositif du jugement 
 ne s' oppose pas toujours a ce que les motifs fassentpartie de la decision definitive; 
 les motifs participent a l'autoritS de la chose jugee lorsqu'ils font corps avec le dis- 
 positif, ou qu'ils en sont la base essentielle. (V. supra, V° Chose Jugee, n. 226 et s.) 
 
 We find therefore that the common law and the civil law agree 
 that the thing which is implied from the actual point of the decision, 
 or which constitutes its necessary foundation (base essentielle), is as 
 much a part of the dtsjpositif 'or decisory part of the decision as if it 
 had been fully expressed and had entered into its operative words. 
 
234 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Let us now, having established this principle, see the effect which has 
 been given it by American, English., and civil law judges, and the 
 extent to which in practice it has been carried. 
 
 Our contention is, of course, that the foundation of the principal 
 sum, having been examined thoroughly by the Mixed Commission, and 
 that Commission having determined the existence and amount of the 
 principal and as a consequence the quantity of interest flowing there- 
 from, has settled all of these questions for all time to come. 
 
 An American case in point would be that of Edgell v. Sigerson (26 
 Missouri, 583), in which case, after judgment in favor of plaintiff upon 
 a contract for the payment of money in installments, it was held that 
 the only question open to litigation in respect to any subsequent 
 installments was whether as to it the defendant was in default. The 
 court in deciding the case used this language: 
 
 The integrity of the note was necessarily and directly in issue in the suit brought 
 to recover the annual installments of interest, and the judgment in that case having 
 been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction determined the question as to the 
 alteration of the note and was conclusive between the same parties in another suit 
 directly involving the same question. 
 
 A like decision has been made where a series of promissory notes 
 had been given and prior litigation had been had with reference to one 
 of them; for instance, in Meiers v. Purrier (21 Illinois Appeals, 551) 
 the court held, in an action on the third of three notes given at the 
 same time for the same consideration and as part of the same transac- 
 tion, the record of a former suit on the other notes was admissible 
 and conclusive of the partnership of the makers, which had then been 
 in issue. 
 
 Again, in the case of Young v. Brehe (19 Nevada, 379; 3 American 
 State Reports, 892; 12 Pacific Reporter, 564) it was held that where 
 defense is interposed in a suit on a note that defendant made and exe- 
 cuted to plaintiff a deed of land which was accepted in full payment of 
 the note sued on and other notes due from the defendant to the plain- 
 tiff, the record of an action by the same plaintiff against the same 
 defendant on one of the other notes, in which the same defense was 
 made, and where it was decided that the deed was never delivered and 
 accepted by defendant as alleged, was conclusive against the defendant 
 in that action. 
 
 The courts have taken a similar position, the principle being the 
 same, in cases involving the payment of successive installments. We 
 will refer at this time simply to the case of Hobbolson v. Sherman (42 
 JSIew York superior court; 10 Jones and S. 477), wherein a recovery 
 in an action for the first installment under a contract calling for pay- 
 ment by installments was held conclusive as to the existence and validity 
 of the contract in a subsequent action for other installments. 
 
 Rent cases are comparatively numerous. We will commence by 
 referring to that of Love v. Waltz (7 California, 250), wherein it was 
 held that judgment for a quarter's rent under a lease is conclusive evi- 
 dence, so far as it goes, in an action of forcible entry for nonpayment 
 of another quarter's rent under the same lease between the same par- 
 ties. Of course it would not in itself be evidence conclusive of the 
 existence of a subsequent lease or of actual payment or nonpayment 
 under the latter 
 
 See also Kelsey v. Ward, 38 New York, 83; Tysen v. Tompkins, 10 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 235 
 
 Daly, 244; Drydock, etc., Kailroad Company v. N. and A. .Railroad 
 Company, 22 New York Supplement, 556. 
 
 The doctrine of the cases last above mentioned is recognized In re 
 Johnson (4 Court of Claims, 248), wherein it was held that a judgment 
 of the Court of Claims, determining the annual rental value of private 
 property of which the United States has possession, is conclusive on 
 the claimant as to the measures of damages for occupation subsequent 
 to its date. 
 
 The general underlying principle receives full application in the case 
 of Empire State Nail Company v. American Solid Leather Button 
 Company (74 Federal, 864; 21 C. C. A., 152; 33 U. S. Appeals, 520), 
 wherein the view was taken that where it appears of record that in a 
 prior suit any particular question has been actually adjudicated the 
 prior judgment is to that extent conclusive in any subsequent suit 
 between the same parties or their privies relating to an instrument 
 which forms the basis of the litigation in each. 
 
 The doctrine is fully recognized in the case of New Orleans v. Citi- 
 zens' Bank (167 U. S., 371), wherein (on p. 398) the court said: 
 
 It follows, then, that the mere fact that the demand in this case is for a tax for one 
 year does not prevent the operation of the thing adjudged, if in the prior case the 
 question of exemption was necessarily presented and determined upon identically 
 the same facts upon which the right of exemption is now claimed. 
 
 The case last quoted from cites with approval the opinion of Justice 
 Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations, wherein (on p. 47) 
 he declares that — 
 
 The estoppel extends to every material allegation or statement which, having 
 been made on one side and denied on the other, was at issue in the case and was 
 determined therein. 
 
 We may close our citations of American authorities by referring to 
 the case of Black River Savings Bank v. Edwards (10 Gray, Mass., 
 387), in which the position was taken by the court that recovery by 
 judgment of a sum claimed to be due as interest on a promissory note 
 precludes the defendant from contesting the payment of the principal 
 on the ground that the note was procured by fraud. 
 
 For a complete review of the positions taken by the text writers 
 with relation to this subject, we beg leave to refer to the comprehen- 
 sive brief of Mr. Doyle, to be found on pages 12 et seq. , Diplomatic 
 Correspondence. 
 
 In a brief prepared last year by Messrs. Ralston & Siddons, in reply 
 to a letter of Senor Mariscal, and given in full in the Diplomatic Cor- 
 respondence, pages 51 et seq. , this subject is further discussed from 
 the standpoint of the civil law. 
 
 To the citations already given from the civil law others of importance 
 remain to be added. We quote from Repertoire General Alpha betique 
 du Droit Francais (vol. 11, title "Chose JugeV'): 
 
 § 255. Je reclame a titre d'heritier le paiement d'une dette; mon adversaire pretend 
 qu'il est l'hentier du d£funt et que, par suite, la confusion a 6teint la dette dont il 
 6tait tenu. Le tribunal declare que c'est moi qui suis l'heritier, et condamne, en con- 
 sequence, le deiendeur a verser entre mes mains la somme que je lui ai r<5clam£e. 
 Si plus tard j'agis de nouveau, contre la meme personne, pour lui r^clamer une 
 maison dependant de la succession, elle ne pourrait pas £tre admise a contester ma 
 quality d'heritier; je suis en droit de soutenir qu'il y a dans les deux proces identity 
 d'objet. II est vrai que dans le premier proces j'ai reclame une somme d'argent, et 
 que dans le second je reclame une maison; mais les deux proces ont mis en jeu un 
 meme droit, mon droit herfiditaire; les deux instances ont, en reality, le meme objet. 
 
236 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 (Bonnier, n. 869; Larombiere, art. 1351, n. 86; Colmet de Sauterre, t. 5, n. 328, 
 bis- VI; Demolombe, t. 30, n. 303; Garsonnet, t. 3, p. 251, sec. 467; Griolet, p. 104.) 
 § 256. II a ete juge, en ce sens, que le jugement rendu au sujet d'un des intents 
 divers qui se fondent sur une question d'etat a Pautorite de la chose jugee, en ce qui 
 concerne P6tat contests, quant aux autres pretentions qui, reposant sur la mfime base, 
 pourraient ulterieurement se produire. (Paris l er juill. 1861, Patterson (S. 62. 2. 71; 
 P. 61, 1153; D. 61. 2. 137.) Sic, Aubry et Rau, t. 8, p. 399, sec. 769, texte et note 113; 
 Larombiere, art. 1351, n. 85.) 
 
 "We think the following section excellently states the underlying 
 idea, and, accepting it, we submit that the tribunal before which we 
 have the honor to appear must give full force and effect to the prior 
 decision as res judicata: 
 
 § 258. En un mot Pidee qui doit servir de guide pour savoir, s'il y a ou non identity 
 d'objet est la suivante: en statuant sur l'objet d'une demande, le juge est-il expose 1 k 
 contredire une decision anterieure en affirmant un droit ni6, ou en niant un droit 
 affirm^ par cette pr6c6dente decision? S'il ne peut statuer qu'en s'exposant a cette 
 contradiction, il y a identity d'objet et chose jugee. (Macard6, art. 1351, n. 4; 
 Demolombe, t. 30, n. 299; Baudry-Lacantinerie, t. 2, n. 1289.) 
 
 Continuing our citations of illustrative cases, we quote sections 259 
 
 and 260: 
 
 § 259. Ainsi, par exemple, lorsqu'il l'occasion de la demande en paiement d'une 
 partie d'une dette s'eleve une difficult^ concernant la creance tout entiere, la decision 
 qui tranche cette difficulty a Pautorit6 de la chose jugee a l'egard de la partie de la 
 dette dont le paiement n'a pas 6t6 primitivement demand^ et donne lieu & des pour- 
 suites ulterieures. (Aubry et Rau, t. 8, p. 390, sec. 769, note 33; Larombiere, art. 
 1351, n. 50.) 
 
 § 260. Conformement a, cette regie, la cour de cassation a decide' que, si une somme 
 d'argent payable en plusieurs termes est due en vertu d'une meme obligation, et 
 qu'une difficulty soit soulevee au sujet de la validity de 1' obligation, le jugement qui 
 rtisout la difficulty, et ordonne le paiement d'un terme a sur ce point Peffet de la 
 chose jugee relativement aux autres termes. (Cass., 20 dec. 1830, Thevenin. (S. 31. 
 1. 41, P. Chr.) Sic, Demolombe, loc. cit. — V. aussi Cass., 4 nov., 1863, Larbana (S. 
 63. 1. 539, P. 64. 222, D. 64, 1. 38).) 
 
 Same authority, Title Chose Jugee, No. 226, says that — 
 
 La regie d'apres laquelle Pautorit6 de la chose jugee ne s'attache pas aux motifs 
 doit etre 6cartee lorsque les motifs font corps avec le dispositif, lorsque, selon l'ex- 
 pression de la cour de cassation, ils sont necessaires pour soutenir le dispositif. (Cass., 
 28 juin 1869; Biteau. (S. 69. 1, 422, P. 69. 1091. D. 71. 1. 223.) Sic Bonnier, N. 
 863. Laurent, t. 20. n. 30; Demolombe, t. 30, n. 29; Garsonnet, t. 3. p. 239 et 240, 
 sec. 465. texte et note. 15. — V. aussi Cardot, Revue critique de leg. et de juris. 1863, 
 p. 452. ) 
 
 No. 227: Souvent en effet le dispositif ne contient qu'une partie de ce que le juge a 
 decide^ et l'autre partie se trouve dans les motifs. C'est ce qui se produit notamment 
 lorsque le juge doit statuer successivement sur deux points et que la solution donnee 
 pour le second est la consequence necessaire de celle qui est donnee pour le premier; 
 le juge met la premiere solution dans les motifs sous forme de considerant, et le dis- 
 positif ne renferme que la seconde. Ainsi, au cas ou le demandeur se pretend d'etre 
 le fils de telle personne d6c<Sdee, et reclame a, ce titre la succession, il peut se faire que 
 le tribunal ne constate la filiation contested que dans les motifs, et que le dispositif ne 
 contienne simplement que l'attribution de Pheredite. 11 est manifeste que, dans les 
 hypotheses de ce genre, Pautorite de la chose jugee ne doit pas s'attacher uniquement 
 au dispositif; le jugement contient, en realite, deux decisions, Pune renferm^e dans 
 le dispositif, l'autre inseree dans les motifs. ( V. Trib. Castel-Sarrazen, 22 juin 1850, 
 Nougaroles, S. 50. 2. 417.) 
 
 Bearing in mind the fact that Mexico distinctly contended that the 
 Pious Fund was simply an arm of the Government and not a religious 
 institution, and furthermore denied that the properties of the Pious 
 Fund were as extensive as they were said to be by the claimants, we 
 feel that all of the decisions to which reference has been given are 
 directly in point. The issues above referred to having been clearly 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 237 
 
 raised, having been the subject of evidence and discussion on the part 
 of both parties, being at the same time germane and in fact essential 
 to a proper determination of the claim under the memorial, and the 
 court having finally adjudicated upon the subject, nothing remains to 
 prevent the old adjudication from being to the fullest extent res judi- 
 cata, or forbids that there should flow from that decision the conse- 
 quences claimed by the United States. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF OVERRULED OASES. 
 
 Senor Mariscal adduces in his letter of November 28, 1900, to Mr. 
 Powell Clayton (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 31) the existence of 
 overruled cases in our common law courts as proof that the rule of 
 res judicata is not always adhered to in them; He has been led into 
 this error by losing sight of the inherent and essential distinction 
 between the rule of res judicata apd the maxim stare decisis. When 
 a doubtful or disputed principle of law has been decided by a court of 
 last resort, men adopt it as a guide in their future transactions, and 
 hence justice and public policy demand adherence to it when the same 
 question is again presented, in other cases having different parties. It 
 is said, in English and American jurisprudence, to be a rule of decision. 
 From this rule of decision courts are at liberty but disinclined to depart. 
 This is all briefly expressed in the maxim stare decisis. If, as some- 
 times occurs, the same court afterwards concludes that it erred in its 
 appreciation of law, it reconsiders the doctrine previously announced 
 and overrules its former opinion; "such cases are called overruled 
 cases." They are overruled as authoritative expositions of the law, 
 because the court is convinced that it erred in pronouncing them. 
 They no longer constitute a rule of decision. 
 
 The doctrine of res judicata, on the other hand, applies only to 
 subsequent litigation between the same parties or their successors in 
 interest or estate, called their privies. Where disputed matters are 
 once determined by the final judgment of a court of competent juris- 
 diction, such judgment is always, everywhere, and forever conclusive as 
 to such matters between the same parties and those claiming in privity 
 with them. To this rule, there is absolutely no exception. There are 
 no overruled cases in the law of res judicata. If courts were at liberty 
 to overrule decisions when relied upon as res judicata and thereby 
 destroy the effects of such judgments as res judicata, this principle 
 would have to be abandoned; the two propositions involving a contra- 
 diction in terms. 
 
 With this distinction in mind, Senor Mariscal will recognize his 
 misapplication of his suggestion of overruled cases. 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS WITH RELATION TO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM. 
 
 It is not our intention to argue at any length the details affecting the 
 merits of the claim for the Pious Fund. The United States relies 
 absolutely, and, as we believe, with entire justice, upon the fact that 
 these merits have once been the subject of consideration and examina- 
 tion by an entirely competent tribunal, and that tribunal having passed 
 thereon, the American Government is relieved from any necessity for 
 detailed discussion. Even if this were not the correct view, we would 
 
238 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 be excused from entering upon the consideration of the merits as an 
 independent proposition, because this branch of the subject has been 
 so thoroughly treated by the Messrs. Doyle, of counsel, who have 
 shown that a reexamination of the merits would bring about "as its 
 necessary result a judgment against Mexico considerably larger than 
 that formerly awarded. 
 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and as bearing upon the justice of 
 the contentions made on behalf of the United States, there are two or 
 three features of the case to which we believe we are justified in invit- 
 ing attention, and the first of these is that — 
 
 THE PIOUS FUND WAS AT ALL TIMES CONSIDERED AS RELIGIOUS IN 
 CHARACTER, AND ITS BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP VESTED IN THE CHURCH 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 We need not do more than advert to the origin of this fund, spring- 
 ing as it did out of the pious desires of religious Catholics for the con- 
 version of the heathen of the Calif ornias to the truths of Christianity. 
 While the fund remained under the control of the Jesuits these objects 
 were faithfully promoted. When the Jesuits were removed, and for the 
 default of other trustees the Spanish Government assumed control, its 
 first act was (July 12, 1772) to carry out the desires of the founders; 
 for the King's order (Transcript, p. 456) declared that he had assumed 
 "all the rights of patronage which belonged to the regulars of the 
 said order, and also those which they might possess in common with 
 those other orders, without prejudice to these being devoted to the same 
 purposes which they were before the time of the expulsion. " 
 
 When the Spaniards were expelled from Mexico the Mexican Gov- 
 ernment followed the same policy. We find that the law of May 25, 
 1832, already cited at large in this brief, provides the manner in which 
 the Government shall lease the rural property belonging to the Pious 
 Fund, and that (sec. 6) "the proceeds of such property shall be 
 deposited in the mint of the Federal city, to be wholly and exclusively 
 destined for the missions of the Calif ornias." It was further particu- 
 larly directed that the board of management, consisting of three 
 persons, should include an ecclesiastic. Among its powers were: 
 
 9. To name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each one 
 of the Californias in accordance with their respective expenses and their available 
 funds. 
 
 When, later on, the' bishopric of California was created, article 6 of 
 the law of September 19, 1836, provided: 
 
 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. 
 
 When, still later, and on February 8, 1842, the Mexican Government 
 reassumed the management of the Pious Fund, it particularly declared 
 that the proceeds of the property assumed should be disbursed " in 
 such way and manner as it shall direct for the purpose of carrying 
 out the intention of the donor in the civilization and conversion of the 
 savages. " 
 
 Even when the fund was finally incorporated in the national treasury 
 the Government, by the decree of October 24, 1842, after insuring the 
 payment of its revenues, declared that ' ' the department in charge thereof 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA8. 239 
 
 will pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said 
 fund is destined, without any deduction for costs, whether of adminis- 
 tration or otherwise." 
 
 At the still later period, April 3, 1845, when the Government under- 
 took to retrace its steps, it recognized the interest of the bishops in 
 the subject-matter, for it provided: 
 
 All debts due to and other property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias 
 which may be still unsold shall be forthwith restored to the right reverend bishop 
 of that see, and to his successors, for the purpose stated in the sixth article of the 
 law of the 19th of September, 1836, without prejudice to the action which Congress 
 may take with regard to such as may have been sold. 
 
 It is therefore too late to be argued, as it was before the former 
 Mixed Commission, that the purposes of the Pious Fund were polit- 
 ical, or that the Pious Fund constituted an arm of the Government 
 as distinguished from an assistance in the performance of a religious 
 function. 
 
 Passing, therefore, from this subject, we desire to add something to 
 the view presented by the Messrs. Doyle with relation to 
 
 THE OBLIGATION RESTING UPON MEXICO TO PAT INTEREST UPON PRIN- 
 CIPAL AND INTEREST OF ITS OLD INDEBTEDNESS TO THE PIOUS FUND. 
 
 It appears from an examination of the various statements with rela- 
 tion to the properties of the Pious Fund, referred to in the foregoing 
 statement of facts, and more at large set forth in the places in the 
 record pointed out by the index, that at the time of incorporation of 
 this fund into the treasury Mexico owed to the Pious Fund on account 
 of principal $539,872.25, and on account of interest upon various 
 items embraced in the foregoing sum total the additional amount of 
 $564,968.54. 
 
 It was argued on behalf of Mexico before the Mixed Commission, 
 and we presume the argument will be renewed, that Mexico should not 
 have been charged with the principal of the above amounts, because 
 they constituted merely an original indebtedness against the Government 
 of such character that a mixed tribunal could not give it any special 
 precedence over other obligations owned by other' bonded or money 
 creditors of the Government. It was contended, furthermore, that for 
 a like reason any claim based upon interest must fail, as well as for the 
 further reason that a claim upon such interest would amount to the 
 compounding of interest upon a debt due by Mexico. 
 
 From our point of view, even if the matter were otherwise debatable, 
 the foregoing contentions may not be sustained. The Messrs. Doyle 
 have pointed out that they are not sustainable, for the reason that 
 Mexico constituted herself a trustee by virtue of her assumption of 
 the Pious Fund properties. We believe this position to be absolutely 
 unassailable, but we desire to add certain other considerations. 
 
 The language of the decree of October 24, 1842, deserves careful 
 analysis. This decree, after reciting that the decree of February was 
 " intended to fulfill most faithfully the beneficent and national objects 
 designed by the foundress, without the slightest diminution of the prop- 
 erties destined to the end; and whereas.the result can only be attained 
 by capitalizing the funds and placing them at interest on proper securi- 
 ties^ etc., first incorporates into the national treasury " the real estate, 
 urban and rural, the debits and credits, and all other property belong- 
 
240 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 ing to the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias." In our view, the purpose 
 of this law was to cover the entire subject-matter, to absolutely wipe 
 out the Pious Fund in its then existing form, and to start upon a fresh 
 basis. From and after its passage there was not a Pious TFund con- 
 sisting in part of certain'indebtedness of the Government, with interest 
 thereon, but there was, to all intents and purposes, "a refunding of 
 everything, and in the place of an aggregate of about $1,100,000 prin- 
 cipal and interest, based upon the debt of the treasury, we were pre- 
 sented with a new principal of a like amount (excluding from our 
 present calculation the real estate and other properties.) The debits 
 due by the Government, being incorporated in the treasury, could no 
 longer exist in their ancient form, and the only form they could assume 
 was that of a new obligation to pay $1, 100, 000. 
 
 But what was the nature of this obligation ? Was it to deliver over 
 the principal of $1,100,000, or was it to pay interest thereon perpet- 
 ually? The question is answered, as we believe, from a consideration 
 of the following sections of the act. 
 
 The second section, referring to the real estate and other property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias, directs its sale and 
 acknowledges an indebtedness of 6 per cent per annum on the total 
 proceeds of sale, the lands being capitalized at that rate. This section 
 refers, we take it, to the real estate and other property capable of sale 
 and not to the debts due by the Government, which, being incorporated 
 into the treasury, became incapable of disposition. 
 
 The third section, however, refers to the whole subject-matter. 
 The "revenue from tobacco," it says, "is specially pledged for the 
 payment of the income, corresponding to the capital of the said fund 
 of the Californias, and the department in charge thereof will pay over 
 the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said fund is des- 
 tined," etc. 
 
 To what was the revenue from tobacco pledged? Not simply, we 
 think, to the payment of moneys arising from the sale of real estate, 
 but to the payment of an annuity which ought to be paid because of 
 the possession by the Government of all the properties belonging to 
 the Pious Fund of the Californias which were incorporated into the 
 national treasury. • 
 
 The Government at the time this act was passed was fully acquainted 
 with all the properties owned by the Pious Fund. Had its own rec- 
 ords been deficient, its attention but eightmonths previously had been 
 directed to the fact the Pious Fund largely consisted of national 
 obligations, and we are not, therefore, permitted to believe that the 
 Government legislated in ignorance or that it only legislated over a 
 part of the subject-matter, for the decree of October, 1842, recites 
 that the prior decree "was intended to fulfill most faithfully the 
 beneficent and national objects designed by the foundress, without the 
 slightest diminution of the properties destined to the end." 
 
 But what rate of interest should be paid because of the absorption by 
 the Government of its own debts and overdue interest thereon ? Surely 
 the interest which was provided to be paid by section 2 was taken by the 
 Government itself as a true measure of the advantage to be gained by 
 it from the personal possession and extinction of the claim due by it 
 to the Pious Fund. We have, therefore, in our opinion, the spectacle 
 of the readjustment and recapitalization of the entire Pious Fund. 
 
 If this view were not correct, what position would we be obliged to 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 241 
 
 take? It would be, we submit, that while Mexico was willing to sell 
 for its own temporary advantage and obtain the money from certain 
 landed properties and to charge itself with interest thereon, it designed 
 at the same moment to possess itself of all of the fund due by it to the 
 Pious Fund of the Californias without rendering an equivalent, a 
 supposition so offensive to the good name and credit of Mexico that 
 we are by no means disposed to make it. 
 
 The view which we entertain is, as we believe, sustained by the lan- 
 guage of the decree of April 3, 1845, which provided for the restoration 
 " of alt the debts due to and other property belonging to the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias which may be still unsold." 
 
 The tangible property of the fund may well have been sold. The 
 debts due the fund by individuals may likewise have been sold, but it 
 is not conceivable that the debts due by Mexico to the Pious Fund 
 could have been disposed of. When a man buys a debt due by himself, 
 while he may create a new obligation of a like amount, the old debt no 
 longer has an existence. Mexico, therefore, even after the passage of 
 the law of April, 1845, had she restored the tangible property yet 
 remaining in her hands and in other respects carried out the purposes 
 of that law, would still be obliged to account for interest upon the 
 remainder of the fund sequestered to her uses. 
 
 We do not ignore the fact that upon the former hearings the repre- 
 sentatives of Mexico insisted that it was out of the question that Mex- 
 ico should have charged herself with 6 per cent interest upon the 
 entire principal and interest due by her when she was only obligated 
 under the terms of the loans made to her to pay, for the most part, a 
 lesser rate. The suggestion, as it occurs to us, is without legal force. 
 The possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of property 
 which could immediately be turned into ready money constituted suf- 
 ficient legal consideration for an undertaking to pay an advanced rate 
 upon other moneys fairly due by her, or to pay interest where before 
 none might properly have been chargeable. And the argument from 
 a moral point of view is equally efficacious, for surely if the proper 
 administrators of the Pious Fund were first to be deprived of the 
 opportunity of administering property originally in their possession, 
 and next, without consultation with them, that same property was to 
 be converted into cash, and they were to be compelled to accept the 
 promise of a government then of uncertain stability, nothing could 
 be more proper than that this changed position should be compensated 
 for by a certain though advanced interest. The same remark holds 
 good as to the securities of private individuals drawing a rate of inter- 
 est less than 6 per cent. It may well have been that obligations of 
 this nature could have been sold by Mexico for a larger sum than her 
 own obligations would bring, and, gaining as she might have done in 
 immediate cash by the transaction, she cftuld well have afforded to 
 promise to pay an increased rate of interest. 
 
 THE MORAL OBLIGATION BESTING UPON MEXICO. 
 
 Let us now, before closing this brief, consider for a moment the naked 
 situation, forgetting all technical questions, such as might arise out of 
 the doctrine of res judicata, or out of the construction of treaties, and 
 regard only the fundamental position to which we must come, if the 
 merits of the case are to be determined upon a basis of justice. 
 S. Doc. 28 16 
 
242 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS 
 
 Mexico took from the possession of the bishop of California, its 
 natural administrator, a fund which, including principal and interest, 
 amounted to nearly $2,000,000. This fund, which, from every moral 
 principle, it became the duty of Mexico to return intact to the former 
 possessor, or for which she should have rendered a just equivalent, 
 has, so far as this tribunal knows, never been returned, and ever since 
 1842 (save for trifling sums before the cession given to the bishop of 
 California, and interest upon one-half of the principal, which was 
 awarded to the bishops of California, for the term of twenty-one years) 
 she has fully enjoyed, and, so far as the parties in interest are con- 
 cerned, she continues to enjoy. If it be just that a nation, because of 
 its might, should possess the power and ability to despoil her citizens 
 and her corporations, of whatever nature, of the properties within 
 their possession, then 'indeed is the claim of the United States unjust. 
 But if, on the other hand, the rules of morality prevailing as between 
 man and man should obtain as between a nation and its citizens or sub- 
 jects, or the citizens or subjects of other nations, and propertjr wrong- 
 fully taken by its authority, or an equivalent therefor or interest 
 thereon, should in justice be returaed to those who have been deprived 
 of its benefit, then indeed is the claim of the United States just under 
 the language of the protocol. 
 
 Believing that this tribunal will uphold the thing which is right, the 
 United States confidently appeal for payment of the interest justly due 
 and contracted to be paid by Mexico. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Reviewing the positions taken in the foregoing brief, we summarize 
 them as follows: 
 
 AS TO RES JUDICATA. 
 
 The amount of the proper judgment in this case is fixed by the terms 
 of the former award, because — 
 
 (a) The Mixed Commission had the right to pass, and did pass, upon 
 its own jurisdiction. 
 
 (i) It was entitled to interpret, and did interpret correctly, the con- 
 vention of 1868. 
 
 (c) Mexico waived her right to object to the jurisdiction of the Mixed 
 Commission by entering upon the trial of the former case without 
 reservation. 
 _ (d) Mexico further waived any right to object to jurisdiction by- 
 signing new conventions, extending the old, while the Pious Fund case 
 was still pending and undetermined, Mexico not withdrawing the case 
 from the commissioners or umpire, and therefore confessing jurisdic- 
 tion; all of which will more readily appear by reference to the dates 
 of the several supplementary conventions and the position of the Pious 
 Fund case at the time of their signing or ratification. 
 
 (e) The doctrine of res judicata applies to arbitral decisions and to 
 the findings of international commissions. 
 
 if) There was no error in the former proceedings of any kind, 
 much less one affecting the jurisdiction of the Mixed Commission, and 
 this fact was recognized by Mexico, no allegation of error having been 
 offered even after the award had been made public. 
 
 iff) The former award being res judicata of the matters directly and 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 243 
 
 * 
 
 impliedly in issue before the Mixed Commission, determines absolutely 
 the amount of annual interest due by Mexico according to the decisions 
 of both common-law and civil-law courts. 
 
 WITH EESPECT TO THE MERITS. 
 
 1. The Pious Fund was at all times considered as religious in its char- 
 acter, and its beneficial ownership vested in the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 2. Mexico is under moral and legal obligation to pay interest upon 
 both principal and interest of all of the property taken by her from 
 the Bishop of California, and if this case be decided upon the merits 
 her obligation is larger than it was before adjudicated to be. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 Jackson H. Ralston, William L. Penfield, 
 
 Agent, and of Counsel for the Solicitor for the Department 
 
 United States of America. of State of the United States 
 
 of America, and of Counsel. 
 
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 [Submitted by Senator William M. Stewart and Mr. C. J. Kappler.] 
 
 This controversy grows out of donations made by pious persons in 
 the eighteenth century to create a fund for the civilization and conver- 
 sion of the natives of the Californias, and for the maintenance and 
 support of the Catholic religion in that country. The fund created 
 by such donations was covered into the Mexican treasury by the decree 
 of October 24, 1842, with an undertaking on the part of Mexico to 
 pay interest thereon for the purposes intended by the donors. After 
 the sale of California to the United States the Mexican Government 
 failed to pay the agreed interest on that part of the principal belong- 
 ing to the missions of Upper California. The questions as to the 
 amount of the principal and the amount of the interest due thereon, 
 with all collateral questions necessary to be decided for the determina- 
 tion of those questions, were submitted to arbitration by the United 
 States and Mexico by the convention of July 4, 1868. The commis- 
 sioners of the United States and Mexico failing to agree, Sir Edward 
 Thornton, the British minister at Washington, made the decision as 
 umpire, and found that the principal, which was a permanent invest- 
 ment, amounted to $1,435,033; that the part to be apportioned to 
 Upper California was $717,516.50, and that the interest then payable 
 amounted to $904,070.79. He therefore rendered judgment for such 
 interest against Mexico and in favor of the bishops of California. 
 Mexico thereupon paid the judgment, but she has paid no interest on 
 the principal since October 24, 1868. The present proceeding is to 
 determine what interest, if any, is now due and payable to the bishops 
 of California. 
 
 The United States contend that all questions relating to the principal 
 investment and the annual interest due theron, and all questions of 
 the rights of the bishops of California thereto, were determined and 
 became res judicata by the decision in the former arbitration. 
 
 We will not now discuss the question of res judicata, but refer this 
 honorable tribunal to the argument of the agent and counsel of the 
 United States on that subject. We will, however, venture the assertion 
 that no tribunal of recognized authority, whether national or inter- 
 national, having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter has 
 ever held thatany question, either of law or fact, which it was necessary 
 to decide to reach the final judgment was not res judicata and binding 
 upon the parties and their privies in all subsequent proceedings involv- 
 ing the questions thus put in issue and decided. This principle is 
 especially important in international courts of arbitration, because if 
 matters decided by them are not finally settled such courts will 
 
 naturally fall into disuse. 
 
 J 245 
 
246 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 II. 
 
 We are now confronted with the denial by the representative of 
 Mexico that anything became res judicata by the judgment in the 
 former arbitration, except the duty of Mexico to pay the sum of 
 $904,070.79 awarded, and also with his contention that every matter 
 of law and fact upon which such judgment was founded and which 
 was necessarity decided to reach the final conclusion, is still open to 
 investigation and decision. We confess our surprise at the position 
 taken by the representative of Mexico. But without waiving the 
 question of res judicata, and being desirous of treating respectfully 
 any argument the representative of Mexico ma} r advance, we will make 
 the following statement of the case: 
 
 The Californias consisted of the peninsula of California and the west- 
 ern part of the Spanish dominions in North America. The harbors of 
 San Diego, Monterey, San Francisco, and numerous other harbors and 
 landings were visited and the rivers and streams connected therewith 
 explored a considerable distance inland \>j Spanish navigators and 
 adventurers. The explorers had penetrated and described the country 
 sufficiently to show that Upper California was a vast region, blessed 
 by nature with a salubrious climate and boundless resources. It was 
 occupied by numerous tribes of Indians, furnishing an almost unlim- 
 ited field for the work of the Christian missionaries in converting the 
 natives to the Catholic religion. 
 
 As early as 1697 donations were made, and thereafter continued to 
 be made from time to time down to 1765, by the Christian people of 
 Spain to the fund now known as the " Pious Fund of the Californias," 
 to be used for the civilization and conversion of the natives of the 
 Californias. These donations were made for the avowed purpose of 
 civilizing and converting the natives to Christianity and for the main- 
 tenance and support of the Catholic missions in the Californias. In 
 1735 a large donation was made by the Marchioness de las Torres de 
 Rada and the Marquis de Villapuente. The object and desire of the 
 donors were then fully set forth and particularly described. The 
 habendum of their deed, which is denominated the Foundation Deed, 
 proceeds as follows: 
 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be founded, 
 in the Californias, as well for the maintenance of their religions, and to provide for the 
 ornament and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the native converts and 
 catechumens with food and clothing, according to the destitution of that country; so 
 that if hereafter, by God's blessing, there be means of support in the "reductions" 
 and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their lands, thus obviat- 
 ing the necessity of sending from this country provisions, elothing, and other neces- 
 saries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new missions to be 
 established hereafter in the unexplored parts of the said Californias, according to the 
 discretion of the father superior of said missions; and the estates aforesaid sliall be 
 perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that, even in case of all California being 
 civilized and converted to our holy Catholic faith, the profits of said estates shall be applied* 
 to the necessities of said missions and their support; and in case that the reverend Society' 
 of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should abandon said missions of the Califor- 
 nias, or (which God forbid) the natives of that country should rebel and apostatize 
 from our holy faith, or in any other such contingency, then, and in that case, it is 
 left to the discretion of the reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this 
 New Spain for the time being, to apply the profits of said estates, their products and 
 improvements, to other missions in the undiscovered portions of this North America, 
 or to others in any part of the world, according as he may deem most pleasing to 
 Almighty God; and in such ways that the dominion and government of said estates 
 be always and perpetually continued in the Reverend Society of Jems and Us prelates^ 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 247 
 
 so that no judge, ecclesiastical or secular, shall exercise any control thereon or 
 intervene in or about the same; and all such rents and profits shall be applied to the 
 purposes and objects herein specified, i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. 
 And by this deed of gift, we, the said grantors, both divest ourselves of and renounce 
 absolutely all property, dominion, ownership, rights, and actions, real and personal, 
 direct and executive, thereover, and all others whatever which belong to us, or 
 which from any other cause, title, or reason may belong, appertain to us; and we 
 cede, renounce, and transfer the whole thereof to said Reverend Society of Jesus, its 
 missions of Califormas, its prelates and religious, under whose charge may happen to be 
 the government of said missions and of this province of New Spain, now and at all times 
 hereafter, in order that from the profits of said estates and the increase of their cattle, 
 large and small, their other gains, natural or otherwise, they may maintain said mis- 
 sions in the manner above proposed, indicated, defined, and laid down forever. (Tran- 
 script, p. 106.) 
 
 in. 
 
 The above quotation, and in fact the entire deed, shows a very clear 
 conception on the part of the donors of the magnitude of the under- 
 taking to convert the natives of the Calif ornias.' It devotes the entire 
 fund to the civilization and conversion of the natives and the main- 
 tenance and support of the Catholic religion in that country, and pro- 
 vides particularly that after the civilization and conversion of the 
 natives, the proceeds of the fund are to "be applied to the necessities 
 of said, missions and their support" in the Californias. The language 
 is as follows: 
 
 And the estates aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, 
 so that, even in case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy 
 Catholic faith, the profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said 
 missions and their support. (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 The donors state in what events the proceeds of the Pious Fund 
 may be diverted to the support of missions other than those in the 
 Californias. This exception is so important in fixing the Californias 
 as the place which the donors intended the proceeds of their gifts to 
 be employed that we quote the language: 
 
 And in case that the Reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion should 
 abandon said missions of the Californias, or (which God forbid) the natives of that 
 country should rebel and apostatise from our holy faith, or in any other such con- 
 tingency, then, ami in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father pro- 
 vincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being, to apply the 
 profits of said estates, their products and improvements to other missions in the 
 undiscovered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, 
 according as he may deem most pleasing to Almighty God; and in such ways that 
 the dominion and government of said estates be always and perpetually continued in 
 the Reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or secu- 
 lar, shall exerci.-e any control thereon, or intervene in or about the same; and all 
 such rents and profits" shall be applied to the purposes and objects herein specified, 
 i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 The natives did not rebel or apostatize and there is no pretext for 
 claiming that exception as an excuse for the use of the Pious Fund 
 elsewhere than in the Californias. The Reverend Society of Jesus did 
 not voluntarily abandon the missions, but was expelled by the King of 
 Spain. The reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in 
 this New Spain did not order the fund to be used elsewhere because he 
 was also expelled and deprived of his functions, so that he could not 
 control the fund or order its use elsewhere. The royal decree _of 
 February 27, 1767, declares: 
 
 Therefore, by virtue of the supreme authority vested in me by the Almighty for 
 the protection of my subjects and maintaining the respect due to my crown, I have 
 
248 PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 decided to order the banishment from out of all my dominions in Spain, the Indias, 
 Philippine, and other islands, of the regulars — both priests and laymen — of the Order 
 of Jesus; also such as may have taken up vows and the novices who may desire to 
 follow the calling; and that all the temporalities belonging to the order within my 
 dominions be taken possession of; and for the uniform execution of the same I have 
 given full powers and instructions to Count Arrauda, president of my council, to 
 immediately proceed to take the necessary measures, as set forth by my other royal 
 decree of the 27th of February. (Transcript, p. 410. ) 
 
 The Pope, after the expulsion of the Jesuits by the King, suppressed 
 the Order of Jesuits, which deprived them of the control of the Pious 
 Fund and of the missions for which it was established. In his bull of 
 July 21, 1773, he said: 
 
 But as regards the religious missions, we desire to extend and include all that has 
 been decreed concerning the suppression of the society (of Jesuits), reserving (at the 
 same time) the privilege of providing the means by which not only the conversion 
 of the infidels, but also the peaceful settlement of dissensions may be obtained and 
 secured with greater facility and- stability. (Transcript, p. 335, par. 32.) 
 
 The Jesuits having thus been excluded and deprived of all partici- 
 pation in or control of the properties of the Pious Fund or the dis- 
 tribution of the proceeds thereof, the King of Spain assumed to himself 
 the trusteeship of the Pious Fund and the management of the proper- 
 ties belonging thereto. The Franciscan Fathers were substituted in 
 the place of the Jesuits as to Upper California to continue the work 
 inaugurated b} T them in establishing missions and in educating and 
 converting the natives. The King appointed agents to manage the 
 properties of the Pious Fund, and to collect the proceeds thereof, and 
 authorized the officers of the Spanish treasury to transmit the same to 
 the fathers in the Californias. 
 
 IV. 
 
 On acquiring her independence Mexico, as we shall hereafter see, 
 followed the policy of Spain and provided by law for the management 
 of the properties of the Pious Fund and the collection and transmission 
 of the proceeds thereof to the fathers conducting the missions in the 
 Californias. In 1836 she made an important change. On the 19th of 
 September of that year she passed a law petitioning the Pope to 
 create the Californias into a diocese and to appoint a bishop therein. 
 The Pope appointed as such bishop the Right Rev. Francisco Garcia 
 Diego, who was consecrated on the 27th of April, 1840. (Transcript, 
 
 6182.) The residence of the bishop was located at Monterey, in 
 pper California, about 500 miles northerly from the north line of 
 Lower California, and in what was then about the center of the popu- 
 lation of the missions in the Californias. The bishop of Monterey 
 remained in office during his life. 
 
 The bishop of a diocese has charge of the Roman Catholic Church 
 and all missions, charities, and Christian establishments in his diocese. 
 He also has charge of all the temporalities and the receipt and disburse- 
 ment of all moneys to be used or distributed within his jurisdiction* 
 The creation of the Californias into a diocese and the appointment of 
 the Right Rev. Francisco Garcia Diego bishop thereof conferred upon 
 him and his successors in office the control of the temporalities of the 
 church and the right to collect, receive, and disburse all moneys 
 belonging to the church, the missions, and all Catholic establishments 
 in such diocese. When, upon the petition of Mexico, a bishop was 
 appointed for the Californias, it became the duty of such bishop to 
 receive and distribute the proceeds of the Pious Fund in his diocese. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 249 
 
 V. 
 
 We will now consider the action of Mexico in her dealings with the 
 Pious Fund as successor of Spain. 
 
 On the 25th of May, 1832, Mexico passed a law providing for the 
 renting and management of the properties of the Pious Fund, and 
 created a board for that purpose. The sixth paragraph provides that — 
 
 The proceeds of such properties (of the Pious Fund) shall be deposited in the 
 treasury of the Federal city, to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions of 
 the Calif ornias. (Laws of Mexico, p. 2.) 
 
 And by the tenth paragraph, under subdivision 9, the board was 
 required — 
 
 To name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each one of 
 the Californias in accordance with their respective expenses and available funds. 
 (Laws of Mexico, p. 3. ) 
 
 Thus it will be seen that Mexico commenced the discharge of her 
 duties as successor of Spain by adopting a system entirety similar to 
 the one established when the Jesuits were expelled. 
 
 A change of policy was adopted, as we have already shown, by 
 Mexico on the 19th of September, 1836, when she applied to the Pope 
 for the appointment of a bishop for the Californias. In the sixth 
 article of that application is is provided 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. 
 (Laws of Mexico, p. 5. ) 
 
 This article recognized the authority of the bishop of the Californias 
 to manage the properties belonging to the Pious Fund which were 
 situated outside of his bishopric and to use the proceeds thereof for 
 the benefit of the missions in the Californias, which he accordingly 
 did, and appointed Don Pedro Ramirez his general agent in Mexico, 
 who received the rents, paid the expenses, and attended generally to 
 the business of the Pious Fund. 
 
 On the 8th of February, 1842, President Santa Anna repealed Arti- 
 cle VI of the law of 1836, above quoted, and Mexico again assumed 
 the management of the properties of the Pious Fund (laws of Mexico, 
 p. 5); but she (id not attempt to deprive the bishop of the right to 
 manage the temporalities of the church and receive whatever money 
 and property which might be for the use of the missions and the 
 Catholic Church in his diocese. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The officers of the Mexican Government then demanded a statement 
 of the properties belonging to the Pious Fund from Ramirez, the gen- 
 eral agent of the bishop of the Californias, which, after protest, he 
 furnished. The properties embraced in the inventory, as computed in 
 the memorial of the Dnited States, amount to $1,853,361.75. (Memo- 
 rial, p. 11.) Thereupon the Mexican Government, by the decree of 
 October 24, 1842 (having the force of a legislative enactment), ordered 
 the real estate and other property of the Pious Fund sold and the entire 
 fund reported by Ramirez covered into the treasury, which was accord- 
 ingly done. In the same decree Mexico undertook to pay interest on 
 the capital so turned into the treasury at the rate of 6 per cent per 
 
250 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 annum, and pledged the revenue from tobacco for the payment of such 
 interest. The following is the language of the decree: 
 
 The revenue from tobacco is specially pledged for the payment of the income cor- 
 responding to the capital of the said fund of the Californias, and the department in 
 charge thereof will pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said 
 fund is destined without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or other- 
 wise. (Laws of Mexico, p. 7.) 
 
 The revenue thus pledged was abundantly sufficient to pay the 
 interest. Sr. Juan Rodriquez de San Miguel delivered a speech in the 
 Mexican Congress on the 28th of March, 1844, in which he said that 
 this revenue (from tobacco) was merely nominal, so far as the missions 
 were concerned, but that the officers of the Government received from 
 tobacco with the greatest punctuality the sum of $35,000 monthly. 
 (See Mexican Pamphlets about the Pious Fund of the Californias, Nos. 
 24, 25, p. 12.) 
 
 The failure of Mexico to pay to the bishop of the Californias the 
 interest due him from the revenue on tobacco was not because she did 
 not know to whom the same ought to be paid, for we find in the Mex- 
 ican archives an entry ordering $8,000 from such revenue transmit- 
 ted to the bishop of the Californias. The following is the entry: 
 
 Minister of the Treasury Sec. 2° 297. His Excell. the President has been pleased 
 to order me to inform your Excell., as I now do, to give an order on the maritime 
 custom-house of Guymas, which shall be payable to Sr. Juan Rodrigues de San 
 Miguel as the representative of the Rt. Rev. Bishop of the Californias for the sum of 
 18,000, on account of the income belonging to the Pious Fund of California, the 
 properties of which were incorporated into the national treasury ; and let this be 
 done with the greatest punctuality, although it may be paid in partial payments. 
 And let this order be obeyed with all exactness, notwithstanding my communica- 
 tion of yesterday to your Excells. under No. 277 that the former order of Jan. 30 
 should be without effect. Contracted in order that the quantity mentioned in it 
 might be paid by the aforesaid custom-house; and without injury to the assignment 
 of the $500 monthly made upon the product of tobacco from the State of Zacatecas. 
 (Transcript, p. 149. ) 
 
 Mexico also recognized the right of the bishop to receive the prop- 
 erty of the Pious Fund by decreeing on April 3, 1845, that — 
 
 The credits and other properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias which are 
 now unsold shall be immediately returned to the reverend bishop of that see and his 
 successors, for the purposes mentioned in article 6 of the law of September 29, 1836, 
 without prejudice to what Congress may resolve in regard to the property that has 
 been alienated. (Laws of Mexico, pp. 7, 8.) 
 
 This decree would not have been made unless the bishop, as such, 
 was entitled to receive the property referred to. The fact that no 
 property was actually transferred does not affect the designation of 
 the bishop as the proper official to receive any property that might he 
 transferred. 
 
 We call attention to the treatment by Mexico of a fund contributed 
 by the pious people of Spain for the establishment of missions in the 
 Philippines, which is a precedent for the claim of the bishops of 
 California. 
 
 In 1844, eight years after the independence of Mexico was acknowl- 
 edged by Spain, a treaty was entered into for the settlement of a claim 
 of the missions in the Philippines against Mexico. The property out 
 of which the claim of the missions arose consisted of two haciendas, 
 the Chica and the Grande, both situated in Mexico. By the latter 
 convention Mexico agreed to pay, and did pay, $115,000 as principal 
 and $30,000 in addition thereto as interest or rent. The money was 
 
PIOUS ' FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 251 
 
 paid to Father Moran, the representative of the Philippine missions. 
 (Transcript, p. 25.) 
 
 The fact that Mexico recognized the bishop of the Calif ornias as the 
 proper officer to receive the proceeds of the Pious Fund proves that she 
 did not agree to pay interest, intending at the same time to avoid such 
 payment for want of a person to receive the same. 
 
 We appreciate the honor of Mexico too highly to suppose for a 
 moment that she would promise to pa}- interest on the Pious Fund, 
 knowing her promise was nugatory for the want of a payee, and we 
 hope that no one will hereafter accuse Mexico of such insincerity. 
 But suppose that Mexico intended to confiscate the fund which she 
 covered into her treasur}^ and deny that anyone had a right to receive 
 the interest which she agreed to pay, she has now made ample amends 
 for such unfair conduct. She has agreed that this honorable tribunal, 
 if it finds that the former judgment is not res judicata, shall determine 
 "whether the claim be just," and " render such judgment or award as 
 may be meet and proper under all the circumstances of the case." 
 (Protocol, p. 3.) 
 
 VII. 
 
 We have already called attention to the foundation deed of the pious 
 donors, and shown that they dedicated their donations to the Califor- 
 nias and did not authorize them to be used elsewhere, except under 
 certain contingencies, and that such contingencies have not arisen. 
 Consequently the United States have a right to insist tha', he money 
 shall be used according to the designs of the donors, which \.< in accord 
 with the repeated declarations of both Spain and Mexico. 
 
 The extract from the foundation deed quoted in the reply of the 
 representative of Mexico is misleading. The parts omitted, and repre- 
 sented by stars, are essential in determining the intention of the donors. 
 In order that the materiality of the parts omitted may be judged, we 
 quote in parallel columns a true extract from the foundation deed and 
 the extract used by the representative of Mexico. The parts omitted 
 by the representative of Mexico are printed in italics in the true copy: 
 
 TKUE COPT. MISQUOTED COPT. 
 
 This donation, which, we make This donation, we make 
 good, pure, perfect and irrevo- 
 cable, as a firm, contract inter 
 vivos from this day, henceforth 
 and forever. 
 
 To have and to hold, to said to said 
 
 missions founded, and which here- missions founded, and which may 
 
 after may be founded, in the hereafter be founded, in the 
 
 Californias, as well for the main- Calif ornias, as well as for the 
 
 tenance of their religious, and to maintenance of their religious, 
 
 provide for the ornament and and to provide for the 
 
 decent support of divine worship, support and conduct of 
 
 as also to aid the native converts divine worship, as also to aid 
 
 and catechumens with food the native converts and catechu- 
 
 and clothing, according to' the mens by the same (probably " from 
 
 destitution of that country; the misery") of that country; 
 
252 
 
 PIOUS KUNB OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 so that if hereafter, by God's 
 blessing, there be means of sup- 
 port in the ' ' reductions " and 
 missions now established, as ex. 
 gr. by the cultivation of their, 
 lands, thus obviating the neces- 
 sity of sending from this country 
 provisions, clothing and other 
 necessaries, the rents and prod- 
 ucts of said estates shall be 
 applied to new missions to he 
 established hereafter in the unex- 
 plored part* of the said Cali- 
 fornias, according to the discre- 
 tion of the father superior of 
 said missions; and the estates 
 aforesaid shall he perpetually 
 inalienable, and shall never be 
 sold; so that, even in case of all 
 California being civilized and 
 converted to our holy Catholic 
 faith, the profits of said estates 
 shall he applied to the necessities 
 of said missions and their sup- 
 port; and in case that the rever- 
 end Society of Jesus, voluntarily 
 or by compulsion, should abandon 
 said missions of the Californias 
 or (which God forbid) the natives 
 of that country should rebel and 
 apostatize from our holy faith, 
 or in any other such contingency, 
 then , and in that case, it is left to the 
 discretion of the reverend father 
 provincial of the Society of Jesus 
 in this New Spain, for the time 
 being, to apply the profits of 
 said estates, their products and 
 improvements to other missions 
 in the undiscovered portions of 
 this North America, or to others 
 in any part of the world, accord- 
 ing as he may deem most 
 pleasing to Almighty God; and in 
 such ways that the dominion and 
 government of said estates be 
 always and perpetually continued 
 in the reverend Society of Jesus 
 and its prelates, so that no judge, 
 ecclesiastical or secular, shall 
 exercise any control thereon, or 
 intervene m or about the same; 
 and all such rents and profits 
 shall he applied to the purposes 
 
 so that if thereafter, by God's 
 blessing, there be means of sup- 
 port in the "reductions" and 
 missions now established, — as 
 ex. gr. by the cultivation of their 
 lands, thus obviating the neces- 
 sity of sending from this country 
 clothing and other 
 necessaries, the rents and prod- 
 ucts of said estates shall be ap- 
 plied of (surely ' ' to ") new missions 
 
 and in case the 
 
 Society of Jesus, voluntarily 
 or by compulsion, should abandon 
 said missions of the Californias, 
 or, which God forbid, the natives 
 of that country should rebel and 
 apostatize from our holy faith, 
 or in any other such contingency, 
 then , and in that case, it is left to the 
 discretion of the reverend father 
 provincial of the Society of Jesus 
 in this New Spain, for the time 
 being, to apply the profits of 
 said estates, their products and 
 improvements, to other missions 
 in the undiscovered portions of 
 this North America, or to others 
 in any part of the world, 
 
 as he may deem most 
 pleasing to Almighty God; and in 
 such a way that the 
 government of said estates be, 
 always and perpetually continued 
 in the reverend Society of Jesus 
 and its prelates, so that no judge, 
 ecclesiastical or secular, shall 
 exercise any control therein, 
 
PIOTJS FUND OP THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 253 
 
 and objects herein specified, i. e., 
 the propagation of our holy 
 Catholic faith. And by this deed 
 of gift, we, the said grantors, 
 both divest ourselves of, and re- 
 nounce absolutely all property, 
 dominion, ownership, rights and 
 actions, real and personal, direct 
 and executive, thereover, and all 
 others whatever, which belong to us-, 
 or which from any other cause, 
 title, or reason, may belong, apper- 
 tain to us/ and we cede, renounce 
 and transfer the whole thereof to 
 said reverend Society of Jesus, its 
 missions of California*, its prelates 
 and religious, under whose charge 
 may happen to be the government 
 of said missions and of this prov- 
 ince of New Spain, now and at all 
 times hereafter, in order that from 
 the profits of said estates, and the 
 increase of their cattle, large and 
 small, their other gains, natural or 
 otherwise, they may maintain said 
 missions in the manner above pro- 
 posed, indicated, defined, and laid 
 down forever. 
 
 And we, the said grantors, 
 both desire that at no time shall 
 any judge, ecclesiastical or secular, 
 undertake to investigate or intrude 
 himself to ascertain, whether the 
 conditions of this donation be ful- 
 filled; for our will is that in this 
 matter, there shall be no pretence 
 for such intervention, and that 
 whether the said reverend Society 
 fulfils or does not fulfil the trusts 
 in favor of the missions herein 
 contained, it shall render an 
 account to God our Lord, alone." 
 
 (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 we, 
 desire that at no time shall 
 this donation be set aside nor shall 
 any judge, ecclesiastical or secular, 
 undertake to investigate or inter- 
 vene to ascertain, whether the 
 conditions of this donation be 
 fulfilled; for our will is that in this 
 matter there shall be no pretence 
 for such intervention, and that 
 whether the said reverend Society 
 fulfils or does not fulfil the trusts 
 in favor of the missions herein 
 contained, it shall render account 
 to God our Lord, alone." 
 
 (Answer to Memorial in En- 
 glish, p. 4.) 
 
 In comparing the foregoing extracts, the materiality of the parts 
 omitted by the representative of Mexico will be readily observed. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 The contention of the representative of Mexico that all the natives 
 in Upper California have been converted, and that, therefore, there 
 
254 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIA8. 
 
 is no necessitj T for the use of the interest on the Pious Fund in that 
 locality, rests on two mistakes: 
 
 1. There are many thousands of natives in Upper California who are 
 still unconverted. 
 
 2. It was not the intention of the donors, as we have already seen, 
 that the use of the proceeds of the Pious Fund should terminate upon 
 the conversion of all the natives in the Californias. On the contrary, 
 they intended that the use of such proceeds should be continued indefi- 
 nitely for the benefit of Christian missions in that locality. For the 
 purpose of calling particular attention to the provision in the founda- 
 tion deed which makes the use of the Pious Fund in the Californias 
 perpetual, we again quote one of the parts omitted in the extract from 
 the foundation deed used by the representative of Mexico, which is 
 follows: 
 
 And the estates aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, 
 so that, even in case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic 
 faith, the profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions 
 and their support. (Transcript, p. 106. ) 
 
 The foregoing provision shows that the donors anticipated the 
 argument of the representative of Mexico that there would be no 
 further use for the Pious Fund in the Californias after all the natives 
 were converted and gave a complete answer thereto. Such conversion 
 is not yet accomplished. The necessities for the continuance of the 
 work of conversion and the maintenance of the Catholic faith in the 
 missions will remain indefinitely, and the donors made special provi- 
 sion therefor. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The contention of the representative of Mexico that the United 
 States, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, proclaimed July 4, 1848, 
 which, among other things, ceded a large territory, including upper 
 California, to the United States for the sum of $15,000,000, discharged 
 Mexico from all demands on account of the Pious Fund, can not 
 be maintained. Article XIV of the treaty, quoted by the representa- 
 tive of Mexico as establishing a full defense to this proceeding, reads 
 as follows: 
 
 The United States do furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims 
 of citizens of the United States, not heretofore decided against the Mexican Govern- 
 ment, which may have arisen previously to the date of the signature of this treaty, 
 which discharge shall be final and perpetual, whether the said claims be rejected or 
 be allowed by the board of commissioners provided for in the following article, and 
 whatever shall be the total amount of those allowed. (Appendix to record, p. 16.) 
 
 There are several conclusive reasons why the foregoing article does 
 not discharge Mexico from the obligation she assumed to pay interest 
 on that part of the Pious Fund dedicated to Upper California. The 
 United States did not undertake to exonerate Mexico from her obliga- , 
 tions to persons who were then Mexican citizens and who might there- 
 after become citizens of the United States on compliance with the 
 provisions of the treaty. The undertaking of the United States was 
 confined to the then citizens of the United States. Neither the Roman 
 Catholic Church nor its dignitaries or members of its fold were citi- 
 zens of the United States at the time ratifications of the treaty were 
 exchanged. Whether they would ever become citizens of the United 
 btates depended upon an election or option to be exercised by them 
 after such exchange of ratifications. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 255 
 
 The Pious Fund, by the action of Mexico, was a permanent invest- 
 ment upon which she agreed to pay interest annually. No claim for 
 interest has been made by the United States in behalf of the bishops 
 of California for any installment of interest which became due and was 
 payable previous to July 4, 1848, but interest arising after that date 
 was submitted to arbitration under the convention of July 4, 1868, 
 and decided in favor of the United States. The claim for interest in 
 this proceeding has arisen subsequent to October 24, 1868 . There is 
 nothing in the treaty which can give the slightest pretext for the 
 assertion that the United States either agreed to extinguish the obli- 
 gations of Mexico to Mexican citizens or to pay the debts of Mexico 
 to citizens of the United States which might become due after the exe- 
 cution of the treaty. 
 
 X. 
 
 The recital of the representative of Mexico of various statutes of 
 his Government confiscating church property, barring debts by limi- 
 tation, and fixing times within which demands against the Mexican 
 Government must be presented has nothing to do with this proceed- 
 ing. Whatever efforts Mexico may have made to close her own tribu- 
 nals against the claim of the bishops of California by her local legis- 
 lation do not concern us. It is sufficient for the purpose of this pro- 
 ceeding that both the United States and Mexico have agreed that the 
 alleged obligation of Mexico to pay interest to the bishops shall be 
 tried before this honorable tribunal. 
 
 Fortunately, Mexico does not now repudiate the various recitals in 
 her statutes that her intention was to preserve, maintain, and apply 
 the Pious Fund to the conversion and civilization of the natives of the 
 Californias and for the maintenance and support of the Catholic 
 religion in that country, but on the contrary agrees that this honor- 
 able tribunal shall, in the event the matters are not res judicata, 
 determine whether the beneficiaries of the Pious Fund have a just 
 claim against Mexico, and "render such judgment as may be meet and 
 proper under all the circumstances of the case." 
 
 This honorable conduct on the part of Mexico ought not to be dis- 
 paraged by her own representative or anyone else by an intimation 
 that she is willing to oppose the rendering of a judgment which shall 
 be just and equitable. Even if Mexico had confiscated the Pious Fund 
 before California became a part of the United States, why has she not 
 the right to waive any advantage such confiscation or any other arbi- 
 trary act might afford her and submit the justice of the claim as it 
 originally existed to arbitration? If the claim is just, no act of 
 Mexico, however arbitrary or wrong, stands in the way of a judgment 
 directing the payment thereof, because by her agreement to arbitrate 
 she has swept away all defenses to the claim of the beneficiaries of the 
 Pious Fund except the plea that it is unjust. 
 
 Can there be any question of the justice of the claim? If there was 
 no Pious Fund of the Californias, why did Mexico, by the law of May 
 25, 1832, provide for leasing the same? If the proceeds of such prop- 
 erty when leased did not belong to the missions of the Californias, why 
 did" Mexico declare, in the sixth section of that law, that "the pro- 
 ceeds of such property shall be deposited in the treasury of the fed- 
 eral city to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions of the 
 Californias ? " If the proceeds were not to be remitted to the Califor- 
 nias, why did Mexico, in section 10, subdivision 9, of that law require 
 
256 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOBNIA8. 
 
 the administrators of the fund "to name to the Government the 
 amounts which may be remitted to each one of the Californias in 
 accordance with their respective expenses and available funds ? "- 
 
 Again, why did Mexico on the 24th of October, 1842, in the pre- 
 amble of the. decree directing the sale of the Pious Fund, say that the 
 decree of February 8, 1842, "was intended to fulfill most faithfully the 
 beneficent and national objects designed by the foundress without 
 the slightest diminution of the properties destined to the end ? " Why 
 did Mexico pledge, by the third section of that act, the revenues 
 arising from tobacco for the payment of interest on the Pious Fund, 
 "without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or other- 
 wise?" Why did Mexico, by the law of April 3, 1845, order all 
 unsold property of the Pious Fund restored to the bishop if it was not 
 the property of the missions and the Catholic Church of the Californias ? 
 
 In short, why did every law or decree enacted or promulgated by 
 Mexico recognize the existence of the Pious Fund, and also that it 
 belonged to the missions of the Californias and the Catholic Church in 
 that region ? Why was neither the existence of the Pious Fund nor 
 the objects and purposes of its founders not questioned until after the 
 beneficiaries of the fund became citizens of the United States ? If the 
 Pious Fund was not the property of the missions and the Catholic 
 Church of the Californias, why did not Mexico claim it as her own? 
 Why did she continually declare, in effect, that it was not her property 
 by asserting that it belonged to the missions and the Catholic Church 
 of the Californias ? 
 
 Very different questions are submitted to this tribunal from those 
 which the arbitration under the convention of 1868 was called upon to 
 decide. Under that convention the arbitrators were not authorized to 
 disregard any defense which would be allowed under the ordinary rules 
 of procedure in courts of justice. Confiscation, or any other arbitrary 
 act which would have been a bar in Mexico to the recovery of the Pious 
 Fund while California was a part of that country, might have been 
 urged as a defense under the general language of Article II of the 
 protocol of 1868. But the issue submitted to this tribunal, in case the 
 matters are not res judicata, is different in that it submits the justice 
 of the claim without regard to technical defenses. This tribunal is 
 not restrained from "rendering such a judgment as may be meet and 
 proper under all the circumstances of the case" by any matter not 
 affecting the justice of the original claim. All honor is due to Presi- 
 dent Diaz for the liberal conditions of this arbitration. He has fully 
 reciprocated the example of the United States in returning to Mexico 
 the money awarded by the former arbitration to Weil and La Abra, 
 hereafter mentioned. His agreement that full justice shall be done to 
 the missions and the Catholic Church of California, waiving all excuses 
 and objections not affecting the justice of the claim, is a full and cordial 
 response to the action of the United States in protecting Mexico from » 
 dishonest demands. 
 
 XI. 
 
 The complaint of the representative of Mexico, under various head- 
 ings, that the United States are demanding of Mexico extravagant and 
 inequitable claims is unreasonable. The United States demand nothing 
 from Mexico which the officers of the United States do not believe, 
 after careful investigation, to be absolutely just. The good faith of 
 
PIOUS FUND OB' THE CALIPORKIAS. 257 
 
 the United States is illustrated by their treatment of the Weil and La 
 Abra claims. Those claims were submitted to and decided by the arbi- 
 tration under the convention of July 4, 1868, and the aggregate of the 
 judgments in the two cases rendered against Mexico amounted to 
 $1,130,506.55. Upon the_ suggestion by Mexico to the United States 
 of a discovery of false evidence and perjury in obtaining such judg- 
 ments, the United States, although Mexico had paid the money into 
 their treasury, refused to pay the same to the claimants. Congress 
 thereupon passed a lawgiving the courts of the United States jurisdic- 
 tion to hear and determine both of those cases, and after a full and fair 
 hearing such courts held that the claims were fraudulent; whereupon 
 all the money deposited in the treasury for the payment of the Weil 
 and La Abra claims was refunded to Mexico in gold coin. But the 
 United States have continued to insist upon the solemn obligation of 
 Mexico to pay to the bishops of California the interest on the Pious 
 Fund dedicated for use in the Califorhias. The character and standing 
 of the various Secretaries of State of the United States who have called 
 the attention of Mexico to and reminded her of her obligation to make 
 such payment ought to be accepted as some proof of the good faith of 
 that Government. 
 
 The following is a list of the officers of the United States who have 
 conducted the negotiation with Mexico which has terminated in the 
 present proceedings: 
 
 Hon. William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary of State, August 3, 1891. 
 (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 23.) 
 Hon. James G. Blaine, February 19, 1892. (Same, p. 24.) 
 Hon. John W. Foster, September 15, 1892. (Same, p. 24.) 
 Hon. Walter Q. Gresham, June 8, 1893. (Same, p. 24.) 
 Hon. John Sherman, October 30, 1897. (Same, p. 122.) 
 Hon. W. R. Day, Acting Secretary, July 17, 1897. (Same, p. 22.) 
 Hon. John Hay, December 4, 1899. (Same, p. 46.) 
 
 XII. 
 
 We will now briefly consider the complaints of extravagant demands 
 and bad faith made by Mexico against the United States. 
 
 The claim of the United States that the interest due to the bishops 
 of California should be paid in the gold coin of Mexico and not in 
 depreciated currency is made one cause of complaint. Mexico can 
 hardly afford to insist upon paying the bishops of California in silver, 
 since she has recognized her duty to pay her other foreign obligations 
 in gold. The interest on her bonded debt which is dealt in by foreign- 
 ers is paid in gold. Her recognition of the money current in commer- 
 cial nations has strengthened her credit and been of great benefit to her 
 both at home and abroad. The payment to the bishops in silver would 
 be grossly inequitable. 
 
 At the time Mexico sold the estates belonging to the Pious Fund and 
 covered the entire property belonging to that fund into her treasury, 
 and undertook to pay interest thereon, her silver coin was at a pre- 
 mium over the gold coin of any other country. In the second section 
 of the act of October 24, 1842, we read: 
 
 The minister of the treasury will proceed to sell the real estate and other property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Cahtornias ior the capital represented by their 
 annual product at six per cent per annum. (Laws of Mexico, p. 7. ) 
 
 S. Doc. 28 17 
 
258 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 In the unsettled and revolutionary condition of Mexico the vast 
 haciendas belonging to the Pious Fund could not possibly have pro- 
 duced a net income corresponding to their actual value. Mexico nad 
 just passed through a struggle for independence and was in a revolu- 
 tionary condition. It is certain that no hacienda in that country was 
 producing at the time a net revenue equal to 6 per cent on the value of 
 the property. It is even doubtful if 2 per cent was then realized upon 
 any hacienda in the Republic. The property sold must have been 
 worth at least three times what was received and covered into the 
 treasury. The former members of the tobacco monopoly, to wit, 
 Messrs. Don Francis de Paula Rubio and brother, Don Manuel Fer- 
 nandez, Don Joaquin Maria Errazu, Don Felippe Neri de Barrio, Don 
 Manuel Escandon, Don Benitto de Magua, and Muriel Brothers, made 
 an offer of purchase within twenty -four hours from the passage of the 
 law. These gentlemen knew the value of the property and were ready 
 to purchase as soon as, and perhaps before, the law was passed. Their 
 prompt action indicates that they realized that the sale of the haciendas 
 at the price fixed was an opportunity to make money. (See deed, Exhibit 
 D, to replication on behalf of the United States. ) Since Mexico by that 
 sale must have sacrificed a very large part of the property of the Pious 
 Fund, it would be extremely inequitable to allow her to pay such an 
 obligation in depreciated money. ' If Mexico keeps in circulation depre- 
 ciated currency, it should not affect the claim of the bishops. She 
 coins both gold and silver, and her gold coin corresponds in value to 
 the money she covered into her treasury belonging to the Pious Fund; 
 but her silver coin is at a discount, when compared with gold, of nearly 
 60 per cent. 
 
 While Mexico may require her citizens to receive any kind of money 
 which by her law is current, it is grossly inequitable for her in her 
 capacity as trustee to pay in a depreciated currency an obligation con- 
 tracted by her when her money was gold or its equivalent. Notwith- 
 standing Mexico, as we have already seen, forced the sale of the prop- 
 erties of the Pious Fund without the consent of the beneficiaries, she 
 has failed to perform her undertaking as trustee in the payment of 
 interest. The former award reduced the annual installments of inter- 
 est due the bishops to $43,080.99, which must be accepted if the mat- 
 ter is res judicata. In that case simple interest at 6 per cent on each 
 of such installments from the time it became due, without including 
 the principal, amounts to $2,858,652, which, according to the princi- 
 ples of equity, Mexico ought to pay in gold. It is not "meet and 
 proper under all the circumstances of the case" to exonerate Mexico 
 from the payment of interest and permit her to pay in depreciated 
 currency. Article X of the protocol, submitting the kind of cur- 
 rency in which the judgment is to be paid, must be considered in 
 connection with the power conferred upon this honorable tribunal to 
 do justice between the parties. 
 
 xni. 
 
 There is another consideration which the representative of Mexico 
 has entirely overlooked, and that is the liberality shown to Mexico in 
 the judgment rendered by Sir Edward Thornton, the umpire, in allow- 
 ing Upper California only one-half of the interest due on the Pious 
 Fund belonging to the two Calif or nias. The donations were made for 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 259 
 
 the conversion of the natives of the Californias and for the maintenance 
 and support of Catholic worship in that region. It is true that the 
 work was commenced by the Jesuits in Lower California, because that 
 locality was more easily reached from Mexico than the great body of 
 the country contemplated by the donors. Comparatively little was 
 accomplished in Lower California on account of the barren and deso- 
 late character of the country, which afforded sustenance for only a very 
 few natives, and could not be made the home of any considerable 
 population. Father Rubio, who gave evidence before the mixed com- 
 mission in 1868, declared that he was 68 years of age at that time; that 
 he had resided at the Mission of San Jose" for thirty years, and at the 
 Mission of Santa Barbara nine j r ears; that he had been most of that 
 time a vicar general in the Catholic Church, and had been engaged in 
 instructing and converting the natives. He testified that the number 
 of missions in Upper California was 21 and in Lower California 13, 
 giving the date of the establishment of each; that in Upper California 
 in 1832, when he first went there to reside, there were 17,364 converted 
 natives living at the several missions; that in Lower California there 
 were scarcely any Indians in the missions; that in some of the missions 
 there were none; that more than seven-tenths of the whole population 
 of the Californias subject to the missions belonged to Upper California. 
 (Transcript, p. 148.) The reason for the diminution of the population 
 of Lower California was the want of water and fertile soil. 
 
 In 1857 Mexico appointed a commissioner by the name of Ulises 
 Urbano Lassepas to examine into and report upon the resources and 
 population of Lower California. The examination was very thorough 
 and the report exhaustive. The country was found to be practically a 
 rocky, barren waste, almost destitute of water, and the population to 
 be very small and continually growing less. The report fully verifies 
 the testimony of Vicar-General Rubio. (See De La Colonization de 
 la Baja Calif ornia, by Ulises Urbano Lassepas-Primer Memorial. 1859. ) 
 
 The writer visited the missions of Upper California in 1850. At 
 that time he conversed with many reliable persons familiar with Lower 
 California, who described to him the country and the inhabitants 
 thereof. Lower California was said to be destitute of water for irri- 
 gation and practically uninhabited. The missions of Upper California 
 were in a more prosperous condition. They had immense herds of 
 cattle, horses, and sheep, and cultivated fields sufficient to more than 
 supply the inhabitants with vegetables and cereals. Their vineyards 
 and orchards were especially important. They furnished grapes and 
 fruit for a population of many thousands of miners. 
 
 The writer was much impressed with the fact that the greater part 
 of the Pious Fund was not only intended to be used but was actually 
 used in the fertile valleys of Upper California, where the field for 
 missionary work and the necessity for funds for that purpose were 
 many times greater than in Lower California. If the work done and 
 the natives converted in the two Californias, when the writer visited 
 that country in 1850, were compared, it would be an exaggeration to 
 assume that as much as one-tenth of the proceeds of the Pious Fund 
 was required to be used in Lower California. Certainly the result 
 produced by the expenditure was at least as much as ten to one in favor 
 of Upper California. The statement of Vicar-General Rubio that in 
 1832 seven-tenths of the whole population of the Californias subject 
 to the missions belonged to Upper California was undoubtedly true. 
 
260 PIOUS FUKD OF THE CALIFOBNIA8. 
 
 Notwithstanding these historical facts, the umpire in the former case, 
 to make it as easy for Mexico as possible, gave only one- half of the 
 interest on the Pious Fund to Upper California. If the matter were 
 not res judicata, but were open to reexamination as to all the facts, the 
 United States would confidently contend for 85 per cent of the interest 
 instead of one-half, which would then be a more liberal allowance to 
 Lower than to Upper California. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 The statement of the representative of Mexico that there is no legal 
 basis on which to claim anything from the donation of properties made 
 by the Marchioness de las Torres de Rada and the Marquis de Villa- 
 puente to the Pious Fund is not sustained by the evidence. He has not 
 pointed out how Mexico has lost one dollar by any alleged defective 
 title of the estate of the marquis, nor what claims the heirs of the 
 marquis have against Mexico in consequence of the sale of the prop- 
 erty and the covering of the proceeds thereof into the treasury. On 
 the contrary, the value of the estate which the umpire rejected and 
 excluded from the fund was more than the amount demanded by the 
 claimants under the marquis in full satisfaction of their pretended 
 judgment. (Transcript, p. 520.) In addition to that, the representa- 
 tive of Mexico has utterly failed to show by the evidence adduced that 
 Mexico has not retained in her treasury the entire proceeds from the 
 sale of the Cienaga del Pastor, amounting to $213,750. The evidence 
 of such disbursements, if it exists, is in the possession of Mexico, and 
 that Government not having furnished such evidence it is fair to pre- 
 sume no disbursements have been made in consequence of the alleged 
 attachment. 
 
 It must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
 which, if it existed, Mexico could and would produce, that the entire 
 proceeds of the sales of the property of the Pious Fund were covered 
 into the treasury and there remain. There is no evidence whatever 
 in the record to warrant the exclusion of the $213,750 for which the 
 Cienaga del Pastor was sold. 
 
 The amount now due, if the matter is not res judicata, as we have 
 already seen, is $1,853,361.75, but the American commissioner, in the 
 arbitration under the convention of 1868, leaving out sundry small 
 items as bad debts or claims not sufficiently proved, and also the value 
 of the Cienaga del Pastor, reduced the total to $1,436,033. The um- 
 pire at first concurred in this amount, but afterwards deducted $1,000 
 on account of an error in calculation. He found the principal to be 
 $1,435,033, and awarded one-half thereof, or $717,516.50, to Upper 
 California. 
 
 On an accounting, if the matter is not res judicata, the claimants 
 would contend that the Cienaga del Pastor, valued at $213,750, with. 
 6 per cent interest thereon since July 4, 1S4S, together with the other 
 items mentioned in the memorial, should be added to the capital of 
 the Pious Fund, and that the bishops are entitled to 85 per cent 
 thereof, making an aggregate of at least $3,10S,2O7.52 now due. 
 (Memorial, p. 11.) 
 
 The charge of exaggeration of amounts must be disregarded, 
 because Mexico has the records to prove such exaggerations, if they 
 exist, and no such proof has been furnished. In the former arbitra- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNTAS. 261 
 
 tion Sir Edward Thornton, although he felt constrained to adopt the 
 views of the commissioner of the United States, who excluded from 
 his finding a large portion of the claim, was manifestly dissatisfied 
 because the Mexican Government did not exhibit in its defense the 
 records in its possession showing the actual amount which was covered 
 into the treasury. He said: 
 
 A larger sum is claimed on the part of the claimants, but even with regard to this 
 larger sum the defense has not shown, except indirectly, that its amount was exag- 
 gerated. 
 
 There is no doubt that the Mexican Government must have in its possession all 
 the accounts and documents relative to the sale of the real property belonging to the 
 Pious Fund and the proceeds thereof; yet these have not been produced, and the 
 only inference that can be drawn from silence upon this subject is that the amount 
 of the proceeds actually received into the treasury was at least not less than it is 
 claimed to be. (Transcript, p. 609. ) 
 
 Notwithstanding the matter was called to the attention of Mexico by 
 Sir Edward Thornton thirty -three years ago in the forcible language 
 above quoted, the records and accounts referred to by him are still 
 retained in the archives of Mexico, to which the claimants have no 
 access. The nonproduction of the records which ought to show the 
 amount of the Pious Fund covered into the Mexican treasury leaves 
 no other inference than that ' u the amount of the proceeds actually 
 received into the treasury was at least not less than it is claimed to be. " 
 
 The introduction of a book relating to legal proceedings which took 
 place long ago without proving that it affected the fund covered into 
 the treasury, is indirect evidence that there is nothing in the Mexican 
 archives showing that the amount claimed is excessive. The inventory 
 of Ramirez and the items particularly described in the memorial can 
 not be charged by the defense as excessive in the absence of proof to 
 sustain such charge. The basis for everything claimed in the memo- 
 rial must have been of record and must now be in the possession of 
 the defense. No evidence having been produced by Mexico to con- 
 tradict the claimants' case, the presumption that the amount stated is 
 correct will prevail. 
 
 XV. 
 
 We have made the foregoing statement of the case, not because we 
 doubt that the decision in the former arbitration is res judicata as to 
 the amount of interest annually due to the bishops of California from 
 the Mexican Government, but to answer charges of unfairness against 
 
 the United States. 
 
 William M. Stewart, 
 Charles J. Kappler, 
 
 Of Counsel. 
 
POINTS SUBMITTED BY MESSRS. DOYLE & DOYLE, OF COUNSEL 
 FOE, THE PRELATES. 
 
 ( The references, unless otherwise expressed, are to the pages of the printed Transcript. ) 
 
 The case we present to the court is historical, and carries us back to 
 the close of the seventeenth century, when, all previous attempts to 
 colonize the peninsula of Lower California having failed and been 
 abandoned as impracticable, the Jesuits, encouraged by their success 
 in establishing missions throughout the northern frontier of Mexico, 
 offered the services of their members for the like purpose in Califor- 
 nia, on condition that they might themselves select the civil and mili- 
 tary officers to be employed. This proposal was assented to by the 
 Crown, it being formally stipulated that possession of the country 
 should be taken in the name of the King, and that the royal treasury 
 should not be called on for any of the expense of the enterprise with- 
 out His Majesty's express order. The fathers proceeded at once to col- 
 lect alms (limosnas) for the purpose, and commenced the work. The 
 first mission, that of Our Lady of Loretto, was founded in 1698, and 
 that of San Francisco Xavier, the second, in 1699. These were fol- 
 lowed by others founded at intervals down to 1757, when that of San 
 Francisco Borja, the last of those of Lower California, was established. 
 We have no full record or account of the amounts collected in smaller 
 sums, though we know that they must have been considerable, as the 
 historian mentions casually over $17,000 collected in minor sums from 
 a few benefactors in January, 1697. It was, however, considered that 
 the income of $10,000 would be needed for the support of each mission, 
 and charitable persons were asked to contribute for the undertaking 
 that amount or multiples of it. Thus the 13 missions of the peninsula 
 represented a capital of $130,000, contributed by the following per- 
 sons, viz: 
 
 Don Juan Caballero y Ozio $20, 000 
 
 Don Nicolas de Arteaga 10, 000 
 
 The congregation de los dolores in Mexico 10, 000 
 
 The Marquis de Villa-Puente 40, 000 
 
 Don Luis de Velasco _• * 20, 000 
 
 Padre Juan Luyando 10,000 
 
 Dona Rosa de Pefia It)' 000 
 
 The Duchess de Gandia '.'.'.".'.'.'.'.".'.'.'.'.'. lo' 000 
 
 Total 130,000 
 
 These sums with the smaller ones above referred to and subsequent 
 accretions obtained the name of the Pious Fund of the Californias, by 
 which name the capital in question has ever since been known. 
 
 In 1735 the Marquis de Villa-Puente and his lady, the Marchioness 
 de las Torres de Rada, by a deed of gift inter vivos, donated to the 
 Jesuits, for the missions of California, estates and properties of great 
 extent and value; a copy of the conveyance, certified by the successor 
 of the notary before whom it was executed, forms part of the record 
 262 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 263 
 
 of the former arbitration respecting this matter, presently to be men- 
 tioned. The value of this contribution was estimated, even at that 
 early day, at over $400,000. Another large contribution came from 
 the will of Dona Josefa Paula de Argiielles, a wealthy lady of Gua- 
 dalajara, amounting to over $600,000, as nearly as we can ascertain, 
 and still another from the will of the Duchess of Gandia, who having 
 bequeathed large sums to provide annuities for her servants, directed 
 that as the life estates fell in the capitals should be added to the Pious 
 Fund. From this source $62,000 had been realized in 1747, with as 
 much more to come in. 
 
 The Jesuits, .as is known, were excellent financial managers, always 
 putting that department of their affairs into the hands of the most 
 capable of their members. The Pious Fund was invested by them in 
 productive property, urban and rural, and its revenues well cared for 
 and economized, so that it increased largely in amount and importance. 
 
 The pragmatic sanction of 1767 expelling the Jesuit order from all 
 the Spanish dominions was put into effect in California in 1768, and 
 the missions were turned over to the Franciscans. Afterwards, when 
 those establishments were advanced farther up the coast into Upper 
 California, those of the peninsula were confided to the Dominicans, 
 and those of Upper California to the Franciscans. These friars made 
 their first entrada into the upper province in 1769, when the mission 
 of San Diego was founded, and the} r continued thereafter to advance 
 the spiritual conquest of the country and established within the limits 
 of the present State of California in all 21 missions, the latest of 
 which was founded in the year 1823. These were maintained out of 
 the income of the Pious Fund. 
 
 On the expulsion of the Jesuits from its dominions the Spanish 
 Crown succeeded to the administration of the Pious Fund as trustee, 
 and in like manner Mexico, on achieving her independence, succeeded 
 to the former sovereign; each of them, however, recognized the trust 
 character of the estate and the duty of applying its income to the sup- 
 port of the missions. During the trusteeship of Spain the monarch 
 sometimes borrowed portions of the capital to supply the ripe wants 
 of the viceroyalty, but always inscribed the sums so taken on the 
 register of his probity, and made promise of repayment with interest; 
 and Mexico, among the earliest acts of her independent sovereignty, 
 solemnly recognized the debts of the viceroyalty as due and to be 
 paid by the Mexican nation, which succeeded it, and recognized those 
 debts to the Pious Fund originally of the viceroyalty as due by the 
 Mexican Republic. 
 
 The property of the Fund continued to be managed by & junta, or 
 board of public officers, under Spain and Mexico successively, until 
 the year 1836, when it was determined to apply to the Holy See for 
 the establishment of a bishopric in the Californias, and as an induce- 
 ment to assent to the arrangement the act of the Mexican Congress 
 proposed to commit to the incumbent of the new diocese the manage- 
 ment of the Pious Fund. The Right Rev. Francisco Garcia Diego, 
 who had till then been president of the missions, was accordingly 
 raised to the episcopal rank, and fixed his see at Monterey, in Upper 
 California. He continued in the management of the Fund, which he 
 received November 2, 1840 (Transcript, pp. 495, 520), applying its 
 income to the support of the missions, as before, down to_ February, 
 1842, when the Mexican Government, by a decree of President Santa 
 Anna, resumed the management of it, and the properties of the Fund, 
 
264 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 real and personal, were turned over to Gen. Gabriel Valencia, nis 
 chief of staff, appointed for the purpose by him, accompanied by a 
 formal inventory, of which a copy is contained in the record of the 
 former arbitration, presently to be referred to. Of the particulars of 
 the rural property delivered to General Valencia we are but imper- 
 fectly informed. On October 24, 1842, by another decree of October 
 24, 1842, the whole property of the Fund was incorporated into the 
 public treasury of Mexico, ordered to be sold, and the Government, 
 always respecting the intentions of the founders, undertook to' pay 
 interest on the proceeds at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, to be 
 applied to the missions as before. 
 
 Upper California was ceded to the United States by the treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848, the United States paying there- 
 for $18,250,000— 115,000,000 in cash and $3,250,000 by releasing her 
 from demands amounting to that sum, due to American citizens. 
 
 After the separation of Upper California from Mexico the latter 
 ceased to make any payments of interest on the Pious Fund to the 
 benefit of the ceded territory, and after vain demand therefor and 
 application to the Government of the United States for its interposi- 
 tion with Mexico to obtain satisfaction, the bishops of the American 
 State of California, successors of Francisco Garcia Diego, bishop of 
 Monterey, presented their claim for arrears of interest accrued on the 
 Pious Fund since the 2d of February, 1848, before the Mixed Ameri- 
 can and Mexican Commission created by the convention of July 4, 
 1868. After proofs and arguments the case was submitted to the Com- 
 missioners, who differed in opinion on it and filed their several opinions 
 in May, 1875. The case was then referred to the umpire, Sir Edward 
 Thornton, who concurred in opinion with the American Commissioner 
 and declared the annual interest undertaken to be paid by Mexico on 
 the fund to amount to the sum of $86,101.98, of which he decided that 
 the claimants were entitled to one-half, say $43,050.99, of which he 
 awarded the claimants 21 installments for the twenty-one years elapsed 
 between October 24, 1848, and February 1, 1869. After correctingan 
 arithmetical error, to be noted further on, this amounted to $904,070.79, 
 all of which has since been paid by Mexico, in accordance with the 
 terms of the convention. 
 
 The present demand is for the installments of interest that have 
 accrued since February 1, 1869, now 33 in number, and in reference 
 thereto the Government of the United States, acting on behalf of the 
 prelates, is of opinion and insists that the determination of 1 868 estab- 
 lishes conclusively against Mexico both the liability and the amount 
 demanded, under the well-known rule of law, " res judicata fro veritate 
 accipitur." This claim Mexico denies. The prelates, and the United 
 States on their behalf, also claim that if not so established as res judi- 
 cata, the demand they make is a just one, and that for want of com- 
 plete information on their part, at the time of discussing the former 
 case, of material facts since discovered by them, and an error of ]*udg-~ 
 ment committed by the umpire, the former award was made for a sum 
 materially less than justice required, and that if open to reexamina- 
 tion on the merits the award now to be made should be for a consid- 
 erably larger annual interest than was awarded in the former judgment. 
 
 Hence the two questions to be decided by the present high court 
 are: (1) Whether the decision of the present demand is controlled by 
 the determination of the former award as res judicata? And (2) if 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 265 
 
 not so controlled is this a just claim? And they are so stated in the 
 protocol under which the court is constituted. 
 
 I. The first question proposed has been fully and ably discussed by 
 the agent of the United States, and his views on it are, in our opinion, 
 entirely in accordance with sound principles and the highest interests 
 of civil society; for the practice of international arbitration is so con- 
 ducive to the welfare of all nations that the interests of civilization 
 demand that the highest authority be accorded to the judgments of 
 such tribunals; and indeed while the final decision of any court of 
 justice is held to be conclusive on the parties to the proceeding, as to 
 the truth of any disputed fact determined by it, we can not conceive 
 that that of an international tribunal whose high office it is to admin- 
 ister j ustice between sovereigns a can command less authority. Indeed 
 the eminent secretary of state of the Mexican Eepublic recognizes 
 this truth, in his correspondence with the United States, saying, b "the 
 principle of res judicata pro veritate accipitur is one admitted in all 
 legislation," adding that "a tribunal established for international arbi- 
 tration gives to its decisions, pronounced within the limits of its juris- 
 diction, the force of res judicata." His zeal appears, however, to 
 affect his judgment in the practicalapplication of this conceded rule 
 to the present case, and leads him to deny the conclusiveness of the 
 decision of the Mixed Commission of 1868. He deems the award 
 made by it invalid, apparently, for two reasons, viz: First, because he 
 does not consider the preliminary presentation of the claim to the 
 United Stated Government with a request for its intervention satis- 
 factory; and, second, because he claims that only such matters as are 
 expressed in what he terms the decisory part of the judgment have 
 the force of res judicata. 
 
 Without the least disrespect to the judgment of the eminent gentle- 
 man who presses these views, we are unable to assent to the accuracy 
 of either proposition; for to take them in inverse order, the last- 
 mentioned objection is really based on the requirements of the French 
 law of civil procedure (perhaps adopted in some other continental 
 States) which regulates the forms of judicial sentence in civil cases/ 
 
 a " Juaticia gentea frenare superbas" Virg. 
 
 » Letter of November 28, 1900, par. 17. (Dip. Cor., pp. 31 and 39. ) 
 
 c Code de procedure Civile; Liv. 11. Tit. VII. Jugements. 
 
 Sec. 141. La redaction des jugements contiendra les noma dea jugea, du procurer 
 du roi, a'il a 6te entendu, ainsi des avoues; les noma professiona et demeurea des par- 
 ties, leurs conclusions, l'exposition summaire des points de fait et de droit, les motifs 
 et le dispositif des jugements. (L 16-24 Aout 1790, art. 15. L 20 Avril, 1810, art. 7. ) 
 
 Les codes annotea de Sirey. Edition entieremen refondue par P. Gilbert. Paris 
 Marchal Billard et cie. Place Dauphine, 27. 1875. 
 
 See, also — 
 
 Repertoire univeraelle et raisonne de juriaprudence, 5me edition par M. Merlin, 
 ancien Procurer General a, la Cour de caaaation. Bruxelles, H. Tarlier, 1826. Tom. 
 XVI. p. 180. Tit. jugements, § 11. 
 
 "§2. Da la redaction, de la date et de la signature des Jugements. I. Pour les 
 'matierea civiles, Part. 15. du tit. 5 de la loi du 24 Aout, 1790, contenait surla redac- 
 tion des judgements, une disposition ainsi concue. 
 
 "La redaction des jugements tant aur l'appel qu'en premiere instance, contiendra 
 quatre partiea distinctes: 
 
 "Dans la premiere, les noma et les quality des parties seront enonces; 
 
 "Dans la seconde, les questions de fait et de droit, qui constituent les procfis, seront 
 posees avec precision; 
 
 "Dans la troisieme, le resultat des faits connua ou constates, par 1 instruction, et 
 les motifs qui auront determine le jugement, seront exprim^s; La quatrieme enfin 
 contiendra le diapositif du jugement. , 
 
 "Toute contravention a cette regie emportait nullite. Cela resultait de 1 art. z de la 
 loi du 4 germinal an 2." 
 
266 PIOUS FVSD OF THE OALIFOKKIAS. 
 
 But such laws have no application to the judgments of international 
 tribunals, which adopt whatever forms and modes of procedure they 
 deem most convenient and appropriate. Doubtless the conclusiveness 
 of the adjudication extends no further than the matters actually decided 
 or necessarily implied in it; but it does not depend on what part of the 
 decision the fact in question is found, but upon whether it is really 
 found therein. Here the demand was for annual installments of inter- 
 est at 6 per cent per annum on a certain sum of money. The award, 
 therefore, necessarily involved the determination of the amount of 
 the principal and the time elapsed; and as only a portion of the whole 
 was demanded the ratio of division between the two parties interested 
 had also to be decided. 
 
 Now, the opinion of Commissioner Wadsworth (pp. 525-526), which 
 the umpire adopted (p. 609), leaves no room to doubt the actual 
 decision on any one of the points. He defines the capital, enumerat- 
 ing the several items constituting it, fixes the rate of interest at 6 per 
 cent per annum, and the time elapsed at twenty-one years; the rate of 
 division between the two provinces he says should be equality, in all 
 which decision the umpire concurs; but the counsel for Mexico having 
 called the attention of the latter to an arithmetical error in Mr. "Wads- 
 worth's addition of the items, he corrected it by making the necessary 
 deduction. (Transcript, p. 650.) We scarcely suppose that this cor- 
 rection of an obvious clerical error is to be relied on to impeach the 
 validity of the judgment. If it is, the ready answer arises, that having 
 been made at the instance of Mexico, her assent to it is undeniable; 
 from the character of the mistake, too, that of the United States and 
 of Mr. Commissioner Wadsworth must also be presumed. 
 
 The suggestion that the claim did not come within the jurisdiction 
 of the Commission of 1868 is more than once alleged by Senor Maris- 
 cal in his correspondence, but the grounds of such contention are not 
 specified; so that we are left to infer them from the arguments of Mr. 
 Gushing and Senor Avila. (Transcript, pp. 71 and 635, § 126.) The 
 - latter gentleman contends that the preliminary informal presentation 
 of the claim called for by the convention was defective, while the for- 
 mer considers that the injuries complained of preceded the treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo and were excluded from the cognizance of the 
 Mixed Commission by that fact. 
 
 1. This last objection was, we think, satisfactorily answered in the 
 argument of Mr. Doyle. (Transcript, pp. 93 et seq.) The ground 
 was there taken that the word "injury" is a very broad one in law 
 and includes any deprivation of legal right — "quidmddest contra jus" — 
 and we think that it can not be doubted that the withholding of money 
 due ex contractu, or the ommission of a trustee to apply money in his 
 hands to the purposes of his trust in accordance with its terms, is an 
 injury to the beneficiary or cestui qui trust. That view the tribunal 
 sustained, and we have seen no argument to shake our conviction of _ 
 its soundness. We did not base our complaint on the taking of the 
 property by Mexico, and probably could not have done so successfully, 
 as the President's decree had the force of law. Our complaint was, 
 that having taken the property under a distinct promise to pay a cer- 
 tain price for it, the Mexican Government failed to pay the price. 
 
 2. As to the objection that the preliminary presentation ofthe claim 
 was defective, it is, we think, easily disposed of. The object of pre- 
 liminary presentation was to identify the matter forming the subject 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALlFOENIAS. 267 
 
 of the claim and to afford opportunity for any inquiries needed. No 
 particular form was required, and we are not aware that a single claim 
 was dismissed for defect in the form of presentation. Here counsel 
 laid the matter of the diversion of the Pious Fund before the Secretary 
 of State of the United States, requesting the interposition of his Gov- 
 ernment with Mexico to obtain redress for his clients as early as July 
 2 u' ^ j" He did not Presume to define what the Secretary of State 
 should demand, but stated the facts, leaving the measure of redress to 
 be asked to the discretion of the Government of the United States 
 We deem this presentation all that was needed to fulfill the descriptive 
 words of the convention of 1868; so that criticism on Mr. Casserly's 
 misunderstanding of the telegram sent him March 28, 1869, is from 
 the purpose. But the jurisdiction of the Mixed Commission of 1868 
 even if originally doubtful, was afterwards fully affirmed and sub- 
 mitted to by Mexico herself, and can not now be disputed. The case 
 is strictly analogous to what in English and American law is called a 
 plea to the jurisdiction, and in the law of Spain and Mexico "excep- 
 tion declinajtoria.^ Such a defense must always be interposed pre- 
 liminarily, and the right to offer it is waived by pleading to, or going 
 to trial on, the merits. This is equally the rule of the common and 
 of the civil law, and is so logical and just that it may fairly be pre- 
 sumed to prevail under all systems of jurisprudence in civilized coun- 
 tries. _ Mexico went to trial on the merits of the Pious Fund case, and 
 the objection here relied on to defeat the jurisdiction was only brought 
 forward after judgment on the merits had been signed by the umpire. 
 
 Again, all objections to the jurisdiction of the Mixed Commission of 
 1868 were expressly waived by Mexico, and this not once, but many 
 times. Indeed, power to decide this case was expressly conferred on 
 it by treaty, for the period for its decision of all claims was originally 
 limited to two years and six months from July 31, 1869, and accord- 
 ingly terminated on January 31, 1872. At that time the Pious Fund 
 claim, as set forth and defined in the Memorial of the Prelates of Cali- 
 fornia (pp. 9, 54), was pending before the Commission. A motion to 
 dismiss it had been made by the counsel for Mexico based on several 
 - grounds (not, however, on any defect in the preliminary presentation 
 of the claim), argued on both sides, and awaited decision. By a sup- 
 plementary convention, the ratifications of which were exchanged on 
 February 8, 1872 (after the original Commission had by lapse of time 
 expired), it was recalled into life to determine the* claims pending 
 before it when it expired, and the period for making its awards was 
 extended for a year, i. e. , till January 31, 1873. That was a resubmis- 
 sion by both parties of all those pending cases, with authority to decide 
 them. Further supplementary conventions extended the time as fol- 
 lows, viz: That of November 27, 1872, two years more, or till Jan- 
 uary 31, 1875. That of November 20, 1874, one year more, or till 
 January 31, 1876, with six months additional for the umpire to com- 
 plete his labors, and by one of April 29, 1876, the powers of the 
 umpire were further extended till November 20, 1876. Each of these 
 several conventions extending the time for decision, whether by the 
 commission or by the umpire, referred to the cases then pending and 
 undecided, and distinctly assumed that their decision, by the commis- 
 sion or the umpire, as the case might be, was within the competency 
 
 a See testimony of John T. Doyle. 
 
268 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 of the tribunal. If Mexico had at any time before April 30, 1876, 
 deemed this Pious Fund Case beyond the jurisdiction designed to be 
 given to the commission, it was in her power before assenting to any 
 one of these supplementary conventions to expressly except it from 
 the submission. She might have said "we never intended to submit 
 this claim to the commission, and we will not, by prolonging the time 
 for deciding it, consent that it be determined by that tribunal." Or 
 "we claim that it was not presented seasonably, and will not, by any 
 present action, waive that objection." 
 
 This was the course adopted by Great Britain, under analogous con- 
 ditions, at the great Geneva arbitration, and the magnitude and char- 
 acter of this claim forbid the supposition that it was on any occasion ' 
 overlooked or forgotten. Its repeated submission, therefore, was 
 intentional and deliberate and it is quite too late now to question the 
 jurisdiction of the tribunal to whose determination it was voluntarily 
 submitted. 
 
 All this is the more emphaticall}' true from the fact that the juris- 
 diction and powers of the Mixed Commission had lapsed before the first 
 supplementary convention became effective by the exchange of its 
 ratifications. The tribunal was dead, and the parties voluntarily 
 revived it and charged it with the determination of the cases before it 
 undecided at the time of its decease. This was a resubmission of all 
 those cases, including that of the Pious Fund. Still further, the arbi- 
 trators had failed to agree on the case, filed their opposing opinions, 
 and referred the decision to the umpire as early as May, 1875/' It 
 was pending and undecided before him when the convention of April 
 29, 1876, was concluded, the scope of 'which was confined to cases wherein 
 such difference of opinion iind arisen and wJtich had been so referred to 
 the umpire. It gave him in express terms additional time, till Novem- 
 ber 20, 1876, to determine them. If that convention was not an express 
 authority to him to determine each and every case, coming within the 
 category described of cases referred to the umpire, it is difficult to 
 say what it was. 
 
 There is therefore no room for any suggestion of error, ignorance, 
 or oversight in this case. The nature, particulars, and amount of the 
 claim were well known to the Mexican Government, and especially to 
 the officers who negotiated these various conventions. Don Manuel 
 Aspiroz, who agreed on and signed the first supplementary convention, 
 was one of the Counsel for Mexico before the Commission, and filed 
 an elaborate argument in the case. Its repeated resubmission to the 
 Commission, and finally to the umpire, was clearly intentional, and 
 Mexico can not now be heard to object to the tribunal she deliberately 
 invited to make the decision. 
 
 We do not lose sight of the well-settled principle that the decision 
 of the Commission as to its own jurisdiction (there being no mode of 
 reviewing its decisions provided) must be final and conclusive. This is 
 obviously a necessary logical sequence from the origin. and nature of 
 the court, and has received repeated judicial recognition. It has also 
 been fully discussed by the counsel for the United States, and we 
 therefore limit ourselves to the other grounds above stated, especially 
 as they go more directly to the absolute merits of the question. 
 
 In this connection, too, the peculiar language of the convention of 
 
 a For all these dates, see Docket Entries, p. 3. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 269 
 
 1868 and its attendant circumstances are significant. It must be 
 remembered that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo contained (Art. 
 XXI) a general promise to treat future international differences, if 
 such arose, in a spirit of friendship, and to seek to adjust them, if 
 possible, by arbitration. For twenty years thereafter many circum- 
 stances occasioned complaints by citizens of each of the Republics 
 against the government of the other. Anxious to settle all of these, 
 and to "increase the friendly feelings between the two nations, as well 
 as to strengthen the system and principles of republican govern- 
 ment on the American continent," the two Republics entered into the 
 convention of 1868, wherein, after reciting the existence of numerous 
 claims, as above, by citizens, etc., "for injuries to their persons or 
 property," they agree to refer all such to the Mixed Commission pro- 
 vided for therein, and to an umpire, in case of disagreement, and by 
 Article II "solemnly and sincerely engage to consider the decision of 
 the commissioners conjointly, or of the umpire, as the case may be, as 
 absolutely final and conclusive upon each such claim decided by him or 
 them, respectively, and to give full effect to such decisions without any 
 objection, evasion, or- delay whatsoever." 
 
 The object and intent of this convention being plainly to put an end, 
 once and forever, to the whole mass of diversified claims which had 
 accumulated during the long period of disorder referred to, the words 
 "injuries to their persons or property" were employed as " nomina 
 generalijisiriM,^ or the broadest and most comprehensive known to the 
 law, for the purpose of including all complaints of every kind. While 
 refusing consideration to claims antedating the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo (February 2, 1848), it was agreed to provide for the decision, 
 by a judicial tribunal, of all subsequent to that date. And as if antici- 
 pating, from the large number and great variety of cases to come 
 before it, that a question might be raised after decision as to whether 
 a particular case came within the class submitted, they inserted the 
 clause quoted above, from Article II, to hold the decision of the arbi- 
 trators or umpire on that point also conclusive, and that they would 
 " give full effect thereto without objection, evasion, or delay," adding 
 in Article III, as if for more abundant caution, that "it should be 
 competent for the commissioners or the umpire to decide, in each 
 case, whether any claim had been duly made, preferred, laid before 
 them," etc., and agreeing, in Article V, "to consider the result of 
 the proceedings of the Commission as a full and final settlement of 
 every claim upon either government arising out of any transaction of 
 a date prior to the exchange of the ratifications of the present conven- 
 tion" (February 1, 1869.) 
 
 The inevitable corollary and effect of the decision of the umpire 
 was and is to establish that the principal sum on which Mexico 
 promised by the decree of October 24, 1842, to pay interest at 6 per 
 cent was $1,435,033; that the prelates of California as successors of 
 the former bishop were entitled to one-half of that annual payment 
 for the twentv-one years between October 24, 1848, and February 1, 
 18(>!t, amounting to the sum awarded, viz, $904,070.99. The arith- 
 metical calculation is just as much a part of the decision as the product 
 reached by it. 
 
 Finally. The memorial of this claim, in exactly the shape in which 
 it was decided, accompanied bv historical references, was filed before 
 the Commission December 31, 1870. On April 24, 1871, Mexico, by 
 
270 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Mr. Cushing, moved to dismiss it on other grounds, going to the 
 nature of the claim, the title of the claimants, and their capacity to 
 sue, but offering no objection to the jurisdiction of the Commission 
 based on the insufficiency of the preliminary presentation (p. 67). He 
 also filed an argument in support of his motion. On March 1, 1872, 
 arguments thereon on the part of the claimants were also filed (pp. 
 72, 80). Then, after long delay and no decision of this motion, the 
 counsel for both parties offered proofs, which were filed between March 
 1, 1873, when those of the claimants were filed, and October 30, 1873, 
 when Mexico's proofs were put in. The argument of Don Manuel de 
 Aspiroz on the merits on behalf of Mexico was filed on' the last-named 
 day, and was replied to by Mr. Doyle on January 25, 1875 (pp. 222, 369). 
 On May 19, 1875, the conflicting opinions of the commissioners were 
 filed (pp. 523, 527). 
 
 During these five years and over of litigation before it, no word of 
 objection to the preliminary presentation of the claim was heard from 
 Mexico, nor did the A exican commissioner give expression in his 
 opinion to such a thought. The case then went to the umpire. It 
 was argued before him by Don Eleuterio Avila for Mexico in a brief 
 filed July 10, 1875, and by counsel for the claimants filed July 24 of the 
 same year. Still no mention of any objection to the jurisdiction. 
 
 November 29, 1875, the umpire signed his opinion and allowed it to 
 become known. On January 29, 1876, Mexico, through Mr. Avila, 
 petitioned for a rehearing, and then, for the first time, denied the juris- 
 diction of the tribunal — five years and ten months after the presenta- 
 tion of the case. And on September 19, 1876, eight and two-thirds 
 months thereafter, presented an argument in support of such petition, 
 wherein this objection to the presentation of the claim was brought 
 forward. (Transcript, p. 635.) 
 
 The discussion of it commences at paragraph 125 (p. 635) of his 
 argument, wherein he complains that instead of presenting their 
 demand to Mexico they allowed year after year to elapse till July, 
 1859, when they brought it forward in an exaggerated form, demand- 
 ing the whole of the fund, interest, and principal, citing and comment- 
 ing on the letter of Mr. John T. Doyle to Mr. Secretary Lewis Cass, 
 of July 20, 1859, and that of Mr. Eugene Casserly to Mr. Secretary 
 Fish, of March 30, 1870. 
 
 "With reference to this matter Mr. Doyle has been examined as a 
 witness, and his testimony, coupled with that of Archbishop Alemany, 
 shows pretty satisfactorily that the claim was on July 26, 1852, pre- 
 sented by the latter to the Mexican Government in writing (contrary 
 to the supposition entertained by Sir Edward Thornton), and after a 
 delay of two months was, on September 29 of the same year, distinctly 
 refused. His evidence further explains his demand of July 20, 1859, 
 and shows the instruction he telegraphed to Mr. Eugene Casserly as 
 to presenting the claim to the Mixed Commission. For the formal* 
 deviation from this instruction the claimants are hardly to be held 
 responsible at this late day. Had attention been called to it at the 
 time it could have been amended, for the Commission had power by the 
 convention to enlarge the time for presenting claims three months. 
 No objection, however, was made to either presentation until six years 
 and a half after the latest one was made. Senor Avila in then bring- 
 ing it forward practically admitted that it was entirelv too late, but 
 sought to throw it in as a makeweight to induce the umpire to adopt 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 271 
 
 a suggestion that he put forward in his petition for a rehearing, viz, 
 that the umpire should reconsider the amount of i his award, and while 
 reducing the aggregate make it include the portion of the capital of 
 the fund which he awarded to Upper California. (See paragraphs 140, 
 158, 173, et seq. to the end, Transcript, p. 637, etc.) 
 
 It is not to be supposed that this was designed to entrap the umpire 
 into making an award which transcended his power, but there is little 
 doubt that had he complied with it he would have done so. 
 
 That the decision of the Mixed Commission of 1868 would determine 
 the amount annually due from Mexico once for all as res judicata did 
 not escape the discernment of the representatives of Mexico at the 
 time it was uttered. Senor Zamacona, the Mexican commissioner, says 
 (Transcript, p. 543): "This situation the claimants now desire to alter 
 and to oblige Mexico to pay the perpetual tribute of a rent to certain 
 American corporations." A, little farther on (id.) he speaks of it as 
 "a sort of perpetual annuity which they want to secure in favor of 
 their churches." (Transcript, p. 643.) 
 
 Senor Avila presses the same idea, saying (Transcript, p. 551) : 
 
 Y a fe si en efecto ech6 mano el Gobierno de Mexico de los restoa del fondo de 
 misiones para sostener la guerra contra los Estados Unidos a cuyo t^rmino perdio 
 mas de la mitad del territorio nacional — inclusa la Alta California — seria curioso que 
 hoy se le hiciese pagar en beneficio de los Estados Unidos y de una secta religiosa que 
 tiende a predominar en ellos, no solamente lo que entonces tomara de dichos fondos, 
 sino un tribute perpMuo como reclitos del mayor valor que alguna vez pudieron tener. 
 
 Again (Transcript, pp. 554-555): 
 
 Seria una iniquidad monstruosa, * * * al Gobierno de Mexico, si le compeliera 
 a pagar un tributo perpUuo a los Obispos de California. 
 
 The same gentleman, in his petition for a rehearing (Transcript, p. 
 612), says: 
 
 C6mo puede creerse que el Gobierno de Mexico se constituyese un tributario per- 
 pHuo de una Iglesia extrangera? 
 
 II. It is, however, our duty, under the terms of the protocol, to 
 consider the case on the assumption that the court may be of the opin- 
 ion that the judgment of the Mixed Commission of 1868 is not conclu- 
 sive, and to discuss the justice of the claim of the church for the 
 interest on the Pious Fund. This we shall do but briefly. 
 
 1. The question whether the prelates of the church are proper par- 
 ties to demand fulfillment of Mexico's obligation to pay the portion 
 corresponding to Upper California of the price she promised to pay 
 for the Pious Fund when she incorporated it into the national treas- 
 ury is answered by many notable precedents and decisions of eminent 
 legal authorities. These were cited in the former argument (Tran- 
 script, pp. 86-93, 471), and we shall not weary the court by further 
 reference to them or by a discussion of the point. This question 
 cuts no figure here — nor is it a question for this or any other inter- 
 national court. The Government of the United States is the party to 
 decide whether it will demand from a foreign government payment 
 of a debt on behalf of its citizens who are interested. It represents 
 them, and is competent to represent them at all times and places and 
 to all intents and purposes, and the fact that the United States makes 
 the demand on behalf of any of its citizens is conclusive as to its 
 authority to do so. 
 
 2. As to the liability of the Mexican Government for the fulfillment 
 
272 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 of the promise, made when taking the Pious Fund into the treasury, 
 it is really a question'of simple good faith. The fund was composed 
 wholly of means donated by private individuals, placed in the hands 
 of trustees, and devoted to a specific pious and benevolent purpose. 
 Neither the Crown of Spain nor the Mexican Government ever con- 
 tributed to it a single maravedi. As said by Commissioner Wadsworth 
 in his opinion: 
 
 The fund does not belong to the Government of Mexico — not a dollar of it; it is 
 private property, sacredly devoted by the piety of a past age to Christian charity 
 and fortified against political spoliations by all the sanctions of religion and all the 
 obligations of good faith. (Transcript, p. 527.) 
 
 We have had intimations that the fund came originally from the 
 Crown of Spain, and General Santa Anna's act has been called a resivm/p- 
 tion of public funds; but this is to miscall it. We have repeatedly 
 challenged proof of the contributions to it by either Government of a 
 single dime. None such has been offered, nor can it be produced. The 
 Crown on a few rare occasions gave, we believe, some assistance to the 
 missions, e. g., bells for the chapels, vessels for the altar, or a few 
 head of cattle to commence a settlement, but nothing to the Pious 
 Fund. 
 
 The writer has read everything on the subject in print or in manu- 
 script that it has been possible to find in the last forty years and over, 
 and is led to believe that so small a sum as % 5,000 would cover all that 
 either Spain or Mexico ever contributed toward aiding the missionary 
 efforts of the religious orders toward conversion and civilization of 
 the native tribes or in any way to the support of religion in the 
 Californias. 
 
 3. As to the amount of the fund. We have shown the historical 
 evidence from works of recognized authority printed and published 
 longe ante litem motam the following large donations. Of the numer- 
 ous smaller ones, which, however, aggregated a large amount, we take 
 no account, it being naturally impossible to make any proof of or 
 follow such sums. 
 
 (a) The early subscriptions mentioned in Venegas, California, the Nach- 
 richten, the Tres Cartas, and the Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, 
 amount to (see extracts, Transcript, pp. 187-221; Tr. Cartas, carta 2da, 
 P. 48) $130,000 
 
 (6) The donatio inter vivos by the Marquis de Villapuente and his lady, 
 of which a duly certified copy is among the proofs forming the record of 
 the former arbitration (Transcript, pp. 99,104,111), shows a contribu- 
 tion of property valued at 408, 000 
 
 (c) The donation of the Duchess of Gandia, say $60,666, and as much 
 
 more bequeathed by her will (Transcript, p. 1981 120, 000 
 
 (d) Three-eighths of the residuary estate of the Senora Josefa Paula de 
 Arguelles, of Guadalajara, the exact amount of which we can not state, 
 
 but which certainly exceeded « 600, 000 
 
 Amounting in all to 1,258,000 
 
 «With the exception of two small estates, called, respectively, la Chica and la 
 Grande, the missionary funds of the Philippine Islands, so far as they existed in 
 Mexico, were derived from the bequest of Senora Josefa Paula de Arguelles, who by 
 her will bequeathed her residuary estate to the missions of California and the Philip- 
 pines, to be equally divided between them. The portion belonging to California was 
 added to the Pious Fund. Mexico sold the estates in which the Philippine missions 
 were interested, and in the report of Manuel Pay no (Transcript, pp. 23, 24) we find 
 that up to May 7, 1814, there had been paid into the Mexican treasury from this 
 source $306,901.75 for the account of the missions of the Philippine Islands; a like 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 273 
 
 As said above, we take no account of minor donations, and count 
 nothing upon the natural increase of the property from judicious 
 investment and employment of the funds in the careful and skillful 
 hands of the Jesuits, who were and are noted for their success, result- 
 ing from the habit of placing their finances in the hands of their mem- 
 bers most competent for the purpose. The object of these historical 
 citations is to demonstrate the existence of a fund of great magnitude 
 at this early date devoted to the objects we have indicated. Mexico 
 has in her possession, among the archives of the viceroyalty and of the 
 nation since its independence, exact accounts of all these details. We 
 claim the presumption that must arise, in every candid mind, from her 
 omission to produce any of them. 
 
 4. The original trustees of those large funds were the Jesuits. By 
 an act of arbitrary power the Spanish Crown dispossessed and exiled 
 them, seizing on all their possessions. (Pragmatic Sanction. Novisima 
 Recoplacion. Lib. I, tit. 26, Ley. III.) It acknowledged the trust 
 character of this fund and took upon itself its administration and 
 application to the purposes of its foundation. (Pragmatic Sanction, 
 supra, sec. 3, anexo 17, p. 317.) On attaining its independence 
 Mexico succeeded to this possession of the property and acknowledged 
 the attendant duty of administration. (Law of June 28, 1824; treaty 
 with Spain December 28, 1836.) During the troubled period of the 
 struggle for independence irregularities and lapses occurred in the 
 management, but the duty was never denied, and with honorable pride 
 the newly emancipated State made haste to acknowledge its liability 
 for the debts of the viceroyalty, to the possessions and powers of 
 which it succeeded. (Law of June 28, 1824; treaty of December 28, 
 1836.) The record contains two or three " estados," more or less com- 
 plete, of the fund at different dates (Transcript, pp. 174, 220, 221), 
 which by the names of the landed estates belonging to it and other 
 
 amount, as shown in the same report, belonged to the Pious Fund. Besides this 
 amount, three-fourths interest in the hacienda Cienaga del Pastor came from the same 
 source; this interest was afterwards sold for $216,750. To these sums must be added 
 the value of the three- fourths interest in the houses 11 and 12 Vergara street, which 
 was sold for $52,000, thus making a total of $575,651.75. Besides this we are led to 
 believe that there was other property derived from the same sources. 
 
 Confirmation of the general accuracy of these figures, from an independent source, 
 is derived from the estado of the Pious Fund on November 16, 1792, given in the 
 Pandectas Hispano-Mexicanos, volume 2, page 173, which shows: 
 
 Cash in hands and invested - $180, 973. 61 
 
 Haciendas (value) 647, 962. 27 
 
 Total capital of the fund at that time. 828, 936. 08 
 
 Annual income (average of five years) 55, 177 
 
 Less care of the property, etc $24, 150 
 
 Expense of missions 22, 550 
 
 46, 700 
 
 Surplus applicable to the founding of a college for missionaries, 
 
 etc. , per year 8, 477 
 
 This was before anything was derived from the estate of Madame Arguelles, the final 
 judgment in whose case was only pronounced in the spring of 1793, and communi- 
 cated to the viceroy under date of Aranjuez, March 16, 1793, reaching Mexico m June 
 of the same year. (See anexos 16 and 17 to the argument of D. Manuel de Aspiroz, 
 Tr. , pp. 315, 317. ) Adding the $600, 000 from Madame Arguelles to the capital above 
 the amount would be $1,428,036, which is materially over our estimate above. 
 
 S. Doe. 28 18 
 
274 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 hall-marks show its identity with that founded in 1697 by Frs. Salva- 
 tierra and Ugarte, increased by the above-mentioned donations of the 
 Marquis de Villapuente and his wife, the Duchess of Gandia, and 
 Senora Argiielles. 
 
 o. T' .e offer to place the possession and management of the fund in 
 the hands of the bishop of California (law of September 19, 1836) 
 simultaneously with the creation of the diocese, whether we regard it 
 as an inducement to the Holy See to consent to that step or as a formal 
 acknowledgment of the right of the prelate to the control of funds 
 destined to the promotion of religious instruction in his diocese, con- 
 firms the acknowledgment of the trust character of the estate thereto- 
 fore held by the Government and the identity of the beneficiaries. 
 
 6. In the year 1842 we find it possessed and administered by Bishop 
 Francisco Garcia Diego, as trustee, for the missions of California, over 
 which he had been called to preside as bishop. General Santa Anna 
 was then provisional President of Mexico, with extraordinary powers 
 conferred by the fundamental law, proclaimed under the title of the 
 "Bases of Tacubaya." His power was practically that of a Eoman 
 dictator. 
 
 By an act of this extraordinary power he (February 8, 1842) took 
 from the bishop the administration and management of the Pious Fund 
 and appointed Gen. Gabriel Valencia, his chief of staff, to be its trustee 
 and manager on the part of the Government. Bishop Diego was at the 
 time in California, having left the management of the properties of 
 the fund in the hands of Don Pedro Eamirez, as his apoderado, or 
 attorney in fact. Eamirez being far advanced in life, the manage- 
 ment of the rural properties of the fund were especially intrusted to 
 Don Miguel Balaunzaran. Called on suddenly by General Valencia to 
 surrender and turn over to him the properties of the Pious Fund, 
 Eamirez strove to obtain a sufficient delay to enable him to communi- 
 cate with his principal, the bishop; but not being successful in this 
 he complied with the demand and turned over the propertj' to General 
 Valencia, accompanied by an " instruccion circunstanciada" or de- 
 tailed inventory of it. a 
 
 This, though incomplete, is the latest and last authentic declaration 
 of the properties and credits of the fund that we possess. It was 
 taken as the basis of his award by the American commissioner in 1875, 
 in which the umpire concurs, and shows, in brief, that the capital of 
 the fund consisted of: 
 
 Amount due from Government for loans $1, 082, 078 
 
 Debts of individuals 72, 122 
 
 Annual rent of real properties, $17,330, equal at 6 per cent per annum to 
 capital of 288, 833 
 
 Total capital 1, 443, 033 
 
 These figures, derived entirely from contemporaneous data, fully 
 sustain the former judgment; and the award of interest on the capital 
 at 6 per cent per annum is in conformity not only to the scale fixed 
 by the decree taking the fund into the treasury, but with the rate 
 Mexico herself deemed reasonable, and paid to other creditors repre- 
 senting like demands, as shown by the report of Manuel Payno, which 
 
 « See the correspondence proved as Exhibit A to the deposition of Padre Eomo de 
 Jesus (Transcript, pp. 159-180; repeated, pp. 470-525). Demand for delivery by 
 inventory No. 6 (p. 164; repeated, p. 483; translation, p. 505). 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 275 
 
 is in evidence. (Transcript, pp. 22 et seq.) It was in fact a low rate 
 for the time. The United States paid 6 per cent for loans till a much 
 later date. 
 
 Now, if the former award is not to be deemed conclusive, there are 
 additions to be made to this capital, as follows: 
 
 ] . In making it, Mr. Commissioner Wadsworth, whose award was 
 adopted by the umpire as his own, threw out of the account the valu- 
 able estate of OKenaga del Pasta?' (which was bringing in an annual 
 rental of $17,100, of which three-fourths belonged to the Pious Fund), 
 because the instruccion circunstanciada stated that the property had 
 been attached by a certain Senor Jauregui, and the ultimate fate of 
 that attachment suit was not shown. This would represent at 6 per 
 cent a capital of $213,750. As to this item the decision of the court 
 took the writer by surprise. It appeared to him then that if that prop- 
 erty or any part of it was lost to the Pious Fund in consequence of the 
 result of that attachment suit, it was for Mexico to show it, and no 
 effort was made on our part to prove the outcome of the litigation. 
 In fact, it was obviously out of our power. This opinion we still con- 
 sider a correct statement of the rule of evidence. But having since 
 obtained certain evidence on the subject we have laid it before this 
 court. It appears from page 32 of a pamphlet published in the City 
 of Mexico in 1845 by D. Juan Rodriguez de San Miguel (a gentleman 
 whose writings on the subject are quoted as authority by Senor de 
 Aspiroz, par. 76), and entitled Doowmentos relatives al Pondo Piadoso 
 de Misiones, etc., de la Antigua y Nueva California, etc., that on Octo- 
 ber 25, 1842, the very day after General Santa Anna's decree incorpo- 
 rating the properties of the Pious Fund into the public treasury, Sr. 
 Trigueros, of theMinisterio de Hacienda, communicates in writing to the 
 "Senores encargados de la tesoreria general" that the " liquidata- 
 rios y demas socios de la estinguida empresa de tabacos " had on the 
 
 E receding day made an offer to purchase from the Government the 
 acienda Amoles with its anexas, the three-fourths of the Ci6naga del 
 Pastor with its anexas, both properties of the Pious Fund of California, 
 for a price to be computed by capitalizing their annual rents at 6 per 
 cent per annum, on terms which the President had accepted. And 
 from another communication of the same official, published at page 33 
 of the same pamphlet, we learn that $3,000 additional were allowed 
 by the purchasers for the llenos on the property, they taking the risk 
 of the ownership thereof in case they should be claimed by third per- 
 sons. Following this is a certificate by Ramon Villalobos that the 
 escritura de venta of the property had been executed in the register of 
 the treasury department. The United States has demanded a dis- 
 covery by Mexico of these letters and this escritura de venta under the 
 provision of the protocol constituting this tribunal, and although the 
 demand has not as yet been complied with, we must assume that it will 
 be, and therefore call attention to the fact that it shows that the escri- 
 tura in question bears date November 29, 1842, and was executed in 
 the presence of Ramon Villalobos by the Senores D. Tranquilino de la 
 Vega and D. Nicolas Maria Fagoagas, ministers of the general treasury 
 of the nation, and that bv it they sell and convey to the parties referred 
 to, for the price of $428,500, the three-fourths of the Cienaga del Pastor 
 with its anexas, the Hacienda San Agustin de los Amoles with its 
 anexas, viz, San Jose", La Vaya, San Ignacio del Buey, el Custodio, and 
 Buena Vista. 
 
276 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Now, as the last-named six properties produced a rent of $12,705 
 per annum, representing at 6 per cent a capital of $211,750, the remain- 
 der of the consideration money must have been the price of the Cienaga 
 del Pastor with its llenos. 0. 
 
 This discovery renders it unnecessary to inquire into the fate of Mr. 
 Jauregui's attachment suit, for, attached or not attached, the Govern- 
 ment sold the property for $216,750, and that sum should be added to 
 the amount of capital allowed by Commissioner Wadsworth and the 
 umpire. 
 
 2. He also deducts from the amount of the Government indebtedness 
 to the fund the sum of $7,000, as a bad debt, under the date of Octo- 
 ber 29, 1829. This deduction was erroneous, and the adjudged capital 
 of the said fund should be augmented by the said sum, and the income 
 of the fund by the interest thereon, amounting: to $420 per annum. 
 The said commissioner and umpire designate the said sum as a bad 
 debt, referring to the instruction circunstanciada of Don Pedro Rami- 
 rez, from which the item is taken; but the text of said document shows 
 this to be an error, resulting from a misunderstanding of its language. 
 The passage in the instruction circunstanciada referring to said item 
 is as follows: "Otro de siete mil ps., que por orden ejecutiva del 
 supremo gobierno, para que entregaren a los Senores Revillas veinte 
 mil, exibio su apoderado, Don Francisco Barrera, en 20 de Octubre de 
 1829, y un pagare contra la compania Alemana-Mexicana que no se 
 cobro" (p. 172), which has been misunderstood. The words "que no 
 se cobro" in this passage evidently refer to the pagare or promissory 
 note of the German-Mexican Company, not to the "orden ejecutiva 
 del supremo gobierno." The instruccion circunstanciada of Mr. Rami- 
 rez does not therefore designate this item as a bad debt, but states the 
 circumstances out of which it arose, viz. , that the Government, desir- 
 ing to pay Srs. Revilla $20,000, gave an order on the trustees or mana- 
 gers of the Pious Fund for $7,000 thereof, in favor of Don Francisco 
 Barrera, apoderado of the Senores Revilla, payable out of the Pious 
 Fund, which he presented on October 20, 1829, leaving, either as a 
 counter security or for some other reason, a "pagare" or promissory 
 note of the German-Mexican Company, which was not paid. (See 
 testimony of John T. Doyle, and consult the interpreters.) 
 
 3. Besides these two corrections, amounting to $223,730, there is 
 the following evidence that on or about July, 1834, the Government 
 borrowed from the fund sums amounting to $22,763.15 under the fol- 
 lowing circumstances: A law had been passed in 1833 to secularize the 
 missions of California; under this they were to be turned into pueblos, 
 the missionaries exchanged for parochial clergy, etc. Connected with 
 this general scheme it was determined to send a colony up from Mexico 
 to settle in the country. Colonists were invited and enrolled whose 
 expenses, including a small daily personal allowance to each, were to 
 be defrayed by the Government* and the expedition was to set out 
 from San Bias in the corvette Morelos and the brig Natalia. 
 
 a " Llenos" as here employed is not to be found in any dictionary. We under- 
 stand it is a local form of expression for the tools, implements, machinery, etc., on 
 such an estate. Its etymology also suggests that it might include the crop on hand, 
 or, as termed in English law, emblements, coniinens pro coutento. This is fully con- 
 firmed by the fact that the rent of the three-quarters of the Cienaga is given at 112,825, 
 representing at 6 per cent a capital of $213,750, which, with the $3,000 for the llenos, 
 makes up exactly the total of the purchase price. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. % 277 
 
 In the same letter (No. 1, Transcript, pp. 160, 500) Mr. Ramirez 
 £ ono a V h t fe d tfd.^™ thao $30,000 on account of a lo™ 
 W0,000 which the Mexican Government had raised on mortgage- of 
 the Pious Fund, drawing interest at S per cent per month, and that he 
 was under pressing demand for $2,000 more drawn for on him by the 
 Government in favor of Mr. Eustace Barron, British consul, for money 
 K™ n t0 £ e ^Ionization expedition. These two sums, amounting 
 to $32,000 should, if the matter be open to question, be added to 
 Ifcs 7?n ^ ±l T. d ' t0 ^ ether wit£ the above indebtedness of 
 
 ffi i%A a ™T?u mg * lto &to& t0 $278,493, and making its total cap- 
 ital it>l,714,52b, the annual interest on which at 6 per cent is $102,871 56 
 (See Ramirez, letter 1, above cited.) 
 
 The. colonization scheme proved an expensive failure, and there is 
 so much reason, on the face of these papers and other circumstances, 
 to suggest the probability that the whole expense of it was defrayed 
 out of the Pious Fund, that if we could persuade ourselves that there 
 is any probability that the court would go behind the award of the 
 Mixed Commission of 1868, we would follow up the clues with confi- 
 dence of obtaining proof of large sums so expended. But to us it is 
 incredible that this high permanent international court will ever so far 
 undervalue its own decisions as to hold that a demand solemnly 
 adjudged by a similar tribunal can be reopened at the instance of either 
 party; hence, we follow this inquiry no further. 
 
 4. In the memorial of the present claim we have said: 
 ,„„ 6 - * f th< ? adjudication of the tribunal constituted under the convention of July 4 
 1868, is not deemed conclusive as to the amount due the claimants on account of the 
 nous *und neither is it conclusive as to the proportion in which the income should 
 be divided between Upper and Lower California, and an equal division between the 
 P. w .° f °™ er . Provinces {of Mexico), whatever excuse may have appeared to exist for 
 it m 1875, is at the present day wholly unjust and, indeed, absurd! 
 
 Lower California was the name applied to the peninsula that sepa- 
 rates the sheet of water called the "Gulf of California," and sometimes 
 * u i. r - de Cort& >" from the Pacific Ocean. It is a prolongation 
 of the chain of coast mountains of the mainland lying to the north 
 down to Cape San Lucas, where their summits cease to appear above the 
 sea level. It has not a single permanent river, a most scanty rainfall, 
 a very considerable area of desert, and a very small area of arable 
 land; the greater part of it is mountain summits. Prior to the expul- 
 sion of the Jesuits its population (almost wholly Indian) may be assumed 
 almost at 50,000. After that event disease speedily set in. Sailors 
 visiting the coast introduced smallpox, measles, and nameless contagious 
 diseases, which swept away the wretched population ; " un der the austere 
 rule of the Dominicans the majority of the converts relapsed into bar- 
 barism. " a We have two authentic accounts of the general condition of 
 the country from independent observers, and know of no others of any 
 value. Venegas' California, published in Madrid in 1759, and a report 
 made to the Mexican Government, by "Citizen Ulises UrbanoLassepas," 
 and printed in the City of Mexico a hundred years later. Neither the 
 account of the French expedition under Chappe d'Auteroche to observe 
 the transit of Venus, in 1767, nor the Apostolicos Afanes, give general 
 information on the subject. During the period that elapsed between 
 the expulsion of the Jesuits, and the publication of Eassepas' book, the 
 ruin of the missionary establishments and the decrease of the inhabit- 
 
 "Greehow's Oregon, Ch. Ill, p. 107. 
 
278 
 
 PIOtTS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 ants of the country are manifest. Venegas' book is accessible in pub- 
 lic libraries, and from that of Lassepas (which we believe to be a 
 publication of the Mexican Government), we will append hereto 
 extracts confirming this statement. Upper California, on the other 
 hand, at the time the Pious Fund came into existence, though without 
 definite boundaries, was understood, in Spain and Mexico, to extend 
 up the coast of North America as- far as Spain claimed, and eastward 
 indefinitely. In proof of this claim of Spain at the time and after, we 
 need only refer to the difficulty with England about Nootka Sound in 
 1790, where she asserted sovereignty as .far up as latitude 60°. Coro- 
 nado's great march of discovery (1540-1542), is now known to have 
 taken him as far east as the present State of Kansas. In this enormous 
 stretch of country, called by the Spaniards Alta California, and re- 
 ferred to in the foundation deed, have since grown up several flour- 
 ishing American States — California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, 
 Utah, the two Dakotas, Colorado, and Montana. The population of 
 these, according to the last United States census, is 3,714,000, and 
 other statistics as given in the Catholic Directory are as follows: 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Churches. 
 
 Mission 
 churches. 
 
 Total 
 churches. 
 
 Catholic 
 population. 
 
 
 162 
 42 
 47 
 30 
 9 
 57 
 
 143 
 40 
 57 
 
 .33 
 11 
 88 
 
 305 
 82 
 
 104 
 63 
 20 
 
 145 
 
 317,000 
 
 Oregon 
 
 50,000 
 50, 000 
 
 
 50,000 
 9,600 
 
 
 
 70,000 
 
 
 Total 
 
 347 
 
 372 
 
 719 
 
 632,500 
 
 
 The object of missionary effort lies always in the future. No one 
 who has read anything of Catholic missions among barbarous people 
 will fail to recognize that their leading idea was to get control of and 
 educate the children in Christian habits and morals. They could 
 expect to accomplish little with the adult population beyond inducing 
 them to abandon their nomadic life and dependence on the chase, in 
 favor of stable residence in villages and the cultivation of the soil, to 
 clothe themselves decently, and abstain from polygamy and wars. To 
 divide equally a fund destined for missionary purposes between the 
 inhabitants of two countries so widely dissimilar in character, pros- 
 pects, population, and the capacity to support population as Upper 
 and Lower California is, as it seems to us, rightly characterized as 
 absurd. 
 
 We are aware of and do not undervalue the excuse for it that 
 existed twenty-seven years ago, when the judgment of the Mixed 
 Commission was pronounced. It was then contended by the leading . 
 counsel for the claimants that a division in the proportion of 9 tori, 
 or, perhaps, 8 (Transcript, p. 477) to 1, would be proper, in view of, 
 the extent and capabilities of the two countries, but this claim was 
 opposed by gentlemen, resident on the spot, his juniors, who had 
 been retained to assist him and who, regarding the whole business of 
 missions as analogous to commercial partnerships for gain, and rely- 
 ing on judicial decisions that, in the absence of evidence to the con- 
 trary, the interests of partners would be presumed to be equal, declared 
 an equal division to be the just one (p. 594). The anticipations of 
 1875 have been realized by the close of the century, as the above 
 figures show. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 279 
 
 The last Mexican census appears to give an increase of population 
 to the peninsula. Assuming its correctness, we have claimed in the 
 memorial in the present case 85 per cent of the income for Alta Cali- 
 fornia against 15 per cent for the peninsula, which is a division 
 decidedly liberal to the latter. 
 
 From a publication entitled "Diccionario Universal de Historiayde 
 Geogrqfia, 10 vols., l^to., Mexico Libreria de Andrade, 1863," we find 
 that the population of both the Californias in 1793, as stated in the 
 report of Conde Bevilla-Grigedo, was 12,666. In 1805 the population 
 of Lower California is laid down as 4,669. In 1810 it is stated at 
 4,496; in 1842 as 3,766; and in 1851 as 8,290. (Tomo II, pag. 50 et 
 seq. Verb. Antigua California.) 
 
 III. Something should perhaps be said as to the money in which the 
 award should be made, and in reply to the suggestion of Sr. Avila, 
 that interest on so much of the public debt as went to make up the 
 capital of the Pious Fund should not be allowed, for the reasons 
 assigned in his argument for rehearing. (Transcript, p. 642; sees. 
 158-159.) 
 
 These matters may be briefly discussed together. In 1842, when 
 the Pious Fund was incorporated into the public treasury, the standard 
 of money value was the gold dollar. The great depreciation of silver 
 has occurred since that time. As said above, when a sovereign con- 
 stitutes himself trustee his duties are precisely the same as those of a 
 private person in like case. Were an individual to allow the trust 
 funds in nis hands to remain invested in securities that were steadily 
 falling in value, until from par they had gradually sunk to 40 or 35 
 per cent, or whatever the present value of silver is, no court would 
 hold him free from blame or entertain- any excuse for it. And here 
 the trustee is not such by the appointment or will of the founder of 
 the trust established, nor at the suggestion of the beneficiaries; he has 
 thrust himself in the office against the will of both. The Marquis de 
 Villapuente and his wife provided distinctly in the foundation deed 
 (Transcript, 103), "que ambos otorgantes queremos que en tiempo 
 alguno se inculque, ni por ningun juez eclesiastico 6 secular se entro- 
 meta a saber si se cumple la condicion de esta donacion-, pues nuestra 
 voluntad es que en esta razon haya lugar ninguna pretension, y que 
 cumpla 6 no cumpla la Sagrada Compania con el fin de las misiones, 
 en esta materia, solo a Dios nuestro Senor. tendra que dar cuenta, pues 
 tenemos la entera satisfaccion de que cumplira con su obligacion, y 
 hara lo que fuere mas del agrado de Dios neustro Senor." 
 
 The bishop who represented the beneficiaries protested against the 
 act. A trustee who comes in thus in iuvitwm can hardly be heard to 
 allege any reason for failing to pay his own indebtedness to the trust 
 estate. And the excuse which Senor Avila puts forward for him is of 
 the flimsiest sort. He says (Transcript, p. 644, § 1711: "Por ultimo, 
 obligar al Gobierno de Mexico al pago de reditos de una parte de su, 
 deuda publica, cuando es notorio que no pueda pagarlos a todos sus 
 acreedores, es establecer un privilegio irritante en beneficio de una 
 corporacion Americana," etc., but the court will not fail to remark 
 that the privilege is the direct and necessary consequence of the acts 
 of Mexico herself. She was not asked to take upon herself the position 
 of a trustee. She did it ex motu proprlo, and in doing so gave to the 
 cestuis que trustent or beneficiaries the right to say, "we are not ordi- 
 nary public creditors. We have ceased to be such by your act. You, 
 
280 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 by forcing yourself on us as trustee, have made us preferred creditors. 
 Whatever reduction, abatement, or concession you may make with 
 other creditors, you have by j T our new act bound yourselves to pay us 
 in full. You have sunk your character of sovereign in that of trustee 
 and must abide the consequences." 
 
 Such was the view taken of the case by the former Mixed Commis- 
 sion, and its judgment is binding on both parties, not only by the 
 nature of the case, but by the express terms of the convention of 1868, 
 as above quoted. 
 
 The obligation of a trustee to pay what is due by him to his cestui 
 que trust is held sacred the world over. We do not believe that a 
 bankrupt or insolvent law of any country provides for the discharge 
 of the debtor from such debts. Here the the question propounded by 
 the protocol is, Is this a just claim? We answer it by the counter 
 question, Can any upright mind doubt it? 
 
 Writing without any knowledge of what may be alleged on the 
 other side by the eminent gentlemen charged with the defense of the 
 interests of Mexico in the present case, except so far as may be sur- 
 mised from the former one, we have omitted the discussion of ques- 
 tions then considered, in the confidence that the learned judges 
 presiding here will do us the honor to read our arguments before that 
 tribunal, at pages 80, 462, and 557 of the printed Transcript. The 
 only matter discussed in them to which we shall specially allude here 
 is the transactions between Mexico and Spain as to the fund of the 
 Philippine missions, regarding which we are now better informed 
 than we then were. As stated in a note to page 16, all the endowment 
 of the Philippine missions existent in Mexico, except two estates of 
 minor importance, was derived from the residuary estate of Senora 
 Arguelles already mentioned. During the war of independence remit- 
 tances of the income to the Philippines were suspended, but after 
 the establishment of Mexican independence an agent of those mis- 
 sions came to Mexico to obtain the arrears. The two small estates 
 called "la chica" and "la grande" had been sold, and Mexico agreed 
 to pay for them the sum of $115,000, besides $30,000 additional for 
 back rents or interest. This agreement was evidenced by a conven- 
 tion between Spain and Mexico dated November 7, 1844, the text of 
 which is to be found in the "Colleccion de tratados con las naciones 
 estranjeras, leyes y decretos que forman el derecho internacional 
 Mejicano" (Mexico, 1854), at page 516. This was Mexico's formal 
 acknowledgment of what she regarded as her duty in that case. On 
 the former arbitration, D. Manuel de Aspiroz fell into the error of 
 supposing that this concession to Spain was one of the inducements to 
 her acknowledgment of Mexican independence (p. 249, par. 136, etc.). 
 But this was shown (at p. 474) to be a mistake, for Spain acknowledged 
 the independence of her former colony by the treaty of Madrid, De- 
 cember 28, 1836, eight years before the signing of the convention of 
 November, 1844. 
 
 The latter, however, only disposed of the two haciendas mentioned 
 which have been alienated. The interest of the Philippine missions in 
 the residuary estate of Senor Arguelles remained, and could not be 
 denied. Of these properties, too, some at least had been sold, and 
 Mexico agreed to pay over the prices received for them. She seems 
 also to have made some arrangement by which the three-fourths of the 
 "Cienega del pastor " and the house on Vergarra street, which had 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOP.NIAS. 281 
 
 been owned by the Philippine missions and the Pious Fund in common, 
 should thereafter belong to the latter in severalty," and further nego- 
 tiation with Padre Moran and the Spanish minister led-to a second 
 convention, of December 6, 1851, which is found at page 32 of the 
 Transcript, followed by a statement of the sums paid and remaining 
 due under it, taken from Manuel Payno's report. The author earnestly 
 resents agreeing to pay the sums shown by the books of the treasury 
 department to have been received for the property, instead of calling 
 on Spain to prove them by other evidence. Payno's statement is 
 too lengthy to be summarized here, but fully bears out all we have 
 claimed for it. 
 
 With this imperfect review of it, we respectfully submit the case to 
 the impartial and enlightened consideration of the court, with the final 
 observation that the promise to pay the interest is dated October 21, 
 and in the absence of a special agreement the installments of interest 
 mature on that day, in each succeeding year thereafter. The latest 
 included in the former award was that which matured October 24, 1868. 
 Thirty-three have since accrued, and another will become due October 
 21, 1902. A table showing the dates and amounts herein discussed will 
 be hereto annexed, or presented herewith. 
 
 John T. Doyle, 
 
 W. T. Sherman Doyle, 
 
 Of Counsel for the Prelates. 
 
 Menlopark, Cal., August, 1902. 
 
 a They probably bought out the Philippine mission interest with moneys of the 
 Pious Fund. 
 
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 [Prepared by Mr. Garret W. McEnerney.] 
 
 The memorial presented to the former Arbitral Court by the Arch- 
 bishop and the Bishop of California (Transcript, p. 9) was accompa- 
 nied by a "Brief history of the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias," 
 prepared by Mr. John T. Doyle, who has had professional charge 
 of the matter since 1853. This history will be found in the Transcript, 
 pages 17-22. Mr. Doyle also prepared, and there was likewise pre- 
 sented to the former Arbitral Court, a collection of the extracts neces- 
 sary to sustain the citations of certain historical and other authorities 
 referred to in the "brief history " in support of its text. (For these 
 "extracts" in the original French, Italian, Spanish, and German, but 
 untranslated, see the Transcript, pages 187-221. The United States 
 has prepared an English translation of these extracts for the use of 
 the court.) 
 
 The "brief history" was in no way impeached by Mexico at the 
 hearing of the former arbitration, nor upon the argument thereof. 
 
 Upon the contrary, it was in all its essential features confirmed by 
 the text of the written argument of Don Manuel de Azpiroz, counsel 
 for Mexico, and by the appendixes attached to his argument. (Tran- 
 script—English, pp. 369-462; Spanish, pp. 222-369.) 
 
 We might therefore safely rely upon the "brief history" for a full, 
 fair, and undisputed statement of our case. But during the progress 
 of the former arbitration the accuracy of the "brief history" was 
 often confirmed by additional and later investigation as well as by evi- 
 dence produced by Mexico. 
 
 We think that the proof obtained from these two sources will 
 materially assist in properly presenting the facts of the case to the 
 court. 
 
 We shall not be content, therefore, merely to refer the court to the 
 "brief history " for the facts of the case. But we shall, in considering 
 the propositions hereinafter made, refer the court to the particular 
 facts which we consider appropriate to illustrate the point or enforce 
 the argument with which we may be dealing at the moment. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS HAD AN UNBROKEN AND 
 GENERALLY RECOGNIZED EXISTENCE FROM 1697 DOWN TO THE 
 CESSION OF UPPER CALIFORNIA TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMER- 
 ICA BY MEXICO IN THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO (OR OF 
 QUERETARO) OF FEBRUARY 2, 1848. 
 
 The period from 1697 to 1716. 
 
 It has come to be an accepted fact that "the Pious Fund of the 
 Cahfornias" had its origin in 1697 in money collected from charitable 
 
 283 
 
284 PIOUS FUND OF the californias. 
 
 people to enable Fathers Salvatierra, Kuhn (Kino), Ugarte, and Piccolo 
 to commence their missionery efforts in California. 
 
 While but two of these four missionaries actually labored in the 
 Californias, nevertheless all four were engaged in the missionary 
 enterprise. 
 
 Attached to the argument of Senor de Aspiroz will be found the 
 permission of the viceroy, dated February 6, 1697, whereby the mis- 
 sionaries were granted permission ' ' to penetrate into the provinces of 
 California and convert the Gentiles there residing, upon the terms and 
 conditions set forth in this instrument." (Transcript — English, pp. 
 401-403; Spanish, pp. 254-255.) 
 
 In his argument Senor de Azpiroz said that "the conquest of Cali- 
 fornia was commenced by the Society of Jesus upon the charitable 
 contributions collected by Fathers Salvatierra and Ugarte, at the begin- 
 ning of 1697, and was thus continued for some time without becoming 
 a burden upon the royal ..treasury, which was one of the conditions 
 contained in the permission authorizing it." (Transcript — English, 
 p. 374; Spanish, p. 226.) 
 
 He also mentions a number of contributions to the fund made as 
 early as 1703, which aggregate $55,000. (Transcript — English, p. 374; 
 Spanish, p. 227.) 
 
 Senor de Azpiroz also states upon the pages last cited that — 
 
 Up to this time (that is, the year 1716) the means belonging to those (that is, the 
 missions) already established had not been delivered to the society; the founders 
 retained it in their possession and paid the annual interest, which reckoned for each 
 of them from the date of their establishment. * * * Father Salvatierra in 1717 
 requested and obtained permission to receive the capitals and invest them in real 
 estate, which he did through Father Romano, the attorney of the missions. Thid 
 permission was indispensable, because the Society of Jesus was not competent to 
 acquire temporalities. 
 
 Accepting this statement as true — we have no information by which 
 we are able to affirm or deny it — it will be seen that until 1716 the 
 principal donations for the propagation and maintenance of the Catholic 
 religion in California had a close analogy to what is known in English 
 and American jurisprudence as " a covenant to stand seized to the use 
 of another." 
 
 The chief contributors to this fund, beginning with the year 1697 
 and running down to the year 1716, in substance covenanted to hold to 
 the use of the missions the capital of their contributions, and of course 
 to pay over, from time to time, the income or interest thereon. 
 
 It may be said, therefore, that the twenty years intervening between 
 1697 and 1717 saw the origin and early growth of the Pious Fund and 
 the delivery of the capital thereof to the Jesuits for administration. 
 
 The period from 1717 to 1768. 
 
 The Jesuits had possession of this fund and administered it during 
 the next fifty years; that is, from 1717 until their expulsion from 
 Mexico in 1768, under royal decree of Charles III, dated February 
 27, 1767, which will be found in the Transcript — English, page 410; 
 Spanish, page 262. 
 
 During this period of fifty years the fund grew to great proportions. 
 
 Minor contributions amounted in 1731 to $120,000. (Statement and 
 brief on behalf of the United States, p. 8.) 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 285 
 
 In 1735 there were conveyed to the missions by deed of the Mar- 
 quis de Villapuente and the Marquesa de las. Torres de Rada estates of 
 great area and value. The estates comprised 450,000 acres of land 
 and were estimated to be of the value of $408,000. The deed by which 
 this enormous benefaction was conferred upon the missions was evi- 
 dently drawn with much skill and care. It is to be found in English 
 on pages 104 and 452 of the Transcript, and in Spanish on pages 99 
 and 309. 
 
 In the deed (Transcript, foot of p. 104) it is recited that the Mar- 
 quesa de Rada is indebted to the Marquis de Villapuente in the sum 
 of 1204,000, " whereby our rights in the premises are just and equal." 
 This recital shows that the grantors formally estimated the estates 
 conveyed at the value of $408,000. 
 
 The legacies of the Duchess of Gandia to the fund amounted, it is 
 supposed, to $120,000. The account of this benefaction is taken from 
 Clavigero's History of California (Venice, 1789). The extract, in 
 Italian, is to be found in the Transcript, page 198. It is also to be 
 found in English in the translation of extracts, pages 8 and 9. The 
 translation reads as follows: 
 
 Two .things were needed to advance the missions to the northward as the mission- 
 aries desired, namely, the capital to found them and the locations to establish them 
 in, and there was no hope of the one or the other until God moved the mind of an 
 illustrious and most noble benefactress. This was the Duchess of Gandia, Dona 
 Marfa Borja, who, having heard an old servant of hers who had once been a soldier 
 in California speak of the sterility of that region, the poverty of the Indians there, 
 and the apostolic labors of the missionaries, thought that she could not do anything 
 more pleasing to God than to devote her fortune to the aid of these missions. She 
 therefore ordered in her will that there be provided out of her ready money those 
 large annuities which she left her servants during their lives, and that all the rest of 
 her estate should go to the missions of California, together with the capitals of the 
 above-mentioned annuities after the death of those who enjoyed them; and that a 
 mission, consecrated to the honor of her belovtd ancestor, St. Francis Borgia, be 
 founded in said peninsula. The sum of money acquired from this legacy by these 
 missions amounted in 1767 to $60,000, and a like amount ought to be obtained after 
 the death of the pensioned servants over and above some very large debts which 
 there was hope of* recovering. With such a la.ge capital many missions could be 
 founded in California, as in fact they would have been founded if the Jesuits had not 
 been obliged in the above-mentioned year to abandon that peninsula. (Id., pp. 
 139,140.) 
 
 Under the will of Senora Arguelles, who died before the expulsion 
 of the Jesuits, and through power to appoint to missionary uses, exer 
 cised by the Spanish Crown in favor of the Pious Fund of the Califor- 
 nias, the fund received a benefaction of $600,000.° (Transcript, 
 p. 467.) 
 
 The will of Senora Arguelles was the subject of litigation for more 
 than twenty -five years, and the fund did not receive this benefaction 
 until after the close of the litigation, which occurred in 1793. (Tran- 
 script, annexes 16 and 17 to the argument of Senor de Azpiroz— Span- 
 ish, pp. 315, 317; English (memorandum), pp. 456^57; see also 
 Pay no's report, Transcript, pp. 23-24.) 
 
 In speaking of the Arguelles benefaction, Mr. Doyle said in his 
 argument before the former arbitral court (Transcript, p. 467): 
 
 On May 29 1765, Dona Josepha Paula de Arguelles, a wealthy lady of Guadalax- 
 ara, executed her will, wherein she bequeathed $10,000 to a foundling hospital at 
 Manila, one-fourth of the residue of her property to the Jesuit College of St. Thomas 
 Aquinas, in Guadalaxara, and the other three-quarters to the missions m China and 
 New Spain She died about a year and a half thereafter, leaving an estate of about 
 
286 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 1,000.6 The Jesuits, at that time pressed by a storm of obloquy in Spain and 
 Portugal, renounced the legacy in their favor, and the heirs of the deceased lady 
 brought an action to have her declared intestate as to all her estate save the small 
 legacy to the foundling hospital. The Crown intervened in the action, claiming the 
 portion bequeathed for missions, and one Agustin de Mora in like manner put for- 
 ward a claim for "sustitucion vulgar" with respect to the quarter bequeathed to the 
 college, but on behalf of what institution or in what right I have been so far unable 
 to discover. It will be remembered that at this time the missions, both in New 
 Spain and the Philippines, were in the hands of the Jesuits, so that \if their renuncia- 
 tion could affect the bequests in favor of the missions in their charge, the heirs had as clear a 
 case as to the three-fourths bequeathed to the latter as they had for the quarter bequeathed to 
 the college. The case, after going through the lower courts, came before the "Audien- 
 cia Keal" of New Spain on appeal, which tribunal on June 4, 1783, gave judgment 
 denying Mora's claim for the "sustitucion vulgar" as to the quarter bequeathed to 
 the college, and declared the deceased, in consequence of the renunciation of the 
 Jesuits, intestate as to that quarter. As to the other three-quarters, however, it 
 decided that the missions took under the will, and declared that said three-quarters, 
 therefore, vested in the Crown, c to be employed in the conversion of the infidels 
 in this Kingdom and the Philippines (one-half in each) under the orders of the 
 King, whom it especially concerns; and that a report be made to His Majesty to the 
 end that he may be pleased to determine what may be his sovereign will with respect 
 to the direction, consistency, and security of the funds so destined for the pious work 
 of missions. This decree simply vested in the Crown a power of appointment as to 
 what particular missions should be supported out of the bequest, subject to the 
 sole condition that one-half should be destined to Asia and the other to America. 
 
 The Crown exercised its power of appointment by ordering one-half of the three- 
 quarters so devised to be aggregated to the Pious Fund of California, and the other 
 half to the missionary fund of the Philippine Islands. The decree was carried by 
 appeal before the council of the Indies, where the fiscal defensor del fondo piodoso de 
 las Missiones de California was made respondent, and where the judgment was finally 
 affirmed. The Crown then directed the property to be sold and invested at 5 per 
 cent per annum in the best real estate securities, para invertir sus productos en la 
 subsistencia y aumento de dichas missiones. The sums derived from this bequest are 
 enumerated in the treasury report contained in Manuel Payno's work on Mexico and 
 her financial questions, which has been heretofore referred to and put in evidence. 
 In that report three-eighths, i. e., one-half of three-quarters of each sum as received 
 in the treasury is credited to the Philippine Missions; other three-eighths belonged 
 
 « After the lapse of so long a time it is impossible to state with exactness the value 
 of the Arguelles estate or the amount of the benefaction received therefrom by the 
 Pious Fund of the Californias. At one time it was supposed that the entire estate 
 amounted to only $600,000. In a report by the district attorney of the circuit court 
 at Guadalajara, made for the Mexican Government on August 25, 1871, for use before 
 the former arbitral court, it is said that the Arguelles estate amounted to more than 
 $800,000, and that the inventories were in Spain. (Transcript, pp. 458-459.) 
 
 It is now believed that the benefaction received by the Pious Fund alone amounted 
 to a sum variously estimated from $450,000 to $600,000. We know that there was 
 paid to the public treasury from the Arguelles estate for the account of the Pious 
 Fund $306,901. (Transcript, p. 24. ) The Cienaga del Pastor was sold by Mexico on 
 November 29, 1842, for $213,750, and the personal property thereon sold for $3,000 
 more. (Replication, p. 4*7.) This property came from the Arguelles estate. 
 
 The houses on Vergara street, which likewise came from the same estate, were 
 rented for $3,500 per annum. (Transcript, pp. 512-513.) The Pious Fund owned 
 a three-fourths interest. Three-fourths of $3,500 capitalized at 6 per cent corresponds 
 to $43,750. The sum total of the four principal amounts above mentioned is 
 $567,401. 
 
 It is possible that some undivided interest in the Cienage del Pastor and in the 
 houses on Vergara street were purchased by the Pious Fund with surplus moneys on- 
 hand. (Brief of Messrs. Doy ,e & Doyle, p. 27. ) If so, the amount of the Arguelles 
 benefaction could be ascertained with reasonable definiteness by subtracting from 
 the $567,401 the sum paid for the acquisition of interests held by other persons and 
 secured by the Pious Fund. In any event, however, the amount received by the 
 Pious Fund by way of benefaction from the Arguelles estate ranged in value from 
 $450,000 to $600,000. 
 
 "This decree passed after the expulsion, indeed after the suppression of the 
 Jesuits; hence the trust devolved of necessity on the Crown as parens patria. 
 
±MUUS FUND OF THE CAL1FOBNIAS. 287 
 
 Z d h W ^ e o C f e t hp e H dt0 i he t Pi0 K a Fun . d °i L Califomi a, and the remaining one-fourth to 
 tato." a decedent, who, as to that one-fourth, were decreed to take ab intes- 
 
 A reference to Manuel Payno's report (pp. 22-24) will show that 
 there was received into the treasury of New Spain for the account of 
 *oL,fii r ™ aD118Slons ' arising out of the Arguelles benefactions, 
 »d%,901. Ihis report of Manuel Payno's is a publication made by 
 authority of the Mexican Government, as will be seen from the depo- 
 sition ot Mr. Payno (Transcript, p. 36). It is stated in the report 
 (lranscript, p. 22) that it was prepared in anticipation of a financial 
 arrangement then about to be made between the Republic of Mexico 
 and ''the commission of the three allied powers." It seems clear that 
 the three allied powers referred to were France, Great Britain, and 
 Spain, for on October 31, 1861, these powers entered into a conven- 
 tion for concerted action against Mexico upon claims due to their sub- 
 jects. _ (2 Moore's International Arbitrations, pp. 1289-1291.) 
 
 During the period we have been now considering, from 1717 to 
 1768, thirteen missions were founded in Lower California, as follows 
 (Transcript, p. 150): 
 
 San Jose del Cabo, Santiago de los Coras, N. S. de Loreto, San Jose 
 Comondu, La Purisima de Cadegomo, N. S. de Guadalupe, Todos 
 Santos, Francisco Xavier, Santa Kosa de Muleje, San Ignacio, Santa 
 Gertrudes, San Francisco de Borja, Santa Maria de los Angeles. 
 
 The period from 1768 to 18% 1. 
 
 The independence of Mexico is regarded to have been achieved in 
 1821 (2 Moore's International Arbitrations,' p. 1209), although the 
 treaty by which Spain recognized that independence was not concluded 
 until December 28, 1836. 
 
 From the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768 until Mexico achieved her 
 independence the fund was administered by the Crown of Spain through 
 officials appointed for that purpose. 
 
 The trust character of the fund and its inviolable dedication to the 
 establishment and maintenance of the Catholic religion in the Califor- 
 nias were always recognized. 
 
 In the royal decree of the 27th February, 1767, concerning the 
 banishment of the Jesuits, it is said (Transcript, p. Ill, subdivision 5): 
 
 I further declare that the taking possession of the temporalities belonging to the 
 order embraces their property real and personal, as well as the ecclesiastical revenues 
 which legally belong to it, within the Kingdom, but without prejudice to such charges 
 as may have been imposed upon then by their endowers. 
 
 a The money received for the heirs is conceded to be a trust fund coming into the 
 treasury as one of its ramos ajenos. That received from the Philippine missions was 
 in the same category, and on demand of the King of Spain the arrearages were paid 
 to Father Moran, representing the president and chief ecclesiastical authority of 
 those missions, as the proper person to demand and receive it. How can the demand 
 ot the bishops ot California for the remaining three-eighths be resisted? "Ubi eadem 
 est ratio idem jus." 
 
 Other legal corollaries are suggested by these legal proceedings. Why was the 
 renunciation of the Jesuits effectual as to the quarter bequeathed to the college, and 
 otherwise as to the bequest in favor of the missions in their charge? Obviously, 
 because the former was their private foundation and property, while the latter 
 belonged to the beneficiaries for whom they were but trustees, and whose right they 
 could neither renounce nor forfeit. 
 
288 PIOXJS FUND OK THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 In the course of his argument before the former arbitral court Senor 
 de Azpiroz, counsel for Mexico, said: 
 
 Upon the expulsion of the regulars the King took possession of their temporalities 
 within his dominions, and among these was included the Pious Fund of the Cali- 
 fornias. Nevertheless, this was separately administered and its proceeds continued 
 to be employed for the purposes for which they were instituted by the civil officers of the 
 Crown. (Transcript, p. 375, par. 33.) 
 
 In an official report on the state of the missions, made in obedience 
 to a royal order dated January 31, 1784, it is stated: 
 
 Each missionary receives a stipend of $350 per annum, which is paid out of the 
 gross of the Pious Fund acquired by the Jesuit Fathers, and to which I will refer in 
 its proper place. (Transcript, p. 420, par. 19.) 
 
 They receive no contributions or duties, but each mission receives a stipend of $400 
 per annum drawn from the Pious Fund left by the extinct regulars. One thousand 
 dollars from the same fund is also furnished both to the Fernandinos and Domini- 
 cans, respectively, for the establishment of each new mission. (Transcript, p. 423, 
 par. 38. ) 
 
 We learn from the official archives kept by Spain and preserved by 
 Mexico, which contain an official history of "the Pious Fund of the 
 Calif or nias" (see anexo No. 6 to the argument of Senor de Azpiroz, 
 par. 3: English, p. 425; Spanish, p. 277), that the Spanish Crown — 
 
 without losing sight of the pious purpose to which they were devoted, by order of the 12th 
 October, 1768, directed Fernando Mangino, the director of temporalities, to pay special 
 attention to the examination of the property destined for the propagation of the faith in that 
 peninsula, which worthy object demanded every care. 
 
 In the same official history (from which we have just quoted) it 
 appears that the annual salaries for the administration of the fund were 
 fixed at $1,000, " with which the fund was charged." Furthermore, 
 it is therein recited that "to such religious ends as the propagation of 
 the faith there were, and still remain, dedicated the extensive estates" 
 of which the Pious Fund was comprised. It proceeds to name them. 
 (Transcript, p. 13jB, pars. 4, 5.) 
 
 We also find in the official history a "statement of funds on hand, 
 exceptional deposits and bonds, which constituted the Pious Fund on 
 the 16th of November, 1792, together with the yearly income estimated 
 by periods of five years, the expenses of the missions, and other ordi- 
 nary expenses of the fund." (Transcript, p. 432.) 
 
 The total amount of the fund is said to have been at that time 
 1828,936.14. The gross income is fixed at $55,177.38. The expenses 
 of the missions are $22,550 and the other expenses $24,150. This 
 leaves an annual excess of income over expenditure amounting to 
 $8,473.37. It is said in this official history "that this yearly excess 
 ought to be applied to the establishment of a college as a place of rest 
 for the missionaries, according to the wishes of the Marquis de Villa- 
 puente, the pious endower of the missions, and although more than 
 $100,000 has been gotten together for this purpose, it became neces- 
 sary to invest this amount in various indispensable works erected at* 
 the hacienda of Arroya Zarco." (Transcript, pp. 432-433.) 
 
 From the same official history, paragraphs 7 and 9, we learn (Tran- 
 script: English, p. 426; Spanish, p. 278) that an agreement was made, 
 March 21, 1772, between the board of war and treasury department 
 on the one hand and the Dominicans and Franciscans on the other, 
 by which it was agreed that the Dominicans should have charge of 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNlAS. 
 
 289 
 
 the missionary work in Lower California and that the Franciscans 
 should have charge of the missionary work in Upper California. 
 
 Before this time, however, to wit, on the 8th of April, 1770, His 
 Majesty the King of Spain, by royal order, had directed a division of 
 the missions between the Dominicans and Franciscans. (Transcript — 
 English, jp. 426; Spanish, p. 278.) 
 
 The missionary labors of the Franciscans in the Californias began 
 earlier than 1770, for we find that in 1769 they journeyed overland 
 from Lower California to Upper California, and on their way thither 
 founded in the same year the Mission of San Fernando de Villacata, 
 which was then the most northerly mission in Lower California. 
 (Transcript, p. 19.) 
 
 The action of the Spanish Crown in relation to the missions and 
 their conduct by the Dominicans and Franciscans, make it clear that 
 there was no intention on the part of that Government to divert or 
 attempt to divert the Pious Fund from the support of the missions in 
 California. It is obvious that but for this Fund the missionary work 
 in that country would have been abandoned. It was impossible to carry 
 on the work without the financial support derived from the Pious Fund, 
 which was relied upon by the Franciscans and Dominicans. 
 
 It is idle therefore to stop to consider whether the Spanish Crown 
 would have had the power to divert these funds or not. If it had any 
 such power it never exercised it; on the contrary, if there was any 
 power exercised it was one of renewed dedication of the Pious Fund 
 to the missions of the Californias. 
 
 It must also be kept in mind that neither the Franciscans nor the 
 Dominicans could have engaged in this missionary work without the 
 consent of the Holy See. Also that the Holy See is the ecclesiastical 
 superior of all religious orders and of all the clergy of the Roman 
 Catholic Church. In the matter of the administration of the religion 
 and worship of that church it must be conclusively presumed that the 
 orders of the church consent to what the Holy See requires to be done. 
 
 By the year 1823 the Franciscans had established in Upper Cali- 
 fornia 21 missions, which, with the mission founded by them in Lower 
 California in May, 1769, as already stated, made their foundations in 
 the Californias 22 in number. 
 
 The 21 missions founded by the Franciscans in Upper California, 
 with the date of the foundation of each, is as follows (Transcript, p. 
 150): 
 
 Name. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Date. 
 
 
 1769 
 1770 
 1771 
 1771 
 1771 
 1772 
 1776 
 1776 
 1777 
 1782 
 1786 
 
 
 1787 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 
 
 1804 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S. Doc. 28- 
 
 -19 
 
290 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 In the report of the treasury of Mexico which relates to " The Pious 
 Fund," compiled June 17, 1793 (Transcript— English, pp. 135-146; 
 Spanish, pp. 124-135), we find repeated acknowledgments of the trust 
 character of the fund. 
 
 It also therein appears that His Majesty the King of Spain directed 
 that " the administration of the said fund shall be kept with entire 
 separation " (Transcript, p. 143, sec. 20), also that on October 1, 1781, 
 the viceroy communicated to the director of the temporalities a royal 
 decree, -shortly before that time made, whereby it was provided that 
 the director of temporalities ' ' shall proceed immediately to the sale 
 of those (i. e. , the properties) of the Pious Fund, and that you shall 
 secure the amount thereof in favor of the missions, giving due advice 
 thereof to the department under my (the viceroy's) charge." (Tran- 
 script, p. 143, sec. 22.) 
 
 It having been brought to the attention of His Majesty, however, 
 that such a sale was contrary to the expressed wish and will of the 
 Marquis de Villapuente, another royal decree was made on December 
 14, 1785, whereby, in view of. these facts, His Majesty "has been 
 pleased to order that, for the present, the sale shall be suspended and 
 the administration continued," and whereby, furthermore, His Majesty 
 "bearing in mind the instructions of the Marquis of Villa Puente, who 
 gave his estates for that purpose, has been pleased to order that the 
 surplus money shall be invested in safe landed property for the increase 
 of the funds." (Transcript, p. 144, sees. 26, 28.) 
 
 The period from 1821 to Noveinber 2, 184-0. 
 
 From some date which can not be ascertained with precision (but 
 which occurred after the achievement of Mexican independence in 
 1821) until the surrender of the properties of the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias by Mexico to Bishop Francisco Garcia Diego, on Novem- 
 ber 2, 1840 (Transcript, p. 520), these properties were under the care 
 and control of Mexico. 
 
 There is, however, no claim that she ever disputed the trust character 
 in which she held them. 
 
 Indeed, it is claimed in the answer of Mexico to our memorial upon 
 the present arbitration (Replication, p. 20), that — 
 
 The Mexican Government, which succeeded the Spanish Government, was, as the 
 latter had been, trustee (comisario) of the fund, and in this conception, successor of 
 the Jesuit missionaries, with all the rights granted to them by the founders. 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that it is an admitted fact in this case that 
 Mexico always held and administered the Pious Fund as a trust estate. 
 
 She herself claims, in the answer already mentioned, that she had 
 all of the rights of the Jesuits. This argument necessarily concedes 
 that she, Mexico, had all the duties of the Jesuits in respect of the 
 Fund. F 
 
 We shall hereafter consider precisely what the duties of Mexico were 
 with respect to the Fund. 
 
 _ But for our immediate purpose we rely upon the deliberate admission 
 of Mexico that she held the Pious Fund as trustee. (The law of May 
 25, 1832.) J 
 
 Among the proofs of her recognition of her duties as trustee is that 
 contained in the legislative act of Mexico, dated May 25, 1832, which 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 291 
 
 provides that the rural properties belonging to the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias should be leased. 
 The full text of the act is as follows: 
 
 Law: That the Government proceed with the lease of the rural property belonging to the Pious Fund 
 
 of the Californias. 
 
 Article 1. The Government shall proceed to rent the rural property belonging to 
 the Pious Fund of the Californias for a term which shall not exceed seven years. 
 
 2. These leases shall be contracted at public auction in the capitals of the States or 
 Territories or in the Federal city, according to the location of the property. 
 
 3. These leases shall be announced by the public crier within three months of the 
 date of this decree for thirty days, and at least for the same period shall be announced 
 by printed notices in the Federal city, in the capitals of the States and Territories, 
 and in the principal places of the districts, departments, or region in which the 
 properties maybe situate, and in suchotherplacesas the Government may deem expe- 
 dient, and these announcements shall be inserted in at least one newspaper of the 
 Federal city. 
 
 4. The conclusion of any lease shall, within three months, be announced by the 
 public crier, or, if there be no lessee, the announcement shall be made every six 
 months. 
 
 5. The making of the lease shall be subject to the approval of the Government, to 
 which the papers in the case shall be submitted for this purpose within fifteen days 
 after the making thereof. 
 
 6. The proceeds of such properties shall be deposited in the treasury of the Federal 
 city, to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions of the Californias. 
 
 7. The direction and management of these properties, not only with respect to their 
 administration, but with respect to the collection and employment of their proceeds, 
 shall be under the charge of a board accountable to the Government through the 
 office of the secretary of foreign affairs. 
 
 8. This board shall be composed of three persons, appointed by the Government, 
 one of them to be an ecclesiastic. Commencing with the member last appointed, 
 one of the board shall be retired, and a person appointed in his place each year; the 
 members are eligible for reappointment. 
 
 9. This board shall have a secretary, with a compensation of 600 dollars per 
 annum, payable from the funds in question. 
 
 10. The powers of the board shall be as follows: 
 
 First. To see that the rural and city properties belonging to the Pious Fund in 
 question be suitably leased. 
 
 Second. To submit to the Government the conditions under which the leases 
 should be made, and the minimum sum to which the rent of each estate should 
 amount. 
 
 Third. To examine the papers relative to the making of the leases, and to advise 
 the Government if the leases should be approved or if the propositions made by 
 some other applicant are more advantageous. 
 
 Fourth. To ^ubmit to the Government the number of persons that it deems abso- 
 lutely necessary for the administration of the rural properties when the said prop- 
 erties can not be leased for want of bidders. 
 
 Fifth. To submit the amount of compensation of the administrators and of the 
 bond with which each must guarantee his management. • 
 
 Sixth. To see to it that the lessees or administrators submit information as to the 
 qualifications of their respective sureties and the certification of survivorship. 
 
 Seventh. To lay before the auditor-general a general account of the proceeds of 
 the properties of the Pious Fund accompanying those of the administrators, if auy, 
 for which purpose these accounts shall be seasonably demanded from the latter. 
 
 Eighth. To see to it that the lessees and administrators on their part shall in their 
 turn and at the proper time verify the deposits in the treasury. 
 
 Ninth. To name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each 
 one of the Californias in accordance with their respective expenses and available 
 funds. 
 
 11. The secretary shall keep a journal of the proceedings of the board, statement 
 of moneys deposited in the treasury, the entries in which shall be supported by the 
 vouchers delivered by the superintendent of said treasury, and another book of the 
 amounts which are drawn against the same. All the entries, whether of debit or 
 credit, in the treasury shall be signed by the members of the board.. 
 
 12. The superintendent of the treasury shall receive 1 per cent premium on the 
 
292 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 amounts that may be deposited with him, shall be responsible for the same, and such 
 payments only shall be credited to him as he may make under warrants signed by 
 the members of the board, authorized by the secretary of the said board, and with 
 the approval of the secretery of foreign affairs. 
 
 13. The board shall, within three months after its organization, frame its internal 
 regulations and submit the same to the approval of the Government. 
 
 The first important point in that act which should be noted is that 
 Mexico expressly declares that the rural properties belong to the Pious 
 Fund. 
 
 Secondly, there is no power exercised, nor is any power claimed, to 
 dispose of the property, except to remit " to each one of the Calif or- 
 nias, in accordance with their respective expenses and their available 
 funds." (Sec. 10, subdivision 9.) 
 
 There are other legislative evidences that Mexico recognized her 
 duty as a trustee throughout the period under consideration. These 
 need, not, however, be cited. It is sufficient for the present contro- 
 versy that it is an undisputed proposition, made so by the answer of 
 Mexico, that she never made any claim of title to this property, except 
 as a trustee thereof. 
 
 THE LAW OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1836. 
 
 The law of September 19, 1836, "concerning the erection of a bish- 
 opric in the two Californias" (Transcript, p. 580), with which the 
 court is already familiar, is another recognition by Mexico of its duty 
 with respect to the Pious Fund. 
 
 In that act it is provided that " the property belonging to the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias shall be placed at the disposal of the new 
 bishop and Ms 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 full text of that act is as follows: 
 
 Law: For the establishment of a bishopric in the two Californias. 
 
 Article 1. The Government, after hearing such parties as by law may be entitled 
 to a hearing on the subject, and such other persons as it may think proper to hear, 
 shall thereupon make a report with regard to the necessity of creating a bishopric in 
 the two Californias. 
 
 Art. 2. If the report should show that there is such a necessity, the Holy See shall 
 be duly informed of the report, for it to approve of it and create sucrt a see. 
 
 Art. 3. The Government shall select from three nominees, presented by the arch- 
 bishop's council, the person whom it thinks most suitable, and submit his name for 
 appointment to His Holiness. 
 
 Art. 4. The person elected shall receive from the public revenues six thousand 
 dollars per annum, until such time as the bishopric shall be in receipt of a sufficient 
 income. 
 
 Art. 5. During a continuation of the same circumstances the public revenue shall 
 furnish a subsidy of three thousand dollars for despatching the bulls and the travel- 
 ing expenses of the episcopate. 
 
 Art. 6. 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. 
 
 By the enactment of this law, and by the subsequent surrender of 
 the property belonging to the Pious Fund to the Bishop of California, 
 presently to be mentioned, Mexico simply discharged its clear duty as 
 a trustee in possession of the fund. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 293 
 
 THE LAW OF APRIL 1, 1S37. 
 
 On April 1, 1837, Mexico enacted the following law: 
 
 Law: The Government is authorised to negotiate a loan, which shall not exeaed 860,000, for one year, 
 with the least possible interest, by a mortgage of the fund of the Californias. 
 
 Abticle I. The Government, by means of the directive board of the Pious Fund of 
 the Californias, shall negotiate a loan for a sum which shall not exceed $60,000, for 
 one year, with the least possible interest. 
 
 Art. IT. For Us payment the said Government shall deliver over to the board orders 
 for the whole sum against the maritime custom-houses, which are not exclusively 
 assigned to the support of the army in Texas, over which it will not subsequently 
 give preference to others; moreover, it will mortgage said fund, coming upon this point 
 to an agreement with the ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 Akt. III. No sum derived from the loan or order of which there is mention made 
 in foregoing articles shall be devoted to any other employment than to put in order 
 the department of the Californias, or to discharge said debt, the Government render- 
 ing an account to Congress, with respect to the first purpose, every three months, 
 and the board, with respect to the second, every six. 
 
 On April 27, 1840, His Holiness Gregory XVI, upon the petition 
 of Mexico, erected Upper and Lower California into a diocese and 
 appointed as its first bishop Francisco Garcia Diego, at that time and 
 for some time before president of the missions of the Californias. 
 (Transcript, p. 182.) Bishop Diego was consecrated on October 4, 1840. 
 (Transcript, p. 21.) On November 2, 1840, the properties of the Pious 
 Fund were surrendered to him by Mexico in conformity to its duty as 
 trustee, recognized by its legislative act of September 12, 1836 (Tran- 
 script, pp. 495, 520). 
 
 Upon the surrender of properties of the Pious Fund by Mexico to 
 Bishop Diego, he appointed as his agent to manage these estates in 
 Mexico (his see in Montere}' in Upper California being several hundred 
 miles distant) Don Pedro Ramirez. He also appointed as special agent 
 for the rural estates Miguel Balanzaran. Mr. Ramirez received the 
 rents, paid the expenses, and attended generally to all the business of 
 the Pious Fund. He was apoderado or attornevin fact. (Transcript, 
 p. 149.) 
 
 The period from, November 2, 184-0, to February 8, 18^8. 
 
 From November 2, 1840, until the cession of Upper California to 
 the United States under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of February 
 2, 1848, in consideration of $18,250,000, Mexico took no measures with 
 respect to the properties of the Pious Fund, except those to be here- 
 inafter noted. 
 
 On January 26, 1842, the minister of justice wrote to Senor Ramirez 
 requesting him that he pay out of the Pious Fund to the English con- 
 sul at Tepic $2,000, advanced for an expedition which took settlers to 
 Upper California. (Transcript, p. 499.) Mr. Ramirez replied to this 
 letter under the date of January 28, 1842, and suggested, among other 
 things, that as the Government was indebted to the bishop of the Cali- 
 fornias in the sum of $8,000 and over on account of the salary assigned 
 to him for his support, it (the Government) should itself pay the $2,000 
 on account of the $8,000 due. (Transcript, p. 500.) 
 
 The only reply to this letter was one of February 5, 1842, wherein 
 the minister of justice says: 
 
 It being necessary for this ministry to know all the goods and properties consti- 
 tuting the Pious Fund of Californias, I hope you will be pleased to transmit immedi- 
 ately the corresponding information. (Transcript, p. 501.) 
 
294 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 On the same day Mr. Ramirez replied, giving a brief report of the 
 properties of the Pious Fund. (Transcript, p, 501.) 
 
 The next communication was a notice from the minister of justice 
 to Mr. Ramirez under the date of February 8, 1842, that President 
 Santa Anna had made the decree of February 8, 1842. (Transcript, 
 p. 502.) 
 
 THE DECREE OF FEBRUARY 8, 1842. 
 
 The decree of Februarj^ 8, 1842, reads as follows: 
 
 Decree of the Government: The Government reassumes the administration and investment of 
 the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, etc., know ye: 
 
 That whereas all the purposes for which the Pious Fund of the Californias is 
 intended are truly of a general and national importance, and should therefore be 
 under the immediate care and management of the supreme government as it formerly 
 was, I have made the following decree : 
 
 Article 1. The sixth article of the law of the 19th of September, 1836, by which 
 the Government relinquished the management of the Pious Fund of the Californias, 
 and the same was then placed at the disposal of the right reverend bishop of the new 
 diocese is hereby repealed. 
 
 Art. 2. The administration and employment of this property shall therefore again 
 become the charge of the supreme government, in such way and manner as it shall 
 direct, for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the donor, in the civilization 
 and conversion of the savages. 
 
 "Wherefore I order the present to be printed, published, circulated, and duly 
 observed. 
 
 It will be seen that Mexico did not repudiate the trust character of 
 the property, but expressly recognized it. She also expressly engaged 
 in the act to administer the property "for the purpose of carrying 
 out the intention of the donor in the civilization and conversion of the 
 
 THE APPOINTMENT OF GENERAL VALENCIA, FEBRUARY 21, 1842. 
 
 On February 21, 1842, President Santa Anna appointed General 
 Gabriel Valencia, chief of staff, as "general administrator of said 
 goods (that is, the properties of the Pious Fund) upon the same terms 
 and with the same powers as were conferred to the board (junta) of 
 the same department (ramo) by the decree of the 25th of May, 1832." 
 (Transcript, p. 505.) 
 
 Thereupon some correspondence was exchanged between Valencia 
 and Ramirez looking to the surrender of the properties. On Febru- 
 ary 28, 1842, Pedro Ramirez forwarded to General Valencia a full and 
 detailed statement of the condition of the Pious Fund and its proper- 
 ties. The receipt of this statement was acknowledged by General 
 Valencia under the date of March 4, 1842. (Transcript, p. 508.) 
 
 The detailed account of the condition of the Pious Fund and the list 
 of the properties thereof which was delivered to General Valencia by 
 Mr. Ramirez is also contained in the Transcript, pages 512-523. 
 
 All of the documents, books, and papers concerning the Pious Fund 
 and the properties were surrendered on April 8, 1842, by Mr. Ramirez 
 to Mr. Ignacio de Cubas, who had been appointed "secretary in the 
 administration of the goods of the Pious Fund of the missions of the 
 Californias." (Transcript, pp. 510,512.) 
 
 THE DECREE OF OCTOBER 24, 1842. 
 
 The decree of October 24, 1842, recites that the decree of February 
 8, 1842, "was intended to fulfill most faithfully the beneficent and 
 
PTOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 295 
 
 national objects designed by the founders without the slightest dimi- 
 nution of the properties destined to the end. " 
 
 The act then provides that all of the properties '"'"'belonging to the 
 Pious Fund of the Californias are incorporated into the national treas- 
 ury," and also provides that "the revenue from tobacco is specially 
 pledged for the payment of the income corresponding to the capital of 
 the said fund of the Californias." 
 
 The act furthermore provided that "the department in charge of the 
 revenues from tobacco will pay over the sums necessary to carry on 
 the objects to which the said fund is destined, without any deductions 
 for costs, whether of administration or otherwise." 
 
 The text of the decree is as follows: 
 
 Decree of the Government respecting the incorporation into the public treasury of all the properties 
 of the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, etc., know ye: 
 
 That whereas the decree of February 8 of the present year, directing that the admin- 
 istration and care of the Pious Fund of the Californias should redevolve on and con- 
 tinue in the charge of the Government, as had previously been the case, was intended 
 to fulfill most faithfully the beneficent and national objects designed by the foundress 
 without the slightest diminution of the properties destined to the end; and whereas 
 the result can only be attained by capitalizing the funds and placing them at interest 
 on proper securities, so as to avoid the expenses of administration and the like which 
 may occur; in virtue of the power conferred on me by the seventh article of the 
 Bases of Tacubaya, and sanctioned by the nation, I have determined to decree as 
 follows: 
 
 Article 1. The real estate, urban and rural, the credits, and all other property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias are incorporated into the national 
 treasury. 
 
 2. The minister of the treasury will proceed to sell the real estate and other prop- 
 erty belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias for the capital represented by 
 their annual product at 6 per cent per annum, and the public treasury will acknowl- • 
 edge an indebtedness of 6 per cent per annum on the total proceeds of the sales. 
 
 3. The revenue from tobacco is specially pledged for the payment of the income 
 corresponding to the capital of the said fund of the Californias, and the department 
 in charge thereof will pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which 
 said fund is destined without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or 
 otherwise. 
 
 Wherefore, etc. 
 
 THE TREASURY ORDER OF APRIL 23, 1844. 
 
 It appears by the testimony of Father Rubio (Transcript, p. 149) 
 that in or about the year 1845 he saw in the Diario de Mexico an 
 official notice, dated April 23, 1844, an order made by the minister of 
 the treasury, from which it appeared that the President of Mexico 
 had given an order on the custom-house of Guaymas, payable to the 
 representative of Bishop Diego, " for the sum of $8,000 on account of 
 the income belonging to the Pious Fund of California, the properties 
 of which were incorporated into the national treasury." (For the 
 text of this official notice in Spanish see Transcript— English, p. 149; 
 Spanish, p. 88.) 
 
 Neither its genuineness nor authenticity was disputed upon the 
 former arbitration. 
 
 It must therefore be taken to-be conceded that as late as April 23, 
 1844, the Mexican Government affirmatively recognized its obligation 
 to the missions arising out of the facts above stated. 
 
 THE ACT OF APRIL 3, 1845. 
 
 On April 3, 1845, Mexico passed a law concerning the restitution of 
 debts and properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias. (Transcript, 
 p. 581.) 
 
296 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 The act reads as follows: 
 
 Law: For the restitution of the interests and properties oi the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 The most excellent president ad interim has been pleased to forward to me the 
 following decree: 
 
 Jos6 Joaquin de Herrera, general of division and president ad interim of the 
 Mexican Republic, to the inhabitants thereof: 
 
 Know ye that the general Congress has decreed and the executive sanctioned the 
 following: 
 
 The credits and other properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias which are 
 now unsold shall be immediately returned to the reverend bishop of that see and his 
 successors, for the purposes mentioned in article 6 of the law of September 29, 1836, 
 without prejudice to what Congress may resolve in regard to the property that has 
 been alienated. 
 
 The foregoing are the only material facts which need necessarily be 
 stated in connection with the proposition we have hereinabove had 
 under consideration, viz, that the Pious Fund of the Californias had 
 an unbroken and generally recognized existence down to the cession 
 of Upper California to the United States of America by Mexico, under 
 the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (sometimes called Queretaro), dated 
 February 2, 1848. 
 
 II. 
 
 AT NO TIME DURING ITS EXISTENCE, BEGINNING WITH 1697 AND CON- 
 TINUING TO FEBRUARY 2, 1848, "THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALI- 
 FORNIAS" CONSIDERED TO BE OTHER THAN A TRUST FUND, ITS 
 CHARACTER AS SUCH WAS CONTINUOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY 
 RECOGNIZED, FIRST BY SPAIN AND THEREAFTER BY MEXICO. 
 
 AVe have unavoidably dealt with this proposition under the one 
 lastly considered. 
 
 We think it has been already sufficiently shown that "The Pious 
 Fund of the Californias," a name by which these properties became, 
 known shortly after the expulsion of the Jesuits (1768), was always 
 treated as a trust fund by Spain. 
 
 We submit that it also appears that it was likewise so treated by 
 Mexico. 
 
 It is true that the two decrees of 1842, i. e. , of February 8 and 
 October 24, imply that at that time Mexico claimed the right to man- 
 ually possess and conserve these properties. But there is nothing in 
 either decree which involves a repudiation by her of the idea that the 
 properties were dedicated to the purposes of the founders, which pur- 
 poses were to convert to the Catholic faith the inhabitants of the ter- 
 ritory known as the Californias, and, after their conversion, to con- 
 tinue to maintain and support the Catholic religion in that country. 
 
 In addition to having already shown this, we again call attention to 
 the fact that it is expressly conceded by Mexico in her answer to our 
 memorial that the property was given in trust, and that its trust char- 
 acter was never disavowed. 
 
 The following we quote from the answer of Mexico (Replication, 
 pp. 19, 20): 
 
 The claimants agree with the Government of Mexico in admitting the following 
 facts, proved by irrefutable documents: 
 
 First. The Jesuits were the original trustees or administrators of the properties 
 which constituted the Pious Fund of the Californias up to the year 1768, when they 
 were expelled from Spanish dominions. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 297 
 
 Second. The Spanish Crown, in place of the Jesuits, took possession of the proper- 
 ties, which constituted the aforesaid Pious Fund, and administered them by means 
 of a royal commission until the independence of Mexico was achieved. 
 
 Third. The Mexican Government, which succeeded the Spanish Government, was, 
 as the latter had been, trustee (comisario) of the fund, and in this conception suc- 
 cessor of the Jesuit missionaries,' with all the rights granted to them by the founders. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE TRUST PURPOSE OF THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA® WAS 
 THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE THE CONVERSION OF THE NATIVES 
 OF- THE TWO CALIFORNIAS, UPPER AND LOWER, AND THE ESTAB- 
 LISHMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND EXTENSION OF THE CATHOLIC 
 CHURCH, ITS RELIGION AND WORSHIP, IN THAT COUNTRY. THIS 
 PURPOSE MEXICO CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED. 
 
 It is conceded by Mexico that the trust purposes of the Pious Fund 
 of the Californias was the conversion of the natives of the two Cali- 
 fornias, Upper and Lower. It is statpd in paragraph 4 of Mexico's 
 answer (Replication, p. '30): 
 
 The claimants state that the object of the Pious Fund of the Californias was to pro- 
 vide for the conversion of the Indians and for the support of the Catholic Church 
 in the Californias. This being a double object, it is necessary to distinguish between 
 the two parts which constitute it. The first part, the conversion of the pagan Indians 
 to the Catholic faith and to the obedience of Spanish authority, is unquestionable, 
 and must be considered as the principal and direct object of the missions intrusted 
 to the Society of. Jesus by the Catholic King, indorsed by the founders of the Pious 
 Fund, and subsidized by the public treasury of Mexico. The other part of the object — 
 that is, the support of the church of California — was not the principal or direct object 
 of the establishment of the fund, but the means of carrying out the spiritual conquest 
 of uncivilized Indians through the religious missionaries. 
 
 We do not concede, as is claimed bj r Mexico in the foregoing extract, 
 that the Pious Fund had for its object the conversion of the pagan 
 Indians to obedience to Spanish authority, nor that the fund was ever 
 subsidized to the extent of a single dollar "by the public treasury of 
 Mexico." 
 
 These propositions, heretofore and now advanced by Mexico, were 
 considered (Transcript, pp. 463-468, pars. I, II) in the arguments 
 upon the former arbitration and are referred to in other arguments 
 for the claimant submitted to this court; they need not be dwelt upon 
 here. 
 
 It will be seen that the extract from the answer of Mexico, above 
 quoted, states that one of the objects of the Pious Fund was " the 
 conversion of the pagan natives to the Catholic faith." Mexico says 
 that this proposition "is unquestionable." Mexico likewise concedes 
 that another purpose of the Pious Fund was ' ' the support of the church 
 in California." She concedes this point, although she also claims that 
 this purpose was subordinate to the spiritual conquest of the uncivi- 
 lized Indians. 
 
 Mexico therefore does concede, and we have hence very justly 
 claimed that one of the purposes of the donors of the Pious Fund was 
 " the support of the church in California." 
 
 Even without this admission the proof upon the point is complete. 
 
 The Pious Fund of the Californias was, as its name implies, a fund 
 to be devoted to pious uses in the California*. 
 
 The object of all missionary endeavor is, first, to establish religion, 
 and thereafter to maintain it. 
 
298 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 The purpose of the donors of the Pious Fund was to bring the inhab- 
 itants of the Californias, present and future, within the fold of the 
 Catholic faith, and thereafter to maintain such inhabitants in that faith. 
 
 It is absurd to suppose that they could have intended to create a 
 benefaction for the foundation of religion .and have also intended to 
 withdraw the benefaction so soon as the religion had gained a foot- 
 hold, rendering nugatory by such a withdrawal the work already 
 accomplished. 
 
 The deed of the Marquis de Villapuente and the Marquesa de la 
 Torres de Rada has been called the foundation deed of the fund. 
 
 It is the foundation deed of this fund in a historical sense only. The 
 donation granted by the deed was one of the largest, if not the largest, 
 ever made for missionary work in the Californias. The intention of 
 the grantors was primarily to establish and maintain the missions of 
 the Californias. 
 
 The donors had a' clear and definite religious object, which mani- 
 fests itself in eveiy line of the instrument. 
 
 The Villapuente deed is the only formal instrument which we have 
 wherewith to indicate in a definite manner the purpose of any one of 
 the chief contributors to this fund. This deed was executed in 1735, 
 when the contributions to the fund were inconsiderable in amount if 
 compared to the benefactions which it subsequently received. 
 
 In 1731 the fund amounted to only $120,000. Of this $120,000, 
 $40,000 had been contributed by the Marquis de Villapuente. The 
 benefactions, therefore, which preceded the deed of 1735 constituted a 
 small fraction (viz, only $120,000) of the fund as it existed from 1821 
 to 1842, and of this the Marquis de Villapuente had contributed one- 
 ($40,000). 
 
 The Villapuente deed may be truly said to have been a declaration, 
 made at the very origin of the fund, of the religious objects in the 
 Californias for which the fund was created. 
 
 The contributions which followed the magnificent endowments of 
 the Marquis de Villapuente and the Marquesa de la Torres de Rada 
 were necessarily given for the same religious objects as those for 
 which the Villapuente donation had been made. Every inference to 
 be drawn from the history of the fund demonstrates its homogeneity of 
 religious purpose. There is not even a suggestion that any part of 
 the fund was to be devoted to purposes other than those which formed 
 the object of the remainder. 
 
 It is proper therefore that the deed of the Marquis de Villapuente 
 and the Marquesa de las Torres de Rada should be looked to for a 
 reasonably definite knowledge concerning the religious purposes of the 
 remaining donors in making their contributions to so publicly recog- 
 nized a religious purpose. 
 
 As already pointed out, this deed was drawn with much precision 
 and care. i 
 
 Construing the deed according to English and American jurispru- 
 dence, it would appear that the missions themselves were the grantees of 
 the donations. 
 
 The language of the habendum clause is " to have and to hold to said 
 missions founded and which hereafter may be founded, in the Cali- 
 fornias." (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 (This clause tends to confirm the claim put forward at the former 
 arbitration that, according to the law of Spain and of Mexico, each 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 299 
 
 mission, parish, bishop, and religious institution was deemed to have 
 a corporate capacity). 
 
 It may be that the legal effect of this deed according to the law of 
 Spain was to pass the title to the missions as religous institutions hav- 
 ing capacity to take under the law of New Spain; or it may have been 
 a conveyance which vested the title in the Society of Jesus,, or it may 
 have been a conveyance in the nature of a covenant to stand seized 
 to the missions or to the Society of Jesus. 
 
 We are not concerned with any of these questions in connection with 
 the point we now home under consideration, nor do we admit this ques- 
 tion to have any bearing on the case. 
 
 We have pointed out, however, that the habendum clause of the 
 Villapuente deed is to the "Missions founded and which hereafter may 
 be founded in the Calif ornias " to show that it was the intention of the 
 grantors in that instrument to confer the benefaction in the first 
 instance upon the missions of the Californias, or to grant it for their 
 use. 
 
 We will consider later in this brief the effect of that clause of the 
 deed whereby, in a given contingency, the reverend father provincial 
 of the Society of Jesus in New Spain would have power to devote these 
 properties to other missions. 
 
 We assume, therefore, that the gift of the Marquis de Villapuente 
 was to the "missions founded, and which hereafter may be founded, in 
 the Californias." 
 
 Let us now consider what the religious purposes were for which the 
 donations were made. 
 
 The deed is clear upon this subject. 
 
 The purposes were "for the maintenance of their religious, and to 
 provide for the ornament and decent support of divine worship; * * * 
 in case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catho- 
 lic faith, the profits of said estates shall he applied, to the necessities of 
 said missions and their support." 
 
 The deed furthermore provides (Transcript, foot p. 106) that for all 
 time and in all events the "rents and profits shall be applied to the 
 purposes and objects herein specified — i. e., the propagation of our 
 holy Catholic faith." 
 
 The Villapuente deed therefore leaves no room for discussion about 
 the intention of the Marquis de Villapuente, and the Marquesa de 
 Rada. They granted their estates to "the propagation of our holy 
 Catholic faith." 
 
 This is equally true of the two other chief historical donations to 
 the fund. 
 
 We learn from Clavigero, in the extract already quoted, that the 
 Duchess of Gandia, ' ' having heard an old servant of hers who had been 
 a soldier in California speak of the sterility erf that region, the poverty 
 of the Indians there, and the apostolic labors of the missionaries, 
 thought that she could not do anything more pleasing to God than to 
 devote her fortune to the aid of these missions. She therefore ordered 
 in her will that * * * all the rest of her estate go to the missions 
 of California.'''' The historian estimated that this gift amounted to at 
 least $120,000. 
 
 It can not be doubted that these moneys so given to the missions of 
 California were given to the support of religion in that country. 
 
 The same is likewise true of the Arguelles benefaction. That dona- 
 
300 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 tion was appointed by the King of Spain to the Pious Fund of the Cali- 
 fornias. The Arguelles benefaction was therefore, equally with the 
 Villapuente and Gandia benefactions, given for the propagation of 
 religion in that country. 
 
 It will now be seen that the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias was, from 
 the beginning of the eighteenth century, an historical and religious 
 benefaction of very remarkable amount. It must necessarily have 
 been familiar to all throughout the dominion of Mexico; and we be- 
 lieve we have demonstrated that it had for its object pious uses to be 
 achieved in the Californias — pious uses which had been clearly and 
 definitely determined. 
 
 All contributions to the fund were therefore made with the purpose 
 of serving those religious objects in the Californias which have already 
 been accurately denned. 
 
 We therefore submit that we have established the proposition lastly 
 under consideration, which was that the trust purpose of the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias always was the conversion of the natives of 
 the two Californias, Upper and Lower, and the establishment, main- 
 tenance, and extension of the Catholic Church, its religion and worship, 
 in that country. 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE SOCIETY OF JESUS HAS HAD NO ESTATE IN THE PROPERTIES 
 OF THE PIOUS FUND SINCE 1773, NOR HAS IT HAD SINCE THAT TIME 
 ANY INTEREST THEREIN SUCH AS WOULD IN ANY MANNER 1 NTER- 
 FERE WITH THE LEGAL OR MORAL RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 OF AMERICA TO DEMAND FROM MEXICO THE AWARD WHICH IS 
 HERE SOUGHT. 
 
 It was claimed by Mexico before the former arbitral court that 
 the archbishop and the bishop of California were not entitled to 
 demand from Mexico the moneys asked for and recovered before that 
 court; and Mexico claimed this upon the ground, among others, that 
 the archbishop and the bishop did not ' ' profess to derive title by any 
 act of the Jesuits" (Transcript, p. 69). 
 
 In speaking of this argument it was said by Messrs. Phillips and 
 Wilson, on behalf of the archbishop and the bishop of California, that— 
 
 If to "derive title" it is necessary to show a regular chain of conveyances from the 
 Jesuits to the present corporators, there will be some force in the objection when the 
 time properly arrives for the hearing of such an exception. 
 
 No such derivation of title, however, need be looked for in such a case as this. The 
 nature of the property, as well as the character of the tenure, render all such tech- 
 nical conveyances not only needless but inappropriate. The property was held by the 
 Jesuits not in their own right, but in trust. They held it not in their individual 
 names, but in the official relation they bore to the Catholic Church. 
 
 Thus when they were expelled they did not carry away either the property or the 
 title to the same. Nor did their expulsion work any forfeiture. The property and 
 its proceeds remained. The trust estate continued, though the trustee was no longer 
 in condition to carry out the trust. In such a case as this equity would appoint a 
 new trustee, and those who remained at the head and in control of the church 
 became the proper parties to give effect to the dedication of the property. (Tran- 
 script, p. 74. ) r v j \ 
 
 In answer to this same argument, which was based by Mexico on 
 the Villapuente deed, it was said by Mr. Doyle: 
 
 On the face of this deed it needs no argument to show that the Jesuits were mere 
 trustees and administrators of the funds and property donated; true, they were trus- 
 tees in whom the donors reposed unbounded confidence, and to whom they meant 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 301 
 
 to intrust the largest powers and discretion; but it is incontestible that the missions 
 of California founded, and which thereafter might be founded, were the beneficiaries 
 or cestuis que trust under the deed, and entitled to the beneficial use and enjoyment 
 of the funds: A change of the trustees by death, dissolution, forfeiture, or the like 
 would work no change in the beneficial ownership of the cestui que trust. This is a 
 principle of universal law, indeed, of common honesty, and it has never yet been 
 denied by either Spain or Mexico that it was applicable to this property and to the 
 trust attached to it. On the contrary, while the Spanish Crown, on the expulsion 
 of the Jesuits, took to itself the property of the order, it distinctly recognized the 
 trust character of the Pius Fund and administered it as a trustee, succeeding to the 
 estate, duties, and powers of the original donees, the Jesuits, down to the cessation of 
 Spanish rule in Mexico. Mexico, succeeding to the sovereignty of Spain over its 
 own territory, succeeded to the property and the trust, and continued the adminis- 
 tration in the same way as trustees only. (Transcript, pp. 80, 81. ) 
 
 It seems to us that these two quotations fully dispose of the point 
 made by Mexico before the former arbitral court. This was evi- 
 dently the opinion of that tribunal, for the archbishop and the bishop 
 of California obtained an award against Mexico. 
 
 The point was therefore necessarily decided in. their favor, and 
 against the contention of Mexico. 
 
 It is said, however, that there is a provision in the Villapuente deed 
 which reserves to the Society of Jesus power to apply the profits of 
 the Villapuente and De Rada estates to missions in .other parts of the 
 world, and hence that the society has an interest in the fund, and that 
 those who demand the income of those estates for application to pious 
 uses must claim through the Society of Jesus. 
 
 The particular clause in the Villapuente deed upon which this argu- 
 ment is based is to be found at the foot of page 106 in the Transcript, 
 and reads as follows: 
 
 And in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily, or by compulsion, 
 should abandon said missions of the Californias, or [which God forbid] the natives 
 of that country should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such 
 contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father pro- 
 vincial of the Society of Jesus in this new Spain, for the time being, to apply the profits 
 of said estates, their products and improvements to other missions in the undiscov- 
 ered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, according 
 as he may deem most pleasing to Almighty God; and in such ways that the domin- 
 ion and government of said estates be always and perpetually continued in the 
 reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or secular, 
 shall exercise any control thereon, or intervene in or about the same; and all such 
 rents and profits shall be applied to the purposes and objects herein specified, i. e., 
 the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 To this argument we make the following replies: 
 
 (a) The contingency mentioned in the above-quoted clause of the 
 Villapuente deed never occurred within either the letter or the spirit 
 of that conveyance. 
 
 The decree for the expulsion of the Jesuits by Charles III. , King of 
 Spain, is dated February 27, 1767. (Transcript, p. 410.) The order 
 was suppressed by a papal bull of Pope Clement XIV dated July 21, 
 1773. (Transcript, p. 461.) From the time of its suppression until 
 its restoration by Pope Pius VII, on August 17, 1814, the Society of 
 Jesus had no existence whatever. It is true that those who were its 
 priests at the time of its suppression continued to be priests of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, for, as is needless to say, a priest of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, once ordained, is a priest forever. But there 
 was no congregation of the Society of Jesus. In 1801, indeed, Pius 
 VII., at the request of the Czar of Russia, as it is said, did permit a 
 group of former Jesuits to live in community in Russia under the 
 
302 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 name of the "Congregation of the Sacred Heart," and shortly after, at 
 the request of Ferdinand, King of Naples, he also permittted a second 
 body to live in community in Naples under the same title; but for 
 forty-one years the Society of Jesus had no existence whatever, and 
 during all that time it continued to be under decree of banishment 
 from all the Spanish dominions. 
 
 Keeping these facts in mind, we feel more than safe in maintaining 
 the claim that the contingency comtemplated by the Villapuente deed 
 never happened. It is therein provided that in a given event, namely, 
 the voluntary or compulsory abandonment. of the missions in the Cali- 
 fornias by the Society of Jesus, then the father provincial of the 
 Society of Jesus "in this New Spain" shall have power to divert the 
 funds of the missions of the Californias and apply them to missions 
 elsewhere. 
 
 The contingency specified by the grantors in the Villapuente deed 
 clearly contemplated the continued existence of the Society of Jesus 
 as a religious body and its continued domicile "in this New Spain," 
 but by the decree of Charles III, and the papal bull of suppression of 
 Pope Clement XIV, the Society of Jesus, as we have already seen, 
 ceased to exist as a religious order, either "in this New Spain" or 
 indeed in any other quarter of the world. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that as regards the contingencies necesarily 
 contemplated by the Marquis de Villapuente and the Marquesa de 
 Rada, to wit, the compulsory abandonment of the missions on the part 
 of the Jesuits, accompanied by their continued existence as a religious 
 body and continued domicile in New Spain, these contingencies never 
 occurred. It is submitted, therefore, that the contingency upon 
 which turns the clause giving power of diverting the income of the 
 Villapuente and de Rada estates from the missions of the Californias to 
 missions in other parts of the world never took place. 
 
 (h) The power granted to the "reverend father provincial of the 
 Society of Jesus in this New Spain " to divert the income of the 
 estates to missions in other parts of the world was ineffective from 
 the banishment and suppression of the Jesuits (1767 and 1773) for 
 want of the religious person designated to exercise the power. From 
 1773 there was no father provincial in New Spain, nor elsewhere, and 
 no Jesuit or Jesuit mission in all the world. 
 
 (c) Even if the power to divert these funds from the missions of the 
 Californias, to whose use they were granted in the deed, did survive 
 to the Society of Jesus and its reverend father provincial "in this 
 New Spain" they renounced the right by failing ever to put forward 
 a claim to its enjoyment. It is not suggested that since 1768, now one 
 hundred and thirty -four years ago, the Society of Jesus has put for- 
 ward a claim of power over or right or title in the property of the 
 Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 It may be asserted, therefore, that by a long, unbroken, and une- « 
 quivocal course of conduct the Society of Jesus, its officers, and mem- 
 bers, have renounced their right, if it ever existed, to divert to missions 
 in other parts of the world the moneys of the Pious Fund dedicated, 
 to the support of the missions of the Californias. 
 
 (d) The power granted to the Society of Jesus in the Villapuente 
 deed of applying the profits of the estates to missions in other parts of 
 the world,. under the specified conditions — that power was religious in 
 its nature, and personal to the Jesuits. It proceeded from two sources: 
 The purely religious intention of the donors, and the unlimited confi- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 303 
 
 dence specially reposed in the Jesuits by the Marquis de Villapuente 
 and the Marquesa de Rada. This double intention is explicit and 
 patent in clause after clause of the deed. 
 
 No one could be substituted in the place of the Jesuits in the exercise 
 of the discretion to divert the fund from the missions of the Cali- 
 fornias to missions in other portions of the world, without doing great 
 violence to the intentions and desires of the donors of the Villapuente 
 donation. 
 
 We therefore respectfully insist that this power of diversion was 
 personal to the Society of Jesus and did not survive the royal banish - 
 ment and the papal suppression of that society.- 
 
 (<?) Even if it be conceded that if the contingency contemplated by 
 the deed did occur, &nd even if the power to divert was not personal 
 to the Society of Jesus, but did survive to and devolve upon the Span- 
 ish Crown, then we answer that the power to divert these funds from 
 the missions of the Calif ornias to missions in other "parts of the world 
 was never exercised by Spain. On the contrary, the dedication of the 
 properties as a fund for the maintenance of the missions in the Cali- 
 fornias was repeatedly confirmed by Spain, and all power to divert 
 them to other parts of the world was waived and abandoned. Indeed, 
 the earliest royal decrees of Spain, following the banishment of the 
 Jesuits, recognized and affirmed the devotion of the properties to the 
 support of the missions of the Californias. The very division of the 
 missions between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, with the con- 
 sent and approval and by the direction of the Spanish Crown, and the 
 entire treatment of the problem of the missions in Upper and Lower 
 California by Spain was based upon the idea that the Pious Fund 
 belonged to the missions of the Californias. If this fund had not been » 
 treated by Spain as a fund for the support of the missions of the Cali- 
 fornias, upper and lower, those missions of necessity would have had 
 to be abandoned. 
 
 (f) The Villapuente deed, in which this- power is reserved to the 
 Jesuits, constituted only a portion of the Pious Fund, and by the 
 course of history, and with the concurrence and by the direction of 
 two Governments, Spain and Mexico, the Villapuente and De Rada 
 properties were merged in the other properties of the fund, and for 
 three-quarters of a century (from 1768 to 1842) all of these properties 
 were treated as constituting the Pious Fund of the Californias — a fund 
 devoted, as its name implies, to pious uses to be achieved in the 
 Californias. 
 
 (g) The court will remember that the religious orders of the Roman 
 Catholic Church are not purely self-existent bodies. They are each 
 of them attached to the See of Rome in a particular manner, and that 
 See is for each of them the ultimate superior. The acts of the Holy 
 See in respect of the functions of any particular order have not only 
 the general authority recognized in the See of Rome by all Catholics, 
 but they have also a particular authority, and may be regarded as acts 
 undertaken by the order itself. 
 
 The whole history of the religious orders, including that of the 
 Society of Jesus, will show no exception to the rule that they all 
 regard this particular authority of the Holy See, and submissive con- 
 currence in its commands, as a necessary condition of their very exist- 
 ence. It conclusively follows from this universally admitted principle 
 that whatever the Holy See directs or permits in the case of a reli- 
 gious order may be presumed to be an act of that order itself; nor 
 
304 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 could a better example of this principle be adduced than the submission 
 of the Jesuits themselves to the papal bull of 1773. 
 
 The Franciscans and Dominicans could not have taken over the 
 administration of the missions of the Californias without the consent 
 of the Holy See, a consent to which the Jesuits (not yet suppressed 
 when the missions were taken over) must be deemed, from the principle 
 enunciated above, to have been a party. 
 
 The same is true of every subsequent act, authorized or permitted, 
 by the Holy See in connection with the administration of the missions 
 and the application of the Pious Fund of the Californias to their use. 
 It will also be evident that as' the archbishop and the bishop of Cali- 
 fornia were permitted to present the claim which they made before 
 the former arbitral court, the validity of that claim was implicitly con- 
 ceded and agreed to by the Society of Jesus. Another evidence of this 
 concurrence is the acceptance by the Society of Jesus of the sum of 
 $20,000, under the apportionment by the Holy See, on March 4, 1877, 
 of the recovery in the former arbitral court. 
 
 The present claim made by the United States of America on behalf 
 of the archbishop and the bishop of California (these latter necessarily 
 acting with the leave of the Holy See), will be conclusively presumed 
 to have been made with the active and passive concurrence of the 
 Society of Jesus. And it will be furthermore presumed as a part of 
 this final suggestion that any act of that society necessary to perfect 
 the claim here urged has been duly had and taken in due season by 
 said society. 
 
 (h) The Dominicans and Franciscans, and after them Bishop Diego 
 and his successors in title and interest, acquired prescriptively the 
 title of the Society of Jesus. This was done with the expressed and 
 consent of Spain and Mexico, seasonably made. 
 
 Herbert on Prescription, pp. 12-20. 
 
 Wheaton's (Boyd) International Law, sec. 164. 
 
 (i) The title, if any, and whatever its character, was abandoned by 
 the Society of Jesus; whether compulsorily or not is not important- 
 Abandonment is one of the means by which titles may be lost. 
 
 In this connection read the argument of Messrs. Phillips and Wilson 
 at page 74 and that of Mr. Doyle at pages 80-81 of the Transcript. 
 These we have quoted at pages 25 and 26 of this brief. 
 
 V. 
 
 THE QUESTION WHETHER EITHER SPAIN OR MEXICO MIGHT HAVE 
 DIVERTED THE FUND TO OTHER MISSIONS IS NOT .INVOLVED IN 
 THIS CASE, AND IS THEREFORE PURELY ACADEMIC. WERE SUCH 
 A POSITION MAINTAINED, IT COULD BE CONCLUSIVELY ANSWERED 
 BY THE FACT THAT NEITHER SPAIN NOR MEXICO EVER DID SO 
 DIVERT THE FUND AND NEITHER OF THEM EVER CLAIMED THE 
 RIGHT TO DO SO. 
 
 Our position with respect to the effect of the act of October 24, 1842, 
 is well stated in one of the arguments of Messrs. Phillips and Wilson 
 before the former arbitral court, where it is said: 
 
 By the act of 1842 the Mexican Government had taken to itself private property 
 contributed to the church for a special purpose, and bound itself to make good by 
 paying a certain annual interest. Can there be a doubt that the church in California 
 was then entitled to receive from the Government this annual payment, to be applied 
 to the purpose for which the fund was originally created? We find nothing to mdi- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 305 
 
 cate at this time any intent to repudiate its obligation by any direct act, or by trie adop- 
 tion of any such arguments as are now urged to this end. 
 
 On the contrary, the Government acknowledged its indebtedness in the most formal 
 and solemn manner, in the very act by which it placed in its treasury the proceeds 
 of this property. The obligation thus assumed by Mexico toward a portion of its 
 citizens was as perfect and binding upon it as if the same had been contracted by an 
 individual. Nor is the obligation at all impaired by its own default in making pay- 
 ment, nor by the fact that, owing to its sovereign character, there were no means to 
 enforce payment by judicial process. No suit can be maintained in the courts of the 
 country against the United States, and yet its public debt constitutes an obligation 
 as binding upon it as if judgment and execution could be invoked to enforce it. 
 ■ When, by the treaty of 1848, California was ceded to the United States full guar- 
 anties were given for the protection of the rights of persons and property. The 
 allegiance of the inhabitants was changed. But in no wise was any change made in 
 legal liabilities between Mexico and the inhabitants. 
 
 If any were debtors to the Mexican Government, the obligation remained unim- 
 paired by the transfer of dominion. So, if the Mexican Government was debtor to 
 them while Mexican citizens, the indebtedness was not canceled by their becoming 
 American citizens. (Transcript, pp. 75-76.) 
 
 It was argued, however, by Senor de Azpiroz that the fund might 
 have been diverted by Spain or Mexico. This position, which we sup- 
 pose will be reasserted in the present controversy, is so well answered 
 by Mr. Doyle that nothing can be added to his argument on the point, 
 which was as follows: 
 
 In view of the clear recognition by Mexico in the decree of October, 1842, of a debt 
 equal to the proceeds and value of the property taken into the treasury, and of the 
 promise to pay interest thereon at 6 per cent, I have deemed it unnecessary to notice 
 many points in the argument of Don Manuel Azpiroz based on matters long ante- 
 cedent to that date — such as the alleged incapacity of the Society of Jesus to acquire 
 property; the suggestion that their estates were confiscated on their expulsion from 
 the Spanish dominions, and that the Pious Fund came to the monarch's hands as a 
 temporality; that the validity of the constitution of the Pious Fund required the 
 sanction of the Pope; that portions of the fund, derived from bequests destined by 
 the donors to missions in "general, were not necessarily applicable to California 
 missions in particular, and hence were properly incorporated into the Pious Fund 
 of California; questions whether the church of California could have complained if 
 the funds destined for the propagation of the gospel here had been, while the 
 sovereignty of Mexico yet extended over the country, diverted to missions in other 
 parts of the Eepublic; whether, if the Pious Fund had remaind invested in real estate 
 down to the time of the treaty of Quer.taro, it could have been successfully claimed 
 by the church of California, which, by that treaty lost its status of Mexican citizen- 
 ship, and the like — because, as it seems to me, none of these questions can affect the 
 decision of this claim. It is not disputed that the Jesuits did in fact receive these 
 donations in trust for the pious purposes designed by the founders, and neither the 
 binding force of the trust nor their right and duty to administer it was ever ques- 
 tioned by Spain or Mexico. The legality of the additions made to it were also un- 
 questioned at the time, and have since remained so, and it is not denied that they 
 were in fact made. 
 
 The acquiescence of the Government and of all others interested for a long series of years 
 entitles us to a presumption, juris et de jure, that all these things were rightly done and legal, 
 as no doubt they were. Nor is it disputed that the Crown received the funds on the 
 expulsion of the Jesuits, and assumed to succeed to the same title, rights, and duties 
 as had previously devolved on them , and administered the trust thereunder down to 
 the epoch of independence, when Mexico succeeded in like manner to Spain, and 
 continued to administer in the same way down to the year 1836. Neither power, 
 during this long period of over a hundred years, raised any of these questions, and I 
 submit with entire confidence that it is too late to entertain them here and now. 
 
 So the question whether either Spain or Mexico might have diverted the fund to 
 other missions is conclusively answered by the fact that they never did so, and never 
 claimed the right to do so. The decree of October 24, 1842, was practically a purchase 
 of the properties of the fund by the Government at the price represented by their 
 income capitalized at 6 per cent, and a promise to pay therefor by an annuity equal 
 to that interest. By it the real estate of the Pious Fund was sold and converted into 
 personal property in the form of a demand on the treasury for the annual payments. 
 And as all this occurred some years before the cession of California to the United 
 States, it seems unimportant to inquire what would have been the status of the par- 
 
 S. Doc. 28 20 
 
306 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 ties or the question between them had the fund remained invested in real estate 
 down to that event. (Transcript, pp. 471^72, par. VI.) 
 
 We therefore submit that neither Mexico nor Spain ever claimed 
 the right to divert or attempted the diversion of the Pious Fund. It 
 is hence unnecessary for us to debate the purely academic point as to 
 whether Spain or Mexico ever possessed the right suggested. 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE EIGHTS OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE PIOUS FUND OF THE 
 CALIFORNIAS WHICH ARE ASSERTED HERE ARISE OUT OF THE 
 PROMISE MADE BY MEXICO ON OCTOBER 24, 1842, AND THE DUTY 
 OF MEXICO TO THOSE BENEFICIARIES AS A TRUSTEE OF THE FUND. 
 
 When Mexico made her decree of October 24, 1842, she promised 
 to pay 6 per cent upon the capital of the Pious Fund for the uses and 
 purposes to which the fund had been dedicated by the donors. This 
 engagement was no mere gratuity. There is not only a sufficient but 
 an ample consideration for the promise. She incorporated the entire 
 Pious Fund into her national treasury. The least she could do in 
 honor was to promise to pay interest upon the fund. Mexico not only 
 agreed to pay the interest, but she agreed to pay it to the religious 
 objects specified and intended by the founders of the fund, which, as 
 we have already pointed out, were the conversion of the natives of the 
 Californias, Upper and Lower, and the establishment, maintenance, 
 and extension of the Catholic Church, its religion and worship, in that 
 country. 
 
 At the time she made the engagement Mexico sustained the relation 
 of a trustee to the beneficiaries and to the fund. This, as we have 
 pointed out, is conceded in her answer to our memorial. Her prom- 
 ise therefore is to be read in the light of her duty as trustee. The 
 promise which Mexico made was to pay an annuity in perpetuity. Her 
 promise was also to pay it to certain religious purposes to be accom- 
 plished in Upper California and certain religious purposes to be 
 accomplished in Lower California. Upon the cession of Upper Calif or 
 nia to the United States by Mexico, for a consideration of 118,250,000, 
 the obligation to pay the equitable portion due for application to the 
 religious purposes to be accomplished in Upper California was not 
 canceled. It survived for the benefit and behoof of the inhabitants 
 and citizens of the ceded territory, whose American citizenship, as it 
 was to be thenceforth, entitled them to demand performance through 
 the interposition of the United States. It is this demand which they 
 made with success under the convention of 1868 and which they are 
 now endeavoring to make with the same success before this court. 
 
 VII. 
 
 ALL OF THE EVENTS PRECEDING OCTOBER 24, 1842, ARE IN THE ' 
 NATURE OF MATTERS OF INDUCEMENT, AS THAT TERM IS USED IN 
 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE. THE OBLIGATION OF 
 OCTOBER 24, 1842, IS TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THESE EVENTS, 
 IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE PROPERLY INTERPRETED. BUT MEX- 
 ICO'S OBLIGATION ARISES OUT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE DECREE OF 
 OCTOBER 24, 1842, AND ITS PRECEDENT TRUSTEESHIP. 
 
 In the law of pleading, as it is established in American and English 
 jurisprudence, we have what are known as "matters of inducement." 
 These are matters appropriately to be stated in a pleading, in order 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 307 
 
 that the court to which the pleading is submitted may the more intelli- 
 gently appreciate the force of the particular transaction out of which 
 arises the cause of action or the matter of defense. In this case the 
 cause of action upon which the claims are made is the engagement in 
 the light of the historical circumstances which preceded it. These 
 circumstances enable one to appreciate the exact legal and moral obli- 
 gation which Mexico assumed by the act of October 24, 1842, whereby 
 she incorporated all the property of the Pious Fund into the Mexican 
 treasury, and agreed to pay 6 per cent thereon annually and in 
 perpetuity. 
 
 It is not necessary therefore to dwell upon the power Spain or 
 Mexico might or might not have exercised with respect to the Pious 
 Fund. We are not concerned with the powers which might have been 
 exercised by these countries. We are claiming under the power which 
 Mexico did exercise. She took our property and agreed to pay for it 
 in an annuity. We are here demanding performance of that promise. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IT WAS THE DUTY OF MEXICO, DURING THE PERIOD WHEN IT MAN- 
 AGED THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS, PRIOR TO THE 
 APPOINTMENT OF THE BISHOP OF THE CALIFORNIAS, TO PAY OVER 
 THE INCOME THEREOF TO THE MISSIONARIES IN CHARGE OF THE 
 MISSIONS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSE OF THE DONORS. 
 
 The Pious Fund was devoted, during the early period of its histor} r , 
 to the payment of very modest salaries to the missionaries ($350 per 
 annum). The payment of these salaries (Transcript, p. 420, sec. 19) 
 and the erection of suitable houses of worship and abodes for the mis- 
 sionaries, with additional conveniences for the housing and care of the 
 inhabitants of the Californias, were the specific purposes to which the 
 fund, in pursuance of the purposes of the donors, were necessarily lim- 
 ited in the early history ot its administration. 
 
 From the veiy nature of the case there was no means of devoting 
 the income to the conversion of the natives and to the establishment, 
 maintenance, and extension of the Catholic Church, its religion and 
 worship, except to pay over the income so to be applied to the mis- 
 sionaries and officiating priests laboring in the country under the 
 direction and with the. sanction of the church. The donations in the 
 beginning were committed to the charge of the Jesuits for investment 
 and conservation, and necessarily for direct application to the pious 
 uses, because it was impossible directly to apply the moneys and prop- 
 erty of the fund to these uses except by paying the same over to the 
 Jesuits, who constituted the sole medium by which those pious uses 
 were achieved. 
 
 Upon their expulsion and the subsequent division of the missionary 
 labors between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, the moneys were 
 paid by Mexico to the Franciscans and the Dominicans. 
 
 The act of May 25, 1832, already quoted, provided that the govern- 
 ing board having charge of the " rural property belonging to the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias " should ' ' name to the Government the amounts 
 which may be remitted to each one of the Californias, in accordance 
 with their respective expenses and their available funds." (Laws of 
 Mexico, pamphlet, p. 5, ninth subdivision.) 
 
 There was no one else to whom the remittance could have been made 
 except the missionaries. From the very circumstances of the case 
 
308 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 there was no one else who could possibly apply the fund to its reli- 
 gious objects. These missionaries were, therefore, until the erection of 
 the Calif ornias into a bishopric, the only persons who, from the nature 
 of .the case, could apply the funds to the purposes intended by the 
 donors. 
 
 It follows as a consequence that these missionaries, until the erection 
 of the Californias into a diocese with a regularly appointed bishop, 
 had the right to demand the payment to them of the fund and of its 
 income, for its application by them to the pious uses of the donors. 
 As they were the only persons who could apply it to these uses, they 
 were the only ones, necessarily, who had the right to demand its 
 payment. 
 
 The one necessarily follows from the other. 
 
 IX. 
 
 THIS DUTY WAS SOLEMNLY RECOGNIZED BY MEXICO AND WAS 
 NEVER REPUDIATED. 
 
 By the act of May 25, 1832, creating a board for the control of the 
 rural property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias, it was 
 provided that that board should "name to the Government the amounts 
 which may be remitted to each one of the Californias, in accordance 
 with their respective expenses, and their available funds." (Laws of 
 Mexico, pamphlet p. 5, ninth subdivision.) 
 
 It will be seen from this provision that the moneys were to be 
 remitted to the Californias with due regard to the needs and funds of 
 each of them. 
 
 This provision for remittance can have no other meaning imputed to 
 it than that the remittance was to be to the missions. 
 
 The act of September 19, 1836, is a similar recognition of the duty 
 owed by Mexico to the Catholic Church, its prelates, clergy, and fold, 
 to pay over the income, and, indeed, the capital, to the officials of the 
 church, in conformity with the purposes of the donors of the fund. 
 This duty was furthermore impliedly, if not expressly, recognized by 
 the decree of February 8, 1812, which expressly declared it to be the 
 purpose of the Mexican Government to administer the fund in con- 
 formity to the will of the donors. 
 
 The same recognition is manifested in the appointment on February 
 21, 1842, of Don Gabriel Valencia, chief of staff, to be general admin- 
 istrator of the goods of the Pious Fund of the Californias, "upon the 
 same terms, and with the same powers as were conferred to the board 
 (junta) of the same department (Ramo) by the decree of the 25th May, 
 1832." (Transcript, p. 505.) 
 
 The act of April 3, 1845, directing that the debts due to, and the 
 unsold properties of, the Pious Fund should be delivered to the bishop 
 of the Californias is a further legislative recognition of this duty. 
 
 So likewise is the order made by the minister of the treasury of 
 Mexico on April 3, 1844, whereby he commanded the custom-house of 
 Guaymas to pay to the bishop of the Californias "the sum of $8,000 
 belonging to the Pious Fund, the properties of which were incorpo- 
 rated into the national treasury." (Transcript— English, p. 149; 
 Spanish, p. 88.) 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 309 
 
 X. 
 
 FROM THE CONSECRATION OF FRANCISCO GARCIA DIEGO AS FIRST 
 BISHOP OF THE CALIFORNIAS, UPPER AND LOWER, WHICH OC- 
 CURRED OCTOBER 4, 1840, THE PROPER PERSONS TO RECEIVE THE 
 INCOME OR INTEREST UPON THE PIOUS FUND HAVE BEEN THE 
 BISHOP OF THE CALIFORNIAS AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN TITLE AND 
 INTEREST. 
 
 On April 27, 1840, Francisco Garcia Diego was appointed bishop of 
 the Calif ornias. (Transcript, p. 183.) Bishop Diego was consecrated 
 on October 4, 1840. (Transcript, p. 91.) He died on April 30, 1846. 
 (Transcript p. 182.) His successor, Joseph Sadoc Alemany, was 
 appointed on May 1, 1850. (Transcript, p. 183.) He was consecrated 
 on June 30, 1850 (Transcript, pp. 12, 182), and arrived in California 
 in December, 1850 (Transcript, p. 182). 
 
 From the death of Bishop Diego on April 30, 1846, to the appoint- 
 ment and consecration of Bishop Alemany the bishopric was admin- 
 istered by the Very Reverend Joseph Gonzalez JKubio (Transcript, pp. 
 12, 148), who, however, during that period, enjoyed and exercised the 
 faculties of a bishop. 
 
 Changes have been made from time to time in the geographical 
 boundaries of the diocese of California, and the diocese has been divided 
 several times. 
 
 The claimants before the former arbitration as well as those upon 
 whose behalf the Government of the United States negotiated the con- 
 vention upon which this court is organized are the successors in title 
 and interest to Francisco Garcia Diego, first bishop of the Californias. 
 
 We have pointed out above that while the missions were in the charge 
 of one of the orders of the church, called in canon law the regulars, 
 the very necessities of the case demanded that the moneys appropriated 
 to the use of the missions of the Californias should be paid to those 
 regulars. We believe we have shown that it was impossible for any- 
 one else to apply the income to the pious purposes of the donors, and 
 that from the very necessities of the case the income of the fund was 
 legally and morally payable to such regulars. 
 
 Upon the consecration of Bishop Diego, in 1840, the control of the 
 spiritual direction of the missions and the management of their tem- 
 poralties passed to him, as the bishop of the diocese. 
 
 He was entitled by virtue of his office to control the spiritual man- 
 agement of his church, and had necessarily to apply the funds devoted 
 to that purpose. From his appointment, therefore, it is clear that the 
 duty of the person in charge of the administration of the fund was to 
 pay over its income to him. It follows as a consequence that the like 
 duty continued in favor of his successors in title and interest. 
 
 Mr. Doyle's argument upon this point is to be found in the Tran- 
 script, pages 86-92; also 471, Paragraph V. Particular attention is 
 called to uie decision of the United States Land Commission for set- 
 tlement of land titles in the State of California, treated of by Mr. 
 Doyle at pages 89-92 of the Transcript, and again at page 564. The 
 settlement made by Mexico with Spain in 1844, for moneys due to the 
 Philippine missions, depending upon practically the same facts as those 
 relating to the missions of the Californias, is discussed by Mr. Doyle 
 in the Transcript, pages 14, 92, 474. 
 
310 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 XI. 
 
 THE CESSION OF UPPER CALIFORNIA TO THE UNITED STATES BY 
 MEXICO DID NOT DESTROY THE RIGHT OF THE BISHOP OF THE 
 CALIFORNIAS TO DEMAND THE PROPORTION OF THE INTEREST 
 EQUITABLY CORRESPONDING TO UPPER CALIFORNIA FOR DEVO- 
 TION IN THAT COUNTRY TO THE PIOUS OBJECTS OF THE DONORS. 
 
 We deem this proposition to be beyond the need of discussion. 
 It is supported by a very early decision of the United States Supreme 
 Court, now be to considered. 
 
 It appeared in Terrett v. Taylor (9 Cranch, U. S., 43), that while Virginia was a 
 colony of Great Britain, and the Episcopal Church was the established religion, cer- 
 tain glebe lands came into possession of the church. Virginia, after the Revolution 
 had established its independence, undertook to pass an act authorizing the overseers 
 of the poor of each parish to sell these glebe lands and appropriate tbe proceeds to 
 the use of the poor. (Transcript, p. 586.) 
 
 In commenting on this, the Supreme Court of the United States says 
 in its opinion, which was written by Mr. Justice Joseph Story, on 
 behalf of Chief Justice John Marshall, and his associates: 
 
 Be however the general authority of the legislature as to the subject of religion as 
 it may, it will require other arguments to establish the position that at the Revolu- 
 tion all the public property acquired by the Episcopal churches, under the sanction 
 of the laws, became the property of the State. Had the property thus acquired been 
 originally granted by the State or the King there might have been some color (and 
 it would have been but a color) for such an extraordinary pretension. But the prop- 
 erty was, in fact and in law, generally purchased by the parishioners, or acquired 
 by the benefactions of pious donors. Tbe title thereto was indefeasibly vested in 
 the churches, or rather in their legal agents. It was not in the power of the Crown 
 to seize or assume it nor of the Parliament itself to destroy the grants, unless by the 
 exercise of a power the most arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust, and endured only 
 because it could not be resisted. It was not forfeited, for the churches had com- 
 mitted no offense. The dissolution of the Regal Government no more destroyed the 
 right to possess or enjoy this property than it did the right of any other corporation 
 or individual to his or its own property. The dissolution of the form of government 
 did not involve in it a dissolution of civil rights, or an abolition of the common law 
 under which the inheritances of every manln the State were held. The State itself 
 succeeded only to the rights of tbe Crown, and, we may add, with many a flower of 
 prerogative struck from its hands. It has been asserted as a principle'of the com- 
 mon law that the division of an empire creates no forfeiture of previously vested 
 rights of property. (Kelly v. Harrison, 2 John C, 29; Jackson v. Lunn, 3 John C, 
 109; Calvin's case, 7 Co., 27.) And this principle is equally consonant with the 
 common sense of mankind and the maxims of eternal justice. (Transcript, p. 586.) 
 
 XII. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES IS THE CLAIMANT HERE. IF ANY OF ITS CIT- 
 IZENS ARE BENEFICIALLY INTERESTED IN THIS FUND OR ENTI- 
 TLED TO RECEIVE THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF IT OR TO HAVE 
 IT LAID OUT OR EXPENDED TO THEIR USE, THE UNITED STATES 
 FULLY REPRESENTS THEM AND IS ENTITLED TO URGE THE CLAIM 
 UPON THEIR BEHALF. 
 
 If it be once established that Mexico is bound to pay over an equi- 
 table proportion of the Pious Fund, considering the relative rights of 
 Upper and Lower California, all other questions are foreign to the 
 case. 
 
 It must be assumed that the United States will act in good faith and 
 in accordance with the rights of all persons in interest in distributing 
 the award, if one be made in this case. 
 
 It is for that Government to say which of its citizens are entitled 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA^. 311 
 
 to the moneys awarded, and in what proportions. And if it be neces- 
 sary juridically to establish the persons and the proportions in which 
 they are to share in it, the United States can do that by appropriate 
 legal remedies pursued according to the jurisprudence which obtains 
 in that country. 
 
 XI11. 
 
 THE AMOUNT OF THE PIOUS FUND AND THE PROPERTIES OF WHICH 
 IT CONSISTED ON OCTOBER 24, 1842, AS FIXED BY THE FORMER 
 ARBITRAL COURT, WERE DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED BY THE PROOFS 
 PRESENTED TO THAT COURT. IF THE CASE IS NOT CONTROLLED 
 BY THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA, WE CLAIM THAT THE TOTAL 
 AS FIXED BY THE FORMER ARBITRAL COURT SHOULD BE INCREASED 
 BY $381,518.15. 
 
 The amount of the Pious Fund and its condition on October 24, 1842, 
 were proved in the former arbitration by the inventory delivered by 
 Pedro Ramirez, agent of the Right Rev. Francisco Garcia Diego, bishop 
 of the Californias, to Gen. Gabriel Valencia on February 28, 1842. 
 (Transcript, p. 508.) 
 
 This report is called ' ' a detailed statement " and is to be found in 
 English in the Transcript, pages 512-518. 
 
 It is also set forth in the record in Spanish. (Transcript, pp. 488-493, 
 169-175.) 
 
 In deciding the case, Mr. Wadsworth, the American commissioner 
 (Transcript, p. 525), said: 
 
 I take the report of Pedro Ramirez of February 28, 1842, upon the condition of the 
 fund, made to Ygnacio de Cubas, Exhibit A to the deposition of Jose Maria de Romo, 
 as a sufficiently accurate and satisfactory account. 
 
 (Ygnacio de Cubas was secretary to General Valencia in the admin- 
 istration of the Pious Fund. Transcript, p. 510.) 
 
 This opinion of the American commissioner as to the amount of the 
 Pious Fund was approved by the umpire. If the case is not controlled 
 by the award of the former arbitral court, operating as res judicata, 
 then it is claimed by us that the following items should be added to 
 the capital adjudged by the American commissioner and the umpire. 
 
 1. The Cienaga del Pastor was sold November 29, 1842, by Mexico, for 
 
 1213,750, under the decree of October 24, 1842. (Replication, p. 
 47. ) This estate was not calculated as a part of the capital of the 
 Pious Fund by the former arbitral court, for the reason that it 
 appeared by the report of Pedro Ramirez that the property had 
 been attached, "and there is no evidence in this record that the 
 Government ever obtained the property or derived any benefit 
 from it." (Transcript, p. 526.) In the present arbitration we 
 have produced proof that the Cienaga del Pastor was sold by Mex- 
 ico under the decree of October 24, 1842. (Replication, p. 47.) 
 We are therefore entitled to have added to the capital of the Pius 
 Fund $213,750.00 
 
 2. Personal property belonging to the Pious Fund sold with the Cienaga 
 
 del Pastor (Replication, p. 47) for 3, 000. 00 
 
 3. A debt of the Mexican Government rejected by the former arbitral 
 
 court because it was supposed to have been given up as a bad debt 
 by Pedro Ramirez. In point of fact the debt was secured by col- 
 lateral which Pedro Ramirez said was bad. Hence the mistake. 
 (Transcript, p. 515) 7,000.00 
 
 4. Moneys borrowed from the Pious Fund by Mexico for colonization 
 
 purposes, for the particulars of which see Ramirez- Valencia cor- 
 respondence (Transcript, English, p. 500; Spanish, pp. 478^79, 
 160) 22,763.15 
 
312 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 5. Payment by Mr. Ramirez (Transcript — English, p. 500; Spanish, pp. 
 
 478-479, 160), on account of a loan of $60,000 to the Mexican Gov- 
 ernment, secured by a mortgage made by it on the Pious Fund. 
 A law passed by Mexico April 1, 1837, provides for the execution 
 of the mortgage (see p. 16 of this brief) $30, 000. 00 
 
 6. There was paid into the general treasury for the account of the Pious 
 
 Fund of the Californias from the estate of Sefiora Argiielles 
 $306,901.64. (Payno's report, Transcript, pp. 23-24. ) Of this sum 
 we received credit in the Eamirez inventory and from the former 
 arbitral court (Transcript, pp. 517, 526) for the sum of $201,896.75, 
 and no more. The difference between these two sums, which we 
 now claim, is 105, 004. 89 
 
 381, 518. 15 
 
 XIV. 
 
 IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF JURISPRUDENCE THAT A 
 LITIGANT IS TO BE JUDGED BY THE PROOF WHICH IT IS WITHIN 
 HIS POWER TO PRODUCE, COMPARED WITH THE PROOF WHICH HE 
 IN FACT PRODUCES. THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT PROOF WITHHELD 
 WOULD BE ADVERSE TO THE PARTY WITHHOLDING IT IF IT WERE 
 PRODUCED. 
 
 These principles are applicable to the present case. 
 
 In the former arbitration Mexico disputed our claim with respect to 
 the amount of the Pious Fund. But while she did so, she did not pro- 
 duce from her records and archives the proofs which must certainly 
 have existed there. Mexico certainly had accounts from which it 
 would appear to the smallest fractional coin of her currency precisely 
 what amounts were received by her for the property of the Pious 
 Fund. 
 
 It is proper, therefore, for us to invoke the principle stated above. 
 
 It is a presumption that the proof which Mexico has in her possession, 
 and which she deemed it proper not to present, would have been 
 adverse*to her case here if it had been produced. 
 
 We have already shown that a board was appointed under the act of 
 May 25, 1S32, for the administration of the rural properties of the 
 Pious Fund. (Statement and brief on behalf of the United States, pp. 
 11-14.) 
 
 We have also pointed out that General Valencia was appointed admin- 
 istrator of the fund with the same powers as the board of Mav 25, 
 1832. (Transcript, p. 505.) 
 
 The provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the act of May 25, 1832, read 
 as follows: 
 
 11. The secretary shall keep a journal of the proceedings of the board, statement 
 of moneys deposited in the treasury, the entries in which shall be supported by the 
 vouchers delivered by the superintendent of said treasury, and another book of the 
 amounts which are drawn against the same. All the entries, whether of debit or 
 credit, in the treasury shall be signed by the members of the board. 
 
 12. The superintendent of the treasury shall receive 1 per cent premium on the 
 amounts that maybe deposited with him, shall be responsible for the same, and such 
 payments only shall be credited to him as he may make under warrants signed by 
 the members of the board, authorized by the secretary of the said board, and with 
 the approval of the secretary of foreign affairs. 
 
 It will be seen from these provisions that the accounts of the admin- 
 istration of the Pious Fund were required by law to be kept. 
 
 The accounts of both administrations of the Pious Fund must exist 
 among the archives of Mexico. That we are not able to obtain the 
 accounts from the archives of Mexico is our misfortue; but while we 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 313 
 
 suffer therefrom, we are entitled to have the countervailing advantages 
 arising from the application, in the consideration of this case, of the 
 salutary and just presumption which we here invoke. 
 
 XV. 
 
 IT IS CONCEDED BY MEXICO THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA 
 APPLIES TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS. 
 
 In his letter addressed to Mr. Powell Clayton, American minister 
 to Mexico, under date November 28, 1900, Mr. Mariscal, minister of 
 foreign affairs of Mexico, concedes that the principle of res judicata 
 does apply to the awards of international arbitrations. 
 
 He contends, however, that the award of the arbitral court created 
 under the convention between the United States and Mexico of July 
 4, 1868, has not the force of res judicata for two reasons: 
 
 (a) The award was not pronounced within the limits of the jurisdic- 
 tion of the arbitral court created under the convention of July 4, 
 1868. 
 
 (b) Hes judicata is limited in its application to the condemnatory 
 portions of judgments and does not embrace the premises upon which 
 such portions are based. 
 
 Wo quote the language of Mr. Mariscal (Diplomatic Correspond- 
 ence, p. 31): 
 
 That res judicata pro veritate accipiiur is a principle admitted in all legislation and 
 belonging to the Roman law certainly no one will deny. Nor is it denied that a 
 tribunal or judge established by international arbitration gives to its decisions "pro- 
 nounced within the limtis of its ;' urisdiction" (in the language of the authority cited by 
 Mr. McCreery) the force of res judicata; but to give in practice the same force, as 
 that directly expressed in the decision to close the litigation, to the considerations or 
 premises not precisely expressed as points decided by the judge, but simply referred 
 to by him in the bases Oi his decision, or assumed as antecedents necessary for the 
 party in interest, who interprets thi decision, is a very different thing, and can not 
 be considered in the same way. 
 
 The first letter in the Diplomatic Correspondence in which the 
 claim is made that the decision of the former arbitral court is res 
 judicata is one addressed to Mr. Mariscal, minister for foreign affairs 
 of Mexico, by Mr. Clayton, American minister to Mexico. It is dated 
 September 1, 1897. (Transcript Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 6.) 
 
 The United States addressed a number of communications to the 
 foreign office of Mexico in connection with this claim from 1891 to 
 1897. No answer was made to aiw of them until Mr. Clayton wrote 
 the above-mentioned letter to Mr. Mariscal. To this Mr. Mariscal 
 replied, under date of October 4, 1897, that the propositions laid down 
 in the decision made in the former arbitration "are not exact in the 
 historical conception, nor reasonable in the juridical.'" (Transcript 
 Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 5.) 
 
 Mr. Mariscal's letter was the subject of a repty laid before the Sec- 
 retary of State of the United States by Mr. John T. Doyle. (Tran- 
 script Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 12.) This reply by Mr. Doyle 
 was forwarded by the Secretary of State of the United States to Mr. 
 Clayton March 10, 1898 (Transcript Diplomatic Correspondence, 
 p. 12), and was laid before Mr. Mariscal by Mr. Clayton in an informal 
 way on or before May 4, 1898. (Transcript Diplomatic Correspond- 
 ence, p. 3.) 
 
 No reply having been received from Mexico, Mr. Hay, Secretary of 
 
314 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 State, under date December 4, 1899, addressed a letter of instructions 
 to Mr. Clayton setting forth the views of the United States with respect 
 to res judicata in this matter. (Transcript Diplomatic Correspond- 
 ence, p. 46.) These views were laid before Mr. Mariscal by Mr. Clajr- 
 ton in a conversation which took place between them on December 18, 
 1899. On the following day, December 19, 1899, Mr. Clayton for- 
 warded to Mr. Mariscal a copy of the letter of Mr. Hay, dated Decem- 
 ber 4, 1899. (Transcript Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 11.) 
 
 On June 7, 1900, Mr. Hay forwarded to Mr. Clayton an authority 
 on the law of res- judicata. (Transcript Diplomatic Correspondence, 
 p. 47.) This authority was laid before Mr. Mariscal by Mr. McCreery 
 on June 14, 1900. (Transcript Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 11.) 
 To this Mr. Mariscal made reply in a letter to Mr. Clayton dated 
 November 28, 1900. (Transcript Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 27.) 
 It is from this letter that the extract above quoted is taken. To the 
 arguments of Mr. Mariscal contained in his letter replies were made 
 and laid before the Secretary of State on February 21 and 22, 1901, by 
 Messrs. Ealston & Siddons and Messrs. Doyle & Doyle, respectively. 
 (Transcript Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. 51-66.) 
 
 These replies to Mr. Mariscal's argument were forwarded to Mr. 
 Clayton in a letter written to Mr. Clayton bjr Mr. Haj T , Secretary of 
 State, under date July 18, 1901. (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspond- 
 ence, p. 48.) 
 
 In this letter is contained a suggestion that the claim should be sub- 
 mitted to a new tribunal which should be empowered and required to 
 decide upon the two questions which, by the protocol of May 22, 1902, 
 are submitted to this court for decision. This was agreed to early in 
 December, 1901. (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. 44, 45.) 
 The result was the organization of this court for the decision of the 
 controversy. 
 
 An examination of this correspondence will show that Mr. Mariscal 
 objected to the application of the principle of res judicata to the pres- 
 ent controversy upon two grounds only: 
 
 (a) He questions the competence of the former arbitral court to 
 pronounce the decision which was rendered in favor of the archbishop 
 and the bishop of California and against the Republic of Mexico. 
 
 (b) He also contends that the principle of res judicata applies only 
 to the condemnatory part of a judgment, and not to the fundamental 
 bases thereof. 
 
 These two objections, urged by Mr. Mariscal against the application 
 of the principle of res judicata to the dispute at present before the 
 court, will now receive our attention. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 THE AWARD OF THE ARBITRAL COURT CREATED UNDER THE CON- 
 VENTION OF JULY 4, 1868, WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS JURIS- 
 DICTION. 
 
 There are five grounds upon which we claim that the decision of the 
 arbitral court created under the convention of July 4, 1868, had 
 jurisdiction to make the award which it did make in favor of the 
 archbishop and the bishop of California and against the Republic of 
 Mexico. 
 
 We will state these five grounds in their order: 
 
 1. The first ground upon which we support this proposition is that 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 315 
 
 the arbitral court created under the convention of July 4, 1868, did 
 decicl' that it had jurisdiction and had the power so to decide, because 
 such power is inherent in such an arbitral court. In fact, it is almost 
 axiomatic that the basic proposition which a court decides in every 
 case which it proceeds to try is that it has jurisdiction of that case. 
 In many instances this decision is not final, but is open to review by 
 some other tribunal. 
 
 SUCH REVIEW IS IMPOSSIBLE IN THE CASE OF AN INTERNATIONAL 
 
 ARBITRAL COURT. 
 
 This point is very ably supported in the statement and brief on 
 behalf of the United States (pp. 22, 29), and we shall not here enlarge 
 upon the argument thereof. 
 
 There is, however, an additional authority which we desire to quote. 
 
 This authority arises out of the first convention between the United 
 States and Mexico for the settlement of claims. 
 
 The convention was signed April 11, 1839 (2 Moore's International 
 Arbitrations, 1218). 
 
 A question arose before the commission whether certain claims for 
 damages said to have resulted from the seizure on the high seas of the 
 schooner Topaz were within the jurisdiction of the court. 
 
 In answer to a formal inquiry by the Mexican commissioners to the 
 Secretary of State of the United States, Daniel Webster, who then 
 filled that office, said (2 Moore's International Arbitrations, 1242) that — 
 
 "While it was not the province of the Executive of the United 
 States to express an opinion upon the business which the convention 
 has confided to the board of commissioners," yet he would add for the 
 
 Eurpose of information that "if all claims of citizens of the United 
 tates involved in the case of the schooner Topaz, or in any other cases 
 embraced by the first article of the convention, shall be considered 
 and disposed of by the board according to the terms of the convention, 
 it is certain that this Government will not deem them a subject for 
 any further negotiation with that of the Mexican fiepublic." "The 
 Mixed Commission under the convention with that Republic ," said Mr. 
 Webster, " has always been considered by this Government essentially a 
 judicial tribunal, with independent attributes and powers in regard to 
 its peculiar functions. Its right and duty, therefore, like those of other 
 judicial bodies, are to determine upon the nature and extent of its own 
 jurisdiction, as well as to consider and decide upon the merits of the 
 claims which might be laid before it." 
 
 In considering the character and nature of the Commission created 
 by the convention of April 11, 1839, Mr. Moore says (2 International 
 Arbitration, 1242): 
 
 The same position was maintained by Mr. Webster in other cases. On June 21, 
 1841, one of the claimants, named Santangelo, requested him to direct the diplomatic 
 representatives of the United States in Mexico to ask the Government for certain 
 papers which the Commission had, on an equal division, refused to demand. Mr. 
 Webster declined to grant the request, saying that the functions of the Department 
 of State in relation to the claims were "expressly limited by the convention to the 
 transmission to the board of commissioners of such documents as the Department 
 may receive." Subsequently when the request was renewed he declared that the 
 Executive of the United States had " no right to interfere for the redress of our citi- 
 zens who may suppose themselves to have been aggrieved by decisions of the com- 
 missioners under the convention with the Mexican Republic. That body is in effect 
 a judicial body, and it belongs to its members alone to determine the rights of claimants 
 under the convention." 
 
316 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALITORNIAS. 
 
 2. Our second point is that Mexico expressly stipulated in Article 
 III of the convention of July 4, 1868, that (appendix, p. 32) — 
 
 It shall be competent for the commissioners conjointly, or for the umpire, if they 
 differ, to decide' in each case whether any claim has or has not been duly made, preferred, 
 and laid before them, either wholly or to any and what extent, according to the true intent 
 and meaning of this convention. 
 
 In other words, it was the duty of the commission, and it was given 
 power by the agreement of the contracting parties — Mexico and the 
 United States — to decide whether any claim came properly within the 
 true intent and meaning of this convention. 
 
 The question of jurisdiction raised by Mr. Mariscal is whether the 
 claim upon which the former award was made came within the true 
 intent an r l meaning of the convention of ' Jaly 4-, 1868. 
 
 As toe shall hereafter show, he does not deny tlie jurisdiction of the 
 former arbitral court upon any other ground. 
 
 Article 48 of the Hague Convention, for which see appendix, page 
 78, reads as follows: 
 
 The tribunal is authorized to declare its competence in interpreting the "com- 
 promis," as well as the other treaties which may be invoked in the case, and in 
 applying the principles of international law. 
 
 We claim that this article is a mere codification of the law and does 
 not establish any new rule in whole or in part. We furthermore insist 
 that the authority granted to the tribunal under the Hague Convention 
 is not more comprehensive (if, indeed, it be as comprehensive) than that 
 conferred upon the tribunal created by the convention of Juty 4, 1868, 
 by the above-quoted provision of that convention. 
 
 3. The memorial of the archbishop and the bishop of California was 
 filed with the Commission under the former convention on December, 
 31, 1870. 
 
 After that time Mexico entered into several conventions with the 
 United States, all of which were supplementary to that of July 4, 1868. 
 
 By the terms of these conventions Mexico expressly stipulated for 
 a continuance of the Commission for the decision of cases undecided, 
 and in one of these supplementary conventions she stipulated to revive 
 the Commission after it had expired by the limitation expressed in the 
 vreceding convention. 
 
 The commission was so revived to decide the undecided causes. 
 
 By agreeing for the extension of the life of the Commission and for 
 its revival after it had expired by limitation, in order to enable it to 
 decide cases then not decided, Mexico expressly and'solemnly agreed 
 that the commission had power to decide and should decide the cases 
 before it. 
 
 It was suggested upon the oral argument, by Sir Edward Fry, that 
 these supplementary conventions implied, or might imply, that the arbi- 
 tral court had power to decide some cases, but not necessarily all cases at 
 the time before it. We submit that as all of the cases were before the 
 court, and as the arbitral court was engaged in the consideration of 
 them, that the powers entering into the supplementary convention 
 must be held to have covenanted each with the other that the arbitral 
 court had power to decide all the cases; for it was the duty of the 
 powers, if they claimed, or ever intended thereafter to claim, that the 
 arbitral court had no power to decide any particular case or cases, to 
 withdraw these cases from the consideration of the tribunal. 
 
 Mexico is bound by those express engagements. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 317 
 
 Moreover, she must be presumed to have intended the ordinary conse- 
 quences of her acts. 
 
 4. The jurisdiction of an arbitral court is created by the agreement 
 of parties. The maxim that consent can not give jurisdiction has no 
 application to a tribunal which is created and whose jurisdiction is 
 defined by agreement or consent of the parties litigant. 
 
 It is a universally recognized principle of jurisprudence that ratifica- 
 tion, which is after the fact, is equivalent to precedent authorization. 
 
 If Mexico had power to confer jurisdiction upon the commission of 
 1868, she had power to ratify the exercise of jurisdiction by the com- 
 mission. 
 
 Her ratification might have been in express words or it might have 
 been implied by a course of conduct. 
 
 Her course of conduct might have created against her what is known 
 in English and American jurisprudence as an estoppel in pais. By 
 such an estoppel she would be prevented from asserting that the court 
 had no jurisdiction. 
 
 We Invoke all of these principles in support of our present point. 
 
 Mexico made no objection whatever to the jurisdiction of the arbitral 
 court formed under the convention July 4, 1868, until the writing of 
 Mr. Mariscal's letter on November 28, 1900. (Diplomatic Corre- 
 spondence, p. 27.) 
 
 Mr. Cushing's motion to dismiss the claim "because the injuries 
 complained of were done before February, 1848, and this commission 
 has no jurisdiction of the claim" (Transcript, p. 68), implied that the 
 commission had the power to hear and determine the question whether 
 the injuries complained of were within the true intent and meaning of 
 the convention of July 4, 1868. The very submission of the motion 
 to the commission implied the power and duty of the commission to 
 decide it. 
 
 The objection was not to the jurisdiction of the court to decide upon 
 the claim, although it was stated in. that form, but it was a claim by 
 Mexico that the demand of the archbishop and the bishop of Califor- 
 nia were not within the provisions of the convention. The motion of 
 Mr. Cushing was therefore not an attack upon the jurisdiction of the 
 court. On the other hand, it was an affirmation of its jurisdiction to 
 decide whether the particular claim here involved came within the 
 intent and meaning of the convention of July 4, 1868. 
 
 During the pendency of the case before the former arbitral court 
 it was not intimated by Mexico that she claimed, or would claim, that 
 the former commission had not power to decide this case. 
 
 In the correspondence which took place between the two Govern- 
 ments subsequent to the award of the former arbitral court (Tran- 
 script, Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. 77-83) it will be seen that the 
 jurisdiction of the former arbitral court was not called in question. 
 Mexico represented to the United States that — 
 
 Though the final award in the case only refers to interest accrued in a fixed period, 
 said claim should be considered as finally settled in toto, and any other fresh claim 
 in regard to the capital of said fund or its interest, accrued or to accrue, as forever 
 inadmissible. (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 78. ) 
 
 In his letter of reply the Secretary of State of the United States 
 said: 
 
 I must decline, however, to entertain the consideration of any question which may 
 contemplate any violation of or departure from the provisions of the convention as to 
 
318 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 the final and binding nature of the awards or to pasa upon or by silence to be con- 
 sidered as acquiescing in any attempt to determine the effect of any particular award. 
 (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 79. ) 
 
 To this Mexico replied that the writer intended by this letter "to 
 avoid if possible a future claim from the interested parties through the 
 United States Government, but does not pretend to put in doubt the 
 present award." (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 80.) 
 
 Thus after the decision of the former arbitral court Mexico recog- 
 nized the binding force of the award and in express words confirmed 
 its validity. 
 
 In his argument for revision SeSor Avila does indeed make a point 
 that the claim insisted upon before the umpire differed in some of its 
 features from the claim presented to the Secretary of. State of the 
 United States by Mr. John T. Doyle, July 20, 1859 (Transcript, pp. 
 6-8) and by Mr. Eugene Casserly, March 30, 1870 (Transcript, pp. 8, 9). 
 
 This argument is to the effect, practically, that there was a variance 
 between the memorial and the two communications referred to, but 
 Senor Avila never suggested that the court did not have jurisdiction 
 of the matter. 
 
 The most that can be said for Senor Avila's argument is that the 
 commission should have decided for Mexico upon the ground of vari- 
 ance of decision. 
 
 Variance is one thing, want of jurisdiction is quite another thing. 
 
 Jurisdiction involves the power to commit error. 
 
 And this proposition of a variance was not suggested until after the 
 umpire had made his award. 
 
 Throughout the litigation, therefore, both preceding the umpire's 
 decision and subsequent to it, Mexico impliedly and by a uniform 
 course of conduct conceded to the former commission the power to 
 decide this case. 
 
 Mexico accepted the opportunity of success with its accompanying 
 chances of defeat. She will not y,ow be heard to say, having lost, that 
 the tribunal had no jurisdiction to render the decision. 
 
 Whatever jurisdiction the tribunal had it obtained through the con- 
 sent of Mexico. 
 
 Mexico is therefore estopped from claiming that it did not have the 
 jurisdiction which she necessarily conceded to it and assumed it to 
 possess by her course of conduct at the time. 
 
 5. By the convention of July 4, 1868, it is provided that "all claims 
 on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens 
 of the United States, upon the Government of the Mexican Republic, 
 arising from injuries to their persons or property by the authorities of 
 the Me;dcan Republic," which had been presented to the United States 
 for its interposition with Mexico since February 2, 1848, should be 
 referred to the commission. 
 
 The ratification of this convention of July 4, 1868, took place on 
 February 1, 1869. 
 
 It was therefore competent, under the terms of the convention, to 
 present to the commission all claims for injuries to the persons or 
 property of citizens of the United States accruing between February 
 2, 1848, and February 1, 1869, a period of exactly twenty-one years. 
 The claim here submitted to the former arbitral court was called to 
 the attention of and presented to the United States on July 20, 1859, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 319 
 
 and again on March 30, 1870, by the . communications already men- 
 tioned. (Transcript, pp. 5-9.) 
 
 The claim urged before the former commission was that there had 
 accrued to American citizens on October 24, 1848, and on that da,j of 
 every year thereafter to February 1, 1869, an annual obligation on the 
 part of Mexico to pay the proportion due to Upper California of the 
 annual interest upon the Pious Fund. 
 
 This payment Mexico has withheld. 
 
 The withholding by Mexico of an obligation to an American citizen, 
 when due, was an "injury" within the meaning of the convention, 
 according to all accepted definitions of that word. 
 
 This point is argued to completion by Mr. Do}^ in his reply to Mr. 
 Cushing. (Transcript, pp. 93-99.) 
 
 Mr. Doyle there takes the incontrovertible position that "injury" 
 in law corresponds to the Latin "injuria" and that "any violation or 
 denial of legal right is 'injury,' both by the common law and the civil 
 law." (Transcript, p. 96.) 
 
 It is not to be supposed that two countries would provide for the 
 settlement of claims ex delicto and not for the settlement of claims ex 
 contractu. 
 
 It is evident that in concluding the convention of July 4, 1868, the 
 United States did not intend to restrict the scope of the commission 
 to claims ex delicto. 
 
 We find that as early as April 6, 1861 (seven years before the con- 
 vention of July 4, 1868), Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State of the 
 United States, said in a letter of instruction addressed to Mr. Corwin, 
 then United States minister to Mexico (2 Moore's International Arbi- 
 trations, 1291): 
 
 I find the archives here full of complaints against the Mexican Government for 
 violation of contracts and spoliations and cruelties practiced against A merican citizens. 
 These complaints have been lodged in this Department from time to time during the 
 long reign of civil war in which the factions of Mexico have kept that country 
 involved, with a view to having them made the basis of demands for indemnity and 
 satisfaction whenever Government should regain in that country sufficient solidity 
 to assume a character for responsibility. It is not the President's intention to send 
 forward such claims at the present moment. He willingly defers the performance 
 of a duty which at any time would seem ungracious until the incoming Administra- 
 tion in Mexico shall have had time, if possible, to cement its authority and reduce 
 the yet disturbed elements of society to order and harmony. You will, however, be 
 expected, in some manner which will be marked with firmness as well as liberality, to keep 
 the Government there in mind that such of these claims as shall be found just win in due 
 time be presented and urged upon its consideration. 
 
 It is hardly to be expected in view of such circumstances that the 
 United States would agree to a convention for the settlement of claims 
 ex delicto and omit from the consideration of the convention claims ex 
 contractu. 
 
 Nor is it to be presumed that Mexico had any such thought in mind. 
 
 It is interesting to note in this connection that Mr. Moore says (2 
 International Arbitrations, 1292) that an examination of the provisions 
 of the convention of July 4, 1868, "will disclose the fact that it was 
 framed on the lines of the convention between the United States and 
 Great Britain, February 8, 1853, which Mr. Seward, in view of the 
 success of the London convention, adopted as a model for his claims 
 treaties." 
 
 We have no doubt that a reference to the proceedings of the London 
 
320 PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 convention will show that a large number of the claims there con- 
 sidered were claims ex contractu, and it is undoubtedly true that many 
 of the claims considered and decided before the arbitral court created 
 under the convention of July 4, 1868, were demands ex contractu. 
 
 The convention of July 4, 1868, contained the following clause 
 (Appendix, p. 32): 
 
 It is agreed that no claim arising out of a transaction of a date prior to the 2d of 
 February, 1848, shall be admissible under this convention. 
 
 By the supplemental convention of February 8, 1872, the United 
 States and Mexico gave this clause a binding interpretation. It is 
 recited in the supplementary convention that the convention of 1868 
 was "for the settlement of outstanding claims that have originated 
 since the signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d of 
 February, 1848." (Appendix, p. 36.) ' 
 
 This is the true construction of the convention of 1868, and it is the 
 one which was adopted by Sir Edward Thornton in this case, and also 
 in the case of Belden v. Mexico, also decided by him. (Transcript, 
 p. 588.) 
 
 The former arbitral tribunal had power to interpret the convention 
 of 1868. If it had no such power, it would follow that the moment 
 there was a suggestion made that a particular claim was not within the 
 convention, that moment the arbitral court would cease to entertain 
 the claim. For, if the court had no power to decide that the claim 
 came within the convention, it had no power to decide that it did not 
 come within the convention. But, as we have above shown, it was 
 expressly agreed between Mexico and the United States that the 
 umpire had power to decide in each case whether any claim "has or 
 has not been duly made, preferred, and laid before them, either wholly 
 or to any and what extent, according to the true intent and meaning 
 of this convention.' 1 (Appendix, p. 32.) 
 
 We therefore submit upon the five grounds above stated that the 
 commission organized under the convention of July 4, 1868, had 
 jurisdiction to make the award which it did in favor of the archbishop 
 and the bishorj of California and against the Republic of Mexico. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 IT IS A SETTLED RULE OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 
 THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA APPLIES NOT ONLY TO 
 THE THING DIRECTLY ADJUDGED BUT ALSO TO ALL MATTERS 
 NECESSARILY INVOLVED THEREIN, i. e., IN THE THING DIRECTLY 
 ADJUDGED. 
 
 The leading case in English jurisprudence on the law of res judicata 
 is the Duchess of Kingston's case. This is accepted in America as 
 the leading case in the jurisprudence of that country. By the decision 
 in the Duchess of Kingston's case.it is expressly decided that the 
 principle of res judicata applies not only to the thing directly adjudged 
 but as well to all matters necessarily included therein. 
 
 This rule has been very fully discussed upon the adjudged cases in 
 English and American jurisprudence in the statement and brief filed on 
 behalf of the United States, and no argument need be added thereto. 
 
 It is well, however, in considering this case to keep in mind that the 
 value of the principle of res judicata would dwindle into insignificance if 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 321 
 
 the principle were limited to the thing expressly adjudged and did 
 not include the matters necessarily involved in it, i. e., the thing 
 directly adjudged. Nearly all the litigation in America involving the 
 principle of res judicata arises out of cases where the principle is 
 invoked, not with respect to the thing directly and explicitly adjudged, 
 but with respect to matters necessarily and organically included therein. 
 
 This may be well illustrated by a hypothetical case. 
 
 The judgments of the courts of the American States respecting real 
 property never possess any extra territorial effect. They are not 
 operative as enforceable judgments beyond the limits of the State in 
 which they are rendered. 
 
 There is a provision of the Constitution of the United States, how- 
 ever, whereby it is provided that full faith and credit must be given 
 in each of the American States to the proceedings of courts in the 
 other States. 
 
 It results from this provision that the judgments of the courts of 
 one American State have in all other American States the same force 
 of res judicata as have the domestic judgments of the courts of the 
 several States within their own limits. 
 
 In this juridical matter they are not regarded as foreign states., 
 although their courts are those of independent states and pronounce 
 judgments having no extra territorial effect. 
 
 It frequently happens that a citizen of the United States possesses 
 real property in several or many of the States of the American Union. 
 When he dies, it is a question of frequent dispute to whom his property 
 should descend. Let us assume a case where he is believed to be a 
 widower and is known to have left a number of children by a deceased 
 wife. A woman comes forward in one of the States of the American 
 Union, say New York, and claims to be the widow of the deceased; 
 her claim is disputed by the children. As the alleged widow, she 
 claims an undivided interest in the real property of the deceased. She 
 brings an action of ejectment in New York against all the children of 
 the deceased to recover an undivided interest in the real property in 
 that State. It is impossible for her to bring an action in New York 
 for the recovery of real property in California. Her action in New 
 York, therefore, is limited to real property situated within that State. 
 Her claim of widowhood, however, if established, would entitle her to 
 an interest in real property in California. But upon the trial of the 
 action of ejectment in New York, where the whole controversy is 
 waged over the question of her widowhood, it is decided that she was 
 not the widow of the deceased, and hence not entitled to any interest 
 in his real property in New York. In that action of ejectment the 
 matter directly adjudged would be that she was not entitled to recover 
 possession of any interest in the real property in New York. The 
 matter necessarily included in the thing directly adjudged would be 
 that she was not the widow of the deceased. 
 
 And it is the law, according to the American jurisprudence, that 
 the judgment in the action in New York would include res judicata 
 as to her widowhood and could be so pleaded against her in an action 
 of ejectment involving an interest in real property in California 
 claimed by her under her alleged widowhood. 
 
 This rule is based upon the idea that the question of widowhood is 
 necessarily included in the thing directly adjudged in and by the 
 
 S. Doc. 28 21 
 
322 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 former judgment, although that judgment simply determined that she 
 had no interest in the real property in the State of New York, which 
 alone was sued for in the action. 
 
 If this application of the principle of res judicata were not the true 
 one, we should be overwhelmed with litigation. 
 
 The office and function of the principle of res judicata is to put an 
 end to disputes. It is to the interest of society that when a judgment 
 has once been pronounced between two litigants that judgment should 
 be forever final as to all matters necessarily therein decided. 
 
 Nor is this the only, though the most direct, interest which society 
 enjoys from the principle of res judicata. The existence of that prin- 
 ciple is necessary to the stability of all juridical systems and to the 
 maintenance of respect for judicial officers. Courts and judges are 
 not the fountains but the expositors of the law. In theory and accord- 
 ing to the acceptance of universal jurisprudence courts declare but do 
 not make the law. It would be impossible to maintain the theory 
 upon which judicial tribunals are now sustained if one court were to 
 decide a case one way upon a controversy between two parties and 
 another court of equal rank and dignity were thereafter to decide the 
 case the other way upon the same question between the same parties. 
 
 It is said by Mexico in the diplomatic correspondence and in her 
 answer that the reasons for a decision are not res judicata. We con- 
 cede this point. The reasoning of the judge is not res judicata accord- 
 ing to either the English or American system. 
 
 But there is a very great distinction between the reasoning of the 
 judge and his determination on points which are necessarily, that is to 
 say, organically, involved in the judgment. 
 
 As to those points so necessarily or organically included, the judg- 
 ment has the force of res judicata. As to all points other than those 
 necessarily and organically included, and as to the reasoning by itself 
 (which is something quite distinct from such matters), there is no res 
 judicata. 
 
 For an exhaustive consideration of the law on this subject we refer 
 the court to Chand on Res Judicata (pp. 1-4, 40, 46, 48-51, 60, 65, and 
 127-136). 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 THE OBJECTIONS URGED BY MEXICO AGAINST THE DECISION OF 
 THE FORMER ARBITRAL COURT DO NOT, AS SHE MAINTAINS, 
 IMPEACH THE JURISDICTION OF THAT TRIBUNAL, BUT RATHER 
 ATTACK THE JUSTICE OF THE DECISION UPON THE MERITS. ' 
 
 We have already considered the question whether the award of the 
 former arbitral court was within the limits of its jurisdiction; and we 
 believe that we have shown the award to be within these limits upon 
 five different grounds. 
 
 We shall now directly, but briefly, refer to the points advanced by 
 Mr. Manscal upon which he makes the claim that the decision of the 
 former arbitral court was beyond the limits of its jurisdiction. 
 
 His argument on this point is contained in his letter of November 
 28, 1900. (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 27.) 
 
 The particular portion to which we desire to call attention will be 
 found at the foot of page 28. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 323 
 
 Mr. Mariscal there advances the claim that the decision should have 
 been in favor of Mexico on several different grounds. Now, this argu- 
 ment is not, as he claims, an argument against the jurisdiction of the 
 court, but obviously an argument that the case was improperly decided 
 on its merits. 
 
 Jurisdiction is denned in all systems of jurisprudence as the power 
 to hear and determine a case. The existence of jurisdiction does not 
 depend upon its rightful exercise. A case may be within the juris- 
 diction of a court whether correctly or incorrectly decided. This very 
 obvious proposition has been overlooked by Mexico. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 NEITHER THE CLAIM PRESENTED TO THE FORMER ARBITRAL COURT 
 NOR THE CLAIM PRESENTED HERE WAS BARRED BY THE TREATY 
 OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO. 
 
 It was urged by Mexico before the former arbitral court that the 
 claim presented there was barred by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 
 
 This point was decided against Mexico by the former tribunal and 
 its decision, operating as res judicata, is conclusive now that she attempts 
 to renew the same argument. 
 
 Even though the question were an open one, it would not be difficult 
 to show that there is no-merit in this argument which Mexico advances. 
 
 The two points upon w hich it was shown to the former court on 
 behalf of the archbishop and bishop of California that their claim was 
 not barred by the treaty were these: 
 
 1. By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the Government of the 
 United States only released Mexico from claims (a) brought by citizens 
 of the United States (h) if those claims had arisen previously to the 
 second day of February, 1848. 
 
 The political status of the Roman Catholic Church in Upper Califor- 
 nia was that of a Mexican citizen, certainly (and at the very earliest), 
 till the exchange of ratifications at Queretaro, which exchange occurred 
 on May 30, 1848. Whatever claims existed in favor of the prelates, 
 clergy, and laity of that church, arising out of the existence of the 
 Pious Fund, and held by them to the tune of the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, existed in favor of Mexican citizens. Hence they were not 
 released by that treaty. 
 
 2. The claim presented to the f ormei arbitral court accrued after the 
 ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on May 30, 1848. This 
 is evident, for the demand presented to the former arbitral court was 
 one for interest which accrued on October 28, 18J/B, and upon the 24th 
 of that month in each year thereafter up to and including 1868, twenty- 
 one years in all. 
 
 This matter was argued by Mr. Doyle before the former arbitral 
 court (transcript, pp. 93-99), and to that argument we desire to refer 
 the court. 
 
 In examining this point we may consult with profit the history of 
 the arbitrations between Mexico and the United States, preceding that 
 of July 4, 1868, which will be found in Moore's International Arbitra- 
 tions (Vol. II, pp. 1209-1286). 
 
324 PIOUS FUND OF THE C A.LIFORNI AS . 
 
 XX. 
 
 OF THE FACTS NECESSARY TO AN AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED 
 STATES THE ONLY ONE WHICH IS NOT RES JUDICATA UNDER THE 
 JUDGMENT OF THE FORMER ARBITRAL COURT IS THAT OF NON- 
 PAYMENT OF THE ANNUAL INTEREST SINCE FEBRUARY 1, 1869. 
 THIS FACT IS CONCEDED BY THE PROTOCOL. THE WHOLE CASE IS 
 THEREFORE CONTROLLED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA. 
 
 If we are correct in our contention that res judicata applies not only 
 to the thing directly adjudged, but to all matters necessarily included 
 therein, there is nothing to be decided in this case, except to apply the 
 principle in the present matter. For all questions necessary to sustain 
 our case here were necessary to sustain our case before the former 
 arbitral court. 
 
 A matter is said to be necessarily included in a thing directly 
 adjudged if the thing directly adjudged could not have been so decided 
 without deciding the matters claimed to be necessarily included therein. 
 
 No one of the claims brought forward upon the present arbitration 
 could have been decided against the claimants in the former arbitration 
 without defeating their application for an award. If Sir Edward 
 Thornton, as umpire at the former arbitration, had decided any one of 
 the points against us for which we now contend, his decision would 
 have been against us and in favor of Mexico. But his decision was 
 against Mexico and in our favor. 
 
 Hence all of the propositions upon which we rely here for an award 
 were included in the thing which he directly adjudged. 
 
 It being conceded in the protocol that the installments have not been 
 paid since February 1, 1869, we are entitled by the force of res judicata 
 to the award which we demand in our memorial. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 THE DEFENSE OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS NOT OPEN TO 
 
 MEXICO. 
 
 Mexico claims in her answer to our memorial that this claim is barred 
 by section 1103 of her Civil Code and by an act passed September 6, 
 1894, whereby she barred all debts which had not been presented to 
 her for examination and funding under a decree of June 22, 1885. 
 
 In article 4 of the convention of July 4, 1868 (Appendix, pp. 432- 
 433), provision was made for the payment of the awards made under 
 that convention by annual installments of amounts not exceeding 
 $300,000 in any one year. The awards against Mexico having exceeded 
 those against the United States, Mexico was compelled under the treaty 
 to pay the difference, in accordance with the above-mentioned provi- 
 sion of the treaty. 
 
 _ Her first payment was made January 31, 1877. (2 Moore's Interna- 
 tional Arbitrations, p. 1321.) The second payment was made January 
 31, 1878. (2 Moore's International Arbitrations, p. 1322.) 
 
 The last payment was made on January 21, 1890. 
 
 On March 1, 1890, Senator William M. Stewart, counsel for the 
 bishops of California, addressed to the Department of State of the 
 United States a request for the interposition of that Government with 
 Mexico for payment of the interest from February 1, 1869. (Tran- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKTSTIAS. 325 
 
 script, Diplomatic Correspondence, foot p. 23.) On August 3, 1891, 
 Mr. Thomas Ryan, then United States minister to Mexico, was directed 
 by the Department of State of the United States to forward this claim 
 or demand against the Republic of Mexico to its foreign office. (Tran- 
 script, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 23.) This Mr. Ryan did on 
 August 17, 1891, as will appear by his letter to Mr. Mariscal of date 
 August 17 (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 8), and his 
 report to that effect to the Secretary of State of the United States 
 under the same date. (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 8.) 
 
 Several representations were made by the minister of the United 
 States to Mexico during the following six years; but no answer 
 thereto was ever made until the letter of Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Clayton 
 of October i, 1897. (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 4.) 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that there has been no laches in the prose- 
 cution of this demand. The last payment under the old award was 
 January 21, 1890. The bishops within forty days thereafter requested 
 the intervention of their Government. In less than two years from the 
 last payment under the former arbitration the matter had already 
 become the subject of renewed diplomatic representation to Mexico by 
 the United States. 
 
 We submit further that the statute of limitations is not open to 
 Mexico and we base our proposition upon the reasons here below 
 stated: 
 
 1. Such a plea is not now allowable under the protocol of May 22, 1902. 
 By that convention two questions have been submitted for decision: 
 
 (a) Is the claim as a consequence of the former decision within the 
 governing principle of res judicata? and 
 
 (b) If not, is the same just? 
 
 A claim barred by limitation is as much a just claim as one not so 
 barred. If a system of jurisprudence withholds a remedy through 
 the operation of a statute of limitations it is not upon the theory that 
 the right has been extinguished, but in pursuance of a policy by which 
 it is in effect declared that the law assists those who are vigilant, and 
 not those who sleep upon their rights. The statute of limitations is 
 generally admitted to be one of repose, and not one of presumption. 
 The- enactment of a statute of limitations is based upon the idea that 
 sound public policy requires disputes to be brought to a close within 
 a reasonable period. 
 
 But it is not presumed that the obligation has been canceled and 
 therefore should not be the subject of litigation. 
 
 The function of this tribunal (if the case be not controlled by the 
 principle of res judicata) is to decide whether the claim here made is 
 just or not. 
 
 It is not its function to undertake to determine what the courts of 
 Mexico would have decided had we taken our case to those courts, as 
 suggested by Mr. Mariscal. (Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. 33, 34.) 
 
 2. A statute of limitations is a law of the forum. In this case what- 
 ever the statute of limitations ma} r be in Mexico, it is a law for Mexi- 
 can tribunals alone, and not for international courts. 
 
 3. We submit that it ought not to be, and that it is not allowable 
 under the law of nations for a sovereign, while the claim of a citizen 
 of another sovereign is the subject of diplomatic negotiation between 
 the powers, to pass a law of limitation and thereby bar or attempt to 
 
326 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 bar the claim. This claim became the subject of diplomatic negotia- 
 tion on August 17, 1891. (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, 
 p. 8.) 
 
 And yet Mexico claims in her answer that the claim became barred 
 by a statute of limitations enacted by her September 6, 1894. (Repli- 
 cation, p. 30.) 
 
 4. There is no statute of limitations in international law except such 
 as ma} 7 be agreed to exist for a particular case by provision in a con- 
 vention between two or more powers. 
 
 5. The statutes of limitations of Mexico have no extraterritorial 
 effect and can not destroy the claim of nonresident creditors. 
 
 <\ If Mexico had desired to avail herself of the plea of her statute 
 of limitations, she should have declined to arbitrate or (failing that) 
 she should have insisted upon a provision in the protocol whereby she 
 could have obtained the decision and judgment of the court upon the 
 question whether this claim was effectively barred in an international 
 tribunal by a law peculiar to Mexico, territorially limited, and enacted 
 to control proceedings and remedies in her own domestic courts. She 
 failed to take either of these steps. 
 
 7. Lastly, there is nothing to show that the legislation referred to 
 by Mexico in her answer does bar the claim or demand urged here. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 THE DEFENSES ATTEMPTED TO BE SET UP BY MEXICO IN HER AN- 
 SWER ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT THE AWARD CLAIMED BY 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 We now turn to the consideration of Mexico's answer. 
 
 In her answer filed here Mexico undertakes to set forth certain 
 propositions of fact and law to defeat the award claimed by the United 
 States in its memorial. 
 
 The answer is to be found in the replication (pp. 19 to 36). 
 
 In some of the paragraphs a number of objections are made to the 
 case of the United States. 
 
 We shall proceed to state these propositions in the order in which 
 Mexico states them. 
 
 1. The defense made by Mexico in paragraph (I) of her answer is 
 that the archbishop and the bishop of California have no title by which 
 they are authorized to make the present demand. Mexico argues that 
 she succeeded the Spanish Government and "was, as the latter had 
 been, trustee (comisario) of the fund and, in this conception, successor 
 of the Jesuit missionaries, with all the rights granted to them by the 
 founders." 
 
 The claim of Mexico is that unless the archbishop and the bishop 
 show title in succession and interest to that formerly held by the 
 Mexican Government they are without standing. 
 
 Mexico then proceeds to argue that the archbishop and the bishops 
 claim title by succession through the law of Mexico dated September 
 19, 1836, but that this title is without validity; and, furthermore, that 
 the act was repealed on February 8, 1842. It is further suggested by 
 Mexico that as the act of April 3, 1845, is limited to unsold properties, 
 the archbishop and the bishop could derive no title through that act. 
 
 These arguments of Mexico show that she does not appreciate the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALTFOBNIAS. 327 
 
 claim made by the United States upon behalf of the archbishop and 
 the bishop. 
 
 That position was plainly set forth in this litigation as early as Jan- 
 uary 1, 1875. We find, in a reply of the claimants to the argument of 
 Sefior de Azpiroz (one made before the former arbitral court by Mr. 
 John T. Doyle), the following (Transcript, pp. 470, 471): 
 
 To avoid misunderstanding, I repeat here explicitly that I do hot claim and never 
 have claimed the ownership of this fund for the bishops plaintiffs. The oumership of 
 it was never in their predecessor, Bishop Diego. It was from the time of its creation 
 a trust fund devoted by its founders to the extension and support of the Catholic 
 Church in California. The first trustees were the Jesuits; it will not be denied that 
 they acknowledged the trust character of the estate. They were succeeded by the 
 Crown of Spain, which took of necessity, snd to prevent a failure of the trust, just as 
 in England the Crown takes a trust estate where the trustee dies without heirs, but 
 took cum onere, and acknowledging the trust, as has been shown by the Pandectas 
 Hispano-Mexicanas and other authorities. Then came the Republic of Mexico, which 
 succeeded to the sovereign rights of Spain; she still held and administered the fund 
 as a trustee. She devolved the administration of it on the bishop by the act of 1836, 
 and resumed it to herself by that of February, 1842. During all these changes of the 
 trustees, there was none whatever in the objects to which the incomes were to be applied, nor 
 any pretense of such, nor any claim of a right to make such. The church of California — 
 missionary during its infancy, as all churches were, afterwards fully organized by 
 the appointment of a bishop — was the beneficiary throughout, and neither Spain nor 
 Mexico ever denied the fact until it was questioned for the first time in this proceed- 
 ing by the learned and distinguished counsel who defends the Mexican Republic. 
 
 This same point is enforced in the Diplomatic Correspondence 
 (p. 49) wherein Mr. Hay, Secretary of State of the United States, in 
 his letter of July 18, 1901, addressed to Mr. Clayton, minister of the 
 United States to Mexico, declares that the archbishop and the bishops 
 are themselves, in their right to exact this fund, trustees " for its 
 beneficiaries, the object of the bounty of the founders of the charity." 
 
 In answer to this position of Mexico, we may further reply: 
 
 (a) That the former arbitral court decided the archbishop and the 
 bishop have the right to insist upon the payment to them of the inter-" 
 est due to Upper California, and we maintain that this decision is 
 conclusive. 
 
 (b) That the archbishop and the bishop had and have, for the reasons 
 stated in Point X of this brief, the rights claimed for them before the 
 former arbitral court and before this court. 
 
 (c) That in order to establish that the United States has a right to 
 the award claimed in this case, it is not necessary to establish that the 
 archbishop and the bishop had the right to demand this interest. If 
 it appears that Mexico was under an obligation to devote this money 
 to the support of Catholicism in the Upper and Lower Californias, the 
 United States has the right to demand the portion due for application 
 in Upper California and to distribute it according to its own jurispru- 
 dence. 
 
 (d) That the bishops do not claim that they derive their title under 
 the act of September 19, 1836. They claim that the act of September 
 19, 1836, did not create the rights of the bishop, which are therein 
 granted to him. He held these rights before the act was passed. The 
 act was simply an act of recognition. 
 
 (e) That it is true (as Mexico says) that the act of April 3, 1845, is 
 limited to the debts and the unsold properties of the Pious Fund, and 
 does not include properties that had been sold. But Mexico loses sight 
 of the fact that this act is itself a legislative recognition by Mexico 
 herself of the right of the bishop and his successors to receive what- 
 
328 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBKIAS. 
 
 ever was due to the Pious Fund on account of properties which were 
 sold. The act is not a grant with respect to properties which had been 
 sold, but it is evidence of a general right, being itself an admission by- 
 Mexico. 
 
 Its value as far as property sold is concerned is evidentiary. 
 
 2. The second paragraph of Mexico's answer is devoted to stating 
 its claim that the Catholic Church of Upper California was never made 
 the beneficiary of the Pious Fund either by the founders or by the 
 Jesuits, and hence that Mexico had the uncontrolled discretion to use 
 these funds for the support of missions in countries other than Upper 
 California. 
 
 Our answers to these propositions are numerous: 
 
 (a) The former arbitration court decided that Mexico had no such 
 power, and this decision is conclusive here. 
 
 (b) We have maintained elsewhere that Mexico had no such power. 
 The power was granted to the Society of Jesus and was personal in 
 character. Upon their banishment from the dominions of Spain and 
 upon their suppression by papal bull this power of appointment became 
 incapable of execution. The Jesuits never undertook to exercise it. 
 It was in the nature of a right of reentry upon breach of condition 
 subsequent. 
 
 No advantage was taken by the Jesuits or by anyone else of the occur- 
 rence of the condition specified, which condition happened, if at all, 
 in 1768. 
 
 Our rights arise out of an occurrence which took place in 1842, 
 seventy -four years after the expulsion of the Jesuits. 
 
 The Spanish Government never undertook to exercise any discretion 
 to bestow these properties elsewhere than to the missions of the Cali- 
 fornias, but on the contrary the properties were known from the time 
 of the expulsion of the Jesuits to the cession of Upper California to 
 the United States as "The Pious Fund of the Calif ornias." 
 
 What better name could have been given them? None. 
 
 They were devoted to pious uses. 
 
 These pious uses were to be achieved in the Californias. 
 
 It is true that there was an alternative power of appointment which 
 governmental and papal power had rendered ineffective, which was 
 never exercised, and under which no claim was ever made. 
 
 In English and American jurisprudence presumptions have been 
 indulged after undisputed recognition of title for seventy-five years 
 that the title is supported by a lost deed. This has been done even in 
 cases where the circumstances tended to support the idea that the deed 
 had never been executed. The fiction was indulged for the sake of 
 justice. 
 
 (c) If Mexico had any power or discretion to appoint these funds to 
 missions other than those of the Californias, she never exercised the 
 power. On the contrary, her entire course of conduct- from 1821 to , 
 1848 was an uninterrupted recognition that these moneys were legally 
 and morally applicable to the support of religion in the Californias, 
 Upper and Lower. These were existing rights recognized by Mexico 
 at the moment of the cession of Upper California to the United States. 
 That act did not destroy the rights. 
 
 (d) The case bears analogy to, and may be properly controlled by, 
 the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Terrett v. Taylor 
 (9 Cranch, 43), which we have already cited. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOJBNIAS. 329 
 
 A statement of the facts of the case, and the quotation which makes 
 clear the conclusion of the court, will be found in the Transcript (p. 
 586). 
 
 3. Paragraph III of the answer of Mexico is devoted to sustaining 
 seven positions. 
 
 They are these: 
 
 (a) The Villapuente deed confers no rights upon the claimants. 
 
 (b) "The immutability of a judgment and its force as res judicata 
 belong only to its conclusion." 
 
 (c) The claim for the interest demanded in this court could not have 
 been considered under the treaty of July 4, 1868. 
 
 (d) The demand here made, as well as the demand upon which the 
 award was made at the former arbitral court, were discharged by the 
 treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, of February 2, 1848. 
 
 (e) The claim here demanded was barred by acts passed by Mexico 
 in 1856 and 1859, disentailing and nationalizing church property. 
 
 (f) The claim demanded is barred by the statute of limitations. 
 We shall consider these points in the order in which they are stated. 
 (a) The claim of Mexico that the Villapuente deed confers no rights 
 
 upon the archbishop and the bishop of California has been considered 
 in other places in this brief, and need not here be dwelt upon. 
 
 (5) The proposition of Mexico that "the immutability of a judgment 
 and its force as res judicata belong only to its conclusion" has also 
 been considered elsewhere and will not now be dwelt upon. 
 
 (c) Mexico claims that " the interest demanded in this court could 
 not have been considered under the treaty of July 4, 1868." The argu- 
 ment is that the convention of July 4, 1868, was limited to claims which 
 accrued between February 2, 1848, and February 1, 1869 — a period of 
 exactly twenty-one years. This is the view the counsel for the claim- 
 ants have always taken. We have.never assumed that the former 
 arbitral court had power to award more interest than that which 
 accrued between those two dates. In fact, that was the theory upon 
 which the case before the former arbitral court was tried and decided. 
 It was conceded in the diplomatic correspondence that this is the cor- 
 rect interpretation of the convention of 1868. (Transcript, p. 15.) 
 
 We m ly therefore concede that the arbitral court did not award any 
 interest for a period subsequent to February 1, 1869. And of course 
 the claim here urged is for interest which has accrued since that date. 
 
 (d) The claim of Mexico that both the present demand and the former 
 demand made before the arbitral court of 1868 should be barred by 
 the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is briefly considered elsewhere in 
 this brief, and is fully answered in the brief of Mr. John T. Doyle in 
 reply to Mr. Cushing's motion to dismiss the claim. (See Points IV 
 and V, Transcript, pp. 93-99.) 
 
 (e) The claim of Mexico that the acts passed by her in 1856 and 1859 
 (eight and eleven years, respectively, after the cession of Upper Cali- 
 fornia to the United States), disentailing and nationalizing church 
 propert}', had the effect of destroying this claim hardly needs any 
 reply. If the claim existed in favor of the church in perpetuity from 
 the cession of that territory to the United States by Mexico, it was 
 not within the power of Mexico to pass any act whereby the right of 
 property was barred. 
 
 (f) The seventh point made by Mexico under Paragraph III of her 
 
330 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 answer is that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. That 
 point we have already considered and shall not now dwell upon. 
 
 4. The fourth paragraph of Mexico's answer is devoted to the prop- 
 osition that the Pious Fund was created to provide a fund for the 
 conversion of Indians, and that the Indians have become extinct. 
 Mexico assumes from these premises that the trust purpose has failed, 
 and that the obligation of the trustee can no longer be enforced. 
 
 We have always insisted and heretofore contended in this brief that 
 the trust purpose of the Pious Fund of the Califoriiias was, through- 
 out, the conversion of the natives of the two Californias, upper and 
 lower, and the establishment, maintenance, and extension of the 
 Catholic Church, its religion and worship, in that country. 
 
 We have pointed out that it would be absurd to suppose that the 
 missions were to be founded for the establishment of Catholicism, and 
 should, to achieve the purpose of the donors, be abandoned upon the 
 conversion or extinction of the natives. 
 
 It is hardly open to Mexico, moreover, to claim that, because the 
 natives were unconverted and extinguished for want of the funds which 
 she should have paid promptly, that therefore she should not pay at all. 
 
 In point of fact, however, as the proofs abundantly show, the Indians 
 have not become extinct. 
 
 In the course of this paragraph of her answer (IV) it is admitted by 
 Mexico that among the objects of the Pious Fund was " the support of 
 the church," but it is said that this "was not the principal or direct 
 object of the establishment of the fund, but the means of carrying out 
 the spiritual conquest of uncivilized Indians through the religious 
 missionaries." 
 
 At the time the great contributions to this fund were made the 
 country was in an uncivilized condition, and inhabited by uncivilized 
 _ tribes. The gift was to the missions of the Californias. Those mis- 
 sions had not for their sole object the conversion of the natives. They 
 were religious foundations designed to endure as long as the see of 
 Rome (to which they owed religious fealty) continued to exist. 
 
 It is not true, as claimed in this paragraph, that the purpose of the 
 Pious Fund was the conversion of the pagan Indians "to the obedience 
 of Spanish authority." 
 
 At the former arbitration the argument was made that the Calif or- 
 nian missions were political institutions. It is quite the dominant 
 note in Senor de Azpiroz's argument. 
 
 To that argument Mr. Doyle made a full and effective reply (Tran- 
 script, pp. 463-466, Par. I). We may rely upon this reply to show 
 that the missions were not political institutions. Once resolved that 
 they were not political institutions, it follows that it was not the object 
 of the missionaries nor of those who contributed to the fund to subject 
 the natives to Spanish authority. 
 
 In this paragraph of the answer (IV) Mexico also renews the argu- 
 ment that the discretion lay with her to give or to withhold the income 
 of the Pious Fund from the missions. This claim is contrary to repeated 
 legislative recognitions; among others to the provisions of the law of 
 May 25, 1832, in which it is provided (sec. 6) that the proceeds of such 
 properties shall be deposited in the treasury of the Federal city, to be 
 solely and exclusively destined for the missions in the Californias; also, 
 by the provision in the same act which authorizes the board of admin- 
 istration (junta) to "name to the Government the amounts which may 
 be remitted to each one of the Californias, in accordance with their 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 331 
 
 respective expenses and available funds," the only provision in the act 
 for the disbursement of the fund. 
 
 5. The fifth paragraph of the answer of Mexico is to the point that 
 the right of investing the. Pious Fund and applying the proceeds 
 according to the intentions of the donors of the properties were 
 legitimately exercised by the Mexican Government. 
 
 This claim upon the part of Mexico is largely, if not entirely, 
 academic. Mexico did invest the fund. She did administer it. She 
 did control it. But to the time of the cession of Upper California to 
 the United States (February 2, 1848) she never disputed her duty to 
 pay over these moneys to the support of the missions of the Californias. 
 
 And when she passed the act under which we claim on October 24, 
 1842, she provided that: 
 
 The revenue from tobacco is specially pledged for the payment of the income cor- 
 responding to the capital of the said fund of the Californias, and the department in 
 charge thereof will jxu/ out the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said 
 fund is destined, without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or 
 otherwise. 
 
 By an examination of the act of May 25, 1832, already quoted, we 
 find that these properties were "solely and exclusively destined for 
 the missions of the Californias." The provision in the act of October 
 24, 1842, whereby it was provided that "the department in charge will 
 pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said fund 
 is destined " admits, therefore, of no other meaning than that these 
 sums were to be paid over to the missions of the Californias, Upper 
 and Lower. 
 
 The two acts must be read together, and as by the act of May 25, 
 1832, the property "was solely and exclusively destined for the mis- 
 sions of the Californias," the provision of the decree of October 24, 
 1842, directing the payment of the income to "the objects to which 
 said fund is destined " is a legislative direction to pay that income to 
 the missions or to their use. 
 
 In either event the result is the same in this case. An obligation 
 to pay to the missions is enforceable by the claimants here. An obli- 
 gation to pay to the use of the missions is likewise enforceable by 
 them. 
 
 It may be added in passing that when reading the act of May 25, 
 1832, in conjunction with the act of October 24, 1842, it is well to 
 keep in mind that the Government of Mexico as late as February 21, 
 1842, appointed Gen. Gabriel Valencia to be general administrator of 
 the properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias upon the same 
 terms and with the same powers as were conferred on the board (junta) 
 bythe same department (ramo) by the decree of the 25th of May, 1832. 
 (Transcript, p. 505.) 
 
 We submit, therefore, that Mexico, b} r her act of October 24, 1842, 
 directed the income to be paid to the missions. 
 
 She did not nullify the obligation prior to the cession of Upper 
 California to the United States, and the right which appertained to 
 the citizens of the ceded territory passed with them into their new 
 citizenship. 
 
 We may fairly ask, as was asked in one of the arguments at the 
 the former arbitration (Transcript, p. 586) : 
 
 Can any Government free itself of its obligations to administer a trust by the sim- 
 ple process of denationalizing the cestuis que trust, and transferring them to the 
 jurisdiction of a foreign government? 
 
382 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORWIAS 
 
 6. The proposition advanced by Mexico in Paragraph VI of her 
 answer is the same as that advanced by her in other paragraphs thereof. 
 It is to the effect that she had the right, as trustee to the fund, in suc- 
 cession to the Jesuits, to apply the fund to other missions. We have 
 replied to that point in several rejoinders we have made to various 
 paragraphs of Mexico's answer, wherein she advanced the same argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Whatever power Mexico had in the matter may be laid out of view. 
 She exercised certain powers. In the exercise of these powers she 
 made certain agreements. Those agreements we are endeavoring to 
 enforce against her. 
 
 7. The seventh paragraph of Mexico's answer (VII) is devoted to 
 three propositions: 
 
 (a) That the award in this case, if a^^be made, should be made pay- 
 able in Mexican silver dollars. 
 
 (b) That the division claimed by the United States of 85 per cent to 
 Upper California and 15 per cent to Lower California is unfair. 
 
 (c) That after the Marquis of Villapuente and the Marquesa de las 
 Torres de Rada had conveyed their estates to the missions in 1735, the 
 title of the Marquesa acquired in the administration of the estate of 
 her husband, viz, the Marquis de Rada, was invalidated, and hence the 
 donation to the Pious Fund failed. 
 
 These propositions we shall treat in the order named. 
 
 (a) This point is dealt with in the brief of Messrs. Doyle and Doyle 
 (pp. 25, 26) and in that of Messrs. Stewart and Kappler (pp. 21, 22), 
 and need not detain us. 
 
 (i) This point is likewise dealt with in the briefs of Messrs. Doyle 
 and Doyle (pp. 22-25) and Messrs. Stewart and Kappler (pp. 23 and 
 24), and we shall not discuss it. 
 
 (c) It is not claimed by Mexico that she did not sell the prop- 
 erties belonging to the Pious Fund, including those which had been 
 derived under the Villapuente deed. But she offers in evidence a 
 volume to show that the title conveyed by the grantors to the mis- 
 sions failed in litigation which arose concerning it. 
 
 Even if this were so, Mexico would still be answerable for the prices 
 realized upon the sale of the properties. These properties were in 
 the possession of the bishop in 1842. The decree which Mexico, now 
 invokes to defeat the award asked for here bears date 1749, ninety 
 years before the incorporation of the fund in the national treasury. 
 This defense by Mexico is offered in her answer as though the matter 
 were new to this controversy. It is to be found dealt with, however, 
 in the Ramirez- Valencia correspondence. (Transcript, pp. 518-523.) 
 The whole history of the litigation is stated by Pedro Ramirez in a 
 communication which he addresses to three lawyers of the City of 
 Mexico, asking their opinion upon the matter. If this statement for 
 an opinion submitted by Mr. Ramirez, with the opinion of the attor- 
 neys, is examined it will be found that the facts relied upon by Mexico 
 do not warrant the conclusion which she seeks to draw from them. 
 
 A synopsis of the facts which appear in the "Pleito Rada" are 
 stated as Exhibit B to the Replication (pp. 37-44). 
 
 The facts of this litigation were these: 
 
 The Marquis de Rada died on April 23, 1713. Appraisers were 
 appointed andproper inventories of his estate returned to the probate 
 court. His widow, the Marquesa de Rada, claimed the entire estate, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 333 
 
 "founded on her dowry and the tutorship of the children of her first 
 marriage," as well as on account of other obligations due to herself 
 from her deceased husband. 
 
 The court awarded the entire estate to the Marquesa de Rada on 
 September 9, 1713. (Replication, p. 38.) In 1718 the heirs of the 
 Marquis de Rada claimed that there had been concealment of goods 
 and undervaluation by the appraisers, and that the estate of the Mar- 
 quis was more than sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Marquesa 
 against jt. They also insisted that there should be a surplus, to which 
 they were entitled as heirs. These claims of the heirs were rejected 
 in several of the courts through which the litigation passed. 
 
 It will therefore be seen that the question in the litigation was 
 whether there was an excess or a deficiency of assets. In the mean- 
 time the property which had been surrendered to the Marquesa de 
 Rada under the original award of the court passed to the Pious Fund, 
 of the Californias. 
 
 The controversy was appealed to the Royal and Supreme Council 
 of the Indies at Madrid. By that court the inventories were can- 
 celed, and all persons in interest were remitted to the court of first 
 instance for further hearing and proofs. Its decree was made April 
 16, 174-9. 
 
 On the return of the case to the court of first instance the cause 
 was retried, and finally decided on January 31, 1829. By the judg- 
 ment of January 31, 1829, it was decreed that the missions should pay 
 to the heirs of the Mai-quis de Rada $158,175, reserving questions 
 concerning rents covering a certain period. 
 
 This judgment, in effect, was a decree that the properties of the 
 Marquis which had been taken over by his widow, the Marquesa, and 
 conveyed to the Pious Fund, were more than sufficient to discharge 
 all of her rights by the sum of $158,175, and that accordingly her 
 grantee should pay this sum to the persons legally entitled to the 
 excess. This judgment had not been paid by the year 1842, and at 
 that time certain property held by the Pious Fund yvas seized. 
 
 The properties seized were the estate of Cienaga del Pastor and the 
 Vergara street houses, which were derived, not through the Villapuente 
 donation, but through the Arguellas donation. (Transcript, p. 520.) 
 
 The record does not show how this judgment of $158,175 was dis- 
 charged, nor, indeed, that it ever was discharged, nor whether the liti- 
 gation was prosecuted to other courts and the judgment of January 
 31, 1829, reversed or annulled; but the record does show that the right 
 of the missions as successors in interest to the Marquesa were recog- 
 nized, subject to a lien of $158,175. 
 
 A clear idea of this litigation will be derived from the reading of 
 the document in the transcript (Transcript, pp. 518-523) and Exhibit 
 B, in the replication (pp. 37-44). 
 
 The former arbitral court refused to make any allowance in the 
 amounts decreed to be the principal of the Pious Fund on account of 
 the Cienaga del Pastor, upon the ground that it had been attached to 
 satisfy the above-mentioned lien of $158,175, besides interest, "and 
 there is no evidence in this record that the Government (of Mexico) 
 ever obtained the property or derived any benefit from it. (Tran- 
 script, p. 526.) 
 
 By proof produced before this court through discovery from Mexico, 
 we have shown that the Cienaga del Pastor was sold by the Govern- 
 
334 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 ment of Mexico November 29, 1842, for $213,750, and the personal 
 property thereof for $3,000. (Replication, p. 47.) 
 
 As hereinabove stated, we seek to charge Mexico with these two sums 
 in the event that the whole case is not deemed res judicata. 
 
 It will be seen from the foregoing that the properties of the Pious 
 Fund devoted by the Marquis de Villapuente and the Marquesa de Eada 
 were never lost to it. The only damage which it sustained was to labor 
 under an attachment of $158,175 and interest. Whether that attach- 
 ment was paid or otherwise discharged does not appear by the record. 
 
 It is respectfully submitted that the award of this court should be 
 for the amount asked for in the memorial of the United States, based 
 upon the idea of the principle of res judicata controls here, and failing 
 that, that the award should be for the United States, based upon the 
 demand stated in its memorial as the true amount due in the event that 
 the principle of res judicata is held to not control the decision of this 
 court. 
 
 Garret W. McEnerney, 
 Of Counsel for the United States. 
 
 The Hague, September 25, 1902. 
 
[Submitted by Messrs. Doyle and Doyle.] 
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON THE ANSWER OF MEXICO TO THE MEMORIAL 
 OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 This document has rather the character of an argument than a plead- 
 ing in the modern sense. It does not, so far as we can discover, either 
 controvert or confess and avoid a single allegation of fact in the 
 memorial, but denies the effect of the former decision as res judicata, 
 and seeks to deduce from the evidence given on the former trial a 
 different verdict from what the tribunal then arrived at, as if this 
 were a court of appeal competent to review that former decision, as 
 well on the facts as on the questions of law involved. Such, however, 
 is not the office of this court. The only question it has to decide with 
 reference to the tribunal of 1868 is sharply defined by the protocol 
 under which it is acting, and reads: "Is said claim (the claim on 
 behalf of the Catholic Church of Upper California), as a consequence 
 of the former decision, within the governing principle of res judicata?- " 
 
 What is the governing principle of res judicata? We think it may 
 be defined as a legal principle declaring that "the truth of the disputed 
 right having once been inquired into and decided by the final judgment 
 of a competent legal tribunal, having jurisdiction of the parties and the 
 controversy, can not thereafter be called in question by either of them 
 or by any party claiming or deriving title under either of them. 
 
 In his answer to the memorial the pleader seeks, in the application 
 of the rule " 'res judicata pio veritate accipitur," to distinguish between 
 decisions of courts of justice organized by authority of the sovereign 
 for the administration of justice, which he terms "decisions pronounced 
 by judges invested with lawful authority to decide the case, its reasons 
 and consequences," and these "pronounced by arbitrators, who have 
 no actual jurisdiction nor any greater powers than what are granted to 
 them by the terms of the submission," and he claims, with respect to 
 the latter, a most strict interpretation of everything relating to an 
 action or defense founded on res judicata. 
 
 A general discussion of the differences in this respect between the 
 consequences of an arbitral decision and those of the judgment of a 
 court of law would be inappropriate here; for while there are many 
 different varieties of arbitration, from the wager, left to the offhand 
 decision of some third person, up to the international tribunal, which, 
 under the most solemn responsibilities, decides between sovereigns 
 controversies of the greatest magnitude and highest moment (such as 
 the two arbitrations between the United States and Great Britain 
 under the treaty of Washington), the court is not here required to lay 
 down any general rule for such cases, nor for any particular class of 
 them. We are only concerned here with the value, as res judicata, 
 of a decision pronounced by the international tribunal created by the 
 
 335 
 
336 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 convention between the United States and Mexico of July 4, 1868. 
 For this we look naturally, first, to the terms of the convention which 
 called the tribunal into existence and denned its powers. In it we 
 find that the commissioners were required by Article I, before pro- 
 ceeding to business, to make and subscribe a solemn declaration that 
 they will ' ' impartially and carefully examine and decide to the best 
 of their judgment and according to public law, justice, and equity, 
 without fear, favor, or affection to their own country, upon all such 
 claims above specified, as shall be laid before them," etc. The umpire 
 also is to "make and subscribe a solemn declaration in form similar" 
 to the above. 
 
 The commissioners were provided with two secretaries and empow- 
 ered to hear testimony and decide not only each one of the cases pre- 
 sented to them, but also, by Article III, the question of their own 
 jurisdiction and authority, if questioned. "It shall be competent," 
 says the convention, Article III, " for the commissioners conjointly (or 
 for the umpire, if they differ) to decide in each case xohether any claim 
 has or has not been duly made, preferred, and laid before them, either 
 wholly or to any and what extent," and by Article II "the parties" 
 solemnly and sincerely engage to consider the decision of the commis- 
 sioners, conjointly, or of the umpire, as the case may be, as absolutely 
 final and conclusive upon each claim decided upon bj r them or him 
 respectively and to give full effect to such decisions without any objec- 
 tion, evasion, or delay whatsoever. The Spanish is, if possible, even 
 stronger; they promise — 
 
 Considerar la decision de los commisionados, de acuerdo, 6 del arbitro segun 
 fuese el caso, como absolutamente final y definitiva, respecto de cada una de las recla- 
 maciones falladas por los commissionados, 6 del itrbitro, respectivamente, y a dar 
 entero cumplimiento a tales decisiones sin objecion, evasion ni delation ninguna. 
 
 These are unusually strong expressions on the subject of the effect of 
 the awards, as will be seen by comparison with other conventions of 
 like nature. 
 
 We are not then treating of any informal or extemporized arbitra- 
 tion, but of the determination of a tribunal constituted in all respects 
 on the lines of a high court of justice, composed, too, of men of exalted 
 character, and distinguished as well for moral and intellectual qual- 
 ities as for learning. True, it derived its authority from the consent 
 of the two Governments; but, according to the American idea, on 
 which both the litigant States are founded, the consent of the governed 
 is the foundation of all the just powers of government. The tribunal 
 created by the convention of 1868 may be called, if you please, a com- 
 mission of arbitration, but it was in fact an international court of the 
 highest rank and dignity, just such a court as the present one. It 
 dealt with over eight hundred cases, all of them of magnitude and 
 importance, rendering judgments for and against two sovereign States. 
 
 To ascribe to the decisions of such a tribunal less authority or less 
 effect than to those of any ordinary court of justice is to dwarf and belittle 
 the whole subject. If its adjudications did not possess all the author- 
 ity of res judicata, neither will those of the present court, for it also 
 derives its jurisdiction only from consent of parties, though, unlike the 
 other, it is constituted, so far as its personnel is concerned, ad hoc only 
 and has jurisdiction of but a single case. Now, we ask with all confi- 
 dence, is it possible that, should the decision in the present case be 
 against the United States, the relators will be at liberty again next 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 337 
 
 year, or a year thereafter, to put forward another claim for subsequent 
 interest, claiming that the whole question is still open to reexamina- 
 tion and that the decision your honors make is that of mere arbitrators 
 and does not constitute a res judicata? It is incredible that this court 
 will, in advance, set so light a value on its own judgment, and it is 
 certain that that of the court whose judgment is under consideration 
 has all the weight and force that one to be pronounced here will have. 
 The pleader who drew the answer of Mexico, or at least this portion 
 of it, lost sight, too, of the instruction to be derived from the expres- 
 sion of his illustrious client, the Mexican foreign secretary, who, in 
 his letter to Mr. Powell Clayton of November 28, 1900 (Dip. Cor., 
 p. 35 and seq.), said, with characteristic directness (p. 39): 
 
 Que es un principio admitido en todas las legislaciones, y perteneciente al derecho 
 Romano, el de res judicata pro veritate accipitur, no habra, de seguro, quien lp niegue. 
 Tampoco se dispute que un tribunal o juez, establetido por Arbitraje international, comu- 
 nica a sus redoluciones pronunciados dentro de los limites de su jurisdiction (como la 
 expresa la cita hecha por el Senor McCreery) la autoridad de cosa juzada; pero que 
 deba darse, en la practica, la misma fuerza que a lo directamente resulto en la 
 sentencia para terminar el litigio, a las consideraoiones 6 premisas, no enumeradas 
 expresamente como puntos decidos por el juez, sino simplernente referidos por 61 en 
 los fundamentos de su fallo, 6 supuestos como antecedentes necesarios, por el inter- 
 seado que interpreta la sentencia, eso es cosa muy diferente y sobre la cual no puede 
 haber el mismo acuerdo. 
 
 We quote this passage in the language of its author because, in our 
 opinion, the English version, though generally faithful and idiomatic, 
 does not at this point fully convey the exact sense of the original. 
 The word "legislaciones " in the first sentence is not, we think, properly 
 rendered by legislation, for the author is not speaking of legislation, 
 but of jurisprudence; it rather means systems of law; and the words 
 "las consideraciones 6 premisas, no enumeradas, expresamente como 
 puentos decidados por el juez, sino simplernente referidos por el, en 
 los fundamentos de su fallo, 6 supuestos como antecedentes necessa- 
 rios, por el enteresado que interpreta la sentencia" are not adequately 
 expressed by the English version on page 31 of the diplomatic 
 correspondence. We retranslate the paragraph here, from which 
 the precise extent and materiality of this criticism will appear. 
 That " 'res judicata pro veritate accipitur" a principle of the Roman 
 law, is admitted in every system of jurisprudence, is undeniable; nor 
 is it denied that a tribunal established for international arbitration 
 gives to its judgments pronounced within the limits of its jurisdiction 
 (in the language of the authority cited by Mr. McCreery) the force of 
 res judicata; but that in practice the same authority attributed to the 
 ju Igment which terminated the litigation is to be given to considera- 
 tions or facts leading up to it, not expressly mentioned by the judge 
 as decided, but only referred to by him in reasoning out his determi- 
 nation, or assumed as necessary antecedents to it, oy the interested 
 party, invoking it, is quite a different thing, and one on which the 
 same consensus of opinion can not be expected. I leave to the judg- 
 ment of any lawyer who is a good Spanish scholar whether this is not 
 the true sense of the passage in question. In it the words "no 
 enumeradas expresamente como puntos decididos por el juez'''' (not 
 expressly mentioned by the judge, as s decided) are material and, indeed, 
 controlling. Now, it is certain that the tribunal of 1868, in order to 
 decide the case before it, had necessarily to determine the capital of 
 the fund, the rate of interest it bore, and the length of time elapsed; 
 
 S. Doc. 28 22 
 
338 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 for the demand was distinctly for interest, as such, and the award fol- 
 lowed it; hence it was impossible to fix on the amount due without a 
 computation of which those three elements formed the basis. And we 
 are not left in any uncertainty as to what the court decided with respect 
 to them. We have but to read page 526 of the Transcript, where, in 
 the opinion of Mr. Commissioner Wadsworth (in which the umpire 
 concurs, p. 609), we find that he recognized the capital of the Pious 
 Fund to be $1,436,033, the rate of interest on it 6 per cent per annum, 
 and the time elapsed twenty-one years. These facts were,, there- 
 fore, necessary parts of the decision, and are expressly mentioned by 
 the court as such. The case therefore comes plainly within even the 
 lines laid down by the honorable Mexican secretary himself. 
 
 But, says the pleader, who evidently sees the weakness of his first 
 position, these constituent items, amount of capital, rate of interest, 
 and length of time, are not contained in what is termed the decisory 
 part of the judgment. So that how clear soever the ascertainment 
 and decision of such constituent facts, or however plain_the announce- 
 ment of such decision by the court, unless it be expressed in a particu- 
 lar portion of the decision, it is of no effect. The origin of this strange 
 idea is, we believe, to be found in the enactment of the French con- 
 stituent assembly of 4th germinal, 1790, cited on page 6 of our points 
 heretofore submitted; but what authority has enacted, or could enact, 
 forms to be observed by international tribunals? They make their 
 own rules and devise their own forms of pleading and procedure, 
 controlled only by the conventions which give them birth. 
 
 A witty Frenchman said that while it is true that divine Providence 
 governs this world, it is also a fact that it ordinarily makes use of 
 France for the purpose. Even such a wag as he would scarcely claim 
 for French enactments the control of international tribunals. The 
 question for us, therefore, is, what did the tribunal of 1868 decide in 
 this respect? not in what paragraph or portion of its judgment is it 
 found. Are we seriously asked to believe that the decision by such a 
 tribunal on controverted facts shall depend for its validity on whether 
 it is found on page .7 or page 8 of the opinion of the court or if it is 
 not stated in the precise form prescribed by the French constituent 
 assembly for the courts of that country when remodeling its judicial 
 system and practice a century ago ? We can not think so, and find no 
 ground for such extravagant respect for mere forms, which are neither 
 spoken of nor referred to in the mutual covenants of the two nations, 
 which agree to consider the decision of the commissioners conjointly, 
 or of the umpire, as the case may be, as absolutely final and conclu- 
 sive and to give full effect to such decisions without evasion or delay. 
 How can such effect be given if, on a supplemental bill for subsequent 
 installments of the same interest, on the same capital, the losing party 
 is at liberty to reopen and retry the whole question of liability already 
 tried and determined, and this on the very same evidence? One of 
 the logical effects of a judgment by a competent court as a contro- 
 verted case is to establish the right on the basis of res judicata, the 
 most solid known to the law. To refuse to give this effect to a judg- 
 ment is to deny it more than half its value in violation of the conven- 
 tion. 
 
 A suggestion is made on page 7 of Mexico's answer that the United 
 States has expressly repudiated the application of the doctrine of res 
 judicata to the awards of international tribunals, referring to a cor- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CA.LIFOKNIAS. 339 
 
 respondence with the Spanish minister in 1887 in support of his asser- 
 tion. But this is an entire mistake, resulting from the same failure to 
 recognize the difference between the rule of stare decisis applied to 
 questions of law and the maxim as to the conclusiveness of res judicata 
 as to the facts decided. The discussion related to certain cotton 
 belonging to the Spanish subjects captured and confiscated by the 
 United States after Lee's surrender but before the final close of hos- 
 tilities. The Spanish minister quoted, in support of his views of the 
 law applicable to the case, decisions of the international commission 
 which sat at Halifax to hear cases regarding the Newfoundland fish- 
 eries, which he thought affirmed legal principles favorable to his clients. 
 Mr. Bayard, in his reply, says to Mr. Muriaga: 
 
 I must be allowed to remind you that the decisions of international, commissions 
 are not to be regarded as establishing principles of international law. 
 
 The whole passage is instructive, but wholly fails to touch the ques- 
 tion of res judicata. 
 
 In the opening of the answer the pleader traces the succession to 
 the administrations or management of the trust estate called the Pious 
 Fund through the King of Spain to the Government of Mexico as one 
 of the points on which we agree with him. The fact that King 
 Charles III of Spain, by an act of arbitrary power as cruel and tyran- 
 nical as any that history records, seized upon the properties of the 
 Pious Fund, extruded the trustees selected by the donors, and thrust 
 himself into their places, is true. He became thereby trustee de facto 
 of the fund, and, therefore, we have rightly claimed, and he himself 
 admitted, that he thus became subject to all the duties and responsi- 
 bilities and exercised the powers of such trustee. We do not wish, 
 however, to be regarded as conceding the moral rightfulness of his 
 succession." 
 
 a The act by which he intruded himself into the place is briefly told, as follows: 
 Having secretly decided on the measure, letters were sent to every city where the 
 Jesuits had an establishment of any kind, addressed to the chief local authorities, 
 and only to be opened on a day and hour indicated on the envelope. Under the 
 royal order inclosed every college, noviciate, or other house of the Jesuits was at 
 midnight surrounded by a guard of soldiers, and the inmates, roused from sleep in 
 the dead hour of the night, were assembled in the chapel. There they were informed 
 that His Majesty had been graciously pleased to banish them all from every part 
 of his dominions. A few moments were allowed them to ' ' put on manly readiness ' ' 
 and enter the carriages waiting at the door, to transport them to the nearest seaport, 
 where ships were already prepared to carry them beyond the seas. They were 
 allowed to take their breviaries and beads, a change of clothing and a prayer book 
 or two, and forbidden all communication with their fellow-creatures from the 
 moment when they learned their destiny till they had left the shores of Spain, and 
 thus they vanished as silently as a passing summer cloud, not leaving a trace behind. 
 
 Nos patrise fines, nos dulcia linquimus arva, 
 Nos patriam fugimus.' 
 
 Opinions may differ as to their virtues or offenses, the advantage or disadvantage 
 of their presence in the community, but they were at least human beings. So deep 
 was the shame of the monarch for his act of brutal tyranny that he forbid his subjects 
 to speak of, write about, or discuss it, as His Majesty reserved the motives and causes 
 of it all in his own royal bosom. The document is quoted from memory, but its 
 text is before the court and speaks for itself. Instead of the mass of treasure expected 
 to be realized from the expulsion of the Jesuits, the total amount of money found in 
 all their houses proved less than $9,000. The missions of California, supposed to be 
 plethoric with the accumulated economies of the income of the Pious Fund and other 
 gifts, yielded in all less than a hundred dollars. Knight's English Cyclopedia- 
 Biography, Vol. Ill, p. 960 (Tit. Loyola Ignatius), has a brief colorless relation of 
 the story. 
 
340 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 That by this act of cruelty, however, the King of Spain did success- 
 fully intrude himself into the office of trustee of the Pious Fund is not 
 disputed. But he did not succeed to it by the will of the donors or 
 founders, but by his own act of usurpation. He exercised the powers 
 of the original trustees, and subjected himself to the responsibilities of 
 the office. The beneficiaries remained unchanged, and the trustee, as 
 such, had no power to make any change in the terms of the trust. 
 
 Mexico succeeded to the sovereignty of Spain and to the position of 
 trustee of the Pious Fund, and to the latter by a title, which, if not bet- 
 ter, was infinitely more honorable than that of her predecessor. 
 
 But in considering and discussing this we must not confound the 
 powers of the trustee with those of the sovereign. The latter had the 
 power to confiscate the fund or devote its proceeds to any other pur- 
 poses than those designed by its founders, but it must be shown that 
 such was done by an act of sovereignty, and had such been done, by 
 such an act, we would have been without redress. But neither Spain 
 nor Mexico did anything of the kind; on the contrary it has been 
 abundantly shown that both those Governments recognized the duty of 
 applying the fund sacredly to the objects designated by the founders. 
 Misappropriations of the fund were the unauthorized acts of individ- 
 uals. Wherever the Spanish Crown or the Mexican Government 
 applied any portion of the Pious Fund to secular uses it was recog- 
 nized as a loan; taken "cow- calidad de reintegro" and usually the rate 
 of interest was expressed at the time. It was ordinarily 6 per cent, 
 but in one instance as low as 3. 
 
 The other matters set up in the answer seem but repetitions of 
 grounds of defense urged on the former trial, more or less varied in 
 form. They were answered in our arguments before the commis- 
 sioners and before the umpire in that case, which we could hardly 
 expect to improve even if the exigencies of time permitted the attempt; 
 and we therefore beg to refer to them where they appear in the printed 
 volumes: In the Transcript at pages 99, 462 to 477, and 557 to 574, as 
 well as the arguments on pages 575 and 594, and in the Diplomatic 
 Correspondence at pages 12 to 21, 58 to 66, and those of our then asso- 
 ciate, pages 51 to 58. 
 
 Very respectfully submitted. 
 
 John T. Doyle, 
 W. T. Sherman Doyle, 
 Of Counsel for the Prelates Representing the Church. 
 
 September 18, 1902. 
 
PAET V. 
 
 EXHIBITS. 
 
 Laws of Mexico relating to the Pious Fund. 
 
 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 v. Mexico. 
 
 Powers of attorney from the bishops of Sacramento and Monterey 
 to the archbishop of San Francisco. 
 
 Proof of succession of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, arch- 
 bishop of San Francisco. 
 
 Proof of succession of the Right Rev. George Montgomery, 
 Roman Catholic bishop of Monterey. 
 
 Deposition of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of 
 San Francisco, dated July 24, 1802. 
 
 Deposition of Mr. John T. Doyle, dated August 26, 1902, with 
 exhibits. 
 
 Affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of 
 San Francisco, dated September 16, 1902. 
 
 Answer to Mexican call for discovery with relation to the Indian 
 populations of California. 
 
 Mexican call for discovery, dated August 12, 1902, and supple- 
 mental affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan with relation 
 thereto. 
 
 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. 
 
 Translation of extracts from "Noticias de la Californias." 
 
 Translation of motion and argument of Senor Avila, not sub- 
 mitted to the tribunal, inserted to complete the record of the former 
 case of Alemany v. Mexico. 
 
 341 
 
LAWS OF MEXICO RELATING TO THE PIOUS FUND. 
 
 For the convenience of the court the Mexican laws and decrees 
 materially affecting the Pious Fund case have been collected and 
 chronologically arranged in the following pages. 
 
 May 25, 1832. 
 
 [Leg. Mex. 1827-1834, p. 435.] 
 
 Ley. Que el gobiemo proceda al 
 arrendamiento de las flncas rusticas 
 
 gertenecientes al fondo piadoso de 
 alifornias. 
 
 Akt. 1. El gobierno procedera 
 al arrendamiento de las fincas rusti- 
 cas pertenecientes al fondo piadoso 
 de Californias por termino que 
 no pase de siete anos. 
 
 2. Estos arrendamientos se con- 
 trataran precisamente en publica 
 subasta, en las capitales de los 
 Estados 6 Territorios, 6 en la 
 ciudad Federal, segun la ubicacion 
 de las fincas. 
 
 3. Estos arrendamientos se saca- 
 ran al pregon dentro de tres meses 
 de la fecha de este decreto, por 
 treinta dias, y a lo memos con el 
 mismo tdrmino se anunciaran por 
 rotulones en la ciudad Federal, en 
 las capitales de los Estados y Ter- 
 ritories, en las cabeceras de los 
 Partidos, Departamentos 6 Can- 
 tones en que se hallen ubicadas las 
 fincas, y en los demas lugares que 
 tuviere a bien el gobierno; y estos 
 anuncios se inserteran a lo m6nos en 
 un periodico de la ciudad Federal. 
 
 4. Se sacaran tambien al pregon 
 dentro de tres meses de concluido 
 cualquier arrendamiento 6 
 seis meses sie no hubiere 
 datario. 
 
 Law. That the Government proceed 
 with the lease of the rural property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias. 
 
 Akt. 1. The Government shall 
 proceed to rent the rural property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of 
 the Californias for a term which 
 shall not exceed seven years. 
 
 2. These leases shall be con- 
 tracted at public auction in the 
 capitals of the States or Territories 
 or in the Federal city, according 
 to the location of the property. 
 
 arren- 
 
 3. These leases shall be an- 
 nounced by the public crier within 
 three months of the date of this 
 decree for thirty days, and at least 
 for the same period shall be an- 
 nounced by printed notices in the 
 Federal ,city, in the capitals of the 
 States and Territories, and in the 
 principal places of the districts, 
 departments, or region in which 
 the properties may be situate, and 
 in such other places as the Govern- 
 ment may deem expedient, and 
 these announcements shall be in- 
 serted in at least one newspaper 
 of the Federal city. 
 
 4. The conclusion of any lease 
 shall, within three months, be an- 
 nounced by the public crier, or, if 
 there be no lessee, the announce- 
 ment shall be made every 
 months. 
 
 343 
 
 six 
 
344 
 
 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOBKIAS. 
 
 5. La aprobacion del remate de 
 arrendamiento se hara preVia la 
 del gobiernia, a cuyo efecto se le 
 remitira el expediente dentro de 
 quince dias de verificado aquel. 
 
 6. Los productos de estos bienes 
 se depositaran en la casa de moneda 
 de la ciudad Federal, para desti- 
 narlos unica y precisamente a las 
 misiones de Californias. 
 
 7. Lo directivo y economico de 
 estos bienes, asi por lo tocante a 
 su administracion, como para con- 
 servar e invertir sus productos, 
 estara, a cargo de una junta depen- 
 diente del gobierno por la Secre- 
 taria del despacho de Relaciones. 
 
 8. Esta junta se compondra de 
 tres individuos, uno de ellos ecle- 
 siastico, nombrados por el gobier- 
 no, que se renovaran saliendo uno 
 cada ano, comenzando por el ulti- 
 mo, y podran ser continuados. 
 
 9. Esta junta tendra un secre- 
 tario, con la dotacion de six hun- 
 dred pesos anuales, pagaderos de 
 los fondos de que se trata. 
 
 10. Las atribuciones de la junta 
 seran: 
 
 Primera. Cuidar de que se arri- 
 enden con oportunidad las fincas 
 rusticas y urbanas, pertenecientes 
 al fondo piadoso de que se trata. 
 
 Segunda. Proponer al gobierno 
 las condiciones con que hayan de 
 hacerse los arrendamientos, y la 
 cantidad a que por lo menos debera 
 ascender la renta de cada finca. 
 
 Tercera. Examinarlosexpedien- 
 tes de los remates, y consultar al 
 gobierno si es de aprobarse el 
 arrendamiento, 6 si las propuestas 
 hechas por algun otro licitante son 
 mas ventajosas. 
 
 Cuarta. Proponer al gobierno el 
 numero de individuos que juzgue 
 
 5. The making of the lease shall 
 be subject to the approval of the 
 Government, to which the papers 
 in the case shall be submitted for 
 this purpose within fifteen days 
 after the making thereof. 
 
 6. The proceeds of such prop- 
 erties shall be deposited in the 
 treasury of the Federal city, to be 
 solely and exclusively destined for 
 the missions of the Californias. 
 
 7. The direction and manage- 
 ment of these properties, not only 
 with respect to their administration 
 but with respect to the collection 
 and employment of their proceeds, 
 shall be under the charge of a 
 board accountable to the Govern- 
 ment through the office of the 
 secretary of foreign affairs. 
 
 8. This board shall be composed 
 of three persons, appointed by the 
 Government, one of them to be an 
 ecclesiastic. Commencing with 
 the member last appointed, one of 
 the board shall be retired and a 
 person appointed in his place each 
 year; the members are eligible for 
 reappointment. 
 
 9. This board shall have a sec- 
 retary, with a compensation of six 
 hundred dollars per annum, paya- 
 ble from the funds in question. 
 
 10. The powers of the board 
 shall be as follows: 
 
 First. To see that the rural and 
 city properties belonging to the 
 Pious Fund in question be suitably 
 leased. 
 
 Second. To submit to the Gov- 
 ernment the conditions under 
 which the leases should be made 
 and the minimum sum to which 
 the rent of each estate should 
 amount. 
 
 Third. To examine the papers 
 relative to the making of the 
 leases, and to advise the Govern- 
 ment if the leases should be ap- 
 proved or if the propositions made 
 by some other applicant are more 
 advantageous. 
 
 Fourth. To submit to the Gov- 
 ernment the number of persons 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 345 
 
 absolutamente necesarios para la 
 administracion de las fincas rusti- 
 cas, cuando no puedan arrendarse 
 por falta de postores. 
 
 Quinta. Proponer el sueldo de 
 los administradores, y la cantidad 
 con que cada uno haya de caucio- 
 nar su manejo. 
 
 Sexta. Cuidar de que los arren- 
 datarios 6 administradores presen- 
 ten la inf ormacion de idoneidad de 
 sus respectivos fiadores, y la certi- 
 "fipacion de supervivencia. 
 
 Setima. Presentar a la conta- 
 duria general de propios, la cuenta 
 general de los productos de los 
 bienes del fondo piadoso, acompa- 
 nando las de los administradores 
 cuandolos haya, a, cuyo efecto las 
 exigira de estos con la oportunidad 
 necesaria. 
 
 Octava. Cuidar de que los arren- 
 datarios y los administradores, a 
 su vez, verifiquen a su debido 
 tiempo los enteros en la casa de 
 moneda. 
 
 Novena. Proponer al gobierno 
 las cantidades que puedan remi- 
 tirse a, cada una de las Californias, 
 segun sus respectivos gastos, y la 
 existencia que haya de caudaies. 
 
 11. Elsecretariollevaraunlibro 
 de actas de la junta, otro de los 
 caudaies que entraren en deposito 
 en la casa de moneda, cuyas parti- 
 das se comprobaran con los recibos 
 que expida el superintendente de 
 ella, y otro de las cantidades que 
 se libraren contra 6ste. Todas las 
 partidas, sean de cargo 6 data, a 
 la casa de moneda, las firmaran los 
 individuos de la junta. 
 
 12. El superintendente de la casa 
 de moneda se abonara el 1 por 
 ciento de premio sobre las canti- 
 dades que recibiere en deposito, 
 sera responsable de e"stas, y solo se 
 le pasaran en data los pagos que 
 hiciere en virtud de libramiento 
 firmado por los individuos de la 
 
 that it deems absolutely necessary 
 for the administration of the rural 
 properties, when the said proper- 
 ties can not be leased for want of 
 bidders. 
 
 Fifth. To submit the amount of 
 compensation of the administrators 
 and of the bond with which each 
 must guarantee his management. 
 
 Sixth. To see to it that the les- 
 sees or administrators submit in- 
 formation as to the qualifications 
 of their respective sureties, and the 
 certification of ' survivorship. 
 
 Seventh. To lay before the 
 auditor-general a general account 
 of the proceeds of the properties 
 of the Pious Fund accompanying 
 those of the administrators, if any, 
 for which purpose these accounts 
 shall be seasonably demanded from 
 the latter. 
 
 Eighth. To see to it that the 
 lessees and administrators on their 
 part shall in their turn and at the 
 proper time verify the deposits in 
 the treasury. 
 
 Ninth. To name to the Govern- 
 ment the amounts which may be 
 remitted to each one of the Cali- 
 fornias, in accordance with their 
 respective expenses and available 
 funds. 
 
 11. The secretary shall keep a 
 journal of the proceedings of the 
 board, statement of moneys de- 
 posited in the treasury, the entries 
 in which shall be supported by the 
 vouchers delivered by the superin- 
 tendent of said treasury, and an- 
 other book of the amounts which 
 are drawn against the same. All 
 the entries, whether of debit or 
 credit, in the treasury shall be 
 signed by the members of the 
 board. 
 
 12. The superintendent of the 
 treasury shall receive 1 per cent 
 premium on the amounts that may 
 be deposited with him, shall be 
 responsible for the same, and such 
 payments only shall be credited to 
 him as he may make under war- 
 rants signed by the members of the 
 
346 
 
 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 junta, autorizado por el secretario 
 de ella, y con el dese del secre- 
 tario del despacho de Kelaciones. 
 
 13. La junta, dentro de los tres 
 meses siguientes a, su instalacion, 
 formara su reglamento interior, y 
 lo pasara a la aprobacion del 
 gobierno. 
 
 (Se circulo por la Secretaria de 
 relaciones en dicho dia 25, y se 
 public6 en bando del 1° de Junio.) 
 
 board, authorized by the secretary 
 of the said board, and with the 
 approval of the secretary of for- 
 eign affairs. 
 
 13. The board shall, within 
 three months after its organiza- 
 tion, frame its internal regulations 
 and submit the same to the ap- 
 proval of the Government. 
 
 (Published by the department 
 of foreign affairs on the said 25th 
 day, and promulgated by procla- 
 mation on the 1st of June.) 
 
 September 19, 1836. 
 
 |Xeg. Mex., 1835-1840, p. 194.] 
 
 Ley: Sobre ereccion de un obispado en 
 las dos Californias. 
 
 Art. 1. El gobierno, oyendo a 
 los que por derecho toque, y a los 
 demas que jusgue oportuno, for- 
 mara un expediente instructivo de 
 la necesidad que haya de erigir un 
 obispado en las dos Californias. 
 
 Art. 2. Si del expediente resul- 
 tare haber aquella necesidad, dara, 
 cuenta con el a la Santa Sede para 
 la aprobacion y ereccion de dicha 
 mitra. 
 
 Art. 3. El gobierno escogera la 
 persona que creyere mas conve- 
 niente, de la terna que al afecto 
 forme el cabildo metropolitano, y 
 la propondra a Su Santidad. 
 
 Art. 4. Al electo se le acudira 
 del erario publico con seis mil 
 pesos anuales mientras el obispado 
 no cuente con rentas suficientes. 
 
 Art. §. Durante las mismas cir- 
 cunstancias se le auxiliara del pro- 
 prio erario con tres mil pesos para 
 la expedicion de las bulas y trasla- 
 cion a su silla episcopal. 
 
 Art. 6. Se pondran a disposi- 
 cion del nuevo obispo y de sus 
 
 Law : For the establishment of a bishopric 
 in the two Californias. 
 
 Art. 1. The Government after 
 hearing such parties as by law may 
 be entitled to a hearing on the sub- 
 ject, and such other persons as it 
 may think proper to hear, shall 
 -thereupon make a report with re- 
 gard to the necessity of creating a 
 bishopric in the two Californias. 
 
 Art. 2. If the report should 
 show that there is such a necessity, 
 the Holy See shall be duly informed 
 of the report, for it to approve of 
 it, and create such a see. 
 
 Art. 3. The Government shall 
 select from three nominees, pre- 
 sented by the archbishop's council, 
 the person whom it thinks most 
 suitable, and submit his name for 
 appointment to His Holiness. 
 
 Art. 4. The person elected 
 shall receive from the public reve- 
 nues six thousand dollars per 
 annum, until such time as the 
 bishopric shall be in receipt of a 
 sufficient income. 
 
 Art. 5. During a continuation 
 of the same circumstances the 
 public revenue shall furnish a sub- 
 sidy of three thousand dollars for 
 despatching the bulls and the trav- 
 eling expenses of the episcopate. 
 
 Art. 6. The property belong- 
 ing to the Pious Fund ox the Cali- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 347 
 
 sucesores, los bienes pertenecientes 
 al fondo piadoso de Californias, 
 para que los administren e invier- 
 tan en sus objetos ii otros analogos, 
 respetando siempre la voluntad de 
 los fundadores. 
 
 Se circul6 en el mismo dia 19 
 por la secretaria de justicia, y se 
 public6 en Vando de 22. 
 
 fornias 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 respect- 
 ing tlie wishes of the founders. 
 
 The present was put in circu- 
 lation on the same day — the 19th — 
 by the department of justice, and 
 was officially made public on the 
 22d. 
 
 February 8, 181$. 
 
 [Leg. Mex., 1841-1844, p. 111.] 
 
 Decreto del gobierno: Reasume el gobi- 
 erno la administration & inversion del 
 fondo piadoso de Californias. 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, 
 etc., sabed: 
 
 Que siendo de un interes general 
 y verdaderamente nacionales todos 
 los objetos a que esta destinado el 
 fondo piadoso de Californias, y 
 debiendo por lo mismo estar bajo 
 el inmediato cuidado y admini- 
 stracion del supremo gobierno, 
 como andes lo habia estado, he 
 venido en decretar: 
 
 Aet. 1. 1Se deroga el Articulo 6 
 del decreto de 19 Setiembre, 1836, 
 en que se privo al gobierno de 
 la administracion del fondo piadoso 
 de Californias, y se puso a dispo- 
 sicion del reverendo obispo de esa 
 nueva di6cesis. 
 
 Art. 2. En consecuencia volvera 
 a estar a cargo del supremo go- 
 bierno nacional la administracion 
 e inversion de estos bienes en el 
 modoy t^rminos queestedisponga, 
 para llenar el objeto que se propuso 
 el donante, con la civilizacion y 
 conversion de los barbaros. 
 
 Por tanto, mando se imprima, 
 publique, circule y se le de el de- 
 bido cumplimiento. 
 
 Decree of the Government: The Govern- 
 ment reassumes the administration and 
 investment of the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias. 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, 
 etc., know ye: 
 
 That whereas all the purposes 
 for which the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias is intended are truly of 
 a general and national importance, 
 and should therefore be under the 
 immediate care and management 
 of the supreme government as it 
 formerly was, I have made the 
 following decree: 
 
 Art. 1. The sixth article of 
 the law of the 19th of September, 
 1836, by which the Government 
 relinquished the management of 
 the Pious Fund of the Californias, 
 and the same was then placed at 
 the disposal of the right reverend 
 bishop of the new diocese is hereby 
 repealed. 
 
 Art. 2. The administration and 
 employment of this property shall 
 therefore again become the charge 
 of the supreme Government, in 
 such way and manner as it shall 
 direct, for the purpose of carry- 
 ing out the intention of the donor, 
 in the civilization and conversion 
 of the savages. 
 
 Wherefore, I order the present 
 to be printed, published, circu- 
 lated, and duly observed. 
 
348 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 October &£, 18J&. 
 
 [Leg. Mex., 1841-1844, p. 301.] 
 
 Decreto del gobiemo : Sobre incorporacion 
 al erario de todos los bienes del . fondo 
 piadoso de Californias. 
 
 Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, 
 etc., sabed: 
 
 Que teniendo en consideracion 
 que el decreto de 8 de Febrero 
 del presente ano que dispuso vol- 
 viera a continuar al cargo del 
 supremo gobiemo el cuidado y 
 administracion del fondo piadoso 
 deCalifornias, comolohabiaestado 
 anteriormente, se dirige a que" se 
 logren con toda exactitud los bene- 
 ficos y nacionales objetos que se 
 propuso la fundadora, sin la menor 
 perdida de los bienes destinados 
 al intento; y considerando asi 
 mismo, que esto solo puede conse- 
 guirse capitalizando los propios 
 bienes 6 imponiendolos a re"dito, 
 bajo las debidas seguridades, para 
 evitar asi los gastos de administra- 
 cion y cualesquiera otros que pue- 
 dan sobrevenir; usando de las 
 facultades que me concede la sep- 
 tima de las bases acordadas en 
 Tacubaya y sancionadas por la 
 nacion, he tenido a bien decretar 
 lo siguiente: 
 
 Art. 1°. Las fincas rusticas y 
 urbanas, los creditos activos y 
 demas bienes pertenecientes al 
 fondo piadoso de Californias, 
 quedan incorporados al erario 
 nacional. 
 
 2°. Se procedera por el minis- 
 terio de hacienda k la venta de las 
 fincasy demas bienes pertenecientes 
 al fondo piadoso deCalifornias, por 
 el capital que representen al 6 por 
 100 de sus productos anuales, y 
 la hacienda publica roconocera al 
 redito del mismo 6 por 100 el . 
 total producido de estas enagena- 
 ciones. 
 
 3°. La renta del tabaco queda 
 hipotecada especialmente al pago 
 de los reditos correspondientes al 
 
 Decree of the Government: Respectinj 
 the incorporation into the public treas 
 ury of all the properties of the Piou 
 Fund* of the Californias. 
 
 Antonia Lopez de Santa Anna 
 etc., know ye: 
 
 That whereas the decree of Feb 
 ruary 8 of the present year, di 
 recting that the administratior 
 and care of the Pious Fund of tht 
 Californias should redevolve or 
 and continue in the charge of the 
 Government, as had previously 
 been the case, was intended to 
 fulfill most faithfully the benefi- 
 cent and national objects designed 
 by the foundress without the 
 slightest diminution of the proper- 
 ties destined to the end; and 
 whereas the result can only be 
 attained by capitalizing the funds 
 and placing them at interest on 
 proper securities, so as to avoid 
 the expenses of administration 
 and the like, which may occur, 
 in virtue of the power conferred 
 on me by the seventh article of 
 the bases of Tacubaya, and sanc- 
 tioned by the nation, I have de- 
 termined to decree as follows: 
 
 Art. 1. The real estate, urban 
 and rural, the credits, and all 
 other property belonging to the 
 Pious Fund of the Californias are 
 incorporated into the national 
 treasury. 
 
 2. The minister of the treasury 
 will proceed to sell the real estate 
 and other property belonging to 
 the Pious Fund of the Californias 
 for the capital represented by their 
 annual product at 6 per cent per 
 annum. And the public treasury 
 will acknowledge an indebtedness 
 of 6 per cent per annum on the 
 total proceeds of the sales. 
 
 3. The revenue from tobacco is 
 specially pledged for the payment 
 of the income corresponding to the 
 
PIQUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 349 
 
 capital del ref erido fondo de Cali- 
 fornias, y la direccion del ramo 
 entregara las cantidades necesarias 
 para cumplir los objetos a que 
 esta destinado el mismo fondo, sin 
 deduccion alguna por gastos de 
 administration, ni otro alguno. 
 
 Por tanto, etc. 
 
 capital of the said fund of the 
 Californias, and the department in 
 charge thereof will pay over the 
 sums necessary to carry on the 
 objects to which said fund is des- 
 tined without any deduction for 
 costs, whether of administration 
 or otherwise. 
 Wherefore, etc. 
 
 April 3, 181,6. 
 
 [Leg. Mex. 1845-1850, p. 13.] 
 
 Ley : Sobre devolution de creVlitos y bienes 
 del fondo piadoso de Californias. 
 
 El Excmo. Sr. presidente inte- 
 rino se ha servido dirigirme el 
 decreto que sigue: 
 
 Jose Joaquin de Herrera, general 
 de division y presidente interino 
 de la Repiiblica mexicana, a los 
 habitantes de ella, sabed: 
 
 Que el congreso general ha 
 decretado yel ejecutivo sancionado, 
 lo siguiente: 
 
 Los creditos y los demas bienes 
 del fondo piadoso de Californias 
 que existan invendidos, se devol- 
 veranimmediatamenteal reverendo 
 obispo de aquella mitra y sus 
 sucesores, para los objetos de que 
 habla el art. 6° de la ley de 29 
 de Setiembre de 1836, sin perjui- 
 cio de lo que el congreso resuelva 
 acerca de los bienes que estan 
 enajenados. 
 
 Law: For the restitution of the interests 
 and properties of the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias. 
 
 The most excellent president ad 
 interim has been pleased to for- 
 ward to me the following decree: 
 
 Jose Joaquin de Herrera, general 
 of division and president ad inter- 
 im of the Mexican Republic, to 
 the inhabitants thereof: 
 
 Know ye that the general Con- 
 gress has decreed and the execu- 
 tive sanctioned the following: 
 
 The credits and other properties 
 of the Pious Fund of the Califor- 
 nias which are now unsold shall 
 be immediately returned to the 
 reverend bishop of that see and 
 his successors, for the purposes 
 mentioned in article 6 of the law 
 of September 29, 1836, without 
 prejudice to what Congress maj' 
 resolve in regard to the property 
 that has been alienated. 
 
 TRANSLATION OF EXTRACTS REFERRED TO IN THE "BRIEF 
 HISTORY OF THE PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS," AND TO 
 BE FOUND ON PAGES 187 TO 221 OF THE RECORD IN THE 
 CASE OF ALEMANY v. MEXICO. 
 
 EXTRACTS PROM THE WORK ENTITLED "ACCOUNT OF CALIFORNIA, AND OF ITS TEM- 
 PORAL AND SPIRITUAL CONQUEST UP TO THE PRESENT TIME, TAKEN FROM THE MANU- 
 SCRIPT HISTORY, MADE IN MEXICO IN THE YEAR 1739, BY FATHER MIGUEL VENEGAS, 
 OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, AND FROM OTHER REPORTS AND ACCOUNTS, ANCIENT 
 AND MODERN, DEDICATED TO THE KING OUR LORD BY THE SOCIETY OF JESUS OF 
 THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE INQUISITION, 1757." MADRID: PRESS OF THE WIDOW 
 OF MANUEL FERNANDES AND THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE INQUISITION, 1757. 
 
 This work is commonly called Venegas' California, by which title we 
 have cited it. It is believed to have been compiled from Venegas' 
 MS. , and original documents by Andres Marc Buriel. 
 
350 PIOUS FUND OP THE califobnias. 
 
 In the early part of the year 1697 Father Salva-Tierra, having beer 
 given permission by the superiors of the society to ask alms witf 
 which to undertake a work that the Kings with such increased 
 expenses could not accomplish, arrived in Mexico from Tepotzotlan, 
 He found in Mexico a good companion in Father Juan Ugarte, who was 
 reading philosophy in the college. Father Ugarte was imbued alsc 
 with the same desire for this undertaking. Among other qualities 
 which made him highly esteemed within and without the house, was 
 a singular ability for dealing with temporal affairs and for bringing 
 them to successful culmination. 
 
 The spiritual conquest of California could not be undertaken unless 
 there should remain in Mexico an active and diligent agent (procura- 
 dor) who would overcome any difficulties and look after the collecting 
 and forwarding of continued support to those who were engaged in the 
 work. Father Ugarte did this with zealous activity, thus aiding from 
 Mexico the conquest which Father Salva-Tierra took up in California. 
 
 God rewards the constancy of His servants after having purified 
 them, since in the remaining days of January Don Alonso Davalos, 
 Count of Miravalles, and Don Matheo Fernandez de la Cruz, Marquis 
 de Buena Vista, promised them about two thousand dollars, and, fol- 
 lowing their example, from other benefactors they collected about 
 fifteen thousand — five (thousand) cash and ten (thousand) on promise. 
 Don Pedro Gil de la Sierpe, treasurer of Acapulco, offered to lend a 
 vessel for the transportation and to present them with a small launch. 
 But as this did not assure the conquest, since it had no estate with 
 annual incomes, the congregation of Our Lady of Sorrows of Mexico, 
 founded in the College of San Pedro and San Pablo, gave eight thou- 
 sand dollars for the establishment of a mission, to which was after- 
 wards added two thousand more, because an annual income of five 
 hundred dollars was deemed indispensable for each mission, since the 
 location was remote and without supplies. In addition Don Juan 
 Cavallero y Ozio, priest in the city of Quereto, agent of the Inquisi- 
 tion, a man of great wealth and of no less religious liberality, to which 
 his famous pious works all over the Kingdom testify, offered twenty 
 thousand dollars for the endowment of two other missions and prom- 
 ised Father Salva-Tierra that he would cash all drafts bearing his 
 (Father Salva-Tierra's) signature. 
 
 With such an auspicious beginning it now seemed necessary to ask 
 authority from the viceroy, who at that time was His Excellency Don 
 Joseph de Sarmiento y Valladares, Count of Montezuma, distinguished 
 knight, whose memory should never be forgotten by New Spain and, 
 much less, by the society. The father provincial, Juan de Palacios, 
 addressed this officer by means of a carefully drawn-up memorial. 
 There were great embarrassments in the royal assembly, but after 
 some representation, and inasmuch as now nothing was asked of the 
 King, and as, according to the royal accounts, which were examined, 4 
 the expedition of Admiral Otondo had cost His Majesty two hundred 
 and twenty -five thousand four hundred dollars, the authority was at last 
 granted on the 5th of February, 1697— a special day for the society, 
 because the feast of the three Japanese martyrs is celebrated on that 
 day. The venerable Father Juan Maria Salva-Tierra received the 
 despatches permitting him and Father Kino to enter California upon 
 two conditions: First, that they should incur no cost or charge against 
 the royal treasury without an express order of the King, and, second, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 351 
 
 that they should take possession of the country in the name of His 
 Majesty. Their powers were construed to be, to take with them at 
 their own cost soldiers, who should escort them; to elect their com- 
 mander; to dismiss him or the soldiers upon making a report to the 
 viceroy; that the soldiers be furnished with all necessaries and their 
 services be rewarded as though rendered in active war, and, lastly, 
 that the fathers should appoint justices in the new country for good 
 government. (Part 3, sec. 1, Vol. 2, p. 11, etc.) 
 
 This apostolic Jesuit (Father Kino), who, as we remarked, had 
 enthused Salvo-Tierra to undertake the enterprise in California, had 
 endeavored, from Sonora, where, on account of physical disability, he 
 was held prisoner, to support the work by collecting alms and sending 
 through the ports of Guaymas and Hiaqui furniture, milk animals, 
 and supplies gathered in the mines and missions. But his great mind 
 was not limited to the present time, nor to little things, nor was that 
 of the venerable Salva-Tierra. Both hoped to conquer, and make sub- 
 ject to God and the King, the vast countries of America which border 
 upon the Pacific, one of them spiritual conquests through the north of 
 California, and the other across the American continent at least as far 
 as the country along the frontier of the port of Monterey and Cape 
 Mendocino, in case California was found not to be an island, Christian- 
 izing the intermediate countries. These great men could not execute 
 all they had planned, nor have the Jesuits, who succeeded them in 
 their missions and work; hitherto been able to accomplish it. (Part 3, 
 sec. 5, vol. 2, p. 75.) 
 
 In this same year (1716) the venerable Father Salva-Tierra had, among 
 many trials, the consolation of seeing secured in the way he desired 
 the donations made by different benefactors of the missions already 
 founded and a better form of temporal government established. This 
 affords us the opportunity of touching upon the spiritual and temporal 
 branches of the policy inaugurated in California by Father Salva- 
 Tierra, before we give an account of his death. Immediately upon his 
 arrival in California, the venerable father saw that it was necessary 
 to have in Mexico an agent (procurado), whose duty it should be to 
 collect the incomes for the missions founded, alms and assistance con- 
 tributed by benefactors — the goods, clothing, and provisions which 
 should be bought for the fathers, soldiers, and seamen engaged in the 
 " reduction," and for the churches and Indians; that he should also be 
 charged with the despatch of any business of the mission pending 
 before the real audiencia or the viceroy; that he should look after the 
 purchase, construction, and repair of vessels; and in a word, that he 
 should watch over the temporal needs of so distant, so dangerous, and 
 yet necessary an undertaking. Father Juan Ugar te was charged with 
 this duty for the first few years, until he became a missionary. Father 
 Alexander Romano, of the order of JV. P. General, succeeded him as 
 agent of California, representing Father Salva-Tierra, so that the 
 latter had only to conduct the affairs of the missions. This was not 
 only because there was needed an agent unhampered by any other occu- 
 pation, but also in order that the funds of California sliould not in any 
 way he mixed with others of the colleges or of the province: and that 
 they should not he touched, confused, or em/ployed for any other purpose 
 than that desired hy the henef actors. Father Romano carried on this 
 work for eighteen years with great zeal — until, in 1719, he became 
 provincial of New Spain. Father Joseph de Escheverria succeeded 
 
352 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 him for eleven years — until 1729 — when he was appointed inspector o 
 California. Brother Francisco Tompes then succeeded to the post an< 
 served with great activity and benefit to the mission until his death ii 
 May, 1750. 
 
 The sum allowed by the King for the missions of New Spain, no 
 only for those administered by the Jesuits, but also by other sacrec 
 orders, is three hundred dollars annually, which may be used for sup 
 port of the missionary and to meet his expenses with the Indians 
 unconverted as well as converted. This amount, which may seen 
 excessive to the inexperienced in Europe, is, in fact, very little ir 
 America, especially with respect to remote missions, not only because 
 of the lesser estimation in which silver is held for purposes of exchange 
 and trade, but also because of the high price of European goods, anc 
 even more because of the difficulty and expense of transpoi'ting tnem. 
 which at times do not arrive wholly undamaged. Because what musi 
 it cost to undertake a journey of four or five hundred or even more 
 leagues through uninhabited country, for the most part, over rugged 
 mountains for many leagues, it being necessary to carry all the food 
 for themselves and for their pack horses on the road? The sum allot- 
 ted each missionary was fixed at five hundred dollars annually, as in 
 California the expenses were much increased because of its remote- 
 ness, the expense of transportation, loss of supplies, and barrenness of 
 the land even for the supply of food; and, accordingly, those who 
 desired to found a mission gave ten thousand dollars, the interest of 
 which, placed at five per cent, yielded the necessary sum for the sup- 
 port of the missionary. All the missions of California are up to this 
 time the foundations of private parties, and none depend upon the 
 royal treasury; because, although His Majesty directed that new mis- 
 sions be founded on his account, this has not yet been done. The ben- 
 efactors and founders did not turn over these donations to the society, 
 but retained them, paying only the interest each year from the found- 
 ing of the mission, until Father Juan Maria de Salva-Tierra, being 
 provincial and on a visit to California, thought it would be better to 
 invest the principals in country estates, not only because they would 
 not be risked in the whirl of their owners' trade (as happened in the 
 case of Don Juan Bautista Lopez, founder of San Juan de Ligui, who 
 lost his property, and with it that of that mission), but also because 
 California being obliged for its maintenance to buy in New Spain cattle 
 and provisions these could be supplied at less cost from the output of 
 its own estates. 
 
 He asked the opinion of Father Ugarte, in whom he had much con- 
 fidence because of his great virtue and intelligence. Father Ugarte 
 praised and approved the plan. Having returned to Mexico to settle 
 this matter, with the customary reflection and wisdom of the society, 
 he submitted it to the provincial council. All the fathers, including 
 Father Alexander Romano, agent of California, and shortly afterwards' 
 provincial, approved the plan. Only one adviser hesitated, doubting 
 whether it was in conformity with the rule of the society to have mis- 
 sions endowed with productive estates or otherwise. One objection, 
 however, could not prevail against the determined views of the others. 
 Nevertheless, it sufficed for Father Juan Maria to hold the matter in 
 abeyance until he could consult the father-general and receive his 
 opinion from Rome. The father-general replied that it was not against 
 the rule to hold missions endowed with estates, or in any other man- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE C ALIFORM AS. 353 
 
 ner, since, in the eighth general congregation, by decree 27, thanks 
 were directed to be given, in the name of the society, to Don Fernando 
 Fuste, to Don Fernando Fustemberg, bishop, and Prince of Munster 
 and Paderborn, for the endowment which he made of fifteen missions 
 in Japan, in Germany, and other places in the north; that these foun- 
 dations should be regarded in the same way as those of the colleges 
 (since, although the Jesuits can receive no salary, compensation, or 
 alms for their ministrations, it is necessary that the society attend to 
 providing food and clothing for them), and that for this purpose 
 there may be estates and endowments in those places where alms can 
 not be solicited for their support, as is done by the higher branches 
 of the church, which are the nouses of the professed in which endow- 
 ments can not be made even for the churches. 
 
 This letter reached Father Salva-Tierra in the year 1716, and he 
 forthwith directed Father Romano to collect the property and pur- 
 chase country estates, which he should administer for the benefit of 
 the mission. This was accomplished by the purchase in turn of the 
 estates of Guadalupe, vn the valley ofAcolmdn or Oculma, Huasteca de 
 Ovejas of Suapango, and of Arroyo- Sarco. 
 
 There was employed in the purchase of these estates all the princi- 
 pal of the seven missions already founded and in existence up to the 
 death of Father Salva-Tierra; also, five thousand dollars bequeathed 
 to California in the will of his excellency the viceroy, Duke of Abrantes 
 and Linares; another four thousand dollars from a gentleman of 
 Guadalajara, and a large part of the lesser alms contributed by differ- 
 ent persons to the mission. (Part 3, sec. 11, vol. 2, pp. 230-236.) 
 
 On the 13th of November, 1744, an exhaustive cedula was despatched 
 by King Philip V to his excellency the Count of Fuen-Clara, viceroy, 
 and other cedulas to several private persons, requesting reports upon 
 various important subjects. Father Christoval de Escobar y Llamas, 
 provincial of Mexico, forwarded a very extensive report, signed on 
 the 30th of November, 1745. This reached Madrid on the 9th of July, 
 1746, when our most virtuous monarch, Fernando VI, had ascended 
 the throne. The King was animated with the same zeal and magna- 
 nimity as his glorious father. Upon the advice of the council, reported 
 to His Majesty by his excellency the Marquis de la Ensenada, then 
 secretary of state and of the Indian office, his royal mind being inclined 
 to a favorable view, the King commanded the issuing of a cedula 
 broader in its terms than the earlier one, which he ordered to be 
 inserted, addressed to his excellency the present viceroy of New Spain. 
 This decree it has seemed to me well to copy, because no document 
 can more truly show the sovereign and august intentions and ardent 
 zeal of both monarchs, the wisdom, circumspection, and foresight of 
 their supreme council, and the broad views, prudence, religion, and 
 energy of their ministers. It reads, then, as follows: 
 
 The King, to Don Juan Francisco de Guemes y Horcasilas, lieutenant-general of my most 
 royal armies, viceroy, governor, and captain-general of the province of New Spain, and 
 president of my real audiencia there, residing in the City of Mexico: 
 
 On the 13th of November, 1744, a cedula of the following tenor was sent to the 
 Count of Fuen-Clara, your predecessor in office. 
 
 [Here follows the royal cedula of King Fernando Trivino, printed in the Transcript 
 at pp. 436-441.] 
 
 And now being informed that the aforesaid viceroy, Count of Fuen-Clara, has 
 
 S. Doc. 28 23 
 
354 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 received the present decree, and that he had begun to collect information and to 
 take the other necessary measures to facilitate the execution of its demands, and 
 bearing in mind that upon your arrival, and with the indispensable occupations of 
 entry into your government, it will not be possible to make much headway in the 
 matter; and, finally, a full report having been received from Father Christoyal de 
 Escoval y Llamas, provincial of that province, of the Society of Jesus, written in 
 that capital on the 30th of November, 1745, to carry out what was advised by the 
 decree of even date with the one above inserted, which report contains information 
 of the greatest importance, and sets forth the situation, climate and conditions of 
 the above referred to province of California, and the great difficulties which are 
 encountered to congregate the natives into towns, because of the barrenness of the 
 land in much of the province, and of even greater difficulties m founding bpamsh 
 posts, and of providing them and the converted Indians with all necessities, and sug- 
 gests, at the same time, the means and expedients by which these difficulties and 
 Imbarrassments may be overcome. All this having been taken into consideration 
 by my council of the Indies with the foregoing information on the subject, and hav- 
 ing considered the statement made by my attorney, laid before me on the 24th of 
 August, of this year, I have determined to transmit to you a copy of the aforesaid 
 report of the father provincial, and to direct and command you, as in fact do, that 
 being advised perfectly of its contents, you take steps to inform yourself concerning 
 persons that seem more suitable to attain the desired result, and that you consider 
 and deliberate fully upon all the matters in the communication of the aforesaid 
 father provincial; and tlmt after considering the practicability or impracticability of the 
 means and expedients proposed, you yourself shall determine, without awaiting further 
 orders, upon the putting into efecfof those measures that may seem most practicable for 
 the accomplishment of the objects set forth in the decree, above inserted, so far as may be 
 possible, and should there be no serious obstacle or danger, bearing m mind the condition 
 of my royal treasury in your provinces, so that no exorbitant or unnecessary expenses may 
 be incurred; « and you will report as often as opportunity may offer upon the progress 
 that is being made in this very important affair, which at the same time concerns 
 the propagation of our holy faith, my royal service, and the security and defense of 
 the tribes already conquered and converted; and I especially charge you that, after 
 conferring with the aforesaid persons, you seriously consider the advisability of com- 
 pleting the conversion of the Seris tribe, bordering upon the province of Sonora; that 
 of the Pymos Altos, and that of the Papagos, taking care also to restrain and prevent 
 the continued unfriendliness and hostilities of the Apache tribe; and, in the same 
 manner, I direct you to use your authority with the new bishop of Durango in order 
 that from this time he may approve the concessions which the same father provincial 
 made to your predecessor of twenty-two missions, which are suitable for parishes 
 for secular clergy, so far as may be advisable: This being my will. 
 Dated in Buen-Retiro, December 4, 1747. 
 
 I, the King. 
 
 By command of our lord the King; 
 
 Don Fernando Trivino. 
 
 (Part 3, sec. 21, vol. 2, pp. 500-520.) 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE WORK ENTITLED " HISTORY OP CALIFORNIA, POSTHUMOUS WORK 
 OF THE NOBLE ABBOT DON FRANCISCO SA VERIO CLAVIGERO." VENICE, 1789. 
 
 Besides this gift of the viceroy, there was another from the pious 
 Marquis of Villapuente, who, desirous of the conversion of the heathen, 
 contributed the capital for the foundation of a new mission in the port 
 of "La Paz," and wanted the same Father Bravo to be the founder. 
 This man willingty took charge of this arduous and dangerous task, 
 
 « In the paper entitled " Establecimento y progresos de las missiones de la Antigua 
 California, dispuestos por un religioso del santo evangelio de Mexico," which forms 
 the fifth volume of the "Documentos para la historia de Mexico, cuarta serie," the 
 receipt of the foregoing cedula is mentioned as follows: 
 
 "On the 3d of November, 1744, a royal cedula arrived which was very honorable 
 to California, and in terms which would have been very useful, if they could hare been 
 carried out without expense to the royal treasury, for which reasons its execution was sus- 
 pended." 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIFORNXA.S. 355 
 
 and having bought all that was necessary at that time for the colony 
 he embarked from Acapulco, in the new boat borrowed from the 
 viceroy, and reached Loreto. (Vol. 2, p. 19.) 
 
 We can not say in particular what Father Guillen had to do and 
 suffer in the foundation of that mission and in the twenty -five years 
 while he was in charge of it, but it is known that with indescribable 
 sufferings he passed through the woods and congregated the scattered 
 Indians in new populations, three of which were joined to the mission 
 of St. Louis Gonzaga, which, at the cost of the most noble Mexican, 
 Don Louis de Velasco, Count of St. James, was founded in 1747. It 
 is known also that the territory of his mission was so large that it 
 extended from one ocean to the other; there was not an Indian left 
 who was not made a Christian, or at least a catechumen. The said 
 sufferings being augmented by the great sterility of all that territory, 
 except in a small area of Apate, in which a little corn was sown. 
 This mission of the Senora Adorada served as a refuge to missionaries 
 and neophytes during the rebellion of Perecui, in 1734, concerning 
 which we shall presently speak. (Id., p. 42.) 
 
 At the close of the year 1706 it was very much desired to establish 
 a mission in Kadakaaman, an inland place situated at the foot of the 
 mountains at the 28th degree of latitude and distant about seventy 
 miles to the north of the mission of Guadalupe, which was then the 
 mission farthest north; but the scarcity of missionaries and the founda- 
 tion of other missions that seemed more necessary delayed its estab- 
 lishment until 1728. Father Juan Bantista Luyando, a Mexican Jesuit," 
 not only gave a part of his fortune for the foundation of this mission, 
 but asked permission of the superior to go in person to establish it. 
 Finally being ordered to California, he set out from Loreto at the 
 beginning of the year above named, accompanied by nine soldiers and 
 arrived at Kadakaaman on January 20. (Id., p. 48.) 
 
 The missionaries found no other remedy to put a stop to these evils 
 (uprisings) of which they were afraid except that of increasing the 
 number of missions in that region. Their desires were seconded by 
 the inexhaustible generosity of the pious Marquis of Villapuente and 
 of his cousin, known by the name of Dona Rosa de la Pena. The 
 marquis furnished the capital to found a mission near Cape San Lucas, 
 and Dona Rosa the capital for another which should be established in 
 the port of Palmas, where the one of Santiago was already situated. 
 (Id., p. 69.) 
 
 Two things were needed to advance the missions to the northward, 
 as the missionaries desired, namely, the capital to found them and the 
 locations to establish them in, and there was no hope of the one or the 
 other until God moved the mind of an illustrious and most noble bene- 
 factress. This was the Duchess of Gandia, Dona Maria Borja, who, 
 having heard an old servant of hers, who had once been a soldier in 
 California, speak of the sterility of that region, the poverty of the 
 Indians there, and the apostolic labors of the missionaries, thought 
 that she could not do anything more pleasing to God than to devote 
 her fortune .to the aid of these missions. She therefore ordered in 
 her will that there be provided out of her ready money those large 
 annuities which she Mt her servants during their lives, and that all 
 
 a Of a very noble family, and descended from the first gentleman who established 
 the Jesuits in Mexico. 
 
356 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 the rest ot ner estate should go to the missions of California, together 
 with the capitals of the above-mentioned annuities after the death of 
 those who enjoyed them, and that a mission, consecrated to the honor 
 of her beloved ancestor, St. Francis Borgia, be f outaded in said penin- 
 sula. The sum of money acquired from this legacy by these missions 
 amounted, in 1767, to sixty thousand dollars, and a like amount ought 
 to be obtained after the death of the pensioned servants, over and 
 above some very large debts which there was hope of recovering. 
 With such a large capital many missions could be founded in Cali- 
 fornia, as in fact they would have been founded if the Jesuits had not 
 been obliged in the above-mentioned year to abandon that peninsula. 
 (Id., pp. 139,140.) 
 
 Much more noteworthy was another renunciation made by the same 
 Jesuits in the year following that of 1767. Dona Josefa de Arguelles 
 y Miranda, a Mexican lady, not less pious than rich, devised to the 
 missions of California and to the College of Guadalajara her large 
 estate, which was valued, according to common opinion, at six hundred 
 thousand dollars. A capital so large would have' greatly assisted the 
 progress of Christianity in said peninsula, except that the Jesuits, fear- 
 ing to excessively provoke the enemies of their order (having already 
 suffered so much from calumnies in Portugal, France, and other States 
 in Europe), solemnly renounced said immense legacy in favor of the 
 Government of Mexico. (Id., p. 170.) 
 
 The church and the houses of the missionary and soldiers which 
 were built there were miserable huts of wood, covered with the leaves 
 of the above-mentioned palms. This mission bore the name of Santa 
 Maria, consecrating it to the mother of God in memory of the Duchess 
 of Gandia, notable benefactress of those missions, at whose expense 
 this was and the others were to be founded. This missionary, in 
 order not to neglect any work which might prove to be to the advan- 
 tage of his mission, cultivated a small field near the stream, and there 
 sowed corn and cotton, both of which were in good condition in Janu- 
 ary, 1768, when the Jesuits were obliged to abandon these missions. 
 (Id., p. 182.) 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM WORK ENTITLED "ACCOUNT OF AMERICAN PENINSULA OF CALI- 
 FORNIA," "WRITTEN BY A PRIEST OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, WHO WITHIN THE 
 LAST YEAR LIVED AS SUCH. MANHEIM.1772. 
 
 [Clavigero, in his Storia della California, alludes to this work as 
 written by the Kev. James Begert (Bagert), a German Jesuit, who 
 spent seventeen years on the mission in California.] 
 
 At about this time lived Father Juan Maria Salvatierra, a Spanish 
 Jesuit, who was formerly a missionary in Tarrahumara. He was vir- 
 tually the head of all missions, and subsequently provincial of New 
 Spain or of the Mexican Jesuit province. He was a man of known 
 zeal for the salvation of souls, of great mind, and not without humility, 
 meekness, patience, and gentleness, together with a healthy, strong 
 body and splendid energy, of which he gave many evidences and which 
 can be read in his biography. 
 
 While Salvatierra was performing his duty of visiting the missions, 
 Father Kino often spoke to him concerning California. Both longed 
 to go to that region and both asked for mission duty in California in 
 order to make a beginning toward the conversion of the Californians. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 357 
 
 This honor, however, was destined by God to be given only to Father 
 Salvatierra, who finally, after much opposition, as well from his 
 superior as from the high council and viceroy of Mexico, and after 
 many solicitations and presentations and after the lapse of consider- 
 able time, he received permission to go to California on condition, 
 made by the viceroy, that the whole undertaking should be at the 
 expense of the fathers, without expectation or hope of obtaining any 
 assistance from the treasury. Salvatierra had practically nothing out- 
 side of several good friends, a great mind, and his trust in God. These 
 did not forsake him, but on the contrary did him no little good in get- 
 ting the assistance of benevolent people who desired to participate in 
 such a holy work. Among others, a missionary priest from Queretaro, 
 by the name of Juan Cavillero y Ozio, gave him not less than twenty 
 thousand dollars, with additional promises that he would honor any 
 drafts that Salvatierra should draw upon him and promptly pay the 
 same. A rich man from Acapulco, named Gill de la Sierpe, loaned him, 
 besides giving certain donations or alms, a small vessel, and presented 
 him also with a boat (p. 198). 
 
 In the meantime — although innumerable dangers beset the mission- 
 aries, such as many shipwrecks, hard work, cares, hunger, and suffering, 
 and also skirmishes with the Indians and uprisings of the Californians, 
 because of all of which the entire mission was often upon the point of 
 being destroyed and entirely annihilated — in the meantime, I say, they 
 did not only fortify the two missions already established, named Loreto 
 and St. Xavier, but they established thereafter eighteen other mis- 
 sions. The illustrious Philip V contributed much toward such estab- 
 lishments. Scarcely had he ascended the Spanish throne than he 
 ordered his viceroy in Mexico to pay yearly to the missionaries in 
 California, and also to others, six hundred florins for their maintenance; 
 to furnish their churches with bells, vestments, and other necessaiy 
 things; to supply a company of twenty-five soldiers; to prepare a ship 
 with a pilot and eight sailors for the service of the missionaries, and 
 to remit to them each year, for the permanent support of the missions, 
 the sum of thirteen thousand dollars, or twenty-six thousand florins, 
 the same to be taken out of the treasury of Guadalajara. These were 
 the King's commands. Many years passed, however, before these 
 commands were executed. The report from Mexico of the nonexecu- 
 tion of these commands not reaching Madrid for many years, the same 
 were accordingly repeated in the years 1705, 1708, and 1716, until 
 finally in the year 1716 the order for the payment for the first time 
 was obeyed, up to which time — that is, from the year 1697 to 1716 — 
 the poor California missions cost over three hundred thousand dollars — 
 that is, six hundred thousand florins — which sum, although not so large 
 in the New as in the Old World, was still not a small or paltry 
 amount for Father Salvatierra and his coworkers to obtain through 
 donations from generous and benevolent private individuals. 
 
 The generosity of rich pious Spaniards toward the poor Californians 
 in America, inspired by love of God, was not fruitless of results in 
 inducing others to contribute. 
 
 Besides these donations, the noble Marquis of Villapuente (whose 
 coffers in Mexico for the Californian and similar missions, as also for 
 other spiritual and corporal work of mercy, were always open) came 
 into a large inheritance, with which, after making certain alms and 
 
358 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 donations, he furnished an entire regiment of soldiers for the service 
 of his King in the long drawn out Spanish war of succession. 
 
 Father Salvatierra, who was in California at the moment in which 
 his good friend Don Gill de la Sierpe was dying in Mexico, saw in a 
 vision fifty innocent, nicely dressed children leading his good friend 
 into heaven. He related this vision to those who were around him, 
 and he soon thereafter received information from Mexico that his 
 vision was true, and that on the very day and hour he had the vision 
 the death of his good friend occurred. The children he had seen, how- 
 ever, were fifty pure, baptized young Californians, since there had 
 been just so many converted and no more up to that time. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Of these fifteen missions established, the Marquis of Villapuente 
 endowed six; the duchess of Gandia, from the House of Borja, two; 
 the missionary priest, Juan Cavillero y Ozio, two; Don Arteaga, one; 
 Luyando, a Jesuit from Mexico and a Californian missionary who took 
 the money out of his inheritance, one; the Marquis Louis Pena, one; 
 the Marquis Luis Velasco, one; and lastly, a certain brotherhood in 
 Mexico, also one, which for the everlasting glory and heartfelt grati- 
 tude toward the magnanimous donors and benefactors shall be here 
 recorded (p. 214). 
 
 INCOME AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MISSIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 
 
 With the income out of which the missionaries and many Indians 
 were nourished and clothed and likewise their churches maintained 
 they were safe and sure from other accidents (the dangers of the sea 
 excepted). This money provided them with necessaries which would 
 otherwise have to be obtained by tilling the soil after much labor on 
 the part of man and beast, upon which subject more will be said in the 
 following fifth and sixth sections. Each mission had an endowment of 
 one thousand florins each year, which was provided by those who had 
 founded the same. This money was applied to the support of the 
 missionaries. 
 
 By .the wish, indeed by the command, of Philip V, there was ordered 
 to be given to each of the Californian missionaries, and also to others 
 who in the vineyard of the Lord under Spanish dominion in America 
 worked as missionaries, six hundred florins yearly out of the royal 
 treasury. These offers, however, were not accepted, partly because 
 it was not sure that the money would be received, because for many 
 years under like circumstances the King's orders for money had not 
 been paid; partly because it did not appear to be sufficient, consider- 
 ing the unproductiveness of the land in the Calif ornias and its remote- 
 ness from Mexico, where the money that was donated had to be spent 
 in obtaining everything needed for the support of the missions, such 
 as food, clothing, etc., and partly, also, because there was always a 
 number of benevolent people who would offer one thousand florins to 
 establish missions, and probably, also, because it was foreseen that for 
 some time to come California would contribute very little to the royal 
 treasury, while on the other hand the expenses incurred on account 
 of ships and soldiers were already very large, and in the future would 
 undoubtedly grow larger. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 359 
 
 Therefore it will be seen that all the missions in California from 
 1697 to 1768 were not supported by the Catholic King, but by dona- 
 tions from private individuals. These, nevertheless, gave for every 
 new mission either twenty thousand florins cash or as much in prop- 
 erty as would produce yearly an income of one thousand florins. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE WORK PUBLISHED UNDER THE TITLE OF " DOCUMENTOS PARA 
 LA HISTORIADE MEXICO,"" FOURTH SERIES, MEXICO, 1857, PUBLISHED BY VINCENTE 
 GARCIA TORRES, NO. 3 SAN JUAN DE LETRAN STREET. ' 
 
 [From the Informe, on the "Condition of the missions of California" by Rev. Padre Presidente Fr 
 Francisco Palou, addressed to "Rev. Padre Guardian Fr. Rafael Verger," in response to his letter 
 
 Very Reverend Father Friar Rafael Verger, my true father guardian 
 (j>. 137): 
 ****** * 
 
 With reference to the last point, that I inform you of all that would 
 be advisable for the spiritual and temporal advancement of the mis- 
 sions, there is much to say in addition to what I have intimated to your 
 reverence in this; but since much, or the greater part thereof, I have 
 written by Father Ramos, I will not here repeat it. But indeed I can 
 not do less than to repeat that you should try to procure from his 
 excellency the restraint of the governor, that he should not interfere 
 with that which does not belong to him, and that the civilization, edu- 
 cation, and improvement of these poor neophytes be left to us, because 
 otherwise the Government is about to make it public, and then it will 
 be impossible to repair the damage. 
 
 Nor can I do less, considering the great poverty of the Indians of 
 these missions, than to point out to you the advisability that from the 
 funds of these missions they be supplied annually with clothing to 
 cover their nakedness, since here the means are lacking and most of 
 the missions will never be able to meet these expenses, and it is a source 
 of much distress to the missionaries to see them naked and to have not 
 even a rag to give them. In order that this petition may show not 
 only the need, which is actual (and to which everyone can testify, espe- 
 cially those who have been in these parts), also that, without the least 
 expenditure from the royal treasury, his excellency can do this service 
 to these poor creatures, since there are fine properties for the purpose 
 which belong to these missions, I obtained an unsigned paper giving 
 account of these lands, and in order that they may be useful to this 
 end I have not failed to copy it and to insert it in this report in oi'der 
 that your reverence may know of it. I do not know positively whence 
 came the paper; but I judge, with some foundation, that it came from 
 those belonging to the faculty of the College of San Andres of that 
 city at the time of the expulsion of the fathers, where, since that was 
 the principal office of the agent of California, the papers which give 
 an account of the whole matter should be found. 
 
 «Each volume commences with a certificate of the correctness of the copies con- 
 tained in it. That at the commencement of volume 6, from which these extracts are 
 made, is as follows: "This volume is a faithful copy of its original. Mexico, Dec. 3, 
 1792. Fr. Francisco Garcia Figueroa." Who or what he was or for what purpose 
 the papers were certified I am unaware. — J. T. D. 
 
360 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 List of the pious works founded by various subjects for the spiritual conquest of California. 
 Year. 
 
 1698. Don Juan Caballero founded the first mission; he gave for the pur- 
 
 pose the sum of * $10,000.00 
 
 1699. The same person founded the second 10, 000. 00 
 
 1700. Don Nicolas Arteaga founded the third with the same amount 10, 000. 00 
 
 1702. Several subjects, through the Jesuit Father Jose Vidal, founded 
 
 the fourth 7, 000. 00 
 
 1704. The Marquis de Villapuente founded the fifth with the sum cf 10, 000. 00 
 
 1709. The same person founded the sixth with 10, 000. 00 
 
 1713. The same person founded the seventh with 10, 000. 00 
 
 1718. His Excellency Don Juan Ruiz de Velasco founded the eighth 
 
 with _ 10,000.00 
 
 1719. The Marquis de Villapuente founded the ninth with 10, 000. 00 
 
 1725. The Jesuit Father Juan Marfa Luyando founded the tenth with ... 10, 000. 00 
 1731. Dona Marfa Rosa de la Pena endowed one of those founded by 
 
 the Marquis de Villapuente with 10, 000. 00 
 
 1746. The Marquis de Villapuente founded the eleventh with 10, 000. 00 
 
 1747. Her excellency Dona Maria de Borja, duchess of Gandia, named in 
 
 her will as her heirs the missions of California, and there only 
 
 appears as having been received 62, 000. 00 
 
 Total in alms 170, 000. 00 
 
 Properties and funds found at the time of the expulsion of the Jesuit fathers. 
 
 In money which was found in the office of the agent of California at the 
 time of the expulsion $92, 000. 00 
 
 For the goods which were found in the warehouse of said agency, valued 
 by Spanish and Mexican merchants at 27, 255. 06 
 
 Goods found in the warehouse of Loreto, according to the prices at which 
 they were charged and sold 79, 377. 03 
 
 Total amount from goods and moneys 199, 033. 01 
 
 Loans made through the general agency of California of the funds of the missions and evi- 
 denced by their respective instruments. 
 
 To the college of San Ildefonso de Puebla, at 3£ per cent $22, 000. 00 
 
 To the college of San Ignacio de Puebla, with interest at 4 per cent 5, 000. 00 
 
 To the college of San Pedro and San Pablo of Mexico, without stating the 
 
 interest 29, 100. 00 
 
 To the college of San Ildefonso of Puebla, at 3 per cent 23, 000. 00 
 
 To the college of San Geronimo of Mexico, at 3 per cent 38, 500. 00 
 
 To the college of San Ildefonso de Puebla, at 3 per cent 9, 000. 00 
 
 Total amount of loans 126, 600. 00 
 
 General summary. 
 
 Total in alms |179 j 000. 00 
 
 Total in goods and moneys 199 033. 01 
 
 Total in loans 126,' 60o! 00 
 
 Grand total 504,633.01 
 
 Besides these capitals there are the estates called "Ibarro," whose 
 manager reports that in ordinary years they produce from rents $20,000 
 over and above all expenses, to which amount should also be added the 
 proceeds of the estates of Arroyo-sarco: so few the paper. 
 
 With reference to this paper I am informed that said estates Ibarra 
 and Arroyo-sarco, of which It speaks in conclusion, were purchased by 
 the alms of benefactors in order to obviate the difficulty which was at 
 first experienced of intrusting $10,000 to any private individual in 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 361 
 
 order that he might pay over the five hundred dollars jnterest for the 
 salary of the missionary father, which private individual was accus- 
 tomed to fail and the investment lost, and they found themselves obliged 
 to seek another benefactor or to abandon the mission, as is related in 
 the history of Father Venegas. That this might not be repeated, they 
 decided to purchase these estates and operate them, and what they 
 produced went to pay the annual salaries, and what remained over and 
 above this enabled them to send supplies to the poor missions, as is 
 shown in the mission books which they kept. From which I infer that 
 at the time of the expulsion of the Jesuit Fathers there remained only 
 the said estates, with the stock in hand and loans amounting to $325,633 
 and 1 real. From these large amounts as well as from the proceeds 
 of the estates see if annual donations of clothes for these poor Indians 
 could not be made. I do not speak only for those already converted, 
 but for those yet to be converted in the north of California as far as 
 Monterey, and by this means they might be attracted to our holy Cath- 
 olic faith, which was the purpose of the benefactors. I trust that your 
 reverence will avail yourself of every possible means to accomplish this 
 as well as everything else conducive to the spiritual and temporal 
 advancement of these old missions as well as the new ones, that from 
 God you may receive the reward, as I ask Him in my poor prayers and 
 in the holy sacrifice of the mass, and that he will spare your life many 
 years with good health, and preserve you in His holy grace. 
 
 From this mission of your reverence of Our Lady of Loreto of Cali- 
 fornia on the 12th day of February, 1772. 
 My reverend father superior. 
 The humble servant of your reverence kisses your hand. 
 
 Fray Francisco PALorJ. 
 [Vol. 6, pp. 174-179.] 
 
 DIVISIONS OF THE MISSIONS OF CALIFORNIA BETWEEN THE DOMINICANS AND FRAN- 
 CISCANS— EXTENT OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN BY THE NAME OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 The Reverend Father Iriarte presented the royal cedula to His Excel- 
 lency Don Antonio Maria Bucareli y Ursua, viceroy of this New 
 Spain, and, in view thereof and of the fact that the reverend father 
 superior of my college had formerly proposed to relinquish control of 
 some of the old missions, observing that new ones were being founded, 
 and so great an extent of territory populated by heathen had been 
 opened in San Diego and Monterey that the college could not take 
 charge of so mam r , as I have already explained at the meeting of the 
 prelates. 
 
 His excellency called a meeting of the war and treasury board on 
 the twenty -first of March, 1772, by which it was determined that the 
 reverend father superior of the Franciscans and the vicar general of 
 the Dominicans should convene and settle between themselves the 
 division of the missions in accordance with the above-cited cedula of 
 His Majesty, and they agreed on what is set forth in the concordat, 
 which the royal board, together with his excellency the viceroy 
 approved, of which the father superior sent me a copy, from which 
 the following is an extract: 
 
362 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNXA.S. 
 
 • COPY OF THE CONCORDAT. 
 
 Your Excellency: Friar Rafael Verger, present superior of the 
 college of propaganda fide of San Fernando, of Mexico, and Friar Juan 
 Pedro de Iriarte, minister of the Holy Order of Preachers (the Domin- 
 icans) and head of the mission, which, by order of His Majesty (whom 
 God preserve), he brought to this Kingdom for the Peninsula of Cali- 
 fornia, obeying the superior decree of your excellency of the 1st of 
 the month of April of the present year of 1872, in which you order 
 them to divide between them the missions of the Peninsula of Califor- 
 nia for their respective missionaries, in accordance with the royal 
 cedula, dated in Madrid on the eighth of April, of 1770, say that, hav- 
 ing deliberated and considered in frequent conferences upon the mat- 
 ter, that it is the most powerful will of our sovereign and Catholic 
 Monarch that the reverend Dominican Fathers, with their minister, the 
 above-mentioned Friar Juan Pedro Iriarte, should enter the said penin- 
 sula of the Californias, because he so ordered it in his royal cedula of 
 November 4, 1768, and afterwards in the above-mentioned one of April 
 8, 1770, in which, after having ordered and commanded concerning 
 said division, he concludes repeating the same order notwithstanding 
 the observations opposed by His Excellency the Marquis of Croix, pre- 
 decessor of your excellency, and of the general inspector, Don Jose* de 
 Galvez, not deeming it well for his royal service that one order and 
 much less one convent or college should occupy a peninsula of so great 
 an area, and at the same time bearing in mind that this college alone 
 has now under its charge not only the whole peninsula, but also all 
 the territory discovered from the port of San Diego to that of San 
 Francisco, which is about two hundred leagues distant, and bearing 
 in mind that this division ought to be, in accordance with the royal 
 cedula, with fixed boundaries for each order with the idea of a total 
 separation and independence of action, so that in this way one will not 
 conflict with the other, and to thus avoid the dissensions which might 
 otherwise result, and likewise considering that the whole body of the 
 peninsula, on account of the conformation of its surface, does not per- 
 mit of a variation in the boundary lines; it only has one frontier, which 
 is that of San Fernando Villacata, because the place called San Juan 
 de Dios, which was once thought suitable for another boundary, upon 
 word of Captain Don Fernando Rivera y Moncada, who has stated 
 many times that it is not large enough for one ranch, in which also 
 many fathers of this college agree, all of which we submit with due 
 respect to your excellency, so that time as well as the proceeds of the 
 pious endowments may not be uselessly spent. Bearing in mind all 
 that has been said, and desiring to fulfil exactly the sovereign will of 
 our Catholic Monarch, they have agreed to the following division: 
 
 That the Dominican Fathers take charge of the old missions which 
 said order has in California, and the so-called frontier of San Fer- 
 nando Villacata, following up its new conversions in this direction 
 until they reach the boundaries of the mission of San Diego in that 
 port, placing their last mission on the stream of San Juan Bautista, 
 the boundary of which shall be five leagues farther on, along a line 
 coming out of the Sierra Madre, and ending before reaching the shore, 
 and whence it may turn to the east with a slight deviation to the 
 northeast, so that it ought to come out at the junction of the Gulf of 
 California and the Colorado River, following thereafter the course 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 363 
 
 which your excellency indicated in the royal order, and if in the inter- 
 mediate territory between the Colorado and said San Diego another 
 boundary shall be designated running north or northeast, they can 
 also take the territory thus cut off in charge without prejudice to 
 another order; and that the Franciscan Fathers maintain those (missions) 
 which they occupy and continuing from said port of San Diego, in the 
 direction of Monterey, to the port of San Francisco, and farther on. 
 In this way, your excellency, it will be accomplished that the long 
 coast of southern California and mainland which follows it will not be 
 under the charge of one order alone, which seems to be the principal 
 intention of our Sovereign, and that the two orders of Dominican and 
 Franciscan Fathers have in it their separate fields, and we do not con- 
 sider it unjust that the college of San Fernando shall give up said 
 missions, because it would otherwise be impossible to carry out the 
 intention of His Majesty on account of which the father superior makes 
 this division of them, hoping that with the efficacious aid your excel- 
 lency has given the new settlements of the said port of San Diego and 
 Monterey can subsist, and that care also will be taken that a suitable 
 herd of cattle and sheep be transported for each of the new missions, 
 as I pray to your excellency in the statement which I present under 
 date of October 26, 1771, that this conquest being of such importance 
 and consequence as His Majesty states in said royal cedula, you will 
 not withdraw your powerful assistance until it is accomplished, even 
 in the case (which God forbid) of some misfortune having happened 
 in said port of San Diego or in any of the other missions. Therefore, 
 they humbly beg that your excellency approve the said agreement and 
 at the same time order that it have its proper effect, giving to each an 
 authorized copy with the resolution of your excellency in which they 
 will be favored, etc. 
 Mexico, April 7, 1772. 
 
 Friar Rafael Verger, Superior. 
 
 Friar Juan Pedro de Iriarte, Vicar- General. 
 
 DECREE. 
 
 Mexico, April %, 117%. 
 
 Let it be transmitted to the office of my superior government in 
 charge of Don Jose Gorraez, so that, together with the other prior 
 proceedings, it may be presented to the board ordered to meet on 
 Thursday, the 30th instant. Bucareli. 
 
 [A translation of the f ollowing junta and decreto will be found at 
 pp. 426-429 of the Transcript, pars. 9 and 10.] 
 
 The foregoing agrees with its original, which I transmitted to the 
 office of the secretary of his excellency, viceroy of this Kingdom, Don 
 Antonio Maria, to whom I respectfully submit, and in order that the 
 reverend father superior of the college of propaganda fide of San 
 Francisco of this court may be notified; in accordance with .the com- 
 mand of the superior decree above set forth I issue this in Mexico 
 on May 12, 1772. 
 
 Jose de Gorraez. 
 
 (Id., pp. 186-195.) 
 
364 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 COMMENT UPON THE PIOUS FUND OF THE MISSIONS. 
 
 Before proceeding I can not do less (although briefly) than invite 
 attention to the remarks of Don Fernando Mangino, the director gen- 
 eral of church revenues relating to the Pious Fund, which were 
 brought to light upon the departure and expulsion of the Jesuits, 
 inasmuch as in the twenty-eighth chapter of the first part there 
 appears a report which he made to the reverend father superior of our 
 college of San Fernando concerning the funds which he found, send- 
 ing him a copy of an anonymous paper which came into my possession 
 while I was in California, and which appears in its proper place in this 
 volume. Upon comparing it (the paper) with the statement of his 
 excellency, the director, 1 find some discrepancies, and in order that 
 the two papers may not seem inconsistent to anyone reading them 
 state the facts bearing on subject. 
 
 The anonymous paper reads as follows: 
 
 That the total amount in charity given by the benefactors to guarantee the sala- 
 ries of the missionary fathers is $178,000. 
 
 And the director, although he does not state the amount of alms, 
 says that they are included in the estates and in the sums loaned by 
 the Pious Fund to different colleges. According to the reports of the 
 director and the anonymous paper, the loans amount to $126,600, 
 which through the investments of the Jesuit fathers yielded annually 
 14,078, together with the $1,000 yielded from the $20,000 which was 
 received as a legacy after the expulsion of the fathers, and invested at 
 5 per cent brought the annual interest up to $5,078, in addition to the 
 $15,618 produced from the cultivation of the estates, it is clearly seen 
 that the Pious Fund has a net income every year of twenty thousand 
 six hundred and ninety-six dollars, five reals, eight grains, with the 
 obligation of paying each of the salaries of the twenty-six Dominican 
 missionaries of old California, which, at the rate of three hundred and 
 fifty dollars each, amounts to $9,100, as well as the salaries of the 
 fathers in charge of the five missions of Monterey at $800 per annum 
 and the double rations of the ten missionaries and three other assist- 
 ants, which cost every year $5,771, 3 reals, and 6 grains. Upon 
 deducting these sums from the net income it is seen that (except for any 
 accident or other extraordinary expense which may occur) there remain 
 $5,817, 2 reals, and 2 grains, and out of this it seems to be necessary 
 to pay the officers who manage the fund. As he states, there is only 
 paid to him as director $600, to the accountant $300, and to a secre- 
 tary $100, amounting to $1,000 yearly. 
 
 Again, the director says, that at the expulsion of the fathers there 
 was found in money the sum of $92,000, while in the anonymous paper 
 the amount is placed at $400 more in favor of the pious work. With- 
 out doubt it will be found that at the time of drawing up the paper 
 there was this additional sum, and that before delivering it to the con- 
 trol of said director it was expended in the needs of the missions or in 
 settling some outstanding account. 
 
 Thirdly. He says that an invoice of goods was found which appraised 
 them at $27,250, 6 reals, which agrees with the statement in the anony- 
 mous paper, and which were sold at an advance of their valuation. 
 Thus there was placed in the treasury $28,220, 5 reals. This, together 
 with the ready money, amounts to $120,220, 5 reals. This sum, 
 together with the proceeds from the estates during the period of 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 365 
 
 almost six years which had elapsed since the expulsion (amounting, 
 according to the statement of the director, to $110,312, 3 reals, 5 
 grains), brings the funds up to $230,533, 5 grains. 
 
 From this Pious Fund, since the expulsion of the fathers, there has 
 been paid, in transporting the missionaries to California and for their 
 daily supplies and salaries, $78,211, 4 reals, 3 grains. 
 
 There has also been paid, says the director, by order of the decree 
 of their excellencies, the viceroys Marquis de Croix and Senor Buca- 
 reli, the sum of $136,184, 3 reals, 9£ grains for the purposes expressed 
 therein — to fit out the warehouse of the city of Loreto for the depart- 
 ment of San Bias, costs of the expeditions on land and sea on account 
 of harbors of San Diego and Monterey, and for the Indians of California. 
 
 For these latter I do not know whether there has been anything more 
 distributed than the clothing received at Loreto in the year 1767, which, 
 according to the invoice sent me by the inspector-general, was valued 
 at $8,500, as is stated in Part I, Chapter XV, and therefore all the 
 remaining sum was employed for the purposes stated in the said 
 decrees. 
 
 The director concludes by stating that at that day, July 19, 1773, 
 there was in the funds' treasury, net, $26,137, Hi grains, from which 
 the officers of the colleges of Pueblo and Queretero had to be paid 
 $4,782, 4 reals, 9 grains for a bill of clothing for the employees of the 
 estates, and this account settled there would remain $21,354, 4 reals, 2£ 
 grains. Added to this $8,783, 1 real, 2 grains, which the colleges owed 
 the fund as interest, and which when collected will bring the account 
 up to $30,037, 5 reals, 4£ grains, from which sum, according to the 
 decision of his excellency in the royal assembly, there must be paid 
 promptly for the first time $10,000 and the annual salaries of all the 
 missionaries in new as well as in old California. 
 
 In the said anonymous paper it is stated that the valuation of the 
 invoice of goods found in the warehouse of Loreto of the Californias 
 was fixed at $79,307, 3 reals. 
 
 And the reason that the director does not give account of this is 
 undoubtedly because it did not come under his control; but it is evi- 
 dent that these goods and effects were received by the governor, D. Gas- 
 par de Portola, who was so commissioned, and from which the soldiers 
 of the peninsula were being paid at the time of the arrival of the 
 inspector-general, when the control of the warehouse was handed over 
 to Don Francisco Trillo y Bermudez, who was named commissioner of 
 warehouses, and who was continuing in the same manner' to pay the 
 soldiers from the goods and effects and supplying the missions from 
 the amount due them on account of the warehouse of Loreto, and 
 against the same goods the said Commissioner Trillo made out a bill 
 amounting to about $20,000 for the department of southern California 
 in order to put in operation another warehouse for that department. 
 
 Of all this the director was ignorant, who, if he had known it, would 
 have reported it to his excellency, so that the said sums might be 
 •returned to the Pious Fund, since they made up the deficiency due on 
 account of the salary of the soldiers, which, during those years, had 
 not been paid, as he says in his report that Tie has asked that the sums 
 taken from the fund by orders of other departments, chargeable by 
 right with such expenses, be repaid. 
 
 On account of what has been said, it seems to me that the said papers, 
 viz, the unsigned paper and that of the director -general, coincide. 
 (Id., pp. 597-601.) 
 
366 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBKIA8. 
 
 [For the substance of the extract from the work entitled "History 
 of the Society of Jesus in Spain," which Father Francisco Javier Ale- 
 gre was writing at the time of the expulsion (three volumes, Mexico, 
 J. M. Lara, 1842), see Transcript, page 109, where a translation from 
 the French is given.] 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE MEMBRETE OF THE VICEROY, COUNT REVILLA-GIGEDO, DATED 
 APRIL 12, 1793, CONTAINED IN THE WORK ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENT TO THE HISTORY 
 OF THE THREE CENTURIES OF MEXICO," BY FATHER ANDRES CAVO; PRESENTED TO 
 LIC CARLOS MARIA BUSTAMENTE, THE AUTHOR CONTINUING THE WORK." VOLUME 
 3, P. 112 ET SEQ. 
 
 [The sections are numbered as in the original.] 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE MISSIONS. 
 
 9. Missions were erected and maintained with the funds which the 
 zeal and apostolic labors of the above-mentioned fathers of the Society 
 of Jesus acquired for the spiritual conquest of the Indians of Cali- 
 fornia, the principal benefactors and founders of those pious funds 
 being the Marquis of Villapuente and the Marquis de las Torres de 
 Rada. 
 
 10. Although the remote territories of New Spain, known by the 
 name of the outlying or western territories of California, have not been 
 occupied with other organized establishments than the above-mentioned 
 fifteen missions and the garrison of Loreto, all the territory lying 
 along the coast of the continent as far north as explored is compre- 
 hended and considered under the Spanish dominion, and exploration 
 has already been made as far as the forty-third degree of latitude, 
 where the river called "Los Reyes" is found. 
 
 16. From this time missions began to be built adjoining the new 
 garrisons of San Diego and Monterey, the expense being borne by the 
 pious funds which the Jesuits had left invested at the time of their 
 expulsion, and it was thought to be possible that the department of 
 San Bias should be paid from the proceeds of the contiguous salt mines 
 (which had already begun to be administered on account of the royal 
 treasury), and with other means of lesser consideration. 
 
 17. This advantage has never been attained; the expenses of the 
 department of San Bias have been continually increased, and those 
 expenses caused by its establishment and the conquests of Sonora and 
 the Californias were of necessity a considerable drain upon the royal 
 treasury from 1768 to 1771, notwithstanding that the large donations 
 collected and the pious funds of the missions went towards defraying 
 these heavy expenses. 
 
 200. I repeat, then, my opinion that, setting aside all costly and 
 difficult projects, we necessarily confine our expenses to preventing 
 the encroachments of the English establishments and of any other for- 
 eign power upon our peninsula of the Californias, by speedily occupy- 
 ing, as we have already determined on, the port of Bodega and If 
 necessary the Columbia River, putting in a condition of good defense 
 these two important places and the posts of San Francisco, Monterey, 
 San Diego, and even that of Loreto, which garrison the above-men- 
 tioned peninsula, removing as soon as possible the seat of government 
 (departamento) from San Bias to Acapulco, and looking to the preser- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 367 
 
 vation and encouragement of the Pious Funds and of the salt mines of 
 Zapotillo, so that the royal treasury may not be burdened with future 
 payment of missionaries of the Californias and that the net proceeds 
 from salt may help to defray the expenses of the department of 
 marine. 
 
 201. These five points are the ones that I shall submit and recom- 
 mend, first of all giving due consideration to the design of foreign 
 powers upon the coast lands in northwestern America, to the advan- 
 tages of fur trade, and to good reasons for preventing illegal trade 
 which the English may conduct in the Spanish harbors of the Pacific. 
 
 231. The fourth proposition of this communication should be 
 regarded as incidental to the second and the fifth as incidental to the 
 third, because the latter is directed towards the encouragement of the 
 salt mines at San Bias, the proceeds from which are to be used for 
 the expenses of the seat of government (departamento), and that the 
 
 greatest care may be taken that the Pious Funds of the missions of 
 alifornia are not dissipated, entailing a new burden upon the treasury. 
 
 232. If these funds are preserved they will be sufficient to support 
 the present missions; but since the expulsion of the Jesuits who admin- 
 istered the estates, the receipts, which were employed for the purpose 
 of pious works have begun to diminish. 
 
 233. For this reason it seemed more advisable to take away from 
 the department of church affairs the care of the said estates, placing 
 them, by virtue of a royal order, in the charge of the former custodian 
 of the royal treasury; but upon the death of the minister a greater 
 falling off was noticed in the funds. 
 
 234. There were many claimants for this vacant trust, but my pred- 
 ecessor, Don Manuel Antonio Flores, thought that it would be safer 
 to place the charge under the care and joint responsibility of two min- 
 isters of the above-mentioned treasury. 
 
 235. So he settled it, reporting to His Majesty, by copy of the des- 
 patch-, No. 159, of the 27th of January, 1789; but, later, in a despatch 
 of the 27th of the following March, No. 178, it was shown that far 
 from this measure having produced a good result, the funds were 
 speedily going to destruction, and that such disaster could only be pre- 
 vented by an active, intelligent, and zealous general manager, who 
 would frequently visit the estates, who would know how to increase 
 the output, selling it with discretion, who would keep a watch upon 
 the conduct of the local managers, who should be engaged in no other 
 employment or work, and who should receive appropriate compensa- 
 tion. 
 
 236. These despatches he addressed to the Marquis of Bajamar, as I 
 did by No. 22, of the 26th of November of the same year, 1789, con- 
 curring in the view of my predecessor concerning the confiding of the 
 estate to a general manager of the Californias; because I had observed, 
 among other important things in this administration, that improve- 
 ments upon the estate known as Arroyozarco having been estimated at 
 four or five thousand dollars, there had been expended upon it, without 
 completing it, more than forty thousand. 
 
 237. Later, by a despatch, No. 202, of the 30th of November, 1790, 
 I transmitted a copy of a report upon the matter, made with a view to 
 carrying out the royal order of May 20, 1781, which ordered the sale 
 of the country estates of the Pious Funds and the placing of their pro- 
 ceeds at assured interest. 
 
368 PIOUS FUND or THE OAXIFORNIAS. 
 
 238. These provisions were not put into effect because the treasurer, 
 D. Francisco de Sales Carillo, interposed a lengthy protest, arguing 
 that the Pious Funds would deteriorate more if the country estates 
 should be sold, and that property cared for those estates known as 
 Ibarra would bring in forty thousand dollars annually, and that of the 
 Arroyozarco four or five thousand. 
 
 239. Upon these flattering expectations the sale of the estates was 
 suspended; and the solicitor of the royal treasury having been heard, 
 and upon the consulting vote of the royal council the vicero3 r , Don 
 Matias de Galvez, made a report to His Majesty, by despatch No. 670, 
 of April 27, 1784, whereupon it was decided by a royal order of the 
 14th of December, 1785, to approve the recommendations of Carrillo 
 until its results could be observed. 
 
 240. They (the results) were very evident; as, far from there being 
 shown an annual net income of forty thousand dollars from the estates 
 of Ibarra, it yielded, in the five years from 1784 to 1788 (when Car- 
 rillo died) thirty thousand one hundred and twenty-three dollars, 
 there being lost on the estate of Arroyozarco in the five-year period 
 from 1785 to 1789 one thousand three hundred and twenty-four 
 dollars. 
 
 241. For these reasons the solicitor of the royal treasury requested, 
 the counsellor-general approved, and I directed accordingly, that the 
 country estates of the Pious Funds of the missions of California should 
 be placed at public auction, knocking them down to the best bidder 
 or bidders, upon the express condition of receiving for them a per- 
 petual annuity, without requiring any payment on account of the 
 principal; but securing the annuity by proper guarantees, and in the 
 same manner the value of the cattle and other live stock. 
 
 242. 1 thus stated it in my said letter No. 202, proposing, also, that 
 in the case the suggested sale of the haciendas could not be favorably 
 accomplished they be put under the charge of a general manager of 
 the qualifications recommended by my predecessor, even though his 
 salary should cost three times the amount that the administrators of 
 this treasury receive for the management and care of the Pious Funds, 
 which they can not free from debt, because the more engrossing 
 requirements of their employments prevent them entirely from making 
 the visits and personal investigations of the country property, whose 
 decline is every day becoming more apparent, since the expenses were 
 already $98,800, and more than one hundred and forty thousand dol- 
 lars were still necessary in order that the improvements of the Arroy- 
 ozarco might be completed, as the engineer Don Miguel Costanzo had 
 calculated. 
 
 243. This estate has suffered most on account of its crops being 
 worthless and the large expenditures required to continue it in opera- 
 tion, it having become necessary to rent it, contracting thereby other 
 interminable expenditures on account of the insufficiency of the bonds- 
 men of the tenants, now dead, and on account of the frequent com- 
 plaints and discontentment of the "colonos" or under tenants of the 
 same estate. 
 
 244. Of these latter events the Marquis de Bajamar also gave account < 
 in letter No. 283, of July 26, 1791, repeating the proposition that the 
 properties be sold, which was taken note of by my predecessor and 
 myself, and asking that 1 be advised as promptly as possible of the 
 supreme determinations of His Majesty, in order to guard against the 
 general funds of the treasury being burdened with a considerable part 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOESUAS. 369 
 
 of the expenses caused by the California missions, when they can not 
 be supported by the Pious Fund. 
 
 246._ Their rural properties are valued at $526,700; its invested capi- 
 tal or irregular deposits amount to $188,500, and all amount to the 
 u 8 ^ S1 l ni i )f ^l 1 ' 500 , wh ose annual interest, regulated at 5 per cent, 
 should be $35,575; so that it would be paying each year a little more 
 than $22,000 on account of salaries of the missionaries. There should 
 also be a surplus every year of from $12,000 to $13,000, to go towards 
 the expenses of new missions and the equipments and journeys on 
 land or sea of the same missionaries. 
 
 246. These two last items, not being of frequent occurrence or very 
 costly, would average yearly about $2,000 or $3,000, which, deducted 
 from what has been considered as a surplus, the remainder would go 
 towards increasing the Pious Fund, and as properties of greater value 
 they could be securely invested, so that the present expenses could not 
 only be paid, but also those which would be incurred in the future by 
 reason of the spiritual conquest or suppression of the heathen Indians, 
 but all of these desirable conditions will disappear if the rural properties 
 are allowed to decrease. 
 
 247. The proposed sale of the properties can be obviated and like- 
 wise the suggestion of placing them in the charge of an intelligent, 
 honest, and zealous general manager, although in my opinion it would 
 be better to sell them under the conditions proposed by the solicitor of 
 the royal treasury, whose resolutions are and will have to be definitely 
 suspended until your excellency advises me of His Majesty's wishes 
 or of the course of action I am to pursue in accordance with his royal 
 pleasure. 
 
 EXTRACTS PROM THE WORK OF M. DUFLOT DE MOPRAS, ENTITLED "EXPLORATION 
 OP THE TERRITORY OP OREGON AND THE CALIPORNIAS," ETC. WORK PUBLISHED 
 BY ORDER OF THE KING: PARIS, 1847. 
 
 ■ What is remarkable in the foundations of these missions is that they 
 cost the Government no sacrifice. At the beginning of the settlement 
 of Lower California the viceroys furnished some aid. Philip V 
 allowed them during the first years of his reign thirteen thousand dol- 
 lars, but in 1735 the Jesuits, having received large donations, knew so 
 well how to employ them that not only were they able to provide for 
 the needs of their missions, but to buy some new lands. In 1767 a 
 lady of Guadalajara, Dona Josefa de Miranda, left by her will, to the 
 College of the Society of that city, a legacy of more than one hundred 
 thousand dollars, which the Jesuits, being already the objects of the 
 calumnies of all Europe, had the delicacy to refuse. 
 
 The properties of the Pious Fund with their successive gains are 
 composed today of: 
 
 The estates (haciendas) of San Pedro, Torreon, Rincon, Las Golon- 
 drinas, including many mines, buildings, and immense herds and lands 
 of more than five hundred square leagues, all situated in the new King- 
 dom of Leon, or the province of Tamaulipas. These properties were 
 freely given to the society by the Marquis of Villapuente, high chan- 
 cellor of New Spain, and by his wife, the Marchioness of Torres, on 
 the 8th of June, 1735.° 
 
 _ e Archives of the royal notary, Don Pedro del Valle, in Mexico, to-day in posses- 
 sion of Don Ramon Villalobos. 
 
 S, Doc, 28 24 
 
370 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 Other legacies enriched the Society of Jesus with large properties, 
 existing near San Luis de Potosi, Guanajuato, and Guadalajara. 
 
 The estate known by the name of the "hacienda of Cienega del 
 Pastor," which is situated near the last-named city, notwithstanding 
 its state of dilapidation and its poor administration, is still rented 
 annually for more than twenty-four thousand dollars. Another estate 
 belonging to the society, the hacienda de Chalco, is part of the Pious 
 Fund, which possesses, besides, a very large number of houses and 
 other real estate situated in the cities, particularly in Mexico. 
 
 In 1827 the Government forcibly took the sum of eighteen thousand 
 dollars in specie, deposited in the mint at the capital, and which 
 resulted from the sale of the Arroyo Zarco, a property belonging to 
 the society. The Pious Fund was also despoiled of immense estates 
 by the Congress of Jalisco, and we have already said that President 
 Santa Anna had sold as a whole the Pious Fund-to the house of Barrio 
 and to Messrs. Rubio Brothers. 
 
 Under the Spanish Government the income amounted to nearly 
 fifty thousand dollars, which served to pay the salary (sinodo) of the 
 friars, fifteen Dominicans, at six hundred dollars, and forty Francis- 
 cans, at four hundred dollars. This total of twenty-five thousand dol- 
 lars being deducted, the remainder was employed in buying clothes, 
 machines, implements, vestments, and ornaments for religious worship. 
 The Royal Government repaid to the agent of .the missions in Mexico 
 the value of the supplies furnished to the soldiers in the presidios. 
 The agent converted this money into supplies, which he sent overland, 
 at his expense, to the port of San Bias, and from there twice a year 
 vessels took them free of charge to the several ports of California. 
 
 During the flourishing reign of Charles III the port and arsenal of 
 San Bias became of great importance. An intelligent agent, sent by 
 the Spanish Government, went to teach the religious to raise and mar- 
 ket hemp, and as many of the mission lands united conditions favorable 
 to the cultivation of this plant, the friars applied themselves with, a 
 good deal of success, so that they began every year to send large 
 quantities of rope to San Bias. The value of these products was 
 punctually paid to the agent of the missions in Mexico by the royal 
 treasury. 
 
 For twenty years this valuable branch of industry has remained inac- 
 tive, and in all the ports on the western coast of Mexico ships can only 
 procure, often at a very high price, cordage coming from Europe or 
 the United States. 
 
 From 1811 to 1818, and after 1823 to January, 1831, the missionaries 
 ceased to fulfil regularly their appointments, on account of the political 
 troubles which during these periods agitated Spain and Mexico, so 
 that, in adding to the sums due the Franciscans of Upper California 
 alone, and these amounted to one hundred and ninety-two thousand 
 dollars, the seventy-eight thousand dollars forcibly confiscated from 
 the religious, the two hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars of 
 which the missions of Upper California were despoiled for supplies 
 furnished the troops of the presidios, and the revenues from the estates 
 of the Pious Fund during more than ten years, a total of more than 
 one million dollars would be obtained, of which the Mexican Govern- 
 ment has despoiled the association of missions in defiance of the inten- 
 tions of the testators." 
 
 « Report presented to Congress in January, 1831, by Don Lucas Alaman, minister 
 of state. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 371 
 
 On the 25th of May, 1832, the Congress of Mexico rendered a decree 
 by which the executive power was charged to rent for seven vears the 
 estates of the Pious Fund, causing the proceeds to be paid ""into the 
 national treasury. A second decree of Congress of the 19th of Sep- 
 tember, 1836, ordered that the Pious Fund be placed at the disposition 
 of the new bishop of California and of his successors, to the end that 
 these prelates to whom the administration was entrusted might employ 
 it to the development of the missions or analogous enterprises, respect- 
 ing, always, the will of the founders. 
 
 On the 8th of February, 1842, General Santa Anna, provisional 
 president, acting by virtue of his discretionary power, withdrew from 
 the bishop of California, notwithstanding his protestations, the admin- 
 istration of the Pious Fund, and, by a decree of the twenty-first of 
 the same month, gave charge of it to General Valencia, chief of staff 
 of the army. a 
 
 For those who knew the country, the word administrate had a very 
 plain signification. This was before the actual sale, the last blow aimed 
 at the organization created by the Jesuits. Nevertheless, to be just, 
 we add that up to the present the few Franciscans who remain in 
 California _ have received the assistance of four hundred dollars 
 annually, in merchandise, quoted at exorbitant prices. (Vol. 1, pp. 
 266, 271.) 
 
 Last account of the goods of the Pious Fund which the sale of the 
 properties el Torreon, Huerta de Santa Cruz, Rio Chico, Bafio de 
 Atotonilco, Juana Gonzales, Labor de la Natividad, Hacienda del 
 Maguey, y Estancia de Organos produced, all which properties 
 belonged to the civilization and conversion of the heathen, and which 
 account was last given to the viceroy and is to be found in the report 
 made by the royal junta of auctions. The treasury, which only held 
 these sums in deposit, disposed of them and owes them up to now. 
 
 Inform me what is the state of the proceedings in the estate of Dona 
 Francisco de Paula Arguelles, who left large properties for the pur- 
 pose of founding pious works, in which were included the missions of 
 California and of China; who is charged with this administration; to 
 what sum the annual receipts into the treasury amount, and if there 
 are any sums derived from this source in it. D. May 25, 1816. 
 Rubric. Ministers of the general treasury. 
 
 [No. 3067.] 
 
 Youk Excellency: An account of the proceedings concerning the 
 estate of Senora Dona Josefa de Paula Arguelles is not to be found in 
 this general treasury, nor was it ever deposited in it, except only that 
 the quantities which were deposited by the attorneys and administra- 
 tors of the estates, which consisted of several rural properties and two 
 urban properties in this capital, were received. The Marquis of Santa 
 Cruz die Ynguanzo, who was the administrator in the year 1804, made 
 the last deposit of eighteen thousand dollars on the 9th of February of 
 that year, but without any explanation to this treasury that we know 
 of. In April of the last year the above-mentioned estates were sold, 
 the price obtained being four hundred and thirteen thousand seven 
 hundred and thirteen dollars two reals nine grains, of which amount 
 
 "Sec: "Diario del Gobiemio de la Republica Mexicana," Nos, 8 and 21, of Feb- 
 ruary, 1842. 
 
372 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 , there were placed in the treasury ten thousand dollars to the account 
 of the pious work of the "Ninos del Carro" of Manila, according to 
 the disposition of the testatrix, and four hundred and three thousand 
 seven hundred and thirteen dollars two reals nine grains to the 
 account of the missions of the Californias and of the Philippines, half 
 to each, following out the tenor of her will. In the years 1805, 1806, 
 and 1807 nothing appears to have been deposited by the Marquis of 
 Santa Cruz de Ynguanzo, nor since the time that he has been adminis- 
 trator of the estates of Don Juan Antonio Ayerdi. The greatest part 
 of said goods was sold at the auction of December 15, 1808, as follows: 
 The hacienda of Torreon, Huerta de Santa Cruz, and Bana de Ato- 
 tonilco, Rio Chico, Juana Gonzales, and Labor de la Natividad, to Dona 
 Josefa Gonzales Guerra, who deposited on various dates one hundred 
 and eighty-eight thousand dollars. The haciendas of Maguey and 
 Estancia de Organos were knocked down to Don Fermin Antonio de 
 Apecechea, who also, upon different dates, deposited one hundred and 
 eleven thousand three hundred and fifty dollars, five reals, six grains, 
 over and above fifteen thousand seven hundred and two dollars, seven 
 reals, and nine grains of interest from the time that he made no payment 
 on the principal. The hacienda of Cienega and the urban properties 
 appear to have remained unsold, concerning which the said Ayerdi, now 
 handling what ought to be deposited on account of their products, could 
 give an explanation. This same individual is the attorney for the heir 
 of Senora Argiielles, who is interested to the extent of a one-fourth 
 part in the estate left by her will, and to whom twenty thousand three 
 hundred and thirty-seven dollars, five reals, four and one-half grains 
 remain owing, on account of the fourth part of the properties sold, 
 and out of which he has received fifty -four thousand five hundred dol- 
 lars. In the treasury there ought to be left two hundred and fifty- 
 nine thousand five hundred ana fifty-three dollars, five reals, three 
 grains; of which twenty thousand three hundred and thirty-seven dol- 
 lars, five reals, four and one-half grains belong to the heir, and to the 
 missions of California and Manila and the Philippines, half to each, 
 two hundred and thirty-nine thousand two hundred and fifteen dollars, 
 seven reals, ten and one-half grains, which is as much as we can tell 
 your excellency in compliance with your superior order of the 25th 
 instant. . God guard your excellency many years. Mexico, May 25, 
 1816. To His Excellency Jose Monter, Antonio Batres, His Excel- 
 lency Don Felix Maria Calleja. In the margin. Mexico, June 12, 
 1816. To the attorney of tho royal treasury for the service of the 
 Government of Count del Valle. Wherever the proceedings concern- 
 ing the estate of Marchioness de Paula Argiielles may exist, considering 
 the desire of _ the attorney Don Juan Antonio de Ayerdi, in which he 
 asks permission to leave this capital, without designating any time, in 
 order that he may move in the premises, and concerning the last, state 
 if the stay of Ayerdi is necessary here. Rubric. 
 
 REPORT MADE BY THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE PIOUS FUND THROUGH DON FER- 
 NANDO MANGINO TO THE VICEROY, MARQUIS DE CROIX, RELATIVE TO THE GENERAL 
 AGENCY OF THE MISSIONS OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Sec. 62. Since the agency of the missions of the Californias was sit- 
 uated in the College of San Andres, of this capital, which the Society 
 of Jesus occupied at the time of the expulsion of its members, his excel- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 373 
 
 lency the viceroy, Marquis of Croix, instructed Don Jose" Basarte that 
 simultaneously with the taking possession of the properties of the col- 
 lege he should likewise assume control of those belonging to the Pious 
 Fund, and in order that I may be able to relate to your highness sys- 
 tematically the condition in which they were found, that in which they 
 were at the end of last year — 1776 — and the other circumstances which 
 I have promised to add in this third part, I have thought it well and 
 conducive to greater clearness to do it in the following tables: 
 
 Funds and goods on hand. 
 
 In the office of the agency there was found in cash $92, 400. 0. 
 
 In golds and effects sold previously by the depositario general, Don 
 
 Eugenio Daza 28, 626. 5. 
 
 The silver ore sent by the missions of California to the city of Guadala- 
 jara, 100 marks, 6| oz., which converted into money in this capital 
 leaves net, after paying the duty thereon 954. 4. 6 
 
 Amounting to 121, 881. 1. 6 
 
 Note. — With a portion of this sum an attempt was made to establish the house of 
 refuge or rest for old and decrepit missionaries, as was ordered by the Marquis de 
 Villapuente, one of the founders, in his last will. This result, however, was never 
 attained. 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS— MATTERS WHICH APPEAR IN THE REPORT WHICH 
 THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PRESENTED TO THE CHAMBERS IN 1830. 
 
 The Pious Fund of the Calif ornias has suffered a very deplorable fate, 
 notwithstanding that it is very valuable, not only on account of the 
 value of its estates, but also on account of its capital invested. The 
 former do not produce as much as they should, on account of the want 
 of ready money necessary for their cultivation; nor do the latter pro- 
 duce any important revenues, because they are partly loaned to per- 
 sons guaranteeing to pay annuities, many of whom fail to pay; and 
 partly to the public treasury, which does not pay either, nor can it 
 do so at present, on account of its well-known distresses. Thus it is 
 that for many years past there have been very considerable arrearages 
 in the payment of the salaries to the missionaries, so that the amounts 
 which are now owing them on this account form a very large sum, 
 which, according to the most recent accounts that exist in the depart- 
 ment in my charge, can not be less than one hundred and thirty thou- 
 sand dollars. 
 
 The document No. 3, prepared in view of the last examined and 
 approved accounts, up to the year 1827, gives a clear and detailed idea 
 of the properties belonging to the fund, the successive falling off of the 
 proceeds of the principal estate in which it has an interest being shown 
 therein. 
 
 It is clear that those territories, concerning whose economic and 
 political importance there is no doubt, find themselves very much 
 neglected in their civil and religious administration, and it is the more 
 so because their advance in every branch involves no expense upon the 
 national treasury. The Pious Fund belonging to these territories 
 would be sufficient of itself to completely fulfill these important ends, 
 if its proceeds were put to use, and in order to attain this object, the 
 Government proposes to concentrate upon this point the special atten- 
 tion which it merits, at least in so far as returns can be expected from 
 
374 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 the country properties, which are very susceptible of improvement. 
 Never, however, will these proceeds to the extent that they can be 
 turned into cash suffice of themselves alone for the endowment of the 
 missions and other uses for which they were intended. In order to 
 fulfill this completely, it would be necessary to add to them the prop- 
 erties of the missions of the Philippines, which certainly can not be 
 applied to a purpose more analogous, nor more in conformity with the 
 original will of the founders. 
 
 Document No. 3 (numero 3), Transcript, page 220, is a recital of 
 some of the capitals of the Pious Fund, which up to 1827 was invested 
 as there indicated. 
 
 The next table shows the yearly proceeds and expenses of the hacienda 
 Cienega del Pastor for the years therein indicated. Then follows a 
 list of some of the amounts due the Pious Fund of California by the 
 national treasury, together with their unpaid interest, until the year 
 1842. This corresponds in the main with the inventory presented by 
 Don Pedro Ramirez. 
 
 POWERS OF ATTORNEY FROM THE BISHOPS OF SACRAMENTO 
 AND MONTEREY TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO. 
 
 Sacramento, Cal. , July 30, 190%. 
 Most Rev. P. W. Riordan, Archbishop of San Francisco. 
 
 Most Reverend Dear Archbishop: I enclose herewith my general 
 power of attorney. You may need it before the arbitral court of the 
 Pious Fund claim at The Hague. By this I appoint you to act in my 
 stead for the collection of said moneys of the Pious Fund. 
 Yours truly in Christ, 
 [corporate seal.] Thomas Grace, 
 
 Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento. 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that the undersigned, the Roman 
 Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, a corporation sole, has made, consti- 
 tuted, and appointed, and by these presents does make, constitute, 
 and appoint Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of San Fran- 
 cisco, its true and lawful attorney for it and its name, place, and 
 stead, and for its use and benefit, to ask, demand, sue for, recover, 
 collect, and receive all such sums of moneys, debts, dues, accounts, 
 legacies, bequests, interests, dividends, annuities, and demands what- 
 soever as are now or shall hereafter become due, owing, payable, or 
 belonging to it; and have, use, and take all lawful ways and means in 
 its name, or otherwise, for the recovery thereof, by legal process, and 
 to compromise and agree for the same, and acquittances or other suffi- 
 cient discharges for the same, for it and in its name, to make, seal, 
 and deliver; to bargain, contract, agree for, purchase, receive, and 
 take lands, tenements, hereditaments, and accept the seisin and posses- 
 sion of all lands and all deeds and other assurances in the law thereof; 
 and to lease, let, demise, bargain, sell, remise, release, convey, mort- • 
 gage, and hypothecate lands, tenements, and hereditaments upon such 
 terms and conditions, and under such covenants as he shall think fit. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNIAS. 375 
 
 Also to bargain and agree for, buy, sell, mortgage, hypothecate, and 
 in any way and in every way and manner deal in and with goods, wares, 
 and merchandise, choses in action, and other property in possession or 
 in action; and to make, do, and transact all and every kind of business 
 of what nature and kind soever; and also, for it and in its name, and 
 as its act and deed, to sign, seal, execute, deliver, and acknowledge 
 such deeds, leases, assignments of leases, covenants, indentures, agree- 
 ments, mortgages, hypothecations, bottomries, charter parties, bills of 
 lading, bills, bonds, notes, receipts, evidences of debt, releases and 
 satisfactions of mortgage, judgment and other debts, and such other 
 instruments in writing of whatever kind and nature as may be neces- 
 sary or proper in the premises. 
 
 Giving and granting unto its said attorney full power and authority 
 to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite 
 and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all 
 intents and purposes as it might or could do if personally present, 
 hereby ratifying and confirming all its said attorney shall lawfully do 
 or cause to be done by virtue of these presents. 
 
 In witness whereof the undersigned, the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
 Sacramento, a corporation sole, has caused these presents to be executed 
 by the incumbent thereof, and the corporate seal to be thereunto 
 affixed this 30th day of July, in the year 1902. 
 
 [seal of corporation.] 
 
 The Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, 
 Thomas Grace, Incumbent. 
 
 Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of — 
 Wm. H. Devlin. 
 Malcolm C. Glenn. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 County of , ss: 
 
 On this 30th day of July, in the year one thousand nine hundred 
 and two, before me, William H. Devlin, a notary public in and for the 
 said county, residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn, personally 
 appeared Thomas Grace, known to me to be the incumbent of the cor- 
 poration sole, The Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, the corpo- 
 ration that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me 
 that such corporation executed the same. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 
 official seal at my office in the county of Sacramento the day and year 
 in this certificate first above written. 
 
 [notarial seal.] Wm. H. Devlin, 
 
 Notary Public in and for the County of Sacramento, 
 
 State of California. 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that The Roman Catholic Bishop of 
 Monterey, in the State of California, a corporation sole (the Right 
 Reverend George Montgomery being the incumbent and as such bishop 
 successor of Thadeus Amat, deceased), has made, constituted, and 
 appointed, and by these presents does make, constitute, and appoint 
 the Most Reverend P. W. Riordan, archbishop of San Francisco, his 
 true and lawful attorney, to represent him, and in his name, as such 
 
376 PIOTJS FUND OK THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 bishop, to make to the Secretary of State of the United States and to 
 any other officers or diplomatic agents of the same such communica- 
 tions as may be desired of his wishes, election, or consent to any act, 
 agreement, election, or other proceeding had or taken or to be had or 
 taken by the Government of the United States towards bringing to a 
 conclusion and settlement, whether by arbitration or otherwise, the 
 controversy between the Government of the United States and that of 
 the Republic of Mexico regarding the claim made by the Roman 
 Catholic archbishop of San Francisco and himself as Roman Catholic 
 bishop of Monterey, against the Republic of Mexico for payment of 
 the arrears due for the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias heretofore taken 
 possession of by the said Government of Mexico; and to agree, in his 
 name, on any nomination of arbitrators or umpire and the place of 
 arbitration and other details of the arbitration of said controversy 
 proposed to be had between the said Governments; and also to agree 
 upon any compromise or settlement of the said claim, or any claim for 
 further payments on account of the said fund, or for the release of the 
 said Republic therefrom; and for all or any of the purposes aforesaid 
 to consent to and as such attorney to execute any papers or documents 
 needed in the course of said business and to affix his signature thereto; 
 and an attorney or attorneys under him for all or any of the purposes 
 above expressed to appoint; and all or any of the powers so granted 
 by him to any such subordinate attorneys to condition, limit, or revoke 
 at his discretion, and counsellors at law for any of the purposes afore- 
 said or other needed assistance to retain, agree upon the compensation 
 of, and dismiss in his discretion. 
 
 Giving and granting unto the said attorney and his substitute or 
 substitutes full power and authority in the premises to do or cause to 
 be done any of the acts aforesaid which the said Roman Catholic 
 Bishop of Monterey might or could do if personally present and act- 
 ing; hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney or his sub- 
 stitute or substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done hereinunder. 
 
 In witness whereof the corporate seal of the said corporation, The 
 Roman Catholic Bishop of Monterey, has been hereto affixed and these 
 presents duly signed by the said Right Reverend George Montgomery, 
 incumbent of said bishopric, this 23rd day of January, A. D. 1902. 
 
 [seal.] The Roman Catholic Bishop of Monteret, 
 
 A Corporation Sole, 
 By The Right Reverend George Montgomery, 
 
 Incumbent. 
 
 Witnesses: 
 
 John J. Clifford, 
 Clement Molont. 
 
 United States of America, 
 
 State of California, County of Los Angeles, ss: 
 I, J. Wiseman Macdonald, a notary public in and for the said county, 
 an officer having authority to take the acknowledgment of deeds, 
 do certify that on the 24th of February, A. D. 1902, before me, came 
 the Right Reverend George Montgomery (a corporation sole), known 
 to me to be the same person described in, and who, as such corpora- 
 tl ? D I 0le ' executed tne foregoing warrant of attorney and acknowl- 
 edged to me that he executed the same as such corporation sole, for 
 the uses and purposes therein mentioned, by affixing thereto the cor- 
 
PIOUS FUND -OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 377 
 
 porate seal of the said corporation, and attesting the same by his 
 signature. The said George Montgomery also then and there acknowl- 
 edged that he had so executed said warrant of attorney in the presence 
 of John J. Clifford and Clement Molony, the two witnesses whose 
 names are subscribed thereto as such. And I further certify that at 
 the time of making such acknowledgment I read and fully explained 
 said warrant of attorney to the said George Montgomery. 
 
 In witness whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the 
 official seal of my office in said county of Los Angeles the day and 
 year in this certificate above written. 
 
 J. Wiseman Macdonald, 
 Notary Public in and for Los Angeles County, Gal. 
 
 PROOF OF SUCCESSION OF THE MOST REVEREND PATRICK 
 WILLIAM RIORDAN, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO. 
 
 [In the matter of "the Eoman Catholic archbishop ol San Francisco," a religious corporation sole.] 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 
 Declaration and Notice of Corporate Succession. 
 
 Whereas the Eoman Catholic archbishop of the archdiocese of San 
 Francisco did heretofore, under and by virtue of the act of the legisla- 
 ture of the State of California entitled "An act concerning corpora- 
 tions," passed April 22, 1850, and of the act amendatory thereof, 
 approved May 4, 1852, become a religious corporation sole by the title 
 of "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco," for the pur- 
 pose of the administration of the temporalities of the Roman Catholic 
 Church in the said archdiocese of San Francisco, and the management 
 of the estate and property of said church; 
 
 And whereas the proper certificate or declaration of such incorpora- 
 tion was heretofore duly made by Most Rev. Joseph S. Alemany, who 
 at the time was the duly appointed Roman Catholic archbishop of the 
 said archdiocese; 
 
 And whereas the said declaration, together with the bull or com- 
 mission of his appointment as such archbishop, was, oh the twenty-fourth 
 day of February, A. D. 1854, duly recorded with the county clerk of 
 the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, the said city 
 and county being the see and place of residence of the said archbishop; 
 
 And whereas the said Most Rev. Joseph S. Alemany has resigned 
 his said see and office of archbishop of said archdiocese; 
 
 And whereas the Most Rev. Patrick William Riordan is the present 
 incumbent of said see and of said corporation; 
 
 Now therefore we, the undersigned, the said Joseph S. Alemany, 
 the said former incumbent, and the said Patrick William Riordan, the 
 said present incumbent, do hereby certify and declare: 
 
 That the said Most Rev. Patrick William Riordan was, by the con- 
 stituted authorities of said church, viz, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, 
 on the seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and eighty-three, duly appointed archbishop coadjutor 
 of said archdiocese with the right of succession to said see and to said 
 
378 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 office of archbishop of said archdiocese on the occurrence of a vacancy 
 therein; 
 
 That the said Most Rev. Joseph S. Alemany thereafter duly resigned 
 his said appointment, and his resignation was duly accepted on the 
 twenty-first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and eighty-four, by the constituted authorities of said 
 church, viz, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII; 
 
 That the said Most Rev. Patrick William Riordan thereupon became 
 the successor of said Most Rev. Joseph Alemany as such archbishop; 
 and as such has become and is now entitled to hold, manage, and 
 administer the temporalities, property, and estate of said Roman 
 Catholic Church in said archdiocese; 
 
 That a copy of the bull or letter of commission, in the Latin language, 
 appointing said Patrick William Riordan such archbishop coadjutor 
 with said right of succession, duly attested, together with a true and 
 sworn translation thereof, has been recorded with the said county 
 clerk, together with a copy, duly attested, of the letter of acceptance 
 of the said resignation of said Joseph S. Alemany, in the Latin 
 language, and a true and sworn translation thereof; 
 
 And we, the undersigned, the said Joseph S. Alemany, the former 
 incumbent, and said Patrick William Riordan, the present incumbent, 
 do hereby certify to all and singular the premises, and give notice 
 thereof to all persons whom it concern; and we further give notice 
 and declare that all the property heretofore held by said Joseph S. 
 Alemany, as such corporation, is now held by said Patrick William 
 Riordan, as his successor and as such corporation, in trust for the 
 use, purpose, and behoof of said Roman Catholic Church, and that the 
 said Joseph S. Alemany, the former incumbent of said office and cor- 
 poration, has delivered and surrendered to his successor, the said 
 Patrick William Riordan, the present incumbent of said office and 
 corporation, all property and all archives, books, papers, and the 
 corporate seal of said corporation. 
 
 In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names this 
 25th day of March, A. D. 1885, and have acknowledged these presents 
 before a notary public; and I, the said Patrick William Riordan, as 
 present incumbent, have also signed hereto the corporate name of 
 said corporation, and affixed hereto its corporate seal, and have also 
 acknowledged these presents as the act of said corporation. 
 Joseph S. Alemany. 
 Patrick William Riordan. 
 
 [seal.] Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and county of San Francisco, ss: 
 On this 25th day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and eighty -five, before me, John E. Hamill, a notary 
 public of the State of California, in and for said city and county of 
 San Francisco, duly commissioned, personally appeared Joseph S. 
 Alemany and Patrick William Riordan, known to me to be the per- 
 sons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and each 
 of them for himself, respectively, acknowledged to me that he exe- 
 cuted the same; and at the same time personally appeared the said 
 Patrick William Riordan, the present incumbent of the corporation 
 described in said instrument, viz, "The Roman Catholic Archbishop 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 379 
 
 of San Francisco," and acknowledged to me that sucn corporation 
 executed the same. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature and name 
 of office, and also my official seal, at my office in said city and county, 
 the day and year in this certificate above written. 
 
 [seal.] John E. Hamill, Notary Public. 
 
 I, Albert B. Mahony, county clerk of the city and county of San 
 Francisco, State of California, and ex-officio clerk of the superior court 
 in and for said city and county, hereby certify the foregoing to be a 
 full, true, and correct copy of the original declaration and notice of 
 corporate succession in the above-entitled cause, filed in my office on 
 the 25th day of March, A. D. 1885. 
 
 Attest my hand and seal of said court this 13th day of June, 1902. 
 
 [seal.] Albert B. Mahony, Clerk, 
 
 By Joseph Riordan, Deputy Clerk. 
 
 (Endorsed:) 9639. In the matter of "The Roman Catholic Arch- 
 bishop of San Francisco," a religious corporation sole. Declaration 
 and notice of corporate succession. Filed March 25, 1885. Jas. J. 
 Flynn, clerk. By Jno. J. Mott, deputy clerk. 
 
 Certificate of Election to Continue the Existence of the 
 Corporation under the Provisions of the Civil Code of the 
 State of California Applicable Thereto. 
 
 Whereas the Roman Catholic archbishop of the archdiocese of . San 
 Francisco did heretofore, under and by virtue of the act of the legis- 
 lature of the State of California entitled "An act concerning corpora- 
 tions," passed April 22nd, 1850, and of the act amendatory thereof, 
 approved May 4th, 1852, become a religious corporation sole, under 
 the title of "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco," for 
 the purposes of the administration of the temporalities of the Roman 
 Catholic Church in the said archdiocese of San Francisco and the 
 management of the estate and property of said church; and 
 
 Whereas a proper certificate or declaration of such incorporation was 
 heretofore duly made by the Most Reverend Joseph S. Alemany, who 
 at the time of the making of such certificate or declaration was the 
 duly appointed and acting Roman Catholic archbishop of the said 
 archdiocese; and 
 
 Whereas the said declaration, together with the bull or commission 
 of his appointment as such archbishop, was on the 24th day of Febru- 
 ary, A. D. 1854, duly recorded with the county clerk of the city and 
 county of San Francisco, State of California, the said city and county 
 being the see and place of residence of the said archbishop; and 
 
 Whereas the Most Reverend Patrick William Riordan was, by the 
 constituted authorities of said Roman Catholic Church, namely, His 
 Holiness Pope Leo XIII, on the 17th day of July, in the year of our 
 Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, duly appointed 
 archbishop coadjutor of said archdiocese with the right of succession 
 in said see and to said office of said archbishop of said archdiocese on 
 the occurrence of a vacancy therein; and 
 
 Whereas the said Most Reverend Joseph S. Alemany duly resigned 
 his said position and office as Roman Catholic archbishop of the said 
 
380 PIOUS FUND OF THE CA1IFORNIAS. 
 
 archdiocese, and his resignation was duly accepted on the 21st day of 
 December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 eighty-four, by the duly constituted authorities of said church, namely, 
 His Holiness Pope Leo XIII; and 
 
 Whereas a copy of the bull or letter of commission in the Latin 
 language appointing said Patrick William Riordan such archbishop 
 coadjutor with such right of succession duly attested, together with a 
 true and sworn translation thereof, was on the 25th of March, 1885, 
 recorded with the county clerk of the city and county of San Fran- 
 cisco, together with a copy duly attested of the letter of acceptance of 
 the said resignation of said Joseph S. Alemany in the Latin language, 
 and a true and sworn translation thereof, and thereupon and in pur- 
 suance of his said appointment as archbishop coadjutor of said arch- 
 diocese the said Most Reverend Patrick William Riordan became the 
 successor of said Most Reverend Joseph S. Alemany as such arch- 
 bishop, and as such became, ever since has been, and now is entitled to 
 hold, manage, and administer the temporalities, property, and estate 
 of said Roman Catholic Church in said archdiocese, and also the suc- 
 cessor of said Most Reverend Joseph S. Alemany in his corporate 
 capacity as a religious corporation sole under the title of The Roman 
 Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco; and 
 
 Whereas a certificate of such succession by said Patrick W. Riordan 
 to said Joseph S. Alemany in the position and office of the Roman 
 Catholic archbishop of the archdiocese of San Francisco, and of his 
 corporate capacity as a religious corporation sole under the name and 
 designation of The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, was 
 duly executed and acknowledged by the said Joseph S. Alemany, the 
 former incumbent, and the said Patrick William Riordan, the present 
 incumbent, and by said Patrick William Riordan, archbishop as afore- 
 said, as the corporation sole hereinbefore mentioned on the 25th day 
 of March, A. D. 1885, and which certificate was thereafter and on the 
 25th day of March, 1885, duly filed at the office of the county clerk in 
 and for the city and county of San Francisco, 
 
 Now, therefore, the said religious corporation sole, "The Roman 
 Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco," the Most Reverend Patrick 
 William Riordan incumbent thereof, does hereby elect to continue its 
 existence under the provisions of the civil code of the State of Califor- 
 nia, applicable thereto, and especially under the provisions of section 
 602 of said civil code, and the undersigned Patrick William Riordan, 
 the Roman Catholic archbishop of the archdiocese of San Francisco, 
 and the incumbent and possessor of the corporate franchise of said 
 religious corporation sole known as and called "The Roman Catholic 
 Archbishop of San Francisco," do hereby certify that such election was 
 duly made by said corporation and by said Patrick William Riordan, 
 the incumbent and possessor of said corporate franchise. 
 
 In witness whereof the said Patrick William Riordan, the Roman 
 Catholic archbishop of the archdiocese of San Francisco, has hereunto 
 signed his name and official title and has also signed hereto the cor- 
 porate name of said corporation, and affixed hereto its corporate seal, 
 and has also acknowledged these presents as the act of said corporation. 
 Patrick William Riordan, 
 
 The Roman Catholic Archbishop of the 
 
 Archdiocese of San Francisco. 
 The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, 
 By Patrick William Riordan, Incumbent. 
 
pious fund of the califobnias. 381 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 
 On this seventeenth day of February, in the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and ninety-six, before me, Donzel Stoney, a notary public in 
 and for the said city and county of San Francisco, State of California, 
 duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Patrick William 
 Eiordan, who is personally known to me to be the incumbent of the 
 office of the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, and as such 
 the only member of the corporation sole known as and called The 
 Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, the corporation sole that 
 executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that such 
 corporation sole executed the same. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 
 official seal at my office in said city and county of San Francisco,- the 
 day and year in this certificate first above written. 
 
 [notarial seal.] Donzel Stoney, 
 
 Notary Public in and for the City and County 
 
 of San Francisco, State of California. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 
 On this seventeenth day of February, in the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and ninety-six, before me, Donzel Stoney, a notary public in 
 and for the said city and county of San Francisco, State of California, 
 duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Patrick William 
 Riordan, the Roman Catholic archbishop of the archdiocese of San 
 Francisco, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to, 
 and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged that he 
 executed the same. 
 
 In witness whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 
 official seal at my office in the said city and county of San Francisco, 
 the day and year in this certificate first above written. 
 
 [notarial seal.] Donzel Stoney, 
 
 Notary Public in and for the City and County 
 
 of San Francisco, Stale of California. 
 
 I, Albert B. Mahony, county clerk of the city and county of San 
 Francisco, State of California, and ex-officio clerk of the superior court 
 in and for said city and county, hereby certify the foregoing to be a 
 full, true, and correct copy of the original notice of election to continue 
 existence of corporation under the codes of the State of California, in 
 the above entitled cause, filed in my office on the 18th day of Febru- 
 ary, A. D. 1896. 
 
 Attest my hand and seal of said court this 13th day of June, 1902. 
 
 [seal.] Albert B. Mahony, 
 
 By Joseph Riordan, Deputy Clerk. 
 
 (Endorsed:) No. 9639. In the matter of The Roman Catholic Arch- 
 bishop of San Francisco, a religious corporation sole. Notice of elec- 
 tion to continue existence of corporation under the codes of the State 
 of California. Filed Feb. 18, 1896. C F. Curry, clerk. By Wm. 
 R, A. Johnson, deputy clerk, 
 
382 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Rome, the 31st December, I884. 
 Most Reverend Father Joseph Alemany, 
 
 Archbishop of 8cm Francisco. Sacred Congregation 
 
 of Propaganda Secretariship. N. 3169-Object. 
 
 Most Illustrious and Rev. Sir: The humble petition of your lord- 
 ship by which you asked of His Holiness Leo XIII to be exonerated 
 from the weighty burthen of governing your archdiocese was laid 
 before His Holiness on the 21st day of December of the present year. 
 And His Holiness, having maturely considered the weighty reasons 
 which have induced your lordship to send this supplication, has favor- 
 ably considered your petition and has vouchsafed to accept your resig- 
 nation. Your lordship has indeed managed with signal care the religious 
 affairs in your archdiocese for a long space of time, and has endeavored 
 to cultivate the vineyard of the Lord with unwearied labor and to make 
 it prosperous. Therefore, I regret that the archdiocese should be 
 deprived of so worthy a pastor; but, on the other hand, it appears just 
 that after having endured so many and such great labors you should 
 be permitted to spend the remainder of your life free from all solici- 
 tude, in peace and tranquillity. For the rest, I trust that your coad- 
 jutor, under your direction, has acquired sufficient knowledge and 
 experience in the administration of the archdiocese, so that he may 
 direct and govern the church in a proper manner. 
 
 But as after the acceptance of the renunciation you no longer have 
 the title of that archdiocese, I will endeavor to provide you with some 
 new titular archiepiscopal see. 
 
 Finally, it being altogether just that you should receive the means 
 of an honest sustenance from the church over which you exercise the 
 apostolic ministry, a congruous and sufficient pension shall be assigned 
 you, on the amount of which you ma} r agree amicably with the new 
 Archbishop Riordan. Meanwhile, I pray God long to preserve you. 
 Your lordship's most devoted brother, 
 
 John Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect. 
 
 P. S. — I request your lordship to notify your coadjutor, who suc- 
 ceeds to the see made vacant by your resignation, that I have com- 
 municated to him, with power of substitution, all faculties, both 
 ordinary and extraordinary, a printed copy of which shall soon be sent. 
 
 +D. Arohiep. Tyren, Secrius. 
 
 Congregazione di Propaganda. 
 
 Segretaria. 
 
 N. 3169— Oggetto. 
 
 Roma li 31 Decembre, 1884. 
 
 Iltme ac Rme Domine. 
 
 Die 21 Decembris, currentis anni S. Smo. D. N. Leoni XIII relatus 
 est supplex libellus R. T. que expostulabas ut te gravi pondere istius 
 Archidioceseos regdenae exonerare placeret. 
 
 Sanctites vero sua mature perpensis non levis momenti rationibus, 
 quae A. T. ad hanc supplicationem porrigendum impulerunt, benigne 
 preces Tuas exipere, ac renuntiationem acceptare dignate est. Certe 
 A. T. per longum temporis spatium magna cura negotia religionis in 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOSNTAS. 383 
 
 ista Archidiocesi gessit, ac vineam Domini tibi commissam indefesso 
 iabore colere, ac secundare studuit. 
 
 Quapropter aegre fero Archidiocesim tam digno viduari pastore, 
 attamen ex altera parte aequum esse perspicio, ut post tot tantosque 
 exautlates labores reliquam vitam expertem ab omni sollicitudine 
 impare, et tranquillitate transigere possis. 
 
 De caetero contido Coadjuto^em tuum sub tua directione Archidio- 
 cesanae administrationes sufficientem scientiem experientiem acquisi- 
 visse ita ut aequa par est ratione, istam Ecclesiam regere ac gubernare 
 valeat. 
 
 Cum autem post acceptatam renunciationem non amplius titulum 
 istius Archidioceseos habeas te de nova aliqua sede titulari Archiepis- 
 copali providere curabo. 
 
 R. P. D. Josepho Alemany, 
 
 Archiep . S. Francisci. 
 
 Demum cum aequitati omnino consonet ut, in quo Aplcum. ministe- 
 rium exercuisti, inde honestate substentationes media capias, hinc de 
 aerario archidiocesano tibi congrua ac sufficiens pensio dignanda erit; 
 de cujus quantitates de terminatione cum nov. Archiep" Riordan con- 
 venire poteris. 
 
 Interea Deum precor ut te diutissime sospitet, A. T. 
 TJti Frater addictissimus, 
 
 Johannes Card. Simeoni, Prsefecttcs. 
 
 P, 8. Rogo A. T. ut coadjutorem tuum, qui sedi per renuntiationem 
 a te missam vacanti succedere debet, certiorem facias. Ipsi communi- 
 cavi et quidem cum protestate sub delegandi omnes facultates tam 
 ordinarias, quam extraordinarias. quarum exemplar typis impressum 
 brevi mittetur. 
 
 +D. Archiep. Tyren, Secrius. 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 
 Patrick William Riordan, being duly sworn, deposes as follows: 
 
 I am the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, and the present 
 incumbent and the successor of the Most Reverend Joseph S. Alemany; 
 the original bull accepting the resignation of the said Joseph S. Alemany 
 as archbishop of San Francisco, as aforesaid, is written in the Latin lan- 
 guage, and is now among the archives of the archiepiscopal see of the 
 Roman Catholic archdiocese of San Francisco, and is in my custody as 
 such archbishop. I am competent to translate Latin into English, and 
 I hereby certify and declare, on oath, that I have carefully compared 
 the foregoing instrument, written in the Latin language, with the orig- 
 inal bull, aforesaid, and the same is a full, true, and correct copy of 
 said bull; I further certify and declare, on oath, that the foregoing 
 instrument, written in the English language, is a true and correct trans- 
 lation from Latin into English of the said bull. 
 
 Patrick William Riordan. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of March, A. D. 
 1885. 
 [notarial seal.] John E. Hamill, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
384 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 [Certificate attached.] 
 
 State of California, 
 
 State and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 I, Albert B. Mahony, county clerk of the city and county of San 
 Francisco, State of California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, 
 true, and correct copy of the original acceptance of resignation of 
 Joseph S. Alemany, filed in my office on the 25th day of March, A. D. 
 1885. 
 
 Attest my hand and my official seal this 14th day of June, A. D. 1902. 
 [seal.] Albert B. Mahony, 
 
 County Clerk. 
 By Joseph Riorda, 
 
 Deputy County Clerk. 
 
 (Endorsed:) 9639. In the matter of The Roman Catholic Archbishop 
 of San Francisco, a religious corporation sole. Acceptance of resigna- 
 tion of Joseph S. Alemany. Filed March 25, 1885. Jas. J. Flynn, 
 clerk. By Jno. H. Mott, deputy clerk. 9639. 
 
 LEO P. P. XIII. 
 
 Dilecte Fili salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Annis et labo- 
 ribus fractus adversaque laborans valetudine Venerabilis Frater Jose- 
 phus Sadoc Alemany Archiepiscopis S. Francisci in California ad 
 explendas pastorales curas quum alterius ope indigeat supplex Nos 
 rogavit, ut ei adiutorem cum successionis jure assignare velimus. Hinc 
 necessitati consulere cirpientes egimus hac de re cum Venerabilibus 
 Fratribus Nostris S. R. E. Cardinalibus Christiano Nomini propagando 
 praepositis diligenterque omnibus perpensis et consideratis hujusmodi 
 munus de eorumdem Venerabilium Fratrum Nostrum consilio tibi, 
 delecte fili, bujus pietas, doctrina, prudentia excellentis commendatur 
 testimoniis, demandatum censuimus. Itaque te quern per similes Lit- 
 teras Nostras hoc ipso die datas Archiepiscopum titularis Ecclesiae 
 Cabasensis f ecimus ac renuntiavimus, peculiari benevolentia complecti 
 volentes, at a quibusvis excommunicationis et interdicti aliisque eccle- 
 siasticis sententiis censuris et poenis quovis modo vel quavis de causa 
 latis, si quas forte incurreris, hujus tantum rei gratia absolventes et 
 absolutum fore censentes, Apostolica auctoritate Nostra harum litter- 
 arum vi coadiutorem praedicti Venerabilis Fratris Josephi Archiepis- 
 copi S. Francisci in California cum f uturae successionis jure eligimus et 
 instituimus. Igitur quandocumque Archiepiscopalis Sedes supradicta 
 per obitum dicti Archiepiscopi, vel aliam quamlibet ob causam vaca- 
 verit, a vinculo quo titulari Ecclesiae Cabasensi adstrictus detineris 
 nunc pro tunc ex Apostolicae potestatis nostrae plenitudine solventes 
 Archiepiscopum S. Francisci in California facimus et constituimus cum 
 omnibus et singulis juribus, honoribus, privilegiis et facultatibus quae 
 ex jure vel ex consuetudine Archiepiscoporum sunt propriae. Volumus 
 autem ut vivente praefato Venerabili Fratre Josepho ArchiepiscopoS. 
 Francisci eatenus te ingeras in Diocesis procuratione quatenus ille 
 voluerit ac mandaverit. Parecipimus deinde omnibus ad quos spectat, 
 au spectare poterit, ut, juxta praesentium Litterarum tenorem ad 
 Coadiutoris afficium, et suo tempore in Archiepiscopum memoratae 
 Sedes S, Francisci in California recipiant et admittant, tibique fave- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOEWIAS. 385 
 
 ant preasto sint ao pareant, tuaque salubriamonita rever enter excipiant 
 atque efficaciter adimpleant alioquin sententiam seu poenani, quam in 
 rebelles rite tuleris vel statueris ratam habebimus eamque faciemus 
 auctorante Domino usque ad conde quam satisfactionem inviolabiliter 
 observari. Non obstantibus constitutionibus et ordinationibus Apos- 
 tolieis, et si opus sit dictae Archieposcopalis Ecclesias S. Francisci etiam 
 iuramento cohfirmatione apostolica vel quavis firmitate alia roboratis 
 statutis, et consuetudinibus caeterisque contrariis quibuscumque. 
 Datum Romae apud S. Petrum sub annulo Piscatoris die XVII Julii 
 MDCCCLXXXIII Pontificaius Nii Anno sexto. 
 
 Th. Caedis. Meetel. 
 
 (Leo Pont. Max.) 
 
 Dilecto Filio, Patritio Guilielmo Riordan, Rectori Ecclesiae ad hon- 
 orem S. Jacobi in Civitate Chicagii. 
 
 To our beloved son, Patrick William Riordan, rector of the Church 
 of St. James, in the city of Chicago. 
 
 LEO XIII, PEPE. 
 
 Beloved son, health and apostolic benediction! Our venerable 
 brother Joseph Sadoc Alemany, archbishop of San Francisco in Cali- 
 fornia, debilitated by years and labors and suffering infirm health, has 
 humbly petitioned us that, as he needs assistance in the dischargeof 
 his pastoral cares, we would deign to appoint a coadjutor to him with 
 the right of succession. Wherefore, we being desirous of providing 
 for this necessity, having first duly advised thereupon with our vener- 
 able brethren the Sacred College of Cardinals, charged with the prop- 
 agation of the Christian faith, and all things having been diligently 
 weighed and duly considered, according to their usual course in like 
 cases, and upon the advice of our venerable brethren aforesaid have 
 decided that the office of coadjutor aforesaid should be entrusted to 
 you, beloved son, whose piety, learning, and prudence are attested by 
 excellent testimonials. Therefore longing with a special affection to 
 embrace you, whom we have by letters of even date herewith consti- 
 tuted and proclaimed archbishop of the titular diocese of Caves, and 
 thereupon absolving you and declaring you absolved from all and every 
 excommunication, interdict, or other ecclesiastical sentence or censure 
 or penalty of whatever nature, and for whatsoever cause pronounced 
 (if perchance you may have incurred any such), by our apostolic 
 authority, and in virtue of these letters we have elected and consti- 
 tuted you coadjutor of our above-named venerable Brother Joseph, 
 archbishop of San Francisco, in California, with the right of future 
 succession to the said archbishopric. Therefore whenever the archi- 
 episcopal see before mentioned shall become vacant, either by the 
 death of the aforesaid archbishop, or from any other cause, by the 
 plenitude of our authority, releasing you nunc pro tunc from the bond 
 by which you are held to the titular church of Caves, we make and 
 constitute you archbishop of San Francisco, in California, with all and 
 each of the rights, honors, privileges, and prerogatives thereunto per- 
 taining whether by right or custom. Nevertheless, it is our desire 
 that, during the lifetime of the venerable brother Joseph, archbishop 
 of San Francisco, you should take such part in the administration of 
 the diocese as he may request and empower you to do. And finally 
 we commend all whom it concerns, or may concern, that in accordance 
 S. Doc. 28 25 
 
386 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 with the tenor of the present letters they receive and admit you into 
 the office of coadjutor and in the proper time as archbishop of the 
 aforesaid see of San Francisco, and that they respect and obey you 
 therein, and that they reverently receive your salutary admonitions 
 and efficaciously carry them out, failing which we will ratify whatever 
 sentence or judgment you may lawfully pronounce or ordain against 
 the refractory, and we will continue to do this, the Lord confirming 
 it, until perfect satisfaction be had. The constitutions and apostolic 
 ordinances, and if need be the statutes of the aforesaid archiepiscopal 
 church of San Francisco, confirmed even by sworn or apostolic ratifi- 
 cation or fortified by any other power whatsoever, and all customs and 
 other things to the contrary notwithstanding. Given at St. Peter's in 
 Rome, under the seal of the fisherman's ring, the 17th day of July, 
 MDCCCLXXIII, in the sixth year of our pontificate. 
 
 Th. Cardl. Meetel. 
 (Leo XIII. Pont. Max.) 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 Patrick William Riordan, being duly sworn, deposes and says as fol- 
 lows: I am the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, and the 
 present incumbent, and am successor of the Most Reverend Joseph S. 
 Alemany; that the original bull, or letter, of my appointment by His 
 Holiness Pope Leo XIII is written in the Latin language and is now 
 among the archives of the archiepiscopal see of the Roman Catholic 
 archdiocese of San Francisco, and is in my custody as such archbishop. 
 I am competent to translate Latin into English, and I hereby certify 
 and declare on oath that I have carefully compared the foregoing 
 instrument, written in the Latin language, with the original bull afore- 
 said, and that the same is a full, true, and correct copy of said bull. 
 I further certify and declare on oath that the foregoing instrument 
 written in the English language is a true and correct translation from 
 Latin into English of said bull. 
 
 Patrick William Riordan. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of March, A. D. 1885. 
 
 [notarial seal.] John E. Hamill, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 
 I, Albert B. Mahony, county clerk of the city and county of San 
 Francisco, State of California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a 
 full, true, and correct copy of the original proof of appointment and 
 succession of Archbishop Patrick William Riordan, filed in my office 
 on the 25th day of March, A. D. 1885. 
 
 Attest my hand and my official seal this 14th dav of June, A. D. 
 1902. ' 
 
 [seal.] Albert B. Mahont, County Clerk, 
 
 By Joseph Riordan, Deputy County Clerk. 
 
 (Endorsed:) 9639. In the matter of "The Roman Catholic Arch- 
 bishop of San Francisco," a religious corporation sole. Proof of 
 appointment and succession of Archbishop Patrick William Riordan. 
 Filed March 25, 1885. Jas. J. Flynn, Clerk. By Jno. H. Mott, 
 Deputy Clerk. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 387 
 
 PROOF OF SUCCESSION OF THE RT. REV. GEORGE MONTGOMERY, 
 R. C. BISHOP OF MONTEREY. 
 
 [Stat. 1852, p. 168, Civ. Code, sec. 602.] 
 
 State of California, 
 
 County of Los Angeles, ss: 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that whereas, the Right Reverend 
 Thadeus Amat, being duly constituted the bishop of the Roman Catho- 
 lic Church in the diocese of Monterey, did, for the purpose of the 
 administration of the temporalities of the Roman Catholic Church in 
 said diocese and the management of the estate and property of said 
 church, become incorporated as a religious corporation sole, by a cer- 
 tificate, under his hand and official seal, bearing date the ninth day of 
 December, 1870, and duly recorded in the office of the county clerk of 
 the county of Monterey in Book A of miscellaneous records at page 
 19, on December 12th, 1870. 
 
 And whereas I, Francis Mora, was afterwards, to wit, on the 20th 
 day of May, A. D. 1873, by bulls or letters of appointment from His 
 Holiness Pope Pius IX, given at Rome, under the seal of the fisher- 
 man's ring, bearing date the day and year last mentioned, duly 
 appointed to be the coadjutor bishop of said diocese, with the right of 
 succession thereto, on the death of the said Thadeus Amat or other 
 vacancy occurring therein. 
 
 And whereas, afterwards, to wit, on the 12th day of May, 1878, the 
 said Right Reverend Thadeus Amat departed this life, whereby I, the 
 said Francis Mora, have succeeded to the said bishopric of Monterey 
 and become the incumbent of the said diocese and of the corporation 
 sole. 
 
 Now, therefore, for proof of such death and of my appointment as 
 such bishop and of my succession as such incumbent, I annex hereto 
 the affidavit of the rector of the parish, showing the decease of the 
 said Right Reverend Thadeus Amat, and simultaneously herewith I 
 cause to be recorded a duly attested copy of my said letter of appoint- 
 ment as such bishop, the same being in the Latin language, and also a 
 duly attested translation thereof, in the office of and with the county 
 clerk of Monterey County, my episcopal residence being in said 
 county. 
 
 In witness whereof 1 have hereunto set my hand and the corporate 
 seal of the said diocese and corporation sole this 29th day of June, 
 1878. 
 
 [seal.] Francis Mora, Bishop of Monterey. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of Los Angeles, ss: 
 
 On the twenty-ninth day of June, A. D. one thousand eight hundred 
 and seventy-eight, before me, A. C. Holmes, a notary public in and 
 for said Los Angeles County, residing therein, duly commissioned and 
 sworn, personally appeared Francis Mora, bishop of Monterey, known 
 to me to be the person described in, whose- name is subscribed to, and 
 who executed the within instrument, and he duly acknowledged to me 
 that he executed the same. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 
 
388 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 official seal, at my office, in the city and county of Los Angeles, the 
 day and year last above written. 
 
 [seal.] A. C. Holmes, Notary Public. 
 
 State or California, 
 
 City and Ccnwity of Los Angeles, ss: 
 
 I, the Rev. Peter Verdaguer, rector of the Cathedral of St. Vibiana 
 and of Our Lady of Angels, being duly sworn, depose and say that I 
 knew the late Right Rev. Thaddeus Amat, bishop of Monterey; that 
 said bishop died in the city of Los Angeles the 12th day of May, 1878; 
 that I saw his corpse after his demise, attended at the funeral, and 
 ■witnessed the remains being deposited in the basement of the cathedral. 
 
 In witness whereof I set my hand and seal it with the seal of the 
 parish this day, the 28 of June, A. D. 1878. 
 
 [seal.] Rev. Peter Verdaguer, Rector. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of June, A. D. 1878. 
 [seal.J A. C. Holmes, Notary Publdc. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 County of Los Angeles, ss: 
 Francis Mora, being duly sworn, deposes and says — 
 That he is the duly constituted Roman Catholic bishop of Monterey 
 and the same person to whom the commission, or letter of appoint- 
 ment, a copy of which is annexed hereto, is addressed. That the said 
 copy has been by him compared with the said original commission, or 
 letter of appointment, in his possession, and is a full, true, and correct 
 copy thereof, and of the whole thereof. 
 
 Francis Mora, 
 
 Bishop of Monterey. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of June, 1878. 
 [seal.] A. C. Holmes, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 Dilecto filio Francisco Mora, Presbytero, Vicario Generali Diocesis 
 Montereyensis et Angelorum in California. 
 
 PIUS P. P. IX. 
 
 Dilecte fili, salutem et Apostolicam Benedictionem! Simul ac Nos 
 venerabilis Prater Thaddeus Amat, Episcopus Montereyensis atqiife 
 Angelorum, enixis rogavit precibus, ut attentis valetudinis, quibus 
 connictatur incommodis subsidium sibi Coadjutoris Episcopi, cum 
 futuro successions jure decernevemus, Nos de spirituali — illius Ecclesio 
 bono splliciti, cum venerabilibus Fratribus Nostris, Sanctae Romanae 
 Ecclesiae Cardinalibus, negotiis Propagandae Fidei praepositis, rem 
 communicavimus, omnibusque rationum momentis sedulo attenteque 
 perpensis, et votis memorati Autistis obsecundandum, et tibi, dilecte 
 Fili istudmunus demandandum existimavimus, procerto habentus, te, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 389 
 
 pro eaqua egregio commendaris, religionis, prudentiae, expectatipni 
 Nostraecumulatissime responsurum. Quae cum sita sint, te quern 
 per similes Nostras litteras, hoc ipso die datas, Episcopum Mossyno- 
 politamum, in partibis infidelium, renuntiavimus, hisce litteris ab 
 quibisvis excommunicationis et interdicti aliisque ecclesiasticis censuris, 
 sententiis et poenis, quovis modo, vel quovis de cause latis, si quas 
 forte incurristi, hujus tantum rei gratia absolventes et absolutum lore 
 consentes, de praedictorum V. V. Fratrum Nostrorum consilio, Coad- 
 jutorum praefati Episcopi Montereyensis atque Angelorum, cum 
 futurae successionis jure, Auctoritate Nostrae Apostolica, facimus et 
 renuntiamus; teque quando cumque per obitum dicti Autistitis, vel 
 aliam quamlibet ob causam Montereyensis et Angelorum. Sedes vac- 
 ayerit, a vinculo, quo tuae isti Mossynopolitanae Ecclesiae adstrictus 
 deteniris, nunc pro tunc, de Apostolicae potestatis Nostrae plenetu- 
 dine, solventes in Episcopum Montereyensis atque Angelorum, nunc 
 item pro tunc facimus et constituimus, cum singulis atque universis 
 honoribus, facultatibus, juribus et praerogativis solitis, et consuetis. 
 Volumus autem, ut viventi Monterey ensi atque Angelorum Episcopo, 
 te eatenus ingeras in Dioecesis administratione, quatenus ille valuerit, 
 ae mandaverit. Porro omnibus et singulis ad quos pertinere poterit 
 jubemus, ut te in Coadjutorem hujusmodi, et suo tempore in Episco- 
 pum Montereyensem atque Angelorum excipiant, admittant, tibique 
 in omnibus faveant, praesto sint ac pareant tuaque salubria monita et 
 mandata reverenter excipiant atque efficaciter ad impleant; secus sen- 
 tentiam seu poenam, quam vite tuteris staturisve in rebelles, ratam 
 habebimus, cumque fociemus auctorante Deo, atque ad satisfactionem 
 condignam in violabiliter observari. Non obstantibus Apostolicus atque 
 in universalibus Provincialibus que et synodalibus conciliis editis, gen- 
 eralibus, vel specialibus constitutionibus et ordinationibus, nee non 
 dictae ecclesietum Mossynopolitanae cum Montereyensis atque Ange- 
 lorum etiam juramento confirmatione Apostolica vel quavis firmitate 
 alia roborati. Statutis, consuetudinibus caterisque contrariis quibus- 
 cumque. 
 
 Datus Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum sub Annulo Piscatoris die XX 
 Maii MDCCCLXXIII Pontificatus Nostri anno vicesimo septimo. 
 (Soc. Sigil.) F. Cakd. Asquinius. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 John T. Doyle, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 
 That he is acquainted with and versed in the Latin and English 
 lauguages; that the original commission, or letter of appointment, 
 constituting the Right Reverend Francis Mora coadjutor bishop of 
 Monterey County (a copy of which is prefixed hereto) is in the Latin 
 language, and that the paper hereto annexed is a correct translation 
 thereof into the English language. 
 
 John T. Doyle. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of June, 1878. 
 [seal.] James L. King, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
390 PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1F0ENIAS. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 To our beloved son, Francisco Mora, priest, vicar general of the 
 diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles in California. 
 
 POPE PIOUS IX. 
 
 Beloved son, health and apostolic benediction. 
 
 No sooner did our venerable Brother Thaddeus Amat, bishop of 
 Monterey and Los Angeles, beseech us with ardent entreaties that, hav- 
 ing regard to the infirmity of his bodily health, we would furnish him 
 the assistance of a coadjutor bishop with the right of future succession, 
 than we, solicitous for the spiritual welfare of that church, took coun- 
 sel thereupon with our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the Holy 
 Roman Church, who preside over the congregation of the propagation 
 of the faith; and having diligently and attentively considered and 
 weighed the reasons in support of such petition, decided to comply 
 with the wishes of the aforesaid prelate, and to entrust to you, beloved 
 son, the duty of such office; as we feel well assured by the most excel- 
 lent reputation you enjoy for piety, prudence, and learning that you 
 will, in the discharge of that office, most abundantly correspond to 
 our expectation. Wherefore, we, who by a similar document issued 
 by our authority, and bearing even date herewith, have nominated 
 you bishop of Mossynopolis, inpartibus injldelium, by this letter, and 
 only for the purpose of the office herein referred to, absolving you 
 and considering you as having been absolved from whatever excom- 
 munication, interdict, or other ecclesiastical censure, sentence and 
 penalty, if any, in whatever manner, and for whatever reason incurred, 
 do, in accordance with the advice of our aforesaid venerable brethren, 
 in virtue of our apostolical authority, create and publicly declare you 
 coadjutor of the above-mentioned bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles, 
 with the right of succession to said diocese; and whenever by the death 
 of the aforesaid prelate, or for whatever other reason, the see of 
 Monterey and Los Angeles shall become vacant, we, releasing you 
 nunc pro tunc from all obligation binding you henceforth to your 
 church of Mossynopolis, do, in virtue of the plentitude of our apos- 
 tolical power, likewise create and constitute you, nunc pro tunc, bishop 
 of Monterey and Los Angeles, with all the honors, powers, rights, and 
 prerogatives usual and customary. It is, however, our will that, 
 while the present bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles lives, you will 
 lend him your assistance in the administration of said diocese only in 
 accordance with his desires and mandates. Moreover, we command 
 every one and all who are or may be concerned to receive and 
 acknowledge you as such coadjutor, and at the proper time, as such 
 bishop of the diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles, and hereby enjoin 
 on all the obligation to extend to you their favor, assistance, and sub- 
 mission in everything, and to receive with reverence your salutary* 
 admonitions and injunctions, and to carry them into execution, and if 
 they should ever fail to do so, we shall ratify the sentence or penalty 
 that you may have rightfully pronounced against or inflicted upon them, 
 and shall by means of the power committed to us by God, inviolably 
 enforce the said sentence or penalty, so as to exact condign satisfaction. 
 And all our injunctions hereby decreed will have their full vigor, all 
 and singular other contrary apostolical constitutions and regulations, 
 general or special, issued either in universal or provincial or synodical 
 
PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 391 
 
 councils, and likewise all statutes, customs, and other rules of the 
 aforesaid churches of Mossynopolis and Monterey and Los Angeles, 
 even if ratified by oath and apostolical confirmation, or corroborated 
 by any other ratification whatever, to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, under the seal of the fisherman's ring, 
 on the 20th day of May, 1873, the 27th year of our pontificate. 
 
 [seal.] F. Cardinal Asquini. 
 
 State of California, j 
 
 Comity of Monterey, ) ' 
 
 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 proof 
 of the succession of Francis Mora to Thadeus Amat as Roman Cath- 
 olic bishop of Monterey, a corporation sole, as the same appears of 
 record in my office in Book B, miscellaneous records of Monterey 
 County, California, at page 3 and following. 
 
 And the same has been compared by me with the original. 
 
 Witness my hand and seal of said court this 13th dav of June, A. D. 
 1902. 
 
 [seal.] J. D. Kalar, Clerk. 
 
 City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, 
 
 State of California, Diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles. 
 
 I, the undersigned, George Montgomery, bishop of the diocese of 
 Monterey and Los Angeles, do hereby certify and declare that the 
 rules, regulations, and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church in the 
 United States of America, and in said diocese, require for the admin- 
 istration of the temporalities of said church and for the management 
 of the estate and property in said diocese that the bishop of said dio- 
 cese should become and be a religious corporation sole. I also certify 
 and declare that the manner in which an} T vacancy occurring in the 
 incumbency of such bishop is required by the rules, regulations, and 
 discipline of said church to be filled by appointment by the Roman 
 Catholic chief bishop of said church, to wit, the Pope. According to 
 the customs and usages of the church, the selection of a bishop is 
 determined as follows: Six of the most prominent priests of the dio- 
 cese, representing all the priests thereof, and known as the bishops' 
 council, meet in consultation and agree upon a list of three names 
 marked respectively as follows, to wit, one is marked worthy, another 
 worthier, and the other worthiest. This list is then sent to the arch- 
 bishop of the province. The archbishop thereupon '•alls a meeting of 
 all the bishops of the province to either ratify the list proposed by the 
 priests, or to select another list. If the bishops approve the list pro- 
 posed by the priests it is forwarded to the Pope. If they propose a 
 new list, they mark it in the same way and forward both lists to the 
 Pope, with whatever remarks they may think fit to make; and from one 
 of these two lists the Pope selects the appointee. 
 
 1 further certify and declare that heretofore, to wit, prior to the 
 year A. D. 1894, it being thought that a coadjutor bishop of said dio- 
 cese should be appointed to assist the Rt. Rev. Francis Mora, who ever 
 
392 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 since the year 1873 had been, first coadjutor bishop and then bishop 
 of said diocese; thereupon in accordance with the said rules for the 
 selection of an appointee for said position of coadjutor bishop for said 
 diocese the required list of names was prepared and duly authenticated 
 and forwarded to the Pope, to wit, Leo XIII, one of which said names 
 so fowarded was that of the undersigned George Montgomery. That 
 afterwards and in accordance with said rules and practices regulating 
 such appointments, to wit, on the 26th day of January, 1894, the said 
 Pope Leo XIII duly issued his letters of appointment duly attested, 
 designating and appointing the said undersigned " coadjutor of the 
 aforesaid bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles with the right of suc- 
 cession," as will more fully appear by said original letters of appoint- 
 ment, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," and 
 also by reference to a duly authenticated translation thereof into 
 English, hereto attached and made a part of this statement, and 
 marked "Exhibit B." 
 
 I do certify and declare that under and in pursuance of said appoint- 
 ment the said undersigned duly assumed and entered upon the discharge 
 of the duties of said office in the month of April, 1894, and has 
 continued to discharge said duties ever since. 
 
 I further certify and declare that heretofore — to wit, on or about the 
 first day of February, 1896 — said Rt. Rev. Bishop Francis Mora duly 
 tendered to the Pope his resignation as the bishop of said diocese, 
 requesting to be relieved of said office, and that thereafter — to wit, on 
 the sixth day of May, A. D. 1896 — the said resignation was duly accepted 
 by said Pope Leo XIII. All of which will more fully appear by refer- 
 ence to a duly authenticated' copy of the Pope's original letter of the 
 last-named date accepting said resignation, which said copy is attached 
 hereto, marked "Exhibit C," and by a duly authenticated translation 
 thereof hereto attached, marked " Exhibit D," all of which said doc- 
 uments are made a part hereof. 
 
 I further certify and declare that by reason of the premises and of 
 the said appointment of the undersigned as coadjutor bishop of said 
 diocese with the right of succession, and by reason of the said resig- 
 nation of said Rt. Rev. Francis Mora of his said office of bishop of 
 said diocese, and the acceptance of said resignation by the said Pope, 
 the said undersigned has succeeded to and now holds said office of 
 Roman Catholic bishop of the said diocese of Monterey, a religious 
 corporation sole, duly incorporated and existing under the laws of the 
 State of California, residing and having its principal place of business 
 in said city of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, State of California. 
 
 And in proof of my appointment and selection as such bishop as 
 aforesaid, I cause to be recorded herewith a duly attested copy of my 
 commission or letter of appointment constituting me the coadjutor 
 bishop of said diocese with the right of succession; also a duly attested 
 copy of the letter of Pope Leo XIII accepting the resignation Rt. Rev. * 
 Francis Mora, my predecessor, to whose said office I have succeeded; 
 also a duly authenticated translation of each of said letters. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto signed my name and the name 
 of said office and religious corporation sole, and affixed my episcopal 
 seal, being the seal of said corporation sole, together with my verifi- 
 cation of the truth of this statement. 
 
 [corporation seal of the Geo. Montgomery, 
 
 r. c. bishop of monterey.] 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1FOBNIAS. 393 
 
 State of California, 
 
 County of Los Angeles, ss: 
 
 On this 13th day of October, in the year one thousand eight hundred 
 and ninety-six, before me, William R. Burke, a notary public in and 
 for said county of Los Angeles, State of California, personally appeared 
 Geo. Montgomery, known to me to be the person whose name is sub- 
 scribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed 
 the same. 
 
 In witness whereof .1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 
 official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. 
 
 [NOTARIAL SEAL.] WlLLIAM R. BURKE 
 
 Notary Public in and for Los Angeles County, 
 
 State of California. 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 Leo P. P. XIII. Dilecti fili: Salutem et Apostolicam benedictionem: 
 Cum Venerabilis Frater Franciscus Mora Episcopus Montereyenis 
 et Angelorum provinciae Ecclesiasticae S. Francisci in Statibus foe- 
 deratis Americae Borealis instanter petiisset, ut Coadjutorem sibi 
 largiremur, quo cum ipse aetate gravis laborisque confectus onus 
 administrandae dioceseos dividere posset. Nos huiusmodi causis 
 maturae perpensis, de consilio etiam venerabilium Fratum Nostrorum 
 S. R. E. Cardinalium S. Congregationi Fidei Propagandae xx praepo- 
 sitorium, memorati Antistitis precibus annuendum densuimos, teque, 
 dilecti fili quem eximio laud em testimonia commendant, ad hoc manus 
 eligendum existimavimus. Te igitur dilecte fili, quem per similes 
 Nostras litteras hos ipso die datas titularis Ecclesiae Thumitensis Epis- 
 copum, renuntiavimus, peculiari benevolentia complectentes, et a 
 quibus vis excommunicationis et interdicti aluisque ecclesiasticis sen- 
 tentiis censuris et poenis quovis modo vel causa latis se quas forte 
 incufreris, huius tantum rei gratia absolventes et absolutem fore cen- 
 sentes, hisci litteris in Coadjutorem cum futura successione praefati 
 Episcopi Montereyensis et Angelorum auctoritate nostra Apostolica 
 facimus et constituimus teque quandocumque per obitum dicti Antis- 
 titis vel aliam quam libet causam sedes Episcopalis Montereyensis et 
 Angelorum vacaverit, in Episcopum eiusdem Sidis nunc pro tunc eligi- 
 mus et constituimus, cum omnibus et singulis honoribus, facultatibus, 
 privilegiis, quae de iure vel consuetudine Episcoporum sunt propria. 
 Dicernimus irisuper, ut per huiusmodi successionem tuam memorata 
 Sedes titularis Thumuiteniis eo ipso vacet teque similiter nunc pro tunc 
 de Apostolicae potestatis nostrae xxxxxx plenitudine a praef actae Sedis 
 vinculo absolvimus. Volumus autem, ut vivente memorato Antistite 
 eatenis te ingeras in Diocesus administrationem quatenus ipse voluerit 
 ac mandaverit. Jubemus denique omnibus ac singulis ad quos spectat 
 seu spectavit, ut te ad hoc Coadjutoris xx officium et suo tempore in 
 Episcopum memoratae Sedes Montereyensis et Angelorum recipient et 
 admittant tibique in omnibus pareant faveant, ac praesto sint tuaque 
 mandata reverenter suscipiant atque ad impleant secus sententiam seu 
 poenam, quam in rebelles rite tuleris seu statueris rotam habebimus, 
 at que faciemus usque ad satisfactionem condignam inviolabiliter 
 observari. Non obstantimus in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque. 
 
394 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA8. 
 
 Datum Romae apud S. Petrum sub annulo Piscatoris die XXVI 
 Januari MDCCCXCIV. Pontificatus Nostri Anno Decimosexto. 
 Pro Don Card, Sei'afini: 
 
 [l. s.] Nicolaus Marici Sub. 
 
 Dilecto Filio Georgio Montgomery. 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 Leo, the Thirteenth Supreme Pontiff. Beloved son, health and 
 apostolic benediction. 
 
 When our venerable brother, Francis Mora, bishop of Monterey 
 and Los Angeles, with whom he, overpowered by age and heavy 
 labors, might share the burden of the administration of the diocese, 
 we, having carefully considered the reasons of this request and having 
 taken counsel with our venerable brothers, the cardinals of the holy 
 Roman Church, who preside over the sacred congregation of the 
 propagation of the faith, have decided to comply with the wishes of 
 the aforesaid bishop, and have determined to choose for that office 
 you, beloved son, whom excellent testimonies of praise recommend to 
 us. Therefore, beloved son, we, cherishing with special benevolence 
 you, whom by similar letters we have announced as the bishop of the 
 titular church of Thumi, only on account of this office absolving you 
 and wishing that you be absolved from whatever excommunication 
 and interdict or other ecclesiastical judgment, censure, and penalties, 
 in whatsoever manner and for whatsoever reasons imposed, if by 
 chance you have incurred any, do by these letters and by our apostolic 
 authority make and appoint you coadjutor of the aforesaid bishop of 
 Monterey and Los Angeles, with the right of succession, and whenever 
 by the death of the said bishop or for whatever other reason the epis- 
 copal see of Monterey and Los Angeles will become vacant, we now 
 for then choose and appoint you the bishop of this same see, with all 
 the honors, powers, and privileges which by right or custom . belong 
 to bishops. Moreover, we decree that by this your succession the 
 aforesaid titular see of Thumi becomes vacant; and likewise we, by 
 the plenitude of our apostolic authority, now for then, free you from 
 the charge of the aforesaid see. However, we desire that, while the 
 aforesaid bishop lives, you will assist in the administration of the dio- 
 cese as much as he will wish and command. Finally, we order all and 
 every one to whom it will now or will concern to receive and acknowl- 
 edge you for this office of coadjutor and in the proper time as the 
 bishop of the aforesaid see of Monterey and Los Angeles and in all 
 things obey, favor, and assist you and reverently to undertake and 
 fulfil your commands, otherwise we will ratify and inviolably enforce, 
 until condign satisfaction be made, the sentence or penalty which you 
 will have rightfully inflicted or pronounced against the rebellious, 
 anyone acting to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 Given at Rome at St. Peter's, under the seal of the fisherman, on the 
 twenty-sixth day of January, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred 
 and ninety-four and of our pontificate the sixteenth. 
 
 For His Eminence Cardinal Serafini. 
 
 Nicolas Marici. 
 
 To our beloved son George Montgomery. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOKNIAS. 395 
 
 Exhibit C. 
 
 Leo PP. XIII. Venerabilis Frater Salutem et Apostolicam Benedic- 
 tionem. Apostolatus afficcium, meritis licet imparibus. Nobis ab alto 
 cbmmissum, quo Ecclesiarum omnium regimini divina providentia 
 praesidemus utiliter exsequi adjacente Domino satagentes sollivete 
 corde reddimur at Solertes, ut sum de earumdem Ecclesiarum regimi- 
 nibus agitur Committendes, tales cis in Pastores praeficere studeamus, 
 qui populum suae curae creditum sciant non solum doctrina verbi, 
 sed etiam exemplo boni operis informare, commissas que sibi ecclesias 
 pacifico et tranquillo velint et valeant auctore Domino salubriter 
 regere et gubernare. Dudum siquidem provisionem Ecclesiarum 
 omnium nunc vacantium et in posterum vacaturum ordinationi et dis- 
 position! nostrae reservavimus, decernentes ex tunc irritum et inane 
 si secus super his a quo quam quavis auctoritate scienter vel ignoranter 
 contigerit attentari. lam vero Episcopali Ecclesia titulari Hiero- 
 politana in Phrygia salutari sub Archiepiscopo Synnadensi Pastoris 
 solatio certo modo destituta Nos ad ipsius provisionem in qua nemo 
 praeter Nos se potest, rec poterit immiscere, reservatione ac decreto 
 superdictis obsistentibus, paterno studio intendentes, post delibera- 
 tionem, quam hac super re cum Venerabilibus Fratribus Nostris S 
 Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalibus negotus PropagandaeFidei praepositis 
 habuimus diligentem ad te Venerabilis Frater, qui Montereyensem 
 Angelorum Ecclesiam sponte in manibus nostris demisiste, oculos 
 mentis nostrae convertimus. Quare te a vinculo ipsius dimissae Eccle- 
 siae quatenus opus sit de apostolicae potestatis plenitudine solventis 
 et a quibusvds excommunicationis et interdicti aliisque Ecclesiasticis 
 censuris, sentenus ac poenis, si quas forto incurreris, hujus tantum rei 
 gratia absolventos et absolutum fore concentes, eadem Auctorisiam 
 transferimus, teque illi in Episcopum praeficimus et Pastorem, curam, 
 regimen et administrationem eiusdem Ecclesiae tibi in spiritualibus et 
 tempo ralibus plenare Committendo certa spe f reti, te omnia ad majorem 
 Dei gloriam, sempiternamque animarum salutem esse expleturum. 
 Verum tamen tibi indulgemus ut donee praedicta Hieropolitana Ecclesia 
 inter mere titulares consistet, ad illam accedere et apud earn personaliter 
 residere minime tenearis. Non obstantibus constitutionibus et ordina- 
 tionibus Apostolicis, nee non dictarum Ecclesiarum Montereynsis 
 Angelorum et Hieopolitanae etiam, juramento, confirmatione apos- 
 tolica, vel quavis firmitate alia roboratis statutis et consuetudinibus 
 caeterisque contrariis quibuscumque. 
 
 Datum Romae aqud Sanctum Petrum Sub Annulo Piscatoris die VI 
 Maii MDCCCXCVI. 
 
 Pontificatus Nostro Anno Decimonono. 
 
 [l. s.] C. Caen, de Ruggieno. 
 
 Venerabili Fratri Francisco Mora, 
 
 Ejyiscopo dimissiona/rio Montereyensi Angelorum. 
 
 Exhibit D. 
 
 Leo the Thirteenth, Supreme Pontiff. Venerable brother, health 
 and apostolic benediction. 
 Desirous, with the divine assistance, to discharge usefully the duty 
 
390 PIOUS FTTND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 of the apostolic ministry entrusted by God to us, although unworthy, 
 whereby we by Divine Providence preside over the government of 
 all churches; whenever there may be a necessity of providing for the 
 government of these churches, we are solicitous and careful to appoint 
 such pastors as are qualified to instruct the people entrusted to their 
 care, not only by inculcating sound doctrine but also by their good 
 example, pastors who with the Divine assistance are willing and able 
 to rule and govern judiciously and to maintain in peace and tranquillity 
 the churches committed to their charge. Also, since we have reserved 
 to ourselves the appointment to all churches at present vacant or 
 likely to be vacant at a.nj future time, we declare as null and void 
 any appointment which may be made knowingly or ignorantly b} r any 
 other authority. But now the Titular Episcopal Church of Pieropolis 
 in Phrygia, subject to the archbishop of Synnada, being in a certain 
 sense destitute of the comfort of a pastor, and in making provision for 
 it, in which duty no one except us is able or will be able to interfere, 
 by reason of our aforesaid decree and reservation, we, in our paternal 
 zeal, after diligent deliberation with our brothers, the venerable cardi- 
 nals of the Holy Roman Church, appointed to superintend the propa- 
 gation of the faith, have turned our attention to you, venerable 
 brother, who has willingly resigned into our hands the church of 
 Monterey and Los Angeles. 
 
 Wherefore, freeing you from the charge of this resigned church, 
 and, as far as there is need, by the plenitude of our apostolic authority 
 absolving you and wishing on this account that you be absolved from 
 all excommunications, interdicts, and ecclesiastical censures, judg- 
 ments, and penalties, if by chance any be incurred, we, by our same 
 authority and by these presents, transfer you to the abovesaid church 
 of the Hieropolis, and by committing you to the care, government, 
 and administration of this same church, in spirituals and temporals, 
 appoint you its bishop and pastor, relying on the assurance that you 
 will discharge all the things for the greater glory of God and the 
 eternal salvation of souls. However, we grant that, as long as the 
 abovesaid church of Hieropolis remains merely a titular one, you will 
 not be obliged to go to it and personally reside there. Apostolic con- 
 stitutions and ordinances, also those of the said churches of Monterey 
 and Los Angeles and Hieropolis, even those approved by oath, apos- 
 tolic confirmation, or by any other power, and all statutes, and customs 
 whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 Given at St. Peter's, Rome, under the seal of the fisherman, on the 
 sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and 
 ninety-six and of our pontificate the nineteenth. 
 
 [l. s.] C. Cardinal de Ruggieno. 
 
 To our venerable Brother Francis Mora, 
 
 Retired Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, ss: 
 I, the undersigned, Joachim Adam, being duly sworn, depose and 
 say: I understand and am versed in the Latin and English languages 
 and I have carefully compared the foregoing document marked 
 "Exhibit A " with the original letters of Pope Leo XIII dated Janu- 
 ary 26, 1894, appointing George Montgomery coadjutor bishop of the 
 diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles with the right of succession, and 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 397 
 
 said Schedule A is a full, true, and correct copy of said original. I have 
 also carefully 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 origi- 
 nal letters of Pope Leo XIII dated May 6, 1896, accepting the resig- 
 nation 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. 
 
 Joachim Adam. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of October, A. D. 
 1896. 
 
 [notarial seal.] William R. Burke, 
 
 Notary Public in and for Los Angeles County, 
 
 State of California. 
 
 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 fore- 
 going 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. 
 
 [corporate seal.] George Montgomery. 
 
 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 instru- 
 ment, 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 instru- 
 ment and acknowledged to me that such corporation sole executed the 
 same. 
 
 [notarial seal.] William R. Burke. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 County of Monterey, ss: 
 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 let- 
 ters 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 
 
398 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 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. 
 1902. , 7 
 
 [seal.] J- D. Kalae, Clerk, 
 
 By , Deputy Clerk. 
 
 (Endorsed:) No. 159. Original. Documents relating to the suc- 
 cession 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. 
 
 Kalar, clerk, by , deputy. Filed Nov. 8, 1899. C. W. 
 
 Bell, clerk, by §am Kutz, deputy. 
 
 DEPOSITION OF THE MOST REVEREND PATRICK WILLIAM 
 RIORDAN, ARCHBISHOP OP 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 arch- 
 bishop 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 Bruns- 
 wick, 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 Fran- 
 cisco aforesaid, and remained such down to the 28th day of December, 
 1884, when he resigned this archbishopric, and was afterwards trans- 
 lated 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 acquaint- 
 ance 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. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 399 
 
 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 under- 
 stood 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 vicar- 
 general fills his place. 
 
 [seal.] Patrick William Riordan, 
 
 Archbishop of San Francisco. , 
 
 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. 
 
 [seal. J John P. Cashin, 
 
 Notary Public in and for the City and County of 
 
 San Francisco, State of California. 
 
 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, resi- 
 dence Menlo Park, near San Francisco, California. 1 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 per- 
 son 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 
 
400 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 for the bishops of California in the demand for the interest of the 
 Pious Fund. 1 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 profes- 
 sionally employed by Bishop Joseph S. Alemany, then bishop of Mon- 
 terey, 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 proceed- 
 ing Bishop Alemanj r 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 Cali- 
 fornia. 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 corre- 
 spondence between Don Pedro Eamirez (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 employ- 
 ing 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 con- 
 tract 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. Cas- 
 serly 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 what- 
 ever 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 inter- 
 position with Mexico for redress. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 401 
 
 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 Mexi- 
 can 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 f ronxNew 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 tele- 
 gram 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 con- 
 firmed 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 1 
 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 Ale- 
 many, who had by that time returned, and sent to Mr. Wilson sea- 
 sonably 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 veri- 
 fied 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. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 26 
 
402 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Among the papers given me by Archbishop Alemany in 1853 or 
 1854, whichever it was, was the one which I now produce authenticated 
 by my signature (and which the notary marks "Exhibit No. 2" to this 
 deposition), being the answer to his demand on Mexico for moneys 
 of the Pious Fund made in 1852. It has remained in my possession 
 ever since it was given me by him. I produce it in evidence because 
 Sir Edward Thornton in his decision of the case indulged the pre- 
 sumption that the Archbishop's demand on Mexico and Mexico's 
 refusal to pay must both have been verbal, and I produce this paper 
 to show that such was not the case. I did not put it in evidence 
 before the former arbitral court because I did not, at the time, regard 
 it as important. 
 
 With respect to the sale of the hacienda Cienega del Pastor by the 
 Mexican Government a discovery has been asked from Mexico, first, 
 of the letter from Sefior Trigueros dated October 25, 1842, to the 
 Senores Encargados de la Tesoreria General, and, second, of the official 
 communication of Senor Trigueros of the ministerio de hacienda 
 dated November 23, 1842, to the same parties with endorsements 
 thereon and the memorandum of November 24, 1842, etc. While 
 I assume that such discovery will be made by Mexico in pursuance 
 of the engagements of the protocol, yet lest anything should prevent 
 the same I should state here that the copy, which in the demand 
 for discovery is proposed for admission as authentic in case of the 
 discovery not being made, is taken from a pamphlet the full title of 
 which is as follows: "Documentos relativos al piadoso fondo de 
 misiones para Conversion y Civilizacion de las numerosas tribus bar- 
 baras de la Antigua y Neuva California, PubMcalos el lie. Juan 
 Rodriguez de S. Miguel, apoderado del illmo. Sr. Don Fr. Francisco 
 Garcia Diego, primer Obispo de aquella Diocesis. Mexico Ano de 1845, 
 ImprentadeLuis Abadianoy Valdes, Calle delasEscalerillasNumo. 13." 
 
 In the said pamphlet the text of said first-mentioned letter is given 
 as in the copj r thereof I now hand the notary, and which is marked 
 "Exhibit No. 3" to my deposition, with the following entry imme- 
 diately after it shown on said Exhibit No. 3; and that of the second 
 letter above mentioned is given in the same pamphlet in the words of 
 the copy thereof I now hand the notary, and which is marked by him 
 "Exhibit No. 4" to my deposition, with the entry and memorandum 
 immediately after it as if copied from the letter itself, as shown on said 
 Exhibit No. 4. 
 
 I am also informed by a person whose name I do not feel at liberty 
 to give, but whom I confidently believe to be correctly informed, that 
 the escritura de venta in the exhibits referred to is now in, the official 
 custody of a notary in the City of Mexico named Gil Mariano Leon.; 
 that it bears date November 29th, 1842; was executed in the presence 
 of the notary, D. Ramon Villalobos, by Senores D. Tranquihno de la 
 Vega y D. Nicolas Maria Fagoaga, como Ministros de la Tesoreria 
 General de la Nacion, and conveys to the Senores Liquidatarios y 
 demas socios de la estinguida empresa del Tabaco, las tres cuartas 
 partes que le supreme gobierno tenia en la hacienda Cienaga del Pastor 
 y sus anexas, y en la hacienda San Augustin de Amoles con sus anexas de 
 San Jose", Lavaya, San Ignacio del Buey, Custodio, Buena Vista, y todas 
 las otras tierras y rancherias que constan en los respectivos documentos y 
 se han considerado y consideran como pertenecientes a dicha finca, 
 excepto la de San Pedro de Ibarra. Estan ubicadas estas propiedades 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 403 
 
 en los estados de Guadalajara, San Luis Potosi, y Tamaulipas; Fueron 
 pertenencia del fondo piadoso de Calif ornias; el precio de venta fue" de 
 $428,500. And that the document contains an entry in the words: 
 
 Acceptaron la escritura los Senores Francisco Paula Rubio y Manuel Fernandez 
 como socios liquidatarios, y en representacion de los Senores Eubio Hermanos, 
 Joaquin Maria Errazu, Filipe Neri del Barrio, Manuel Escandon, Benito de Maqua y 
 Muriel Hermanos, que formaron la estinguida empresa del tabaco. 
 
 The price named, $428,500, is arrived at by capitalizing- the several 
 sums which said several properties produced as rent and adding thereto 
 $3,000 for the llenos oh the Cienaga del Pastor; thus, the rent of the 
 haciendas " San Agustin de Amoles," "El Custodio," "San Ignacio del 
 Buey," and "La Baya" was $12, 705; three-fourths of the rent of the 
 "Cienaga del Pastor" was $12,825; total rents, $25,530. 
 
 The price of the three-fourths of the Cienaga del Pastor therefore 
 was $12,825 capitalized at 6 per cent, which was $213,750, plus $3,000 
 for the llenos makes $216,750. This item we were entitled to our share 
 of, but lost it by the deduction made in consequence of an attachment, 
 which appears not to have affected the price for which Mexico sold it. 
 
 2. The charge in the memorial that $7,000 was erroneously deducted 
 from the capital of the fund as a bad debt involves merely a correct 
 appreciation of the expression of D. Pedro Ramirez in his enumeration 
 of creditos activos del fondo, under the heading la hacienda publico,, in 
 these words: 
 
 Otro de siete mil ps (pesos) que por 6rden executiva del supremo Gobierno para 
 que entregaren los Senores Revillas veinte mil, exibio su apoderado D. Francisco 
 Barrera en 20 de Octubre de 1829, y un pagar<§ contra la Compafiia Alamania Mexi- 
 cana, que no se cobr6. 
 
 In this passage the words '"''que no se cobro" (which was not col- 
 lected) refer in my opinion to the pagare or promissory note of the 
 German Mexican Company, and I therefore understand the transac- 
 tion here mentioned to have been this: The Government, desiring to 
 pay to the Senores Revillas $20,000, ordered that amount to be paid to 
 their apoderado D. Francisco Barrera, out of the Pious Fund, on his 
 depositing against it the pagare of the German Mexican Company for 
 $7,000 of the amount. The relation is not complete, but considering 
 the habit of the Government of resorting to the Pious Fund, when 
 other sources of ready cash were not available, this appears to me the 
 most probable interpretation of it, and if it be correct, instead of ask- 
 ing for seven thousand dollars here, I should have demanded $20,000. 
 It is for the official interpreters of the tribunal to say whether my 
 interpretation of it is correct. I think it undoubtedly was intended to 
 state a demand on behalf of the fund against the Government, which 
 must have been solvent for this sum as for the other and larger 
 demands enumerated against it. 
 
 My authority for stating in the memorial, on information and belief, 
 that the Mexican Government borrowed from the Pious Fund about 
 July, 1834, various sums amounting to $22,763.15 is the letter of D. 
 Pedro Ramirez of January 28th, 1842, addressed to the minister of 
 justice and public instruction, where, discussing the question whether 
 the costs of the expedition of colonization therein mentioned should 
 be borne by the Pious Fund, he mentions (Transcript, p. 160) that, 
 examining last evening a bundle of papers containing an account of 
 the rents of the Arroyo Sarco, which was one of the estates of the 
 fund, he found an acknowledgment that there had been taken from 
 
404 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 that source $5,200 for the purpose, and in another it is seen tiiat the 
 late General Parres, who then administered the hacienda Cienega del 
 Pastor, had expended $6,000 in the comisaria de Jalisco, which were 
 remitted to the treasurer of the navy at San Bias for the expense of 
 embarking, and that in another it appeared that the late junta del fondo 
 piadoso had turned over $5,154.4 reals which were in the fund for its 
 proper objects, and had given a draft in favor of the supreme Govern- 
 ment for $6,008 dollars odd reals and grains for the same purpose, to 
 which should be added $400 already employed in the same way, 
 amounting in all to $22,763 and over. 
 
 -The name of the vessel {La Corbetta Morelos) and the point of embar- 
 cation (San Bias) identify this enterprise with the colonization (expe- 
 dition) which sailed from San Bias about August 1st, 1834, under 
 Padres and Hijar, of which an account will be found in any history of 
 California of that period. In Bancroft's it occurs at Vol. Ill, page 
 259 et seq. 
 
 The same letter of Ramirez discloses another transaction of the 
 Mexican Government with the Pious Fund, which should lead to an 
 augmentation of its capital over what the Mixed Commission allowed 
 it, is that, as Mr. Ramirez points out, the Government had borrowed 
 sixty thousand dollars at two per cent per month interest, and hypothe- 
 cated the whole of the Pious Fund as security for the loan. Mr. F. 
 Ramirez had already paid more than thirty thousand dollars out of 
 the fund on account of this transaction, for which reason he was forced 
 to ask indulgence in the way of time to p&y Mr. Barron two thousand 
 which he was pressed to do (p.- 160, Transcript). 
 
 After the ratification of the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, between 
 the United States and Mexico, the U. S. Congress passed an act under 
 which a commission was appointed for ascertaining and settling private 
 claims to land in the State of California. It consisted of three com- 
 missioners, with their secretary and interpreters, and before them all 
 private claims to land within the State were required to be presented 
 and proved, The United States were represented before the tribunal 
 by a law agent and his assistant, as mentioned in the first part of this 
 deposition. I was retained, in conjunction with Mr. Eugene Casserly, 
 by Rt. Rev. Joseph S. Alemany , then R. C. Bishop of Monterey (who 
 was afterward translated to the archdiocese of San Francisco), to pre- 
 sent to and prove before this commission court the claim of the Cath- 
 olic Church, represented by him, to the church edifices, cemeteries, 
 mission buildings, orchards, vineyards, and gardens, etc., at each of 
 the missions in this State, as well as some other lands claimed by the 
 church under grant from the Mexican Government for ecclesiastical 
 purposes, as, ex. gr., the support of a particular church, the founding 
 and support of a college, etc. , and with Mr. Casserly conducted the 
 said proceedings. 
 
 Certain correspondence between Bishop Francisco Garcia Diego* 
 and the Supreme Government of Mexico, a copy of which, certified 
 by the U. S. surveyor-general for this State (in whose custody the 
 records of the proceedings of said commission court are now retained 
 by law), is now produced and maked Exhibit No. 5 to the deposition 
 of John T. Doyle, and identified by my signature. " That correspondence 
 was proved, offered, and accepted in evidence in the aforesaid proceed- 
 ings in the said land commission court. 1 have myself compared the 
 
PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 405 
 
 copy certified by the surveyor-general of the " petic tones pie ha 
 hecho al Supremo Gobierno el I. Sr. Obispo de Californias" and the 
 official memorandum and certificate at the end thereof, which occupy 
 the first six pages of said exhibit, with the original document on the 
 files of the surveyor- general's office, and found the same to be a correct 
 copy thereof and of the whole thereof. The seventh page of said 
 exhibit 1 did not personally compare. 
 
 The lands petitioned for by said Bishop Alemany in said proceeding 
 were, by decree of said commission court, confirmed to him on behalf 
 of the church, and patents therefor were duly issued by the United 
 States, under which said lands are now held. I now present an extract 
 from the opinion and decision of the court in that case, which is 
 marked Exhibit No. 6 to the deposition of John T. Doyle, and identified 
 by my signature. It is a correct and true extract from said opinion 
 and shows the ground on which the decision proceeded. The whole 
 opinion is too long to be quoted in extenso, as, besides quoting decisions 
 by other courts of the legal questions presented, it contained a descrip- 
 tion of the various parcels of land, the title of which was confirmed, 
 rendering it of very great length. 
 
 The appeal from the decision of the land commission court to the 
 district court of the U. S.', which was by the law directed in all cases 
 where the decision was adverse to the United States, was dismissed by 
 the Attorney-General of the U. S. of his own motion, thus distinctly 
 acquiescing in the propriety of the decision of the commission court. 
 
 In examining the printed transcript I have discovered various typo- 
 graphical errors, more especially in the paper in foreign languages. 
 Most of them I think are to be accounted for by the bad handwriting 
 in which originals are written, and in almost all instances the errors 
 are explainable on the face of the papers. On page 172, however, the 
 words "que no se cobro" are omitted at the end of line 25 and should 
 be supplied as [illegible word] correctly on page 491, line 12, where 
 the same document is repeated. The bull of appointment of Bishop 
 Alemany on pp. 43 and 44 is full of blunders, but they are of no mate- 
 riality, and I believe the document appears correctly in another part of 
 the transcript. 
 
 John T. Doyle. 
 
 And therefore I, James T. O'Keefe, being such notary public, in 
 and for the county and State aforesaid, hereby certify that the fore- 
 going deposition so made by said John T. Doyle was reduced_ to writ- 
 ing by me personally and was thereafter carefully read by me to the 
 said deponent and was corrected and signed by him in my presence. 
 
 I further certity that the said deponent, John T. Doyle, is person- 
 ally known to me and that he is entitled to full faith and credit in 
 everything he says. 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 1 the attorney for any person 
 having such interest. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 
 official seal the 2(?th day of August, 1902. 
 
 [seal.] Jas. T. O'Keefe, 
 
 Notary Public in and for said San Mateo County, 
 
 State of California. 
 
406 pious fund of the californias. 
 
 Exhibit No. 1. 
 
 [Copy' telegram.] 
 
 San Francisco, March 28th, 1870. 
 Eugene Casserly, 
 
 U. 8. Senate, Washington: 
 Present to joint commission, sitting in Washington, a claim by Arch- 
 bishop Alemany and Bishop Amat, successors of Francisco Garcia 
 Diego, bishop of the Calif ornias, on behalf of themselves all interested, 
 for the income of proceeds of property belonging to Pious Fund of the 
 missions of California. The fund arose entirely from private con- 
 tributions, beginning with a donation to the Jesuits, by Marquis of 
 Villa-Puente, in 1735, upon trust for the maintainance and propagation 
 of the faith in California. After 1767 it was administered by trustees, 
 appointed first by the Crown, afterwards by the Republic. The sixth 
 section of act of Mexican Congress, Sepr. 19, 1836, gave administra- 
 tion to the bishop aforesaid, to whom claimants respectively succeeded; 
 it was taken from Diego's possession by Santa Anna's decrees Febru- 
 ary 8th and October 24th, 1842, both of which acknowledge and prom- 
 ise to fulfil the trust. This claim first became due American citizens 
 by treaty Queretaro whereby both trustees and beneficiaries became 
 Americans. Amount is three millions. All rents and proceeds 
 received since February 2d, 1848, fall within convention of July 4th, 
 1868; prior spoliations perhaps released. Thursday is last day. 
 
 John T. Doyle. 
 Confirmed. 
 
 James Croke, V. G. 
 For identification. 
 
 John T. Doyle. 
 Before the arbitral court under the Hague Convention, in the case 
 of the United States of America against the Republic of Mexico. 
 Exhibit No. 1 to the deposition of John T. Doyle. 
 
 Jas. T. O'Keefe, Notary Public. 
 
 Exhibit No. 2. a 
 
 MlNISTERIO DE JuSTICIA Y NEGO- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND OF 
 
 cios Eclesiasticos. Church Affairs. 
 
 I. S. : _ Se habia demorado la Sir: An answer to the note 
 
 contestacion debida a la nota que which your illustrious highness 
 
 S. S. I. dirigio a este Ministerio addressed this office on the 26th 
 
 en 26 de Julio ultimo relativa a of last July, relative to whether 
 
 que fuesen auxiliadas las miciones the missions of the bishop of Mon- 
 
 del Obispado de Monterrey con terey might be assisted with the 
 
 los bienes que los f undadores del properties which* the founders of 
 
 fondo piadoso de Californias de- the Pious Fund of the Californias 
 
 jaron segun se dice para atender a left, as is asserted, for the conver- 
 
 la convercion de infieles de aquel sion of infidels of that country, 
 
 pais por que era preciso reunir has been delayed because it was 
 
 a English translation added for the.convenienee of the court. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 
 
 407 
 
 antecedentes e inspeccionar anti- 
 guos documentos quediesen la luz 
 necessaria para la resolucion justa 
 y conveniente de este negoeio; 
 mas habiendose esto verificado ya 
 y resultando que las cuantiosas 
 donaciones que formaban aquel 
 fondo no tenian por objeto el es- 
 clusivo de atender a las miciones 
 de California sino a la conversion 
 de infieles en la America Septen- 
 trional a, eleccion (faltando en 
 cualquier caso a quellas miciones 
 de personas determinadas en las 
 f undacion) y a las que ha succedido 
 el Gobierno ne la Republica por el 
 patronato que le compete en esta 
 clace de bienes; S. A. el. Sr. Presi- 
 dente no puede conceder derechos 
 en los bienes del fondo ya mencio- 
 nado a la Iglesia de la Alta Cali- 
 fornia separada en la actualidad de 
 la nacion y aunque desearia mi- 
 nistrarle algunas sumas en calidad 
 de auxilio no puede verificarlo por 
 la penuria conocida del Erario pu- 
 blico y por la situacion de pobreza 
 y atrazo en que se hallan las 
 miciones que bajo su amparo 
 ecsisten en el territorio de la Re- 
 publica y a, las.quedebe atender 
 preferentemente. 
 
 Tengo el honor de decirlo asi a, 
 S. S. I. en debida contestacion a su 
 nota relativa y de protestarle las 
 distinguidas consideraciones de mi 
 apprecio. 
 
 Dios y Libertad. 
 
 Mexico, Setiembre 29 de 1852. 
 Aguieee. 
 
 I. S. D. Fr. Jose Sada Ale- 
 
 MANI, 
 
 Obispo de Monterey en la 
 Alta California. 
 
 necessary to collect information 
 and examine old documents that 
 would throw needed light for the 
 just and proper decision of the 
 matter. 
 
 The subject has now been exam- 
 ined, and as it shows that the large 
 donations which composed that 
 fund had not for an exclusive 
 object the aiding of the missions 
 of California, but also for the con- 
 version of infidels in North Amer- 
 ica at discretion (there being in 
 any case in those missions a lack of 
 the persons indicated in the founda- 
 tion), and (for the aid of the mis- 
 sions) to which the government of 
 the republic has succeeded through 
 the right which is its due in such 
 properties. His Excellency the 
 President can not grant to the 
 church of Upper California, which 
 is now separated from the nation, 
 a right to the properties above 
 mentioned. And although it might 
 wish to donate some moneys in the 
 way of assistance, it can not do 
 so on account of the well-known 
 penury of the public treasury and 
 on account of the state of poverty 
 and backwardness in which the 
 missions under its protection in 
 the territory of the republic are 
 found, and those missions that it 
 ought preeminently to aid. 
 
 In having the honor to state the 
 foregoing to your illustrious high- 
 ness, in due reply to your note, I 
 beg to assure you of my distin- 
 guished regard. 
 
 God and Liberty. 
 
 Mexico, Sept. 29, 1852. 
 
 < Aguieee. 
 
 Your illustrious highness Jose 
 Sada Alemani, 
 
 Bishop of Monterey in 
 
 Upper California. 
 
 Before the arbitral court under the Hague Convention on the case 
 of The United States of America, on behalf of the R. C. Church of 
 Upper California, against the Republic of Mexico. 
 
 For identification: John T. Doyle. 
 
 Exhibit No. 2 to the deposition of John T. Doyle. 
 
 Jos. T. O'Keefe, Notary Public. 
 
408 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Exhibit No. 3. 
 
 Ministerio de hacienda, Seccion 
 Num. 2711. T. Num. 4916. para a 
 cuerdo. Enterados de pronto los 
 oincuenta mil pesos. Octubre 27. 
 S. Tesoraria. Los liquidatorios y 
 demas socios de la estinguida em- 
 pressa de tabacos han hecho las 
 siguientes proposiciones. 
 
 Primera. Compramos al Su- 
 premo Gobierno, la hacienda cono- 
 cida con el nombre de Amoles con- 
 sus anecsas, Y las tres cuartas 
 partes que le pertenecen en la de 
 Cienega del Pastor y sus anecsas, 
 ubicadas la primera, en el departa- 
 mento de San Luis Potosi, y la 
 segunda en el de Guadalajara, per- 
 tenecientes ambas al f ondo piadoso 
 de Calif ornias, y cuyo valor se.cal- 
 culara por lo que produzcan sus 
 actuales arrendamientos a razon de 
 un 6 por 100 al ano; es decir, que 
 si estos producen anualmente 24 
 mil ps. el precio de estas dos fincas 
 sera el de 400 mil. ps. y en lamisma 
 proporcion si el arrendamiento es 
 mayor 6 menor. Daremos en pago 
 50 mil ps. que se enteraran inme- 
 diatamente en la tesoreria general. 
 Doseientos cincuenta mil pesos que 
 por resultado de nuestra cuentacon 
 el Banco nos deben ser pagados en 
 abonos de 35 mil ps. mensuales con 
 los productos de la renta del tabaco 
 de las administraciones de Zacatecas 
 y Guadalajara, tan luego como se 
 amortizen las ordenes anteriores 
 que se nos estan pagando en la 
 actualidad, por las mimas admini- 
 straciones con arreglo al decreto 
 supremo de 12 de Noviembre de 
 1841. 
 
 [Translation."] 
 
 2°. Lo que f altare hasta comple- 
 tar el total valor de dichas hacien- 
 
 Department of Finance (haci- 
 enda).— Section . . . No. 2711. 
 T. No. 4916, October 27, S. Treas- 
 urer's Office. — Memorandum. — 
 The five thousand pesos immedi- 
 ately deposited. The liquidators 
 and the other members of the ex- 
 tinct tobacco monopoly have made 
 the following proposal: 
 
 1st. We will buy from the su- 
 preme Government the estate 
 known by the name of "Amoles," 
 with its outlying properties (ane- 
 xas) and three-fourths of the Cie- 
 nega del Pastor and its outlying 
 properties (anexas), which also 
 belong to it; the first situated in 
 the District of San Luis Potosi,* 
 and the second in that of Guada- 
 lajara, both belonging to the Pious 
 Fund of Californias, the value of 
 which shall be determined by the 
 capital which at the rate of 6 per 
 cent per annum would produce 
 their present rents; that is to say, 
 that if these yield ann ually twenty- 
 four thousand dollars, the price of 
 these two estates shall be four 
 hundred thousand dollars; and in 
 the same proportion if the income 
 from rents be greater or less. We 
 will give in payment fifty thou- 
 sand dollars, to be deposited im- 
 mediately in the general treas- 
 ury. Two hundred and fifty thou- 
 sand, which as a result of our 
 account with the bank (banco) 
 ought to be paid us in monthly 
 installments of $35,000, together 
 with proceeds of the revenues of 
 tobacco from the districts of Za- 
 catecas and Guadalajara as soon 
 as the above orders shall fall due, 
 which are being paid at present 
 by said districts in accordance 
 with the supreme order of the 12th 
 of November, 1841. 
 
 2nd. The amount lacking to 
 complete the total value of the said 
 
 "This translation does not form a part of the exhibit, but is incorporated herein for 
 the convenience of the tribunal.— J. H. Ralston, Agent of the United States. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNTAS. 
 
 409 
 
 das, lo entregaremos en la tesoreria 
 general en creditos reconocidospor 
 la nacion, verificandolo en el ter- 
 mino de ocho meses que se contaran 
 desde la fecha de la aprobacion de 
 esta propuesta. 
 
 3°. El supremo gobierno sane- 
 ara, en todo caso la venta de dichas 
 fincas, y cualquiera reclamacion 
 que pueda hacerse contra las mis- 
 mas serd de cuenta del gobierno 
 satis facerla; sin que por ningun 
 motivo se nos inquiete en la pacifi- 
 ca posesion de ellas, y n cualquiera 
 gasto 6 perjuicio que se nos pueda 
 originar por este motivo nos debera 
 ser indemnizado por la hacienda 
 publica. 
 
 4°. No estaremos obligados a 
 ecshibir ninguna otra cantidad que 
 las ya espresadas por esta compra. 
 
 5°. Nos obligamos a cumplir 
 las escrituras de arrendamiento de 
 dichas haciendas hasta su termino, 
 si en ellas se espresare que los ar- 
 rendatarios no deben ser molesta- 
 dos ni aun en el caso de enagena- 
 cion de las mencionadas fincas. Y 
 en virtud de la autorizacion que 
 concede el gobierno el decreto de 
 esta fecha admite el Ecsmo. Sr. 
 presidente provisional esta propo- 
 sicion, bajo el concepto de que los 
 cincuenta mil pesos que se ofrecen 
 entregar en numerario se ecshibi- 
 ran en al acto. Dios y libertad. 
 Mexico, Octubre 25 de 1842. Trig- 
 ueros. Senores encargados de la 
 teroseria general. En 26 del mis- 
 mo entregaron los 50 mil ps. que 
 recibio la tesoreria en clase de de- 
 posito, segun consta del certificado 
 que dio a los interesados. 
 
 estates we will pay into the general 
 treasury in notes approved by the 
 nation; redeeming the same in the 
 period of eight months, which will 
 be counted from the approval of 
 this offer. 
 
 3rd. The supreme Government 
 shall guarantee in every case the 
 sale of said estates; it shall be the 
 obligation of the Government to 
 satisfy any claims whatsoever that 
 may be brought against the estates, 
 so that we may not for any cause 
 be disturbed in the peaceful pos- 
 session of them, and any expense 
 or loss which may originate 
 through this cause must be made 
 good by the public treasury (ha- 
 cienda). 
 
 4th. We will not be held liable 
 for any other amount than those 
 already stated by reason of this 
 purchase. 
 
 5th. We bind ourselves to carry 
 out the contracts of the leases of 
 said estates until their expiration, 
 if therein it be provided that the 
 tenants must not be disturbed even 
 in case of the sale of the said es- 
 tates. And in virtue of the author- 
 ity conceded to the Government by 
 the decree of this date, his excel- 
 lency, the provisional president, 
 accepts this offer upon the condition 
 that the $50,000 which is offered 
 to be paid in coin be delivered 
 immediately. God and liberty. 
 Mexico. October 24, 1842. Trigu- 
 eros. Gentlemen in charge of the 
 general treasury. On the 26th of 
 the same month they delivered the 
 $50,000, which the treasury re- 
 ceived as a deposit, as will appear 
 from the certificate which it gave 
 to the interested parties. 
 
 Exhibit No. 4. 
 
 Ministerio de hacienda. Seccion 
 2. Num. 2803. T. Num. 5346. 
 Dada cuenta al Escmo. Sr. presi- 
 dente sustitute con el oficddev.SS. 
 num. 201 de 17 del que rige en que 
 consultan si al venderse las hacien- 
 
 Department of finance (hacien- 
 da). " Section second, numbertwo 
 thousand eight hundred and three. 
 T. Number five thousand three 
 hundred and forty-six. His excel- 
 lency the provisional president 
 
410 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 das do Cienaga del Pastor y San 
 Agustin de los Amoles, pertene- 
 cientes al f ondo piadoso de Calif or- 
 nias, se luvo presente el valor de los 
 llenos, ecsistencid deudas y mejoras; 
 se ha servido acordar S.E. digaa 
 V.SS. en contestacion, como lo ve- 
 rifico, que teniendo en considera- 
 tion el supremo gobierno que se 
 computaron los llenos de las haci- 
 endas referidas para apreciar sus 
 arrendamientos, a los que se 
 acomodo el precio 6 valor con- 
 tenido en el contrato celebrado con 
 los liquidatarios y demas socios de 
 la estinguida empresa del tobaco, 
 para la venta de las tineas espresa- 
 das, cuya aprobacion comunique a 
 V.SS. bajo el num. 2711,_ en 25 del 
 ultimo Octubre, no se insiste en 
 que sean pagados por separado. 
 En consecuencia dispone S.E. se 
 admita la propuesta que han hecho 
 los interesados verbalmente, redu- 
 cida d ecshibir tres mil pososen el 
 ceto, y con calidad de que si los 
 llenos aparecieren per tenecer a ter- 
 cera persona, sera de cuenta de los 
 mismos su devolution 6 contenta, 
 sin que esta incluy responsabilidad 
 alguna que tenga que cubrir el 
 gobierno. De suprema orden lo 
 comunico a V.SS. para su intele- 
 gencia, y que desde luego se pro- 
 ceda a. otorgar la correspondiente 
 escritura de enagenacion. Dios y 
 Libertad. Mexico, Noviembre 23 
 de 1842. Trigueros. Senores en- 
 cargados de la tesoreria general. 
 Noviembre 24. Seccion de credi- 
 tos. Rubricado por el Sr. Fago- 
 aga. En esta f echa y en protocolo 
 de esta tesoreria general otorgaron 
 los Senores ministros la escritura 
 de venta prevenida. 
 
 Mexico, Noviembre 29 de 1842. 
 Ramon Villalobos. 
 
 having been notitied by the letter 
 of your excellencies, No. 201 of 
 17 instant, in which you discuss 
 as to whether or not account was 
 taken of the utensils (llenos), stock, 
 debts, and improvements of the 
 hacienda Cienega del Pastor and 
 San Augustin de los Amoles be- 
 longing to the Pious Fund of Cali- 
 fornias at the time of their sale, 
 his excellency has seen fit to say 
 in reply to your honors, to which 
 I attest, that inasmuch as the su- 
 preme Government took into con- 
 sideration the farming utensils 
 (llenos) on the said estates in order 
 to determine their rents, by means 
 of which the price of value con- 
 tained in the contract made with 
 the liquidators of the extinct to- 
 bacco monopoly for the sale of the 
 aforesaid estates was computed, 
 the approval of which contract I 
 communicated to your honors 
 under number 2711 on the 25th 
 of October last, it is not required 
 that the utensils be paid for sepa- 
 rately. Therefore his excellency 
 orders the acceptance of the pro- 
 posal made verbally by the parties 
 interested, provided three thou- 
 sand dollars be paid down, and 
 with the understanding that should 
 the utensils (llenos) thereon belong 
 to a third party it will be the duty 
 of the purchasers to restore the 
 same or give satisfaction, relieving 
 the Government from all responsi- 
 bility. By supreme order I com- 
 municate the same to j^our honors 
 for your information and that you 
 may forthwith proceed to execute 
 the corresponding deed of sale. 
 God and liberty. Mexico, Novem- 
 ber 23, 1842. Trigueros gentle-, 
 men in charge of the general 
 treasury. November 24, depart- 
 ment of credits. Signed by Senor 
 Fagoaga. On this day and in 
 the record of this general treas- 
 sury the ministers executed the 
 deed of sale aforesaid. 
 
 Mexico, November 29, 1842. 
 Ramon Villalobos. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALlFOETSTIAS. 
 
 411 
 
 Before the arbitral court under the Hague Convention in the case 
 of The United States of America (on behalf of the R. C. Church of 
 Upper California) against the Republic of Mexico. For identification: 
 
 John T. Doyle. 
 
 Exhibit No. 4 to the deposition of John T. Doyle. 
 
 Jas. T. O'Keefe, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 
 Exhibit No. 5. 
 
 Peticiones que ha hecho al 
 
 SUPKEMO GOBIERNO EL Y. Sr. 
 
 Obispo de Californias en su 
 nota de 7 del corriente y 
 carta particular de la mis- 
 MA FECHA. 
 
 Desde que se quitaron a Ids mi- 
 sioneros las tempo r alidades que el- 
 los mismos crearon y aumentaron, 
 con su trabajo personal y sus si- 
 nodos, entraron a disf rutar los bie- 
 nes de las, misiones los seculares 
 y sus f amilias y entre ellos algunos 
 que no conozco a, quienes no se 
 podia fiar ni aun una pequena 
 cantidad. Ya se deja entender la 
 ruina de tales bienes en seme- 
 jantes manos. En el ministerio de 
 V. E. deben exister los reclamos, 
 que sobre eso tengo hechos, y 
 por los que el congreso general 
 dio una ley suspensiva de la que 
 mandaba la secularizacion de mis- 
 iones, la que hasta ahora segun 
 entiendo no se ha cumplido quizas 
 por justas consideraciones del go- 
 bierno. En posteriores reclamos 
 que hice en el ano treinta y seis, 
 informe - al Supremo Gobierno de 
 los males que los misioneros pade- 
 cen y entre ellos no es el menor, 
 qui los administradores de la 
 misiones seapoderaron de las casas 
 en que vivian los padres; unas 
 casas fabricadas por los religiosos, 
 y en cuya construccion invirtieron 
 los sinodos que percibian y el 
 trabajo de sus manos. Se han vis- 
 to reducidos a vivir alii como ar- 
 ruinados y con bastante incomodi- 
 
 PETITIONS WHICH WERE MADE TO 
 THE SUPREME GOVERNMENT BY 
 THE BISHOP OF CALIFORNIAS IN 
 HIS NOTE OF THE 7TH OF THE 
 PRESENT MONTH AND IN A PRI- 
 VATE LETTER OF THE SAME DATE. 
 
 Since there has been taken from 
 the missionaries the properties 
 which they established and in- 
 creased by their personal la bors and 
 with their allowances, the secular 
 and their families have begun to 
 enjoy the properties of. the mis- 
 sions, and among them some I am 
 not acquainted with and who could 
 not be trusted with even the small- 
 est amount. Already the ruin of 
 the properties has begun in such 
 hands. In the department of your 
 excellency there must be the recla- 
 mations which I have made, and 
 for which the General Congress 
 made a law suspending that which 
 ordered the secularization of the 
 missions, which up to this time, 
 as I understand, has not been 
 carried out, perhaps through just 
 considerations of the Government. 
 In the later reclamation which I 
 made in the year 1836, 1 informed 
 the Supreme Government of the 
 injuries suffered by the mission- 
 aries, and not the least of them 
 was that the administrators of 
 the missions took possession of 
 the houses in which the fathers 
 were living; some houses having 
 been built by the religious, and 
 in whose construction were applied 
 the allowances which they received 
 
412 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 dad como yo mismo lo vi. Tienen 
 en la misma habitacion a unas 
 gentes que en muchas noches no 
 los dejan descanzar por las embria- 
 gueses, juegos obailes que con es- 
 candalo estan presenciando los neo 
 fitos! Vida insufrible ciertamente! 
 Vida amarguisimapara unos religi- 
 osos recoletos, y tanto que muchos 
 de ellos han pensado abandonar las 
 misiones, y retirarse a buscar la 
 tranquilidad y paz de sus espiritus! 
 Vida penosa que ha retraido y 
 retrae a muchos de ir a las misiones 
 por no exponere a tantos padeci- 
 mentos y desprecios de su caracter ! 
 Mas no se crea por esto que quiero 
 se lleve a, efecto la entregada de las 
 temporalidades a los religiosos. Se 
 muy bien y aun lo tengo dicho al 
 gobierno que dentro de breve tiem- 
 po ya no nabra nada de los bienes 
 que tenian aquellas opulentas mi- 
 siones los que recibieron los admin- 
 istradores cuando los padres las 
 entregaron. Lo que quiero es que 
 para las misiones nuevas que se 
 vayan estableciendo, se tomen 
 medidas legislativas para que no se 
 repitan las graves desordenes. De 
 otro modo, Que padre- misionero 
 habra, que quiera trabajar por au- 
 mentar los bienes de los Yndios 
 infelices si sabe por experiencia 
 que se les han de quitar a sus 
 legitimos duenos, y se han de 
 entregar a otros para que los dis- 
 fruten, roben, y tiren sin haberles 
 costado ningun trabajo ? Cual sera, 
 el religioso que quiera hacer casa 
 ni plantar huerta para su recreo y 
 sucomodidad, si ha visto que con la 
 moyor injusticia se las quitan, y en- 
 tran a poseerlas hombres que antes 
 sesocorrian con limosnas por los 
 mismos misioneros y que repenti- 
 namente se mudan los Senores 
 y tienen los infelices padres que 
 vivir a, sus espensas ? En lo que in- 
 sisto e insistire siempres es, en que 
 queden a, los misioneros las casas y 
 huertas que ellos 6 sus antecesores 
 hicieron que estan contiguas a las 
 iglesias y con inmediata comunica- 
 
 and the work of their own hands. 
 They were compelled to live in 
 them as ruined and with great 
 inconveniences as,T myself saw. 
 There were in the same building 
 some persons who, many nights, 
 would not allow them to rest for 
 their drunkenness, games, and 
 dances in which the neophytes 
 scandalously indulge! A life most 
 distressing for religious recluses; 
 indeed, so very distressing that 
 many of them have thought of 
 abandoning the missions and re- 
 tiring in search of tranquility and 
 peace of spirit! This painful life 
 has dissuaded and does dissuade 
 many from going to the missions, 
 not wishing to expose themselves 
 to such abuses and depreciations! 
 But it.mustnot be thought by this 
 that I wish to cause the transfer 
 of the properties to the religious. 
 I know very well, and yet I have 
 told the Government that within 
 a short time there will remain 
 nothing of the properties which 
 belonged to those such missions 
 and which were received by the 
 administrators when the fathers 
 turned them over. What I wish 
 is that for the new missions which 
 are about to be established legis- 
 lative measures be taken to pre- 
 vent the repetition of such serious 
 disorders. Otherwise, what mis- 
 sionary father is there who wants 
 to labor to increase the properties 
 of the unfortunate Indians if he 
 knows by experience that they are 
 to be taken from their legitimate 
 owners and are to be delivered to 
 others to enjoy, plunder, and waste 
 without having cost them any ex- 
 ertion? Where could be found the 
 religious who would wish to erect' 
 a house or plant a garden for his 
 diversion and convenience, if he 
 has seen them taken from him with 
 the greatest injustice and men en- 
 tering into their possession who 
 had formerly been aided with alms 
 by the same missionaries, and sud- 
 denly the superiors are changed 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 413 
 
 cion a ellas. Los administradores 
 (como que tienen a, su disposicion 
 a los Yndios y los intereses de las 
 misiones) pueden hacer casa para 
 elles, y dejar a los padres quietos 
 y en paz. Esta medida la juzco 
 tan necesaria que sino se toma no 
 habra quien quiera ir a servir las 
 misiones, yo desde ahora lo pre- 
 vengo al Supremo Gobierno; y si 
 para los misioneros es una medida 
 tan necesaria, que se debe decir 
 con respecto al obispo ? Esto sera, 
 une cosa bien dura que mientras 
 puede edificar su casa, no tenga en 
 donde recogerse con su faniilia ni 
 en donde poner sus estudiantes y 
 ministros, ni en donde dar princi- 
 pio a, su seminario ? Por esto pues 
 suplico al Supremo Gobierno. 
 
 1°. Que se da una orden (la 
 misma que yo llevare) para que se 
 entreguen a los misioneros las casas 
 y huertas de las misiones, y que 
 la de San Diego 6 la de San Luis 
 Key sea ocupada interinamente 
 por el obispo y sus familiares 
 juntamente con el padre misio- 
 nero, hasta que el obispo pueda 
 hacer su casa episcopal y el edificio 
 para su seminario. 
 
 2°. Los administradores niegan 
 por lo regular los servicios de los 
 Yndios a los padres, y esto aun 
 pagandoles lo justo. Esto exige 
 otra disposicion del Supremo Go- 
 bierno para que se me franqueen 
 sirvientes con sus salarios equita- 
 tivos y no arbitrarios. Junta- 
 mente suplico se me de el terreno 
 para edicifar mi iglesia, mi casa y 
 mi seminario. 
 
 and the unfortunate fathers have 
 to live at their own expense. What 
 I insist on and always will insist is 
 that there shall belong to the mis- 
 sionaries the houses and gardens 
 they or their predecessors made 
 which are contiguous to the 
 churches and immediately commu- 
 nicating with them. The admin- 
 istrators (inasmuch as they have 
 under their control the Indians 
 and the interests of the missions) 
 can build a house for them, and 
 leave the fathers in quiet andpeace. 
 This measure I consider so neces- 
 sary that unless it be taken there 
 will be no one to go to serve the 
 missions, of which fact I now warn 
 the supreme Government ; and if 
 this measure be so necessary for 
 the missionaries, what should be 
 said with regard to the bishop? 
 Would it not indeed be a hardship 
 if while he might build his house 
 he would have no place in which 
 to bring his family nor in which 
 to place his students and ministers, 
 nor in which to start his seminary? 
 Therefore I petition the supreme 
 Government: 
 
 1st. That an order be given (the 
 same as I shall deliver) that the 
 houses and gardens of the missions 
 be delivered to the missionaries, 
 and that that of San Diego or that 
 of San Luis King be occupied tem- 
 porarily by the bishop and his 
 associates, together with the father 
 missionary, until the diocese can 
 erect its episcopal house and the 
 building for its seminary. 
 
 2nd. The directors commonly 
 withheld the services of the Indians 
 from the fathers, even though they 
 paid them a just compensation. 
 This necessitates another arrange- 
 ment on the part of the Supreme 
 Government in order that servants 
 may be allowed me with equitable 
 and not arbitrary salaries. At the 
 same time I pray that land be 
 allowed me in order that I may 
 build my church, my house, and 
 my seminary. 
 
414 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 3°. Bien sabe el Supremo Go- 
 bierno que no tengo en mi 
 obispado mas eclesiasticos que los 
 religiosos Fernandinos, Zacalte- 
 canos y Dominicos de esta Pro- 
 vincia de Mexico, y si los prelados 
 de estas corporaciones nos quitan 
 a sus subditos las gracias que por 
 misioneros tienen en su orden, y 
 esta medida influiria mucho para 
 que aquellos vinieron y para que 
 otros no vayan d. las misiones, y 
 debe extraerles la consideracion 
 de que los sacrificios que hacen le 
 son inutiles en su religion. Vengo 
 pues al Supremo Gobierno que 
 oficio al Reverendo Padre Provin- 
 cial para que no se haga innovacion 
 alguna y que sigan los misioneros 
 lo mismo que estan hasta que el 
 obispo tenga clerigos que puedan 
 ocupar su lugar, y ellos puedan 
 dedicarse a las conversiones vi- 
 vaces. Quiero ademas que el 
 Gobierno me recomiende con los 
 Reverendos Padres Guardianes de 
 Guadalupe de Zacatecas y San 
 Fernando para que me auxilien 
 con religiosos, y que si algunos 
 me quieren acompanar no se les 
 impida. 
 
 4°. El Supremo Gobierno pidio 
 al Santo Padre por conducto de 
 nuestro enviado a Roma, que se 
 me concediera llevar a mi obispado 
 a cuantos sacerdotes quisieran ac- 
 companarme y f ueran de mi apro- 
 bacion sin que sus respectivos pre- 
 lados pudieran estorbarlo. Tal 
 facultad no vino entre las que 
 tengo en mi poder. Quisiera por 
 tanto que se le reclamara al Seiior 
 Montaya sobre el particular y en 
 el entretanto que Gobierno se in- 
 teresara con los prelados, cuando 
 alguno, ya sea del clero secular 6 
 regular le escriba que quiere acom- 
 panarme y yo diga al mismo Gobi- 
 erno que es de mi aprobacion. 
 
 5°. Comounademis principales 
 miras debe ser la convercion de 
 
 3d. The Supreme Government 
 well knows that I have not in my 
 bishopric other priests than the 
 Franciscans, Zacaltecans, and Do- 
 minicans of this province of Mex- 
 ico, and if the prelates of these 
 orders deprive us of the privileges 
 which their brethren have as mis- 
 sionaries in their orders, this meas- 
 ure would be of great influence, 
 so that the latter might not and 
 others would not come to the mis- 
 sions, and that the considerations 
 that the sacrifices which they make 
 are of no avail in their order ought 
 to be removed from them, I appeal 
 further to the Supreme Govern- 
 ment that it may intervene with 
 the reverend fathers provincial in 
 order that no change be made 
 and that the missionaries pursue 
 their present course until the 
 bishop may have priests who can 
 take their places and the former 
 may apply themselves to new con- 
 versions. Furthermore, I wish 
 that the Government would aid 
 me with the reverend father supe- 
 riors of Guadelupe de Zacatecas 
 and San Fernando in order that 
 they may aid me with priests, and 
 that if any wish to accompany me 
 they be not hindered. 
 
 4th. That the supreme Govern- 
 ment ask of the Holy Father, by 
 means of our envoy to Rome, that 
 I be allowed to receive in my 
 bishopric as many priests as wish 
 to accompany me as I may approve 
 without their respective superiors 
 being able to prevent it. Such 
 power does not come within those 
 which I possess. I desire therefore 
 that a demand be made of Seiior 
 Montaya on this particular point 
 and that in the meantime the" 
 Government interest itself in those 
 priests, when any of them, secular 
 or regular, who writes that he 
 wishes to accompany me and I 
 notify the Government of my ap- 
 probation. 
 
 5th. Since one of my principal 
 objects ought to be the conversion 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 415 
 
 los gentiles y propagation de la f e, 
 es indespensable pue tenga opera- 
 tion para el logro de mis deses. 
 Los colegios aprobados de la 
 republica estan acabando, excepto 
 el de Guadelupe y de Zacatecas, y 
 apenas podra cubrir las diez misi- 
 ones de que se tiene cargo. Creo 
 pues de necesidad que me conceda 
 liciencia para fundar en mi obis- 
 pado colegio de misioneros para 
 que estos sigan formando nuevas 
 misiones 6 pueblos, y suplico al 
 Gobierno que por conducto de 
 nuestro enviado a Eoma impetre 
 del Santo Padre pueda yo proceder 
 a la f undacion aunque sea con un 
 solo religioso para que este de 
 habitos y propriones a los que 
 quieran dedicase a la importanti- 
 sima conversion de gentiles. 
 Ygualmente suplico se me de para 
 local de este colegio la isla llamada 
 de los Angeles u otro terreno apro- 
 posito. 
 
 6°. Las ninas en general han 
 carecido de education y de esen- 
 anza para que sean utiles a la 
 sociedad: quiero pues fundar en 
 el lugar de mi residencia un colegio 
 de educandas, para el que tanibien 
 necesito terreno suficiente. 
 
 7°. Por una anomalia que no 
 entiendo se ha estado cobrando ne 
 mi obispado los diezmos por parte 
 del Gobierno civil de Sonora. 
 Debe pues prohibirse esto a aque- 
 llas autoridades para que queden 
 los fieles libres para darlos a la 
 Yglesia en lo sucesivo, lo que 
 aunque paucos ayundaran a los 
 grandes proyectos de publicabene- 
 Hcencia que tengo formados. 
 
 8°. El Gobierno gravo al Fondo 
 Piadoso de mi Yglesia con un 
 prestamo que hizo el Senor Teren 
 de sesenta mil pesos cl ruinoso 
 lucro de dos por ciento mensuales, 
 se comprometio el Gobierno a 
 abanar dos cientos y mas pesos 
 diarios (segun estoy informado) 
 
 of the heathen and the propagation 
 of the faith, it is necessary that 
 1 may have the necessary assist- 
 ance to succeed in my desires. The 
 colleges approved by the Republic 
 are falling off, except that of Gua- 
 delupe and Zacatecas, and that can 
 scarcely take care of the ten mis- 
 sions which it has in its charge. I 
 think, therefore, that it is necessaiy 
 that license be granted me to found 
 in my bishopric a college of mis- 
 sionaries, in order that they may 
 continue founding new missions or 
 villages, and I pray the Govern- 
 ment that by means of our envoy 
 to Rome it intercede with our 
 Holy Father that I may be allowed 
 to proceed with this foundation, 
 although it be with but one priest, 
 so that he may afford an example 
 to those who wish to devote them- 
 selves to the most important con- 
 version of the heathen. Likewise 
 I pray that there be given me 
 for the site of this college Angel 
 Island, or another suitable place. 
 
 6th. The girls in general have 
 lacked the education and learning 
 that would make them beneficial 
 to society; I wish, therefore, to 
 found in the neighberhood of my 
 residence a school for girls, and for 
 this, also, there is need for suffi- 
 cient land. 
 
 7th. By some disobedience of 
 rules, which I do not understand, 
 tithes have been collected in my 
 bishopric by the government of 
 Sonora. This ought to be forbid- 
 den those authorities, in order that 
 the faithful may be free to give 
 them to the church in the future, 
 and which, although small, will be 
 of assistance to the great projects 
 of public welfare which I have 
 formed. 
 
 8th. The Government has bur- 
 dened the Pious Fund of my church 
 with a loan which Senor Teran 
 made of $60,000 with the ruinous 
 interest of 2 per cent per month. 
 The Government promised to pay 
 daily installments of 200 odd dol- 
 lars (as I am informed) in order to 
 
416 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNTAS. 
 
 para estinguir esta deuda ominosa. 
 Cumpli6 este proruiso por un poco 
 de tiempo y despues lo ha dejado 
 al cargo del Fondo quien por no 
 perder su capital amenazado por 
 las mismas condiciones del pres- 
 tamo ha estado haciendo sacrifios 
 asi para amortmir la deuda como 
 para pagar los reditos mensuales. 
 En tales circunstancias se halla 
 dicho Fondo sin arbitrios para dar 
 los sinodos a los misioneros cuyos 
 libramientos tiene pendientes y sin 
 poderme ayudar a mi en los gastos 
 que debo hacer para marchar a mi 
 diocesis, los que son muchos como 
 no se oculta a la penetracion de 
 V.E. Es pues justicia que pido el 
 que se arbitre algunos medios por 
 el Gobierno para cubrir cuanto 
 antes la deuda del Senor Teran 
 para "que quede libre el Fondo. 
 
 En mi oficio se me paso decir que 
 deseo poner mis edificios, 6 mas 
 bien f undar una poblacion en un 
 rancho que se halla f rente de San 
 Diego asi por la comodidad que pre- 
 senta de agua, de lena, como por 
 no estar litoral y espuesto a la in- 
 vasion de algun pirata. Es ademas 
 de muy buen temperamento. Si el 
 Gobierno quisiera poner alii alguna 
 f uerza militar seria de suma impor- 
 tancia para la comunicacion con 
 Senora, pues contendria a los 
 Yndios del Rio Colorado, y tam- 
 bien seria muy al casoparaintentar 
 la reduccion de estos probrecitos y 
 on f elicidad espiritual y temporal. 
 Estoy persuadido que con esta 
 medida se facilitaria la comunica- 
 cion con el interior de nuestra re- 
 publica, y el Gobierno tendria mas 
 frecuentes noticias de aquel de- 
 partamento. 
 
 Nov. 17 de 1840. El Exmo. 
 Presidente se ha servido proveer 
 de conformidad con todo lo pedido 
 por el Reverendo obispado de Cal- 
 ifornias en esta nota hasta donde 
 alcanzan las atribuciones de S. E. 
 
 extinguish this threatening debt. 
 It fulfilled this promise for a short 
 time and afterwards left it to the 
 charge of the fund, which, in order 
 that it may not lose its capital by 
 the very terms of the loan, has been 
 making sacrifices not only that it 
 may extinguish the debt, but also 
 pay the monthly interests. Said 
 fund is in these circumstances with- 
 out means of paying the salaries of 
 the missionaries whose drafts it 
 has outstanding, and without being 
 able to help me in the expenses 
 which I ought to incur to my dio- 
 cese, which are great, as is not 
 unknown to your excellency. In 
 justice, therefore, I ask that some 
 means betaken by the Govei mnent 
 to discharge, as soon as possible, 
 the debt of Senor Teran, in order 
 that the fund may remain unin- 
 cumbered. 
 
 In my official letter I forgot to 
 say that I wish to erect my build- 
 ings, or rather to establish my 
 settlement, on a ranch which is situ- 
 ated opposite to San Diego, not 
 only on account of the supply of 
 water and wood which it affords, 
 but also because it is not near the 
 coast and exposed to the invasion 
 of any pirate. Besides, it has a very 
 good climate. If the Government 
 should desire to place a military 
 force there, it would be of the 
 greatest importance in communi- 
 catingwithSonora, becauseitwould 
 be a check to the Indians of the 
 Colorado River, and also it would 
 be material in the reduction of 
 those unfortunates and to their 
 spiritual and temporal welfare. I 
 am persuaded that by this means 
 the communication with the inte- 
 rior of our Republic would be 
 facilitated and that Government 
 would have more frequent advices 
 from that region. 
 
 Nov. 17, 1840. His Excellency 
 the President has seen fit to grant 
 everything which has been asked 
 by the reverend bishop of the 
 Californias in his note as far as his 
 excellency's powers extend, and 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 417 
 
 y da lugar el decreto del congreso 
 de 7 de Nov. de 1835, que mando 
 reponer las misiones a su antiguo 
 estado; a cuyo fin se estendera 
 orden general al Senor Goberna- 
 dor de Californias, para que por 
 medio de las autoridades subal- 
 ternas se restituya sin dilacion ni 
 embarazos a los Padres Misioneros 
 las posesiones y bienes que usaban 
 bajo su administracion para la con- 
 version de los infieles, y esa y las 
 demas ofdenes que han de espe- 
 dirse en obsequio de la peticion 
 del Reverendo Obispo se pondran 
 en mano de S. Y. para su meior 
 exito, y se le dara otra orden, a 
 fin de que el Senor Gobernador 
 le auxilie en cuanto importe a la 
 i undacion del obispado. Y por lo 
 toea a los terrenos de que no este 
 6 hayan estado en posesion de las 
 misiones librese oficio a la Junta 
 Directiva del (Ramo ?) a fin de que 
 acuerde con S. Y. hasta dondo 
 pueda su notoria piedad lo que 
 mas facilite sus peticion es; y en 
 lo que no alcanzan los arbitrios 
 del (Ramo?) le manifiesta al Go- 
 bierno para que se inicie al Poder 
 Legislativo a se provea como haya 
 lugar en der echo: y contestese con 
 este decreto al Reverendo Obispo. 
 
 Es copia. Mexico, Nov. 21 de 
 1840. 
 (Firmado) Y. Ytukbide. 
 
 Mexico, Oct. 8 de 1852. 
 Conforme. 
 
 [sello.] Jose M. Duean. 
 (Sella cuarto un real 1852, 1853.) 
 
 Office of the 
 U. S. Survetor-General 
 for California. 
 
 I, surveyor-general of the United 
 States for the State of California, 
 
 S. Doc. 28 27 
 
 he is permitted by the decree of 
 Congress of the 7th of November, 
 1835, which ordered that the mis- 
 sions be restored to their old stand- 
 ing, to which end a general order 
 will be transmitted to the gov- 
 ernor of the Californias in order 
 that by means of the subordinate 
 authorities the possessions and 
 properties which they were accus- 
 tomed to use under their adminis- 
 tration for the conversion of the 
 heathen be restored to the mission- 
 ary fathers without delay or hin- 
 drance, and this and the other 
 orders which are to be given in 
 accordance with the petition of the 
 reverend bishop shall be placed 
 in your excellency's hands in or- 
 der that it may be better carried 
 out, and another order will be 
 given you to the end that the gov- 
 ernor may aid you as much as may 
 be necessary in the foundation of 
 the bishopric, and that he may 
 give an order to the directive 
 board of the department with 
 respect to the lands of which the 
 missions are not or rmiy not have 
 been in possession, to the end that 
 it may agree with your highness 
 in so far as his well-known piety 
 may be able to further your desires, 
 and concerning that to which the 
 powers of the department do not 
 extend he may make it known to 
 the Government in order that the 
 legislative authority may be prop- 
 erly invoked and answer the rev- 
 erend bishop with this decree. 
 
 A copy. Mexico, November 21, 
 1840. 
 
 (Signed) Y. Yturbide. 
 
 Mexico, Oct. 8, 1852. 
 Compared. 
 
 [seal.] Jose Maria Duran. 
 (A stamp of one real, 1852-1853.) 
 
418 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 and as such, having in my office 
 and in my charge and custody a 
 portion of the archives of the 
 former Spanish and Mexican Ter- 
 ritory or Department of Upper 
 California, as also the papers of 
 the late board of commissioners 
 to ascertain and settle the private 
 land claims in California, by vir- 
 tue of the powers vested in me by 
 law, do hereby certify that the seven 
 preceding and hereunto annexed 
 leaves, numbered from one to 
 seven, inclusive, and written on one 
 side only, exhibit a true, full and 
 correct copy of the original "Ex- 
 hibit No. 1, P. L., annexed to dep- 
 osition of Jose Miguel Gomez, 
 Dec. 29, 1854. Joseph S. Ale- 
 many. Lands of the Catholic 
 Church (C.) filed in office Dec. 29, 
 1854. Geo. Fisher, Recorder in 
 Rec. of Evid., vol. 18, p. 571 to 
 574," and also "Exhibit No. 2, P. 
 L. , annexed to deposition of Jose" 
 Miguel Gomez, Dec. 29, 1854. 
 Joseph S. Alemany. Lands of 
 the Catholic Church. Filed in 
 office Dec. 29, 1854. Geo. Fisher, 
 Recorder in Record of Evidence, 
 vol.l8,pp.775 and 779," and now on 
 file in this office and in my custody ; 
 that I have carefully compared the 
 same with said originals, and that 
 the same are a correct transcript 
 therefrom and of the whole of such 
 originals. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have 
 hereunto signed my name officially 
 and caused my seal of office to be 
 affixed at the city of San Francisco, 
 this twenty -fifth day of August, 
 1902. 
 
 W. S. Graham, 
 TJ. 8. Surveyor- General 
 for California. 
 
 Seal surveyor-general's office, 
 California. 
 
 (Endorsed on back) : Exhibit 
 No. 5 to the deposition of John T. 
 Doyle. Jas. T. O'Keefe, notary 
 public. For identification: John 
 T. Doyle. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIA8. 
 
 419 
 
 El infrascrito oficial major del 
 Ministerio de Relaciones Certifica: 
 ser autentica la firma que antecede 
 (de) del Sr. D. Jose Ma. Duran of- 
 ficial mayor del Ministerio de 
 Justia. 
 
 Mexico, Octubre 8 de 1852. 
 J. Miguel Arroyo. 
 
 The undersigned, chief clerk of 
 the department of foreign rela- 
 tions, certifies that the foregoing 
 seal of Don Jose" Maria Duran, 
 chief clerk of the department of 
 justice, is authentic. 
 
 Mexico, October 8, 1852. 
 
 J. Miguel Arroyo. 
 
 Ministerio de la interior. Department of the interior. 
 
 Ylmo. Sor: Dada cuenta al E. 
 S. Presid te con el oficio de V. S. 
 Y. de 7 del corriente e" impuesto 
 de todo cuanto en el expone con 
 el objeto de dar lleno & sus graves 
 onligaciones como obispo de Cali- 
 fornias, se ha servido proveer de 
 conformidad con todo lo pedido 
 en el citado oficio y con lo que 
 tambien solicito en carta separada 
 de igual fecha hta. donde el alcan- 
 zan las atribuciones de S. E. y da 
 lugar el decreeo del congreso gral. 
 de 7 de Novb. de 835 que dispuso 
 se mantubieran las misiones en el 
 estado que tenian antes de la Ley 
 de 17 de Agosto de 1833 a cuyo 
 fin se libra orden por este Minist". 
 al E. S. Gobr. de Calif ornias para 
 que por medio de las autoridades 
 subalternas se restituya sin dila- 
 ciones ni embarazos a los Padres 
 Misioneros las posesiones y bienes 
 flue estaban bajo su administra- 
 cion para la conversion de los 
 infieles. 
 
 ' Y lo digo a, V. S. Y. en con- 
 testacion. 
 
 Dios y Libertad, Mexico. 
 
 Novb. 17 de 1840. 
 
 Marin. (Rubrica.) 
 
 Y. S. Obispo de Californias. 
 
 Esteemed Sir : Information 
 having been given to His Excel- 
 lency the President by the official 
 letter of your highness of the 7th 
 instant, and taking into account 
 all that is expressed in it with 
 a view to accomplishing your 
 weight}' obligations as bishop of 
 the Californias, he has been pleased 
 to concur with all that is asked in 
 the said letter, as well as with that 
 which was asked in a separate let- 
 ter of the same date, as far as his 
 power extends, and as he is author- 
 ized by the decree of the General 
 Congress of the 7th of November, 
 1835, which ordered that the mis- 
 sions be continued in the state 
 which they had before the law of 
 the 17th of August, 1833, to which 
 end an order has been made by 
 this department to his excellency 
 the governor of the Californias, 
 so that by means of the inferior 
 authorities he may restore without 
 any delays or hindrances to the 
 missionary fathers the possessions 
 and properties which were under 
 their administration for the con- 
 version of the heathen. And I 
 say this to your excellency by 
 way of answer. 
 
 God and liberty, Mexico. 
 
 November 17, 1840. 
 
 (Rubric.) Marin. 
 
 His Excellency the Bishop of 
 the Californias. 
 
 A pedimento del Senor Obispo 
 de Californias, certifico por la pre- 
 sente quo la firma agreda a este 
 documento es la del Ministro del 
 Interior, de aquella epoca del 
 
 At the request of the bishop of 
 the Californias I certify by these 
 presents that the seal attached 
 to this document is that of the 
 minister of the interior of that 
 
420 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 Senor Marin segun me consta por time, Senor Marin, as appears to 
 
 otros documentos oficiales, que he me by other official documents, 
 
 visto de dicho Senor. which" I have seen of said officer. 
 
 San Francisco, Diciembre 20, San Francisco, December 20, 
 
 1851. 1851. 
 
 [Rubrica] W. Schleiden, [Signed] 
 
 Vice- Consul de la Repullica _ W. Schleiden (Rubric), 
 
 Mejicana en San Francisco. Vice- Consul of the Mexican Re- 
 public in San Francisco. 
 
 (Sello. Viceconsulado de la Re- [Seal vice-consulate of the Mexi- 
 
 publica Mejicana en San Francis- can Republic in San Francisco.] 
 co.) 
 
 Exhibit No. 6. 
 
 [Extract from the opinion and decision of the U. S. Land Commis- 
 sion in the case of Joseph S. Alemany, bishop of Monterey, v. The 
 United States; deposed to by me before James T. O'Keefe, notary 
 public, August 20th, 1902.— John T. Doyle.] 
 
 These decisions do but recapitulate the principles laid down in all the 
 books which discuss the subject of right to property by dedication. 
 They are, however, more especially valuable here because they both 
 declare the principle and make the application of it to cases of dedica- 
 tion arising, like that now under consideration, under Spanish and 
 Mexican law. They show that there as well as here under our law, 
 although the mere naked title were in the Government, the usufruct 
 of the property might be in the church, and that the dedication of 
 such usufruct constituted a right to the estate which would never have 
 been violated by the former sovereign, and which neither conquest nor 
 revolution nor cession can destroy. 
 
 Ecclesiastical property was here, as under the civil law, known as a 
 class of property standing by itself in legal nomenclature and governed 
 by rules not applicable to other estates, intended to protect and per- 
 petuate its use to the benefit of the church. By the laws of Spain as 
 well as by the canon law which was recognized throughout the Spanish 
 dominions, ecclesiastical property was regarded as comprised in two 
 classes: The first embraced property usually denominated sacred, and 
 which was in a formal manner consecrated to God and destined to the 
 purposes of divine worship as its instruments. Such are the church 
 edifices, the cemeteries, the sacred vessels of the altar, the vestments, 
 etc. The second class comprised property of whatever kind which 
 was held by the church or the ministers who officiated at the altar, by 
 any temporal title, and which was appropriated to the maintenance of 
 divine worship or to the support of the officiating ministry. These ^ 
 are not, like the first class, consecrated directly to divine purposes, but ' 
 since they yield a support to the clergy and the service of the temples 
 they are considered indirectly set apart for the worship of God, and 
 therefore of divine right. Under this class were included lands occu 
 pied for the residence of the priest and other buildings necessary for 
 his convenience, the gardens and grounds used for the supply of his 
 table or of any of the sacramental purposes of the church and that 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 421 
 
 from which revenue was derived for its support. Property falling 
 within the class of ecclesiastical can be alienated only when certain 
 necessities arise, and then under the proceedings provided by the 
 canon law. Such property was regarded as withdrawn from the 
 dominion and traffic of man; in the expressive language of the civil 
 law, it was "out of commerce." Every church was required to have 
 upon its organization an endowment for its support, and propertj 7 
 which it had long held for such uses was presumed, where no other 
 title was shown, to have been acquired by donation or by gift for its 
 endowment, and property produced by the labor of persons devoted 
 to the service of religion became ecclesiastical property. (Ferraris 
 Biblio, verb, alienare, I Sala Mexicano, 226. 1 Febrero, Mex. , 297, 
 Escriche verb. Bienes Ecclesiasticos.) 
 
 These concurrent proofs bring us irresistibly to the conclusion that 
 before the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo these possessions were 
 solemnly dedicated to the use of the church and the property with- 
 drawn from commerce. Such an interest is protected by the provision 
 of the treaty and must be held inviolable under our laws. 
 
 Exhibit No. 6 to the deposition of John T. Doyle. 
 
 J. T. O'Keefe, Notary Public. 
 For identification: 
 
 John T. Doyle. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT OF MOST REV. PATRICK W. RIORDAN, ARCHBISHOP 
 OF SAN FRANCISCO, DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1902. 
 
 Kingdom of Holland, The Hague: 
 
 Patrick William Riordan, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes 
 and says: 
 
 I am Patrick William Riordan, am sixty-one years of age and 
 upwards. My place of birth is Chatham, New Brunswick, but I am 
 a citizen of the United States, naturalized by law. My occupation is 
 that of a Roman Catholic archbishop of the diocese of San Francisco, 
 California, in which city and State I have resided since November, 1883. 
 I have no direct interest in the claim embodied in the above-mentioned 
 suit; my interest being merely that of an administrator on behalf of 
 the church, without being personal to myself, and I should not in my 
 own individual right receive any portion of any sum which might be 
 awarded by this court. I am not an agent or attorney or otherwise 
 interested in the claim, except as above indicated. 
 
 I have carefully examined the affidavit of P. E. Mulligan, secretary 
 of the diocese of San Francisco, and am fully acquainted with its con- 
 tents, and within my own knowledge the facts therein stated are cor- 
 rect. I am familiar with the pontifical document, a copy of which is 
 attached to the said affidavit, and recognize it as being a correct copy 
 of the instrument which it purports to repeat. I am furthermore 
 familiar with the Latin in it and have compared the translation, hereto 
 annexed and now shown to me with the original Latin, and find such 
 translation to be accurate. 
 
422 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 I am acquainted with all of the facts relative to the distribution of 
 the proceeds of the judgment obtained in the case of Amat v. Mexico, 
 referred to in said pontifical document, and am personally cognizant of 
 the fact that distribution of all the said proceeds was made in strict 
 conformity with the terms of said instrument, and myself supervised 
 the distribution of seven out of fourteen of the installments thereof, 
 having received the necessary receipts from all of the parties in interest. 
 
 Pateick William Riordan. 
 
 Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of September, 1902. 
 
 John W. Gakrett, 
 
 Secretary of Legation. 
 
 Legation or the United States, 
 
 The Hague, Holland, ss: 
 
 I, John W. Garrett, secretary of the legation of the United States 
 of America at The Hague, Holland, and duly commissioned and sworn 
 as such, do hereby certify that I have no interest in the claim to which 
 the testimony heretofore annexed relates, and that I am not the agent 
 or attorney of any person having any interest in said claim; that on 
 the sixteenth day of September, A. D. 1902, before me, as such secre- 
 tary of the legation at The Hague, Holland, personally came Patrick 
 William Riordan, the witness named in and whose name is subscribed 
 to the annexed deposition; that the said Patrick William Riordan was 
 thereupon then and there sworn by me in due form of law, as a wit- 
 ness in the matter of the claim above mentioned therein, to testify and 
 declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the 
 said witness, having been so by me duly sworn, then and there deposed 
 to the matter contained in his said deposition annexed hereto and 
 identified by my signature. I further certify that the witness, Patrick 
 William Riordan, is personally well known to me and known by me 
 to be a credible and truthful witness. I further certify that the testi- 
 mony of the said witness was then and there reduced to writing in my 
 presence by J. J. Haledon Rix, a person having no interest in, and 
 not being the agent or attorney of any person having an interest in, 
 the claim above mentioned, and that the said depositions were then 
 and there carefully read by me to the said witness, and being signed 
 by me was then and there signed by the said witness in my presence. 
 I further certify that the exhibit of the affidavit of P. E. Mulligan 
 was_ exhibited to the said witness, together with the annexed Latin 
 exhibit and translation thereof, and marked by me as an exhibit 
 hereto, was then and there produced and shown to the said deponent 
 and by him deposed unto, and that the said exhibits are the same 
 exhibits referred to by the said witness in his said deposition. The 
 deposition of said Patrick W. Riordan was reduced to writing in 
 the form of typewriting, and signed by him, and is annexed to this 
 certificate. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the 
 seal of the said legation this sixteenth day of September, A. D. 1902, 
 at The Hague, Holland, aforesaid. 
 
 [seal.] John W. Garrett, 
 
 Secretary of Legation. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 423 
 
 Exhibit No. 1— J. W. G. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of Sa?i Francisco, ss: 
 
 I, P. E. Mulligan, secretary of the Roman Catholic archbishop of 
 San Francisco, Patrick W. Riordan, incumbent, hereby certify that 
 as said secretary I have in my possession and am the custodian of all 
 the books, records, files, papers, and documents of the said Roman 
 Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, and that the annexed document 
 is a full, true, correct, and verbatim copy of the pontifical decree 
 directing the distribution of the monies of the Pious Fund, which said 
 pontifical decree is among the files, papers, and documents of the said 
 Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the 
 seal of the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco at the city 
 and county of San Francisco, State of California, this twenty-ninth 
 day of August, A. D. 1902. 
 
 P. E. Mulligan. 
 
 State of California*. 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 P. E. Mulligan, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That he 
 is the secretary of the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, 
 Patrick W. Riordan, incumbent, and that the facts stated in the fore- 
 -going certificate are true and correct. 
 
 P. E. Mulligan. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of August, 1902. 
 
 John P. Cashin, 
 Notary Public in and for the City and County of 
 
 San Francisco, State of California. 
 
 State of California, 
 
 City and County of San Francisco, ss: 
 
 I, Albert B. Mahony, county clerk of the city and county of San 
 Francisco, State of California, and ex officio clerk of the superior 
 court thereof (which court is a court of record, having a seal), do 
 hereby certify that John P. Cashin, whose name is subscribed to 
 the annexed instrument and thereon written, and before whom the 
 annexed oath or affidavit was taken, was at the time of taking such 
 oath or affidavit a notary public in and for the city and county of 
 San Francisco, residing in said city and county, duly authorized to 
 take the same, and an officer duly authorized by the laws of said State 
 to take and certify the acknowledgment and proof of deeds to be 
 recorded in said State. And further, that I am well acquainted with 
 the handwriting of such officer, and verily believe that the signature 
 to such jurat or certificate is genuine. 
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the 
 seal of the said superior court at my office in said city and county this 
 29th day of August, A. D. 1902. 
 
 Albert B. Mahony, Clerk. 
 
424 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Exhibit No. 2.— J. W. G. 
 
 EX. ATJDENTIA SSMI HABITA DIE 4 MART1I, 1877. 
 
 SSmus Dominus Noster Pius Divina Providentia P. P. IX referente 
 me infrascripto S. Congnis de Progaganda Fide Secretario auditis 
 riteque perpenais iis omnibus, quae a RR, PP. DD Archiepiscopo 
 S. Francisci et Episcopo Vallispratensi ex una parte, atque a R. P. D. 
 Episcopo Montereyensi et Angelorum ex alia relata f uerunt quoad dis- 
 tributionem pecuniae summae a Mexicano Gubernio solvendae tribus 
 praefatis Diocesibus provinciae ecclesiasticae Sancti Francisci in Supe- 
 riori Caliphornia, juxta arbitramentalem sententiam editam a judicibus, 
 qui a Gubernii, Mexici atque Foederatorum Septemtrionalis Americae 
 Statum designati fuerant, jussit praedictam distributionem perficien- 
 dam esse prout infra; videlicit ut, detractis litis expensis summaque 
 viginti sex millium (26,000) scutatorum familiae Aguirre solvenda, 
 dummodo sufficienter constiterit prudenti dictorum Praesulum judicio 
 banc summam eidem familiae debitam esse, persolutisque viginti 
 quatuor millibus (24,000) scutatorum R. P. D. Archiepiscopo Oregono- 
 politano pro missionibus provinciae ecclesiasticae ejusdem nominis nee 
 non Vicariatus Apostolici Idahensis impendentis, et quadraginta milli- 
 bus scutatorum (40,000) Patribus Ordinis S. Francisci ac Patribus 
 Societatis Jesu aequaliter inter eos dividendis, ex reliqua summa sep- 
 tem fiant partes aequales quorum una missionibus Territorii de Utah 
 perpetuo maneat assignata, atque aliae sex aequaliter inter tres supra- 
 memoratos Episcopos provinciae ecclesiasticae S. Francisci dividantur 
 graviter onerata eorum conscientia super tutiori et utiliori quam fieri 
 possit acceptae pecuniae favore ecclesiae investimento. Simul jussit 
 Sanctitas Suaut super ita peracta distributione singuli interesse haben- 
 tes omnino acquiescant. 
 
 Datum' Romae ex Aedibus dictae S. Congregationis de Propaganda 
 Fide, die et anno ut supra. 
 
 Alex Card. Franchi, Praef. 
 J. B. Agnozzi, Sect. 
 
 Exhibit No. 3.— J. W. G. 
 
 [Translation of the annexed document.] 
 
 EXTBACT FROM AN AUDIENCE HELD BY THE HOLT FATHER ON THE 
 
 4TH MARCH, 1877. 
 
 Our most Holy (Father and) Lord, Pius, by the Divine Grace Pon- 
 tifex Maximus, the ninth of that title, through me, the undersigned 
 secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 
 having fully heard and weighed all those matters which the Right 
 Reverend and the Most Reverend Archbishop of San Francisco and 
 Bishop of Grass Valley, on the one part, and the Right Reverend 
 Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles, on the other, had brought before 
 him with regard to the repartition of certain sums of money which 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1FORNTAS. 425 
 
 were to be paid by the Mexican Government to the aforesaid three 
 dioceses in the ecclesiastical province of Upper California, according to 
 the arbitral sentence given by the judges who had been named by 
 the Mexican Government and that of the United States of North 
 America. 
 
 Decreed that the aforesaid repartition should be made as fol- 
 lows, namely: That there having been deducted from the whole sum 
 the expenses of the suit and the sum of $26,000 to be paid to the family 
 of Aguirre (since it is plainly evident that such a sum is due to the 
 aforesaid family), and payment having been made of $24,000 to the 
 Right Reverend the Archbishop of Oregon for the missions of the 
 ecclesiastical province of that name, and the Vicariate Apostolic of 
 Idaho, and $40,000 to the Fathers of the Order of St. Farncis and the 
 Fathers of the Society of Jesus, to be equally divided between them; 
 of the remaining sum there shall be taken seven equal parts, of which 
 one shall remain perpetually assigned to the missions of the Territory 
 of Utah, and the remaining six shall be divided equally between the 
 three above-named bishoprics of the ecclesiastical province of San 
 Francisco, they being strictly charged upon their conscience to invest 
 the same monies, upon their reception, in favor of the church as safely 
 and as usefully as may be. 
 
 His Holiness decreed at the same time that all parties having 
 interests in the matter should thoroughly acquiesce in this repartition 
 so made. 
 
 Given at Rome, from the palace of the Sacred Congregation for the 
 Propagation of the Faith on the aforesaid day and year. 
 
 Alex. Card. Franchi, Praef. 
 J. B. Agnozzi, Sect. 
 
 DISCOVERY MADE BY UNITED STATES, ON MOTION BY MEXICO, 
 RELATIVE TO INDIAN POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 No. 293.] Embassy of the Mexican 
 
 United States in Washington, 
 Bay shore, JV. Y., August 21, 1902. 
 
 Mr. Acting Secretary: By direction of my Government, and in 
 accordance with Article IV of the protocol of agreement between the 
 Republic of Mexico and the United States of America for the set- 
 tlement of certain questions raised in respect to the so-called Pious 
 Fund of the Californias, signed on the 22d of May last, I have the 
 honor to ask of the Department in your worthy charge a statement 
 as to whether ifc is true that there are Indians who are not Christian- 
 ized or who are still free from obedience to the authorities in the 
 State of California. 
 
 I take pleasure on this occasion in renewing to you the assurances 
 of my high consideration. 
 
 Jose F. Godoy. 
 
 Hon. Alvey A. Adee. 
 
426 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 [No. 17089.] 
 
 United States oe America, 
 
 Department of State. 
 
 To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 I certify that the document hereunto annexed is under the seal of 
 the Department of the Interior of the United States, and is entitled to 
 full faith and credit. 
 
 In testimony whereof I, John Hay, Secretary of State of the United 
 States, have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the 
 Department of State to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of "Washington this 9th day of September, A. D. 
 1902, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one 
 hundred and twenty -seventh. 
 
 [seal.] JoHN Ray - 
 
 Eefer in reply to the following: Land 50909—1902. Special. 
 
 Department of the Interior, 
 
 Office of Indian Affairs, 
 Washington, September 8, 1902. 
 
 The honorable the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, by Department 
 reference for immediate consideration and report, of a communication 
 dated August 23, 1902, from the Secretary of State, setting forth that 
 in accordance with Article IV of the protocol of agreement between 
 the Republic of Mexico and the United States, for the settlement of 
 certain questions raised in respect to the claim known as the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias, signed on May 22, 1902, the Mexican Gov- 
 ernment has called upon the Department of State for a statement as to 
 " whether it is true that there are Indians who are not Christianized or 
 who are still free from obedience to the authorities of the State of 
 California." 
 
 The Secretary of State requests that such a statement be furnished 
 to his Department for communication to the Mexican Government as 
 speedily as possible, and that if the statement be made by the Com- 
 missioner of Indian Affairs his official character should be certified to 
 under the seal of the Interior Department. 
 
 By the term "not Christianized" is understood by this office to mean 
 those Indians of California and their descendants who were not brought 
 under the charge of the Franciscan fathers at or near the missions 
 from and after 1769, the date of the founding of the Mission of . 
 San Diego de Alcala, at Diego, by Father Junipero. , These Indians 
 are to this day designated as "Mission Indians," though in an official 
 sense that designation is now applied only to the descendants of the 
 Mission Indians living in Southern California. 
 
 The words Indians "who are still free from obedience to the author- 
 ities of the State of California " are presumed to mean Indians who 
 are residing on Indian reservations within the exclusive jurisdiction 
 of the United States. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIPOKNIAS. 427 
 
 The Mission Indians are probably all "Christianized," but with the 
 exception of a few bands are occupjnng tribal reservations over which 
 the State of California does not exercise jurisdiction. The bands not 
 subject to State control are as follows: 
 
 San Manuel (P.). San Pasqual. 
 
 Twenty-nine Palms (P.). San Jacinto. 
 
 Ramona (P. ) . Aqua Caliente (P. ) . 
 
 Cahuilla. Los Coyotes. 
 
 Mesa Grande (P.). Torros. 
 
 Inaja (P.). Augustine (P.). 
 
 La Posta (P. ). Santa Rosa. 
 
 Manzanita (P.). Morongo. 
 
 Laguna(P.). Santa Ysabel (P.). 
 
 Campo ( P. ) . Cabezon ( P. ) . 
 
 Cuyapipe (P.). Tule River. 
 
 The reservations marked "P." have been patented as "reservations" 
 to the Indian bands or villages under the provisions of section 3 of the 
 act of January 12, 1891. (26 Stats., 712.) 
 
 The Indians of the Hoopa Valley Reservation are not "Christian- 
 ized " so far as this office is aware, and are still free from State control. 
 
 The Indians of the Round Valley Agency are not known to be 
 "Christianized." Having been given allotments of land in severalty, 
 they are, by the act of February 8, 1887 (24 Stats., 388), declared to be 
 citizens of the United States and subject to all the laws of the State. 
 They are therefore no longer free from obedience to the State author- 
 ities. 
 
 Since the foregoing was prepared this office received, by Department 
 reference, a communication dated September 3, 1902, from the Acting 
 Secretary of State, transmitting a copy of a cablegram dated Septem- 
 ber 2, 1902, from Mr. Ralston, agent and counsel of the United States 
 in the matter of the arbitration of the Pious Fund claim, calling for 
 information of the same character for the States of California, Oregon, 
 Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Utah, as well as for the last three 
 reports of this office. Mr. Ralston desires that the information reach 
 him at The Hague by September 20, 1902. 
 
 The information respecting the State of California being hereinbe- 
 fore given, the other States will be taken up in their order. 
 
 IDAHO. 
 
 Coeur d'Alene Reservation. — De Smet Mission (Roman Catholic) 
 established under authority of act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stats., 1029). 
 No statistics that Indians are " Christianized." Indians are not under 
 jurisdiction of State. 
 
 Fort Hall Reservation. — No Roman Catholic missions established. 
 Reservation to be allotted and surplus lands opened to settlement under 
 agreement of March 3, 1891, ratified by the act of June 6, 1900 (31 
 Stats., 672), when the Indians will fall under the jurisdiction of the 
 State. 
 
 Lapwai (JYez Perces) Reservation. — Roman Catholic mission school 
 established in 1860. No statistics as to "Christianizing" of Indians 
 who are under jurisdiction of State. 
 
 Lemhi Reservation. — No Roman Catholic institutions established. 
 Indians not under jurisdiction of State. 
 
428 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 MONTANA. 
 
 Black feet Reservation.— Roman Catholic schools established in 1889 
 and 1894. No data as to Indians being " Christianized. " Indians are 
 under exclusive jurisdiction of United States. 
 
 Grow Reservation. — Roman Catholic missions and schools established 
 in 1886, 1888, 1890, 1891, 1894, and 1895. Not known if Indians are 
 "Christianized." When allotments now being made shall have been 
 completed the Indians will become citizens and be subject to the laws 
 of the State. 
 
 I ort Belknap Reservation. — Roman Catholic church and school estab- 
 lished in 1887. No record as to Indians being "Christianized." 
 Indians not under control of State. 
 
 Fort Peck Reservation. — Roman Catholic (Jesuit) mission and church 
 established in 1900. No statistics as to " Christianization " of Indians, 
 who are under exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. 
 
 Jocko (Flathead) Reservation. — St. Ignatius (Roman Catholic) mis- 
 sion established in 1854. No date as to "Christianization." Indians 
 not under jurisdiction of State. 
 
 The Indians of the Yuma reservation, California, may possibly be 
 regarded as "Christianized," inasmuch as a branch of the Roman Cath- 
 olic Sisterhood for years had charge of the Indian school there. They 
 are not subject to State control. 
 
 The communications from the Acting Secretary of State are herewith 
 returned, with a copy of this report and copies of the annual reports 
 of this office for the years 1899, 1900, and 1901. The annual report 
 for 1902 has not as yet been submitted to the Department. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. A. Jones, Commissioner. 
 
 E. B. F. (G.) Department of the Inteeioe, 
 
 September 8, 1902. 
 I certify that W. A. Jones, who signed the forgoing communication, 
 was, at the time of such signing, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 
 [seal department E. A. Hitchcock, 
 
 of interior..] Secretary. 
 
 [Endorsement.] 
 
 8114.] 
 
 Indian Office, September 8, 1902. 
 
 Reports on request of State Department relative to Indians of cer- 
 tain States who are not christianized or who are still free from State 
 control. 
 
 4 incls. 
 
 F. M. W. (Copy).] Department of the Interior, 
 
 Washington, September 9, 1902. 
 The Honorable the Secretary of State. 
 
 Sir: Referring to Department letter of 8th instant, transmitting a 
 communication of the same date from the Commissioner of Indian 
 Affairs, on the subject of Indians who are not " Christianized," or who 
 are still free from State control in California and certain other Western 
 
PIOUS FUND. OF THE A LIFORNI AS . 429 
 
 States, I have the honor to transmit herewith, as a supplemental state- 
 ment, a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, dated the 9th 
 instant, containing certain information which was inadvertently 
 omitted from his report of 3'esterday. 
 
 In accordance with the desire of your Department I have certified 
 to the official character of the Commissioner in the same manner as in 
 yesterday's letter. 
 
 Very respectfully, E. A. Hitchcock, 
 
 8147, Ind. Div., 1902. 1 inclosure. 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 No. 17110.] 
 
 United States of America, 
 
 Department of State. 
 To all to vjhom these presents shall come, greeting: 
 
 I certify that the document hereunto annexed is under the seal of 
 the Department of the Interior of the United States, and is entitled to 
 full faith and credit. 
 
 In testimony whereof I, John Hay, Secretary of State of the United 
 States, have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the 
 Department of State to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this 10 day of September, A. D. 
 1902, and of the Independence of the United States of America the 
 one hundred and twenty-seventh. 
 
 [seal department of state.] John Hay. 
 
 Refer in reply to the following: Land, 50909—1902. 52763—1902. Special. 
 
 Department of the Interior, 
 
 Office of Indian Affairs, 
 
 Washington, Sept. 9, 1902. 
 
 The honorable the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Sir: Eef erring to office report of yesterday's date, in response to 
 the inquiry of the Department of State, as to whether there are any 
 Indians incertain Western States who are not "Christianized," or who 
 are still free from obedience to the State authorities, I have the honor 
 to state that the data respecting the States of Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 
 and Washington were inadvertently omitted from said report. 
 
 The Indians who are still free from State control in Nevada are 
 those of the Pyramid Lake, Walker River, and Western Shoshone 
 reservations; in the State of Utah, those of. the Uintah Reservation, 
 and in the State of Washington the Indians of the Columbia and 
 Spokan reservations, under the Colville Agency. The Indians of Oregon 
 arenall under the jurisdiction of that State. 
 
 This office has no definite information that the Indians of said States 
 are or are not " Christianized." 
 
 It is requested that this statement be transmitted to the Secretary of 
 State to be regarded as supplemental to the statement contained in 
 office report of the 8th instant. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. A. Jones, Commissioner. 
 
430 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE - CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 E. B. F. Department of the Interior, 
 
 F. September 9, 1902. 
 
 I certify that W. A. Jones, who signed the foregoing communica- 
 tion, was at the time of such signing Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 
 [seal department E. A. Hitchcock, 
 
 oe interior.] Secretary. 
 
 [Endorsement.] 
 
 8147. Commr. Ind. Affrs., Sept. 9, 1902. Submits supplemental 
 report rel. Inds. who are not Christianized or who are still free from 
 State control in certain Western States. 1 incl. 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 EXHIBIT WITH RELATION TO CATHOLIC MISSION INDIAN SCHOOLS. 
 
 [Submitted by the, agent of the United States.] 
 
 Reference to page 27 of the report of the Commissioner of Indian 
 Affairs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901, shows the following 
 Catholic mission Indian schools within the limits of the territory 
 expressly conveyed to the United States by Mexico under the pro- 
 visions of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: 
 
 State. 
 
 School. 
 
 Enroll- 
 ment. 
 
 
 
 139 
 
 Do 
 
 
 82 
 
 Do 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 234 
 
 
 79 
 
 
 Day schools. 
 
 
 Arizona 
 
 100 
 
 Do 
 
 
 83 
 
 
 Pinole v 
 
 
 
 183 
 
 California 
 
 16 
 
 Do 
 
 Ukiah 
 
 11 
 
 Do 
 
 Kelseyville (St. Turibius) 
 
 7 
 
 
 Catholic schools in additional territory, apparently originally claimed- 
 by Spain as part of California. 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 Idaho 
 
 93 
 
 
 Blaekfeet 
 
 
 Montana 
 
 78 
 
 Do 
 
 Flathead 
 
 163 
 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 Oregon 
 
 69 
 
 
 Colville 
 
 
 
 66 
 
 Do.? 
 
 
 85 
 
 Do 
 
 Tulalip 
 
 93 
 
 
 Total enrollment 
 
 244 
 
 
 1,177 
 
 
 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIFORN1AS. 
 
 431 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 Indians to be found in the States and Territories embraced within the limits of Upper Cali- 
 fornia, indicated by the map attached to the treaty of Guadalupe H'tdalgo. 
 
 State, name of agency, and tribe. 
 
 — ARIZONA. 
 
 Colorado RiverAgency : 
 
 Mohave on reserve 
 
 Mohave at Fort Mohave 
 
 Chemehhevi 
 
 Mohave at Needles 
 
 Fort Apache Agency: 
 
 White Mountain Apaches 
 
 Under school superintendent: 
 
 Hopi Moqui 
 
 Navaho 
 
 Navaho Agency: 
 
 Navahos on reserve 
 
 Navahos off reserve 
 
 Pima Agency: 
 
 Maricopa 
 
 Pima 
 
 Papago 
 
 Papago, nomadic 
 
 Papago at San Xavier 
 
 Under industrial teacher: 
 
 Havasupai 
 
 Walapai 
 
 San Carlos Agency: 
 
 Apache 
 
 Mohave 
 
 Apache on San Pedro Eiver 
 
 Apache near Mohawk, on Lower Gila 
 River 
 
 CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Under farmer: 
 
 Digger 
 
 Hupa Valley Agency under school super- 
 intendent: 
 
 Hupa 
 
 Lower Klamath 
 
 Mission-Tule Eiver Agency 
 
 Mission 
 
 Tule Eiver 
 
 Round Valley Agency under school su- 
 perintendent: 
 
 Concow 
 
 Little Lake and Eedwood 
 
 Nomelaki and Pit River 
 
 Wailaki and Yuki 
 
 Under school superintendent: 
 
 Yuma 
 
 Near Fort Bid well School: 
 
 Paiute 
 
 Pit River 
 
 Not under an agent: 
 
 Wiehumni, Kawai, Pit Eiver, and 
 others 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 662 
 
 1,200 
 
 250 
 
 300 
 
 1,952 
 
 1,841 
 1,837 
 
 12,000 
 8,000 
 
 350 
 4,400 
 1,300 
 2,100 
 
 516 
 
 243 
 573 
 
 2,542 
 473 
 300 
 
 300 
 
 41,139 
 
 35 
 
 417 
 560 
 
 2,856 
 146 
 
 164 
 121 
 
 71 
 
 281 
 
 655 
 
 200 
 500 
 
 9,371 
 
 15,377 
 
 State, name of agency, and tribe. 
 
 COLORADO. 
 
 Southern Ute Agency: 
 
 Capote, Moache, and Wiminuche 
 Ute— 
 
 Allotted - 
 
 Unallotted 
 
 Nevada Agency, under school superin- 
 tendent: 
 
 Paiute of Pyramid Lake Reservation 
 Under Carson school superintendent: 
 
 Paiute of Walker River Reservation 
 Western Shoshoni Agency, under school 
 superintendent' 
 
 Paiute 
 
 Shoshoni 
 
 Not under an agent 
 
 NEW MEXICO. 
 
 Mescalero Agency, under school superin- 
 tendent. 
 
 Mescalero Apache 
 
 Jicarilla Agency: 
 
 Jicarilla Apache 
 
 Under Albuquerque school superintend- 
 ent: 
 Pueblo at — 
 
 Acoma 
 
 Santa Ana 
 
 Zuni 
 
 Uinta and Ouray Agency: 
 
 Uinta Ute 
 
 Uncompahgre Ute 
 
 White Eiver Ute 
 
 Under day school-teacher at St. George. 
 
 Kaibab 
 
 Shivwits 
 
 Kaibab at Cedar City 
 
 Paiute at Kanosh, Grass Valley, and 
 Eabbit Valley 
 
 Total Indian population 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 413 
 
 528 
 
 941 
 
 656 
 413 
 
 223 
 
 223 
 
 3,701 
 
 5,216 
 
 466 
 813 
 
 650 
 
 228 
 
 1,541 
 
 457 
 820 
 371 
 
 105 
 128 
 45 
 
 2,026 
 
 68, 397 
 
432 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Exhibit C. 
 
 Indians contained within additional territory believed to have been formerly claimed by 
 Spain as part of Upper California. 
 
 State, name of agency, and tribe. 
 
 Fort Hall, an agency: 
 
 Bannock and Shoshoni 
 
 Not under agent: 
 
 Band of Camas Jim, near Bliss, Idaho. 
 Lemhi Agency: 
 
 Bannock 
 
 Sheepeater 
 
 Shoshoni 
 
 Nez Perce Agency 
 
 Nez Perce 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 301 
 1,567 
 
 3,508 
 
 MONTANA. 
 
 Blackfeet Agency: 
 
 Piegan 
 
 Flathead Agency: 
 
 Chariot's Band of Flathead 
 
 Confederated Flathead, Pend d'Ore 
 ille, Kutenai 
 
 Kutenai from Idaho 
 
 Lower Kalispel 
 
 Spokan 
 
 OREGON. 
 
 Grande Eonde Agency, under school 
 superintendent: 
 
 Clackamas 
 
 Cow Creek 
 
 Lakmuit 
 
 Marys Eiver 
 
 Rogue River 
 
 Santiam 
 
 Umpqua • 
 
 Wapeto 
 
 Yamhill 
 
 Klamath Agency: 
 
 Klamath 
 
 Modoc 
 
 Paiute 
 
 Pit River 
 
 Siletz Agency, under school superin- 
 tendent: 
 
 Chetco, Joshua, Klamath, Mikono- 
 tuni, Rogue River, Sixes, Yuchi. . 
 Umatilla Agency: 
 
 Cayuse 
 
 Umatilla 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 Warm Springs Agency, under school 
 superintendent: 
 
 Paiute 
 
 2,Ol3 
 157 
 
 1,310 
 
 41 
 53 
 
 77 
 
 3,681 
 
 740 
 
 226 
 
 107 
 
 82 
 
 374 
 184 
 525 
 
 State, name of agency, and tribe. 
 
 : Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Oregon — continued. 
 
 Warm Springs Agency, under school 
 superintendent — Continued. 
 
 Warm Spring 
 
 Wasco and Tenino 
 
 391 
 316 
 
 WASHINGTON. 
 
 Colville Agency: 
 
 Cceur d'Alene 
 
 Columbia (Moses's Band) 
 
 Colville 
 
 Kalispel 
 
 Lake 
 
 Lower Spokan 
 
 Nez Perce (Joseph's Band) 
 
 Okinagan 
 
 Sanpoil and Nespelim 
 
 Upper and Middle Spokan on Cceur 
 d'Alene Reserve 
 
 Upper and Middle Spokan on Spokan 
 
 Reserve 
 
 Neah Bay Agency. 
 
 Hoh 
 
 Makah 
 
 Ozette 
 
 Quileute » 
 
 Puyallup Agency, under school superin- 
 tendent: 
 
 Chehalis 
 
 Georgetown 
 
 Humptulip 
 
 Quaitso 
 
 Quinaielt 
 
 Nisqualli 
 
 Puyallup 
 
 Sklallam, at Jamestown 
 
 Sklallam, at Port Gamble 
 
 Skokomish 
 
 Squaxon 
 
 Tulip Agency, under school superin- 
 tendent: 
 
 Lummi 
 
 Muckleshoot 
 
 Port Madison 
 
 Crow 
 
 Swinomish 
 
 Tulalip 
 
 Yakima Agency: 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Not under an agent: 
 
 Nooksak 
 
 Wenatchi, near Wenatchi River 
 
 3,871 
 
 296 
 150 
 307 
 371 
 
 126 
 575 
 400 
 
 184 
 66 
 
 45 
 ■234 
 
 156 
 115 
 19 
 59 
 131 
 107 
 536 
 235 
 82 
 165 
 118 
 
 340 
 
 148 
 
 150 
 
 6 
 
 2,311 
 
 200 
 166 
 
 1,860 
 
 Total 20,920 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 433 
 
 MEXICAN CALL FOR DISCOVERY. 
 
 Embassy of Mexico, 
 Washington, Augvst 1%, 190%. 
 Mr. Acting Secretary: By direction of my Government, and in 
 accordance with Article IV of the protocol of arbitration between the 
 Republic of Mexico and the United States of America for the settle- 
 ment of certain questions arisen in regard to the so-called "Pious 
 Fund of the Californias," signed on May 22, 1902, I ask that there be 
 made known to the Government of Mexico, as part of its evidence, the 
 following facts and documents: 
 
 1. Whether the bishops of California received the sum of $904. 700. 79 
 Mexican gold, referred to in Mixed Commission's decision of Novem- 
 ber 11, 1875. 
 
 2. To what purpose the said sum was applied. 
 
 3. Before whom were the accounts of expenditure rendered. 
 
 4. What are the documents in which the said accounts are recorded 
 that are to be exhibited hereafter. 
 
 I have to say, in addition, that the foregoing request is understood 
 to be without prejudice to such as maybe presented later regarding 
 other facts and documents appertaining to the subject-matter. 
 I take pleasure, etc. 
 
 Jose F. Godoy. 
 His Excellency A. A. Adee, 
 
 Etc. , etc. , etc. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF THE MOST REVEREND PATRICK 
 WILLIAM RIORDAN, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO. 
 
 Kingdom of Holland, The Hague, ss: 
 
 Patrick William Riordan, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes 
 and says: 
 
 I am the same Patrick William Riordan who has heretofore been 
 sworn in this case, under date of September 16, 1902, and whose affi- 
 davit is filed herein, and I desire now to reaffirm the facts therein 
 stated, and to make the former affidavit a part of the present one. 
 
 Desiring more specifically to answer the call for discovery served 
 upon the United States, under date of August 12, 1902, by Sr. Jose 
 F. Godoy, charge d'affaires, of the Republic of Mexico, I depose and 
 say: 
 
 1. The bishops of California did receive the sum of $904,070.79, 
 Mexican gold, referred to in the decision of November 11, 1875, and 
 as corrected as to amount by the umpire on November 18, 1876. 
 
 2. The said sum, first deducting the amounts necessarily expended 
 for costs and attorneys' fees, was applied to religious purposes by the 
 orders to whom the same was paid, under the papal decree of dis- 
 tribution attached to my former deposition. 
 
 The sums paid to said orders were expended within the limits of Alta 
 California, according to the boundaries thereof as they were formerly 
 claimed by Spain and within the territory ceded by Mexico to the 
 United States under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The moneys 
 
 S. Doc. 28 28 
 
434 PIOUS FUND OF. THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 paid to the several bishops were applied by them to religious pur- 
 poses within their respective dioceses. 
 
 3. At all of the times stated herein and in my deposition above 
 referred to said orders and said bishops, by the laws of the Roman 
 Catholic Church, were required to keep accounts of all moneys paid 
 to them or disbursed by them for religious purposes, including the 
 moneys paid by me and by my predecessor, as archbishop of San Fran- 
 cisco, to them out of the moneys received upon the former award. 
 
 4. The accounts of distribution, so far as the moneys passed through 
 my own hands or through the hands of the archbishopric of San Fran- 
 cisco before I became the incumbent thereof, are contained in the 
 books of the bishopric, to be found in the office of the bishopric in the 
 city of San Francisco; but inasmuch as the account books are large and 
 numerous, and it is practically impossible to secure their physical pres- 
 ence before this tribunal, I have testified already of my own knowledge 
 as to the distribution. 
 
 5. On the first day of January, 1875, and ever since that time, the 
 State of Nevada has been, and it now is, a part of one of the dioceses 
 of California. The present States of Washington, Idaho, and Montana 
 were at the same date, and have since remained, and now are, suffragan 
 to the metropolitan see of Oregon City, State of Oregon. Continu- 
 ously since the same date, to wit, the 1st of January, 1875, the present 
 State of Utah, formerly the Territory of Utah, has been, and now is, 
 suffragan to the see of San Francisco. 
 
 That there are in the State of California, as it now exists politically, 
 the archdiocese of San Francisco and the two suffragan dioceses of Sac- 
 ramento and of Monterey and Los Angeles, the diocese of Sacramento 
 being the direct successor of the old diocese of Grass Valley, which 
 was represented by its bishop in the memorial filed in the case of Amat 
 et al vs. Mexico before the Mixed Commission in 1870. 
 
 6. That within the knowledge of this deponent all of the twenty-one 
 missions founded by the Franciscans in Upper California are still in 
 existence and in constant use either as missions or as Roman Catholic 
 churches, except the missions of Santa Cruz, San Rafael, and San 
 Francisco Solano, which are extinct, and excepting, furthermore, the 
 two missions of La Purisima and San Antonio, as to which missions 
 this deponent hath no personal knowledge, leaving, therefore, within 
 his knowledge sixteen out of the twenty-one missions still performing 
 religious work. 
 
 7. That in addition to the Indian mission schools controlled by the 
 Catholic Church and assisted by the Government, and referred to in 
 the extracts from the report of the Indian Commissioner for 1901, 
 already filed in this cause, there are established in California a Catho- 
 lic Indian mission school at Hopland, Mendocino County, California, 
 with an attendance of about seventy-five, and at Lower Lake, Lake 
 County, California, with an attendance of about thirty to forty Indian 
 boys and girls; that, furthermore, a Catholic Indian church is main- 
 tained at Marshall, California. 
 
 Patrick William Riordan. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this thirtieth dav of September, 
 A. D. 1902. F 
 
 [seal.] Stanford Newel, 
 
 Envoy Extraord%nary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 from the United States of America to The Hague, Netherlands. 
 
pious fund of the californias. 435 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 The Hague, Holland, ss: 
 
 Stanford B. Newel, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten- 
 tiary of the United States of America at The Hague, Holland, and duly 
 commissioned and sworn as such, do hereby certify that 1 have no 
 interest in the claim to which the testimony heretofore annexed relates, 
 and that I am not the agent or attorney of any person having any 
 interest in said claim; that on the thirtieth day of September, A. D. 
 1902, before me, as such envoy extraordinary at The Hague, Holland, 
 personally came Patrick William Kiordan, the witness named in and 
 whose name is subscribed to the annexed deposition; that the said 
 Patrick William Riordan was thereupon then and there sworn by me, 
 in due form of law, as a witness in the matter of the claim above men- 
 tioned, therein to testify and declare the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth, and the said witness having been so by me duly 
 sworn then and there deposed to the matter contained in his said depo- 
 sition annexed hereto and identified by my signature. I further cer- 
 tify that the witness Patrick William Riordan is personally well 
 known to me, and known by me to be a credible and truthful witness. 
 I further certify that the testimony of the said witness was then and 
 there reduced to writing in my presence by J. J. Haledon Rix, a 
 person having no interest in, and not being the agent or attorney of 
 any person having an interest in the claim above mentioned, and that 
 the said deposition was then and there carefully read by me to the 
 said witness, and being signed by me was then and there signed by the 
 said witness in my presence. The said deposition of said Patrick 
 William Riordan was reduced to writing in the form of typewriting, 
 and signed by him, and is annexed to this certificate. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal 
 of the said legation this thirtieth day of September, A. D. 1902, at 
 The Hague, Holland, aforesaid. 
 
 [seal. J Stanford Newel, 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 
 of the United States of America to the Netherlands. 
 
 LETTER OF THE MEXICAN LEGATION AT ROME TO THE HOLY 
 SEE, DATED APRIL 6, 1840, AND AFFIDAVIT OF MOST REVER- 
 END PATRICK WILLIAM RIORDAN. 
 
 Legacion Mejicana Mexican Legation 
 
 Ceeca de Su Santidad, to His Holiness," 
 
 Roma, 6 de April en 184-0. Home, April 6, 181fi. 
 
 42. 
 
 EI ynfrascrito encargado de The undersigned, in charge of 
 
 negocios de la Republica Mejicana the affairs of the Republic of 
 
 tiene el honor de dirigirse a Mexico has the honor to address 
 
 Su Emza. el Sr. Cardinal Lam- himself to his eminence Cardinal 
 
 bruschini, Secretario de Estado Lambruschini, secretary of state 
 
 de S.Sd. para manifestarle que of His Holiness, to inform him 
 
 el Gobierno de Mejico ha con- that the Government of Mexico 
 
 "Translation made by direction of Jackson H. Ralston, American Agent, 
 
436 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 siderado de absoluta necesidad 
 que la Peninsula de Californias 
 se gobierne en lo eclesiastico 
 con total independencia de la 
 Mitra de Sonora, a la cual hasta 
 ahora habia estado sugeta asi por 
 su vasta extension, como por la 
 
 frande distancia que la separa 
 e la Capital de la Diocesis, por 
 cuya razon su Obispo no puede 
 visitarla, ni proporcionarle todos 
 los aucsilios pastorales que nece- 
 sitan aquellos fieles, tan nume- 
 rosos, como poco civilizados. 
 
 Para asegurar el acierto en tan 
 importante resolucion el Presi- 
 dente en virtud de un Decreto 
 del Congreso nacional, mando 
 formar un expediente instructivo, 
 del que resulto comprobada su 
 conveniencia y utilidad por el 
 testimonio y parecer tanto del 
 Prelado del Colegio Apostolico 
 de S. Fernando, a, cuyo zelo 
 habian estado confiadas aquellas 
 misiones, como del Gobernador 
 de la Mitra de Sonora. Ygual 
 opinion dieron sobre la necesidad 
 de esta medida el antiguo Obispo 
 de esta Diocesis el Sr. D. Angel 
 Angel Morales, el Rev. Obispo 
 de la Puebla de los Angeles, 
 y el Cabilda Gobernador del 
 Arzobispado. 
 
 En consecuencia, previos los 
 requisites legales, El Gobierno 
 propone a S.Sd. la aprobacion, 
 y ereccion de esta Mitra; y para 
 su primer Obispo al R. PI F. 
 Francisco Garcia Diego quien 
 ademas de su literatura, y virtudes 
 cristianas, y politicas reune un 
 conocimiento practico de aquel 
 pays donde ha desempefiado por 
 algun tiernpo el cargo de Comisario 
 Prefecto cle las Misiones, segun 
 consta del proceso canonico for- 
 mado por el Rev. Obispo de 
 Puebla, comisionado de S.Sd. que 
 va adjunto. 
 
 El Ynf rascrito podra anadir que 
 el Gobierno le recomienda solicite 
 de S.Sd. el que en atencion a, la 
 
 has considered it absolutely neces- 
 sary that the peninsula of the Cali- 
 fornias should be governed in 
 ecclesiastical matters with entire 
 independence from the see of 
 Sonora, to which it has been until 
 now subject, as well by reason of 
 its vast extent as because of the 
 great distance which separates it 
 from the capital of the diocese, 
 for which reason the bishop can 
 not visit it, nor apportion to it all 
 the pastoral aids which the faith- 
 ful, who are as numerous as they 
 are uncivilized, need. 
 
 To ensure the effecting of such 
 an important resolve, the Presi- 
 dent, by virtue of a decree of 
 the National Congress ordered a 
 report from which it resulted 
 that its convenience and useful- 
 ness was demonstrated by the 
 testimony and opinion not only of 
 the superior of the apostolic 
 college of S. Fernando, to whose 
 zeal these missions have been 
 entrusted, but also the governor 
 of the see of Sonora. The for- 
 mer bishop of this diocese, Sr. 
 Don Angel Morales, the bishop 
 of the village of Los Angeles, 
 and the governor of the chapter 
 of the archbishopric, give the 
 same opinion with regard to this 
 necessity. 
 
 In consequence, the requisite 
 legal steps have been taken, and 
 the Government proposes to His 
 Holiness the approval and erec- 
 tion of his see; and for its first 
 bishop, the Rev. Father Francisco 
 Garcia Diego, who to his learning 
 and Christian and political virtues 
 unites a practical knowledge of 
 that country, where he has for 
 some time filled the place of 
 president (comisario prefecto) of 
 the missions, as appears from the 
 canonical report made by the 
 rev. bishop • de Puebla, commis- 
 sioned by His Holiness, which is 
 annexed. 
 
 The undersigned may add that 
 the Government desired him to 
 beg of His Holiness to give atten- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIA.S. 
 
 437 
 
 grande distancia en que se halla 
 este departamento, no solo de la 
 Silla Apostolica, sino tambien de 
 laMetropolitano, y por la necesidad 
 en que se encontrara el nuevo 
 Obispo de crearlo todo, siendo una 
 parte de aquellos pueblos poco 
 civilizados, y la mayor parte 
 neofitos 6 barbaros, se le autorice 
 por S.Sd. extraordinariamente con 
 cuantas facultades sean necesarias 
 para que pueda ocurrir k todos los 
 casos, y allanar todos los obstaculos 
 que deben presentarsele en la 
 ereccion de aquella Yglesia; para 
 que pueda llevar consigo los sacer- 
 dotes que quieran seguirlo, ya sean 
 seculares 6 regulares, sin que sus 
 prelados respectivos puedan im- 
 pedirselo, y para que todos los re- 
 ligiosos Misioneros que alii ecsisten 
 le queden sugetos, esceptuando 
 solamente al Comisario Prefecto, 
 y a los Misioneros que se ocupen 
 en la f ormacion de nuevas misiones, 
 adelantando la conquista y propa- 
 gacion de la fe entre las tribus 
 barbaras; pues estos deberan usar 
 como hasta aqui de todas las 
 facultades con que estan revestidos 
 por Bulas y decretos Pontificos. 
 
 a TamMen es conveniente liacer 
 presente a Vfrra. Ema. que el Oo- 
 oierno Mejicano ha dictado todas 
 las medidas oportunas para que no 
 falte al nuevo prelado la Oongrua 
 decente que el corresponde para sos- 
 tenor los gastos y decoro de la dig- 
 nidad Episcopal; y que ademas ha 
 de ponerse d su disposicion con- 
 forme d v/n decreto del Oongreso el 
 fondo piadoso destinado alfomento 
 de Misiones de Calif ornias. 
 
 El Ynfrascrito tiene el honor 
 honor de reiterar & su Ema. Rma. 
 las seguridades de su distinguida 
 consideracion, y respeto. 
 
 T. M. Montota. 
 
 A Su Ema. Rma. el Sr. Cardi- 
 nal Lambkuschini, Secretario de 
 Estado de Su Santldad. 
 
 tion to the great distance of this 
 district, not only from the Apos- 
 tolic See, but also from the met- 
 ropolitan, and because the new 
 bishop will find it necessary to 
 organize everything, it being a 
 part where the people are unciv- 
 ilized, neophytes or barbarians, 
 that His Holiness would grant 
 him extraordinary powers, author- 
 izing him to take whatever steps 
 may be necessary in cases which 
 may arise, and to smooth all the 
 obstacles which must present 
 themselves in the erection of that 
 church; so that he can take with 
 him the priests who wish to fol- 
 low him, be they secular or regu- 
 lars, without their respective, su- 
 periors being able to hinder their 
 going, and so that all the "reli- 
 gious missionaries which are there 
 already shall remain his subordi- 
 nates, except only the president 
 of the missions, and those mis- 
 sionaries who are occupied in 
 forming new missions, advancing 
 the conquest and propagation of 
 the faith among the barbarous 
 tribes; .for they should enjoy as 
 f ormerly all the powers with which 
 they have been invested by bulls 
 and pontificial decrees. 
 
 Also it is proper to inform your 
 eminence that the Mexican Govern- 
 ment had taken all proper measures 
 so that the new prelate may not 
 lack a decent income which is nec- 
 essary to sustain the expenses and 
 respect and the dignity of a bishop; 
 and in addition, according to a de- 
 cree of Congress, the pious fund 
 destined for the support of mis- 
 sions in the Californias is to be 
 placed at his disposal. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor 
 to reiterate to your eminence the 
 assurance of his distinguished con- 
 sideration and respect. 
 
 T. M. Montoya. 
 
 To His Eminence Cardinal Lam- 
 bkuschini, Secretary of State to 
 Sis Holiness. 
 
 a Not italicized in original. 
 
438 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Kingdom of Holland, The Hague, ss: 
 
 Patrick William Riordan, being first duly sworn, deposes and says 
 that he arrived at The Hague on August 25, 1902; that between 
 the day last named and the 31st of August, 1902, at the request of 
 Jackson H. Ralston, esquire, agent of the United States in the above- 
 entitled arbitration, he wrote to Rome to have search made among the 
 papal archives for documents if any could there be found, addressed 
 by Mexico to the Holy See on or before the 27th day of April, 1840, 
 requesting the erection of the Californias into a bishopric. 
 
 A few days after writing to Rome for the purpose aforesaid affiant 
 received replies from the persons to whom he had written informing 
 him that search had been instituted and was being prosecuted for the 
 purpose aforesaid. No information concerning the existence of any • 
 of the documents mentioned was received by affiant until September 
 20, 1902, when he received a memorandum of entries in the papal 
 archives showing that Mexico had made representations to the Holy 
 See in the year 1840, and prior to April 27th thereof, in relation to 
 the erection of the aforementioned bishopric. It was impossible to 
 ascertain from the entries mentioned whether the representations of 
 Mexico were oral or in writing or their precise nature or character. 
 On September 30, 1902, affiant received the annexed document bear- 
 ing date April 6, 1840, which he is informed and believes to be a true 
 copy of an original in the archives of the Holy See. 
 
 Affiant has received no other document purporting to have been 
 addressed by Mexico to the Holy See in relation to this subject, nor 
 any information that any other exists; and affiant has received no 
 information of, nor any document from, the Holy See to Mexico in 
 relation to the said bishopric. The only other documents concerning 
 which affiant has received any information are memoranda concerning 
 the erection of the see which he is informed and believes to be part 
 of the archives of the Holy See and which he is prepared to produce. 
 
 Affiant believes that within fourteen days from this date he can 
 procure from Rome a copy like the one attached to this deposition, 
 certified and verified to be a true copy of the original by the custodian 
 of the original and in conformity with the provisions of Paragraph IV 
 of the protocol. 
 
 The affiant is unable to say how continuous a search has been made 
 in the papal archives for the documents above-mentioned, as he has 
 no personal knowledge upon that subject, but he is informed and 
 believes that a search was ordered to be made prior to September 5, 
 1902, and began on or before that day, and that the search has been 
 prosecuted with diligence continuously since said day last mentioned. 
 
 Patrick William Riordan. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this first day of October, 1902. 
 [seal.] Stanford Newel, 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 
 of the United States of America to the Netherlands. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORKIAS. 439 
 
 PAPAL BULLS WITH RELATION TO CALIFORNIA BISHOPRICS. 
 
 EXTKACTUM COIXECTTONIS JURIS PONTIFICII DE PROPAGANDA FIDE. 
 [Partis I, Vol. V, pag. 233, Koma, ex typographiae Polyglotta S. C. de PropagandeFide, MDCCCXCIII.] 
 
 Nova Erectio Californien, in America. 
 
 Gregorius Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei, ad Perpetuam rei 
 Mernoriam. 
 
 1. Apostolicam sollicitudinem, qua tenemur omnium ecclesiarum, 
 nullo non modo locorum intervallo aut fidelium longinquitate dehilitari 
 et dimminui, sed augeri potius, atque inflammari exinde videtur. Cum 
 enim difficillius remotissimis ovibus ad hoc catholicae unitatis centrum 
 effugium pateat, nee frequentibus eas monitis,consiliis, exhortationi- 
 bus, spiritualibus denique quibuscumque subsidiis recreare, aut illarum 
 vulneribus peropportune mederi naturali regionum conditione ac dis- 
 tantia queamus, illud profecto nobis usu venit, quod pientissimae 
 matri a filiis longe seiunctae interdum contingit, quos quidem eo majori 
 prosequitur caritatis amore, quo minus ad omnia absentibus praes- 
 tanda praecipuae dilectionis officia se parem animadvertit. Hinc 
 non tantum coelestium benedictionum cumulum hujuscemodi gregis 
 parti, quam in animo gerimus, quotidie precamur, sed nihil insuper 
 infectum relinquimus, quod spirituali e^usdem saluti aliquatenus bene- 
 vertat. Haec nobis assidua mente revolventibus, qui in Mexicana 
 Americae Septentrionalis ditione rerum summa potiuntur, humillime 
 supplicarunt, ut a dioecesi de Sonora intra limites ejusdem Mexicanae 
 ditionis posita, Californiam avellere, atque inibi sedem episcopalem 
 Californiensem nuncupandam erigere, eidemque proprium praeficere 
 episcopum apostolica auctoritate vellemus. "Licet enim Sonorensis 
 dioecesis origo non sit altius l'epetenda anno MDCCLXX1X, eademque 
 ex apposita finitimarum dioecesum de Guadalaxara ac de Durango 
 dismembratione coaluerit, nihilo, tamen secius territorium illud tam 
 late protenditur, ut non modo ingentes provincias, de Sonora, Hosti- 
 muri et Cinaloa, sed universam insuper Californiam vastissimo sane 
 ambitu concludat. Haec vero, quae septingentas, uti ferunt, excedit 
 leucas, in veterem ac novam dividitur; ilia Peninsulam Californiam 
 complectitur quam veteres rerum naturalium scriptores insulam esse 
 maluerunt; ista autem per istmum quendam ignotum veteri Calif orniae 
 conjungitur ac consociatur; ambae vero unam ex Mexicanis provinciis 
 in praesentiarum constituunt. Quod si mens convertatur ad maximam 
 viarum asperitatem, ad praecipites fluminum cursus, quae trajici inter- 
 dum nequeunt, atque insuper ad ingentium montium catenam, quos 
 sylvestres homines incolunt, plane apparebit, Sonorensem Episcopum 
 hisce de causis praepediri quominus gregem suae fidei traditum ea 
 quae ceteroquin necessario foret, utilitate regat ac moderetur, inte- 
 gram dioecesim perlustret, atque in eorum conversionem totus incum- 
 bat, quos Evangelii luce carentes, densissimis errorum tenebris 
 involutos vehementer ingemiscimus. Quo teterrimo omnium malo 
 peculiarem in modum turn vetus, turn nova California laborat. Quam- 
 vis enim missionarii ex Ordine Sancti Dominici ac Sancti Francisci 
 spiritualem illarum curam gerant, utraque tamen in extrema Sono- 
 rensis dioeceseos parte sita est, neque idcirco Pastoris praesentia 
 juvatur, qui potens opere ac sermone plebem verbo aedificet atque 
 
440 PIOtTS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 exemplo, depravata corrigat, disrupta consolidet, delibes in fide con- 
 firmet, coecos illuminet. 
 
 2. Haec aliaque rationum momenta a Guberno Mexicanae ditionis 
 per suum apud Apostolicam Sedem negotiorum gerem allata tanti 
 ponderis apud nos pestorunt, ut, omnibus matura deliberatione per 
 pensis, inspectaque maxima rei utilitate, porrectis postulationibus 
 libentissime obsecundaremus. Itaque ex certa scientia, apostolicae 
 potestatis plentitudine, ac etiam motu proprio, concensui ven. fr. 
 Lazzari de la Garza hodierru Episcopi de Sonora, aliorumque quorum 
 interesse potest, derogantes, universam praedictam Californiam, tarn 
 veterem, scilicet, quam novam, unam cum omnibus et singulis 
 paroeciis, ecclesiis, conventibus et monasteriis, aliisque quibuscumque 
 saecularibus ac quorumvis ordinum regularibus beneficiis ibidem 
 forsitan existentibus, itemque utriusque sexus personis, habitatoribus, 
 et incolis tam laicis, quam clericis presbyteris, beneficiatis ac religiosis 
 cujuscumque gradus, status, ordinis et conditionis ibi pariter degen- 
 tibus, a dioecesi de Sonora, ad quam spectabant, perpetuo dismem- 
 bramus, secernimus, separamus; terram insuper seu civitatem a S. 
 Didaco nuncui:atam in nova California, existentem, quae in media 
 California posita est quaeque prae ceteris locis aptior dignoscitur, cum 
 suis curia et cancellaria ecclesiastica, cum omnibus ac singulis honor- 
 ibus, juribus, privilegiis et praerogativis quibus caeterae civitates 
 pontificali sede in Mexicanae ditione insignitae earumqve cives utuntur 
 et gaudent, in civitatem episcopalem erigimus atque instituimus. 
 
 3. Ecclesiam majorem in praefata terra Sancti Didaci in civitatem 
 erectam, ad honorem et dignitatem ecclesiae cathedralis evehi atque 
 attolli, et in ea sedem atque cathedram pontificalem pro uno deinceps 
 Episcopo Californiensi nuncupando, qui eidem ecclesiae, civitati et 
 dioecesi infra assignandae, ejusque clero et populo praesit, synodum 
 convocet, atque omnia et singula jura, officia ac munera episcopalia 
 habeat atque exerceat cum suis capitulo, area, sigillo, mensa ut infra 
 constituenda, ceterisque cathedralibus et pontificalibus insigniis, juri- 
 bus, honoribus, praeeminentiis, gratiis, favoribus, indultis, jurisdic- 
 tionibus et praerogativis, quibus reliquae cathedrales ecclesiae 
 Mexicanae ditionis earumque paesules potiunter, dummoda ex pecu- 
 liari indulto seu privilegio non sint eis attributa, perpetuo pariter 
 erigi atque institui mandamus. 
 
 4. Cathedrali ecclesiae Californiensi hoc modo erecta ut propria 
 deincepsdioecesis tribuatur, illius Antistiti universam novam ac veterum 
 Californiam a Senorensi dioecesi ut supra avulsam et disjunctam pro 
 dioecesi novi episcopatus Californiensis adjudicamus et adsignamus, 
 quam quidem Californiam sic attributam atque adsignatum ac in ea 
 existentes seu existentia paroecias, ecclesias, conventus, monasteria et 
 quaecumque alia saecularia ac quorumvis ordinum rigularia beneficia, 
 utriusque sexus personas et incolas tam clericos quam laicos, non tamen 
 exemptos, cujuscumque gradus ordinariae novi pro tempore existentis 
 Anistitis ecclesiae Californiensis jurisdictioni, regimini, potestati ac 
 supenoritati perpetuo similiter subjicimus, eique pro civitate, terri- 
 tory, dioecesi, clero et populo perpetuum pariter in modum adsigna- 
 mus atque attribuimus. 
 
 5. Ut autem f uturus pro tempore existens Episcopus Californiensis 
 suam possit decenter tueri dignitatum et Vicario Generali, curiaque 
 episcopali apte providere, congruam in bonus stabilibus dotem, quam 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 441 
 
 Mexicanum gubernium ex data fide constituet, mense episcopali adscri- 
 bimus atque attribuimus. 
 
 6. Quod vero attinet ad fabricam novae cathedralis ecclesiae Cali- 
 forniensis, earn similiter dotem pro illius manutentione perpetuum in 
 modum adscribimus atque adjudicamus, quam idem gubernium se tra- 
 diturum spopondit, proprias aedes pro futuri Episcopi habitatione 
 ejusque curiae episcopalis residentia decente forma et commodo loco et 
 proximiores quantum fieri poterit ecclesiae cathedrali, quamprimum 
 adsignari atque attribui volumus: quae si modo desint easque conduci 
 opporteat, rationem pensionis pro illarum conductione solvendae ha- 
 bendam esse decernimus. 
 
 I. Quod spectat ad erectionem capituli cathedralis ecclesiae, ejusque 
 dotationem similiter in bonis stabilibus nee non ad erectionem ac dota- 
 tionem ecclesiastici clericorum seniinarii, memoratum gubernium, cum 
 primum pro locorum ac temporum adjunctis datum fuerit, id omne 
 praestabit, quod aliis capitulis cathedralibus et seminariis ecclesiasticis 
 Mexicanae ditionis tribui solet. 
 
 8. Praefatam Ecclesiam Californiensem sic constitutam Archie- 
 piscopo Mexicano motropolitico jure subjici mandamus, iisque omnibus 
 irui statuimus facultatibus, exemptionibus et juribus, quae ad caeteras 
 suffraganeas metropolitanae Mexicanae ecclesiae pertinent. 
 
 9. Fructus vero ejusdem novae Ecclesiae Californiensis de more 
 taxari ad florenos auri de Camera tringinta tres ac tertiam floreni 
 partem, atque hujusmodi taxam in libris camerae apostolicae et sacri 
 Collegii describi jubemus. 
 
 10. Ut vero cuncta a nobis ut supra disposita ad su um perducantur 
 effectum, venerabili fratri Emmanueli Posada j Garduno metropoli- 
 tanae ecclesiae Mexicanae Archiepiscopo, quern harum nostrarum 
 litterarum exequutorem elegimus ac deputamus, necesarias omnes et 
 opportunas ad pi'aemissor um effectum plenar ie conseq uendum tri buimus 
 facultates, ut ipse per se vel per aliam personam in ecclesiastica digni- 
 tate constitutam ab eo subdelegandam omnia statuere ac decernere 
 valeat atque etiam cum facultate eidem exequutori, sive ejus subde- 
 legato, definitive, libere ac licite pronunciandi super quacumque oppo- 
 sitione in actu executionis quomodolibet forsitan oritura, injunctaque 
 ipsi obligatione diligentes in decreto exequutoriali describendi fines 
 praesertim novae Calif or niae ac mittendi ad Apostolicam Sedem intra 
 sex menses ab expleta litterarum opostolicarum exequutione exemplar 
 authentica forma exaratum decretorum omnium, quae in harum littera- 
 rum exequutionem emittet, ut in tabulario Congregationis rebus 
 consistorialibus praepositae de more asservetur. 
 
 II. Praesentes autem litteras, et in eis contenta quaecumque, etiam 
 ex eo quod quilibetinteressehabentes, vel habere praetendentes, vocati 
 et auditi non f uerint, ac praemissis non consenserint, eorum consensui 
 quatenus opus sit, de apostolicae potestatis plenitudine supplentes, 
 nullo unquam tempore de subreptionis vel obreptionis aut nullitatis 
 vitio, seu intentionis nostrae vel aliquo alio etiam substantiali defectu 
 notari, impugnari aut in eis controversiam vocari posse, sed semper et 
 perpetuo validas et efficaces existere et fore, suosque plenarios et 
 integros effectus sortiri et obtinere, ac ab omnibus ad quos spectat, 
 inviolabiliter observari debere volums atque decernimus. 
 
 12. Non obstatibus de jurequaesito non tollendo, de suppressionibus 
 committendis ad partes, vocatis quorum interest aliisque nostris et 
 
442 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 cancellariae apostolioae regulis ac in synodalibus, provincialibus uni- 
 versalibusque conciliis editis specialibus ac generalibus constitutioni- 
 bus et ordinationibus apostolicis, et quibusve alliis Romanorum Ponti- 
 ficum praedecessorum nostrorum dispositionibus, caeterisque contrariis 
 quibuscu mque . 
 
 13. Volumus praeterea ut barum literarum transumptis etiam impres- 
 sis, manu tamen alicujus notarii publici subscriptis, et sigillo personae 
 in ecclesiastica dignitate constitutae munitis, eadem prorsus fides 
 adhibeatur, si forent exbibitae vel ostensae. 
 
 14. Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrarum dis- 
 membrationis, sejunctionis, separationis, erectionis, institutionis, assig- 
 nationis, attributionis, subjectionis, concessionis, indulti, decreti, doro- 
 gationis et voluntatis infringere, vel ei ausu ternerario contraire. Si 
 quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationeni omnipotentis 
 Dei beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus se noverit incusurum. 
 
 Datum Romae, apud S. Petrum anno Incarnationis dominicae mille- 
 simo octingentesimo quadragesimo, quinto kalendas maias, pontificatus 
 notri anno decimo. 
 
 [Translation of foregoing.] 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE COLLECTION OF PONTIFICAL JURISPRUDENCE OP 
 THE PROPAGATION OF THE FAITH. 
 
 TPart I, Vol. 5, p. 283. Rome, the Polyglot Press of the Propagation of the Faith, 1894.] 
 
 On the neiD Californian creation. 
 
 Gregory the Bishop, servant of the servants of God, that the matter 
 may be kept in perpetual memory. 
 
 1. That apostolical solicitude which we feel for all the churches 
 should not only not be weakened or diminished by the great distance 
 of certain places and the far removal of the faithful, but should 
 rather it should seem to be by that very cause increased and inflamed. 
 When therefore the sanctuary of this centre of Catholic unity is the 
 more difficult to our most distant flocks and when we are not able, 
 on account of the natural condition of the territory and on account 
 of distance, to refresh them with frequent admonitions, counsels, 
 exhortations, and, finally, with certain spiritual aids, nor to heal their 
 wounds, then we use to do as does an affectionate mother when she 
 is long separated from her sons; she loves them indeed with the 
 greater ardour from their remoteness and turns herself with a special 
 care to all those offices which may be of use to her absent ones. 
 Hence not only do we daily pray for the most bountiful of celestial 
 blessings to fall upon this part of the flock which we ever have in 
 mind, but also we leave nothing undone which may in any way 
 turn to the spiritual welfare of the same. As we were turning over * 
 these matters carefully in our mind those who are situate under the 
 Government of Mexico in Northern America humbly appealed to us 
 that we should separate California from the diocese of Sonora (which 
 is situate within the confines of the aforesaid Government of Mexico) 
 and should there erect an episcopal see to be called the see of Califor- 
 nia; they beg also that we would deign to give it a bishop of its own 
 endued with apostolical authority. It is indeed admitted that the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 443 
 
 origin of the diocese of Sonora is not to be sought before the year 1779, 
 and that it was brought into being by the fixing of new limits for the 
 dioceses of Gaudalaxara and Durango, but a little while after that ter- 
 ritory spread so widely that not only the great provinces of Sonora, 
 Hostmura, and Sinaloa, but thereafter and above them the whole of 
 California, which is certainly of the vastest extent, was included in -that 
 diocese. This last territory (California), which they say spreads for 
 more than seven hundred leagues, is divided into old and new Cali- 
 fornia. The first of these includes the Peninsula of California, which 
 the old writers upon natural philosophy believed to be an island. The 
 second, however, is joined to old California by an isthmus of which 
 they were ignorant. At the present time they together constitute a 
 single one of the Mexican provinces. If there be considered the great 
 roughness of the roads, the rapidity of the rivers (which it is some- 
 times impossible to cross), and, moreover, the chain of immense moun- 
 tains which are inhabited by barbarians, it will easily be seen that the 
 bishop of Sonora is by these causes impeded from affording all that is 
 necessary to the flock which has been committed to his care, from 
 advantageously governing and administering them, from traveling over 
 the whole of his diocese, and from seeing to their conversion in the 
 thorough manner that should appertain to his office, by which accident 
 the inhabitants lack the light of the gospel and are plunged into the 
 densest darkness of error, a thing which we most bitterly deplore. 
 This worst of all evils, both old and new California suffer in a peculiar 
 way, for although the missionaries of the orders of St. Dominic and 
 St. Francis minister to the spiritual needs of these provinces, yet each 
 of them is situated in the most extreme part of the diocese of Sonora, 
 and on this account they can not enjoy the presence of their pastor, 
 which would be powerful in confirming the people by word and deed, 
 by precept and example, which would correct what had become cor- 
 rupted, and would rejoin what had become separate, which would 
 strengthen in their faith the weak and illumine the blind. 
 
 2. These and other good reasons of moment having been brought 
 before the Holy See by the ambassador of the Mexican Government 
 accredited to it, were presented to us with such weight that after having 
 weighed all these matters with due deliberation, and having observed 
 the great advantage that the step would have, we very willingly acceded 
 to those who made the request. Therefore, with an exact knowledge 
 of the matter and from the fulness of our apostolical power, as also 
 of our own initiative, and with the agreement of our venerable brother, 
 Lazzari de la Garza, the present bishop of Sonora, and of such others 
 as the matter might concern, we cut off, dismember, and separate for- 
 ever from that diocese of Sonora, under which they formerly lay, all 
 the aforesaid territory of California, old and new, together with all 
 and singular of its parishes, churches, convents, and monasteries, and 
 other seculars and regulars who may be there situate with their bene- 
 fices, as also all persons of either sex, inhabitants and natives, clerk 
 and lay, beneficed clergy and religious of whatever grade, status, 
 order, or condition who may there be found. We, moreover, erect and 
 institute as the episcopal city that territory or city situate in new 
 California and called after St. Didacus, the said city being placed in 
 the midst of California and being recognized as more apt than other 
 places for this function. And we erect this episcopal city, with its 
 
444 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKWIAS. 
 
 court and ecclesiastical chancery and all and singular honors, rights, 
 privileges, and prerogatives which the other episcopal sees in Mexican 
 territory'use and enjoy. 
 
 3. We moreover perpetually erect and institute by our order the 
 principal church in the aforesaid territory of St. Didacus to the honor 
 and- dignity of a cathedral church, and we place there the seat and 
 pontifical throne of one who is henceforth to be called the bishop of 
 California, who shall in the future preside over the said church, 
 episcopal city, and diocese, its clergy and people, shall call together 
 his synod, and shall have and exercise all and singular rights, offices, 
 and privileges of a bishop, having his chapter, seal, episcopal chest, 
 board, after the manner hereinafter laid down, and all those other 
 titles, rights, honors, precedents, graces, favors, indulgences, jurisdic- 
 tions, prerogatives, etc., which appertain to cathedrals and episcopal 
 sees, such, in a word, as the other episcopal sees of Mexico and their 
 incumbents enjoy, always excepting any special and individual priv- 
 ilege which may be attributed to them. 
 
 4. To the cathedral church of California thus created we adjudicate 
 and assign all that old and new California which as above was cut off 
 and disjoined from the diocese of Sonora in order that for the future 
 it may be regarded as a separate diocese. This province of California 
 which we have thus attributed and assigned to the new diocese, as well 
 as the parishes now existing or to exist within it, its churches, convents, 
 monasteries, secular and regular benefices, its persons of either sex, 
 and inhabitants, both clerk and lay (not, however, those specially 
 exempt), of whatever order, we also subject and attribute to the new 
 bishop of the church of California, who is so named pro tempore, to 
 his jurisdiction, governance, power, and supremacy, as over the see, 
 territory and diocese, clergy and people. 
 
 5. In order, moreover, that the bishop of California (existing for the 
 moment) may for the future be able to preserve his dignity and make 
 decent provision for his vicar-general and episcopal court, we ascribe 
 and attribute to the maintenance of the aforesaid that suitable fund 
 invested in safe goods which the Mexican Government may appoint as 
 it has promised. 
 
 6. As for what regards the fabric of the new cathedral church of 
 California, we similarly ascribe and adjudicate perpetually that fund 
 for its maintenance which the said Government has promised to give, 
 and we wish that in the first place there should be assigned and attrib- 
 uted suitable accommodation for the residence of the future bishop and 
 his episcopal court of proper size and of convenient situation as near 
 as may be to the cathedral church; if there is no such edifice, and if 
 it is necessary to erect one, we decree that a portion of the revenue 
 should be spent on such erection. 
 
 7. As for what regards the erection of a chapter for the cathedral 
 church and its similar endowment in stable investments, as also the 
 erection and endowment of a seminary for the clergy, a Government 
 order which will be given when the localities and dates are fixed upon 
 will suffice for these, and will afford them whatever it is customary in 
 the case of the other cathedral churches and ecclesiastical seminaries 
 under the Mexican Government. 
 
 8. We order that the aforesaid church of California, constituted in 
 the above manner, shall be subjected to the metropolitan jurisdiction 
 of the archbishop of Mexico, and shall enjoy all those faculties, exemp- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 445 
 
 tions, and rights which pertain to the other suffragan sees of that 
 province. 
 
 9. We order that the fruits of this same new see of California should 
 be taxed as the custom is, of 33 out l/3rd golden florins for the apos- 
 tolic treasury, and we have ordered this tax to be inscribed upon the 
 books of the apostolic treasury of the Sacred College. 
 
 10. Now, in order that all the matters which we have arranged above 
 may be brought into effect, do we chose and depute as the executor of 
 these our letters, our venerable brother, Emanuel Posada y Carduno, 
 the archbishop of the Metropolitan Church of Mexieo, and we attrib- 
 ute to him all the necessary faculties whereby he may give full effect 
 to the above, so that either he himself, or another acting for him in 
 that ecclesiastical dignity and capacity, and delegated by him, may lay 
 down all matters and decide upon them, and also by the same faculties 
 of executor, he may himself, or through his delegate, definite^, freely, 
 and lawfully pronounce upon any opposition which he maj' meet in 
 the active execution of these things, however such opposition may 
 arise. We lay upon him further the obligation of delimiting the exact 
 frontiers of New California in this executive decree of our.s, and of 
 sending to the Holy See within six months of the complete fulfilment 
 of these our apostolic directions (letters) an exemplar in certified form, 
 showing that all the decrees whose execution has been ordered in these 
 presents have been carried out, and such an exemplar is to be filed, 
 as the custom is, in the records of the congregation to which is 
 intrusted our consistory affairs. 
 
 11. Now these present letters and whatsoever things are contained 
 in them it shall not be possible to impugn, nor to call in question, 
 even by those who have, or who may maintain that they have, some 
 interest in these matters, and who have not hitherto been called or heard 
 upon them, or have not consented to the above, for from the plenitude 
 of our apostolical power we ourselves will supply that consent, 
 inasmuch as it may be necessary; moreover, these presents can not 
 be attacked at any time upon a plea that they are imperfect by addi- 
 tion or subtraction, or nullity, or by a plea of our intention, or of any 
 other substantial defect. They shall stand and be ever and perpetually 
 valid and efficacious, and shall have their full and integral effect, and 
 shall be inviolably observed by all those whom it may regard, for such 
 is our will and decree. 
 
 12. (And it shall be so) notwithstanding appeals as of right upon 
 matters committed to parties called "quorum interest," and notwith- 
 standing our other rules and synodal regulations and those of our 
 apostolic chancery, and notwithstanding the provincial and general 
 councils, special decrees, general constitutions, apostolical ordinations, 
 and whatever other things the Eoman pontiffs, our predecessors, were 
 Wont to use; notwithstanding, indeed, all other contrary matters 
 whatsoever. 
 
 13. We desire, moreover, that the transactions of these letters be 
 printed, and also be subscribed by the hand of a notary public, and 
 furnished with the seal of some person clothed with the necessary 
 ecclesiastical dignity, so that they may have in the future the same 
 credence as matters duly exhibited and published. 
 
 14. Therefore let no man be permitted to infringe this page in 
 which we decree the aforesaid dismemberment (of the old bishopric), 
 segregation, separation, erection, institution, assignation, attribution, 
 
446 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 subjection, concession, indulgence, decree, derogation, and in which 
 we have expressed our will; nor let any man dare to act contrary to 
 it. If, however, anyone should so dare, may he discover that the 
 anger of the Omnipotent God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and 
 Paul has fallen upon him. 
 
 Given at Rome at St. Peter's, in the year of the incarnation of our 
 Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty, on the fifth day before 
 the kalends of May (27th April, 1840), in the tenth year of our 
 pontificate. 
 
 PIUS PP. IX. 
 
 Ad futuram rei memoriam. 
 
 1. Ad animarum regimen et salutem curandam necesse intelligimus 
 dioeceses partiri, quae nimis amplis finibus contineri videantur. 
 
 2. Jamvero, quamquam pars ilia dioecesis Montereyensis, quae ad 
 Rempublicam Mexicanam pertinet, sejuncta nuperrime f uerit et Archie- 
 piscopo Mexicano titulo administrationis apostolicae regenda commisa 
 sit, ilia tamen adhuc latissime patere noscitur sic, ut hodiernus Epis- 
 copus Montereyensis atque unasimul Archiepiscopiet Episcopi foedera- 
 torum Statuum Americae Septemtrionalis ex Baltimorensi Concilio 
 petendum a nobis curarunt ut ex dioecesi Montereyensi ea pars secer- 
 natur quae definitur ad Orientem flumine Colorado, ad Septemtrionem 
 42 latitudinis gradu, ad Occidentem Mari Pacifico, ad Meridiem 
 parallelo Meridionali, paroecia vici vulgo Pueblo S. Joseph, ex eaque 
 regione sic vivisa nova per nos erigatur dioecesis, cujus sedes constitute 
 sit in a civitate S. Francisci. Cum vero aliae sedes archiepiscopales 
 plurimum distent, ac perutile videatur novam in Superiori California 
 constituere ecclesiasticam provinciam, idcirco praef ati Antistites nobis 
 postulaverunt ut novam S. Francisci ecclesiam metropolitanam decla- 
 ramus, (sic) utpote quae pluribus ex capitibus opportunior sit, eidem- 
 que metropolitanae ecclesiae suffraganeam' adsignemus episcopalem 
 ecclesiam Montereyensem. 
 
 3. Nos igitur prius de hac re cum venn. fratribus nostris S. R. E. 
 Cardinalibus Propagandae Fidei praepositis deliberavimus, ac singulis 
 accurate perpensis, proterea quod ex hac archiepiscopalis ecclesiae 
 erectione,non mediocris videatur utilitas obventura spirituali Christi- 
 fidelium regimini, dictorum Antistitum votis aequo animo ac libenter 
 annuimus. Quapropter certa scientia ac matura deliberatione nostra 
 deque apostolicae potestatis plenitudine partem illam superius memo- 
 ratain dioecesis Montereyensis juxta descriptos limites a dioecesi prae- 
 dicta dividimas ac saparamus, ex eaque regione peculiarem ac proprie 
 dictam archiepiscopalem ecclesiam erigmus ej usque sedem in civitate 
 S. Francisci figimus ac constituimus. 
 
 4. Porro eidem ecclesiae ejusque Antistitibus omnia et singula privi- 
 legia, honores, officia volumus attributa, quae ex jure vel consuetudine 
 episcopalium sedium et episcoporum propria sunt. 
 
 5. Non obstante nostra et cancellariae apostolicae, etc. 
 
 Datum Romae, apud S. Mariam Majorem sub annulo Piscatoris, die 
 XXIX. Julii MDCCCLIII, pontificatus nostri anno VIII. - 
 
 Extractum Collectionis Juris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, Partis I, 
 Vol. VI, Romae ex Typographia Polyglotta, 1894, pag. 187. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 447 
 
 [Translation ol foregoing.] 
 PIUS IX, PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. 
 
 That the memory of the thing may he in the future preserved. 
 
 1. We believe it to be necessary for the governance of souls and for 
 the care of their salvation that those dioceses which may appear to 
 reach to too extended limit should be divided. 
 
 2. Now, although that part of the diocese of Monterey which 
 belongs to the Republic of Mexico was lately cut off and put under 
 the archbishop of Mexico, to be ruled by his apostolic administation, 
 yet the said diocese is recognized to have so wide an area that the 
 present bishop of Monterey, together with the archbishops and bishops 
 of the United States of North America, have had a care to petition us 
 from their council in Baltimore that there should be (further) divided 
 from the (said) diocese of Monterey that part which is bounded 
 (as follows): To the east by the river Colorado; to the north by the 
 42d degree of latitude; to the west by the Pacific Ocean, and to the 
 south by the southern parallel passing through the town commonly 
 known as Pueblo San Joseph, and they pray that we may erect a 
 diocese out of the region so divided, and that its seat shall be placed 
 in the city of San Francisco. Moreover, since the other archiepisco- 
 pal sees are very distant, and it would seem of the greatest advantage 
 to create a new ecclesiastical province in Upper California, therefore 
 the aforesaid prelates have begged us to declare metropolitan this new 
 church of San Francisco (since this one is the more convenient under 
 many heads), and (they beg) that we should assign the episcopal church 
 of Monterey as suffragan to such a metropolitan see. 
 
 3. We therefore, having first deliberated with our venerable brothers 
 their eminences the cardinals entrusted with the propagation of the 
 faith, and having accurately weighed each matter, seeing that by the 
 erection of this archiepiscopal see no small advantage that would seem 
 to fall to the spiritual governance of Christians, we freely and cheer- 
 fully agree to the petition of the aforesaid prelates. Wherefore with 
 full knowledge, and after mature consideration and on the fulness of 
 our apostolic power, we divide and separate that upper part of the 
 diocese of Monterey which is described above, according to the limits 
 there set down, from the aforesaid diocese, and we erect that region 
 into a separate and specially named archiepiscopal see, and we place 
 its seat in the city of San Francisco. 
 
 4. Moreover we desire that there should be attributed to the said 
 see and to its prelates all and singular, of those privileges, honours, 
 and offices which by right or custom belong to bishops and episcopal 
 sees. 
 
 5. Notwithstanding anything that our apostolic chancery and we 
 ourselves may, etc. 
 
 Given at Rome at St. Mary Majors under the seal of the fisherman, 
 on the 29th day of July, 1853, in the eighth year of our pontificate. 
 
 Extract taken from the Collection of Pontifical Jurisprudence on the 
 Propagation of the Faith, Part I, vol. 6. Printed by the Typographia 
 Polyglotta at Rome, 1894 (page 187). 
 
448 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 EXTRACTS AND TRANSLATIONS FROM "NOTICIAS DE CALI- 
 
 FORNIAS," ETC. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "NOTICIAS DE LA PROVINCIA 
 DE CALIFORNIAS EN TRES CARTAS DE UN SACERDOTE RELIGIOSO 
 HIJO DEL REAL CONVENTO DE PREDICADORES DE VALENCIA A 
 UN AMIGO SUYO. EN VADENCIA POR LOS HERMANOS DE ORGA. 
 MDCCXCIV. CON LAS LICENSIAS NECES ARIAS." 
 
 Nomina de las misiones fundadas por los padres expulsos, con la expresion del aflo y de 
 
 sus bienhechores. 
 
 Aiios. 
 
 1. Nra. Sra. de Loreto fundada por D. Juan Caballero y Osio 1698 
 
 2. San Francisco Xavier, por el mismo 1699 
 
 3. Santa Rosalia Molexe, por Don Nicolas de Arteaga 1700 
 
 4. Los Dolores, por su Congregacion de Mexico 1701 
 
 5. S. Josef Comundii, por el Marques, de Villapuente 1704 
 
 6. Nra. Sra. de Guadalupe, por el mismo 1709 
 
 7. La Purisima, por el mismo 1713 
 
 8. San Luis, por D. Luis Velasco 1718 
 
 9. Santiago, por el mismo 1719 
 
 10. S. Ignacio, por el Padre Juan Luyando 1725 
 
 11. S. Josef del Cabo, por el Marques de Villapuente 1730 
 
 12. S. Rosa, por Dona Rosa de la Pefia •. 1731 
 
 13. S. Francisco de Borja, por la Duquesa de Gandia 1757 
 
 Nota. — Quedaron suprimidas S. Luis y Santa Rosa; pero esta se 
 traslado a, Todos Santos: asiinismo se suprimio la de los Dolores, y el 
 principal de la San Josef del Cabo sirvio para la de Santa Gertrudis 
 en el ano 1746, y hoy existe. (Carta Segunda, pp. 48-49.) 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "NOVISIMA RECOPILACION 
 DE LAS LEYES DE ESP AN A MANDADA FORMAR POR EL SENOR DON 
 CARLOS IV." 
 
 Ley III. 
 
 D. Carlos III por pragmatica-sancion de 2 de Abril de 1767. 
 
 Extranamiento de los Eegulares de la Compania de Jesus de todos 
 los dominios de Espana e Indias; y ocupaeion de sus temporalidades. 
 
 Habiendome coniormado con el parecer de los de mi Consejo Real, 
 en el extraordinario que se celebro con motivo de las resultas de las 
 ocurrencias pasadas en consulta de 29 de Enero de 1767, y de lo que 
 sobre ella, conviniendo en el mismo dictamen, me han exquesto personas 
 del mas elevado caracter y acreditada experiencia; estimulado de 
 gravisimas causas, relativas a, la obligacion en que me hallo constituido 
 de mantener en subordination, tranquilidad y justica mis pueblos, y 
 otras urgentes, justas y necesarias, que reservo en mi Real animo; 
 usando de la suprema autoridad economica que el Todo-poderoso ha 
 depositado en mis manos para la proteccion de mis vasallos, y respeto 
 de rrd Corona, he yenido en mandar extranar de todos mis dominios de 
 Espana e Indias, e islas Filip'inas y demas adyacentes, a los Regulares 
 de la Compania, asi Sacerdotes como Coadjutores, 6 Legos que hayan 
 hecho la primera profesion, y a los Novicios que quisieren seguirles;" 
 y que se ocupen todas las temporalidades de la Compania en mis 
 dominios: y para la execucion uniforme en todos ellos he dado plena 
 y pnvativa co-nision y autoridad por otro mi Real decreto de 27 de 
 Febrero al Presidente del mi Consep, con facultad de proceder desde 
 luego a tomar las providencias correspondientes. 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 5. Declaro, que en la ocupaeion de temporalidades de la Corapafiia 
 se comprehenden sus bienes y efectos, asi muebles como raices, 6 rentas 
 
PIOUS FOND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 449 
 
 eclesiasticas que legitimamente posean en el Reyno; sin perjudicio de 
 sus cargas, mente de los fundadores, y alimentos vitalicios de los indi- 
 viduos, que seran de cien pesos durante su vida a, los Sacerdotes, y 
 noventa a los Legos, pagaderos de la masa general que se forme de los 
 bienes de la CompaBia. 
 
 ******* 
 
 10. Sobre la administracion y aplicaciones equivalentes de los bienes 
 de la Compania en obras pias, como es dotacion de parroquias pobres, 
 Seminarios concilares, casas de misericordia y otros fines piadosos, 
 oidos los Ordinarios ecliasticos en lo que sea nocesario y conveniente, 
 reservo tomar separadamente provideneias; sin que en nada se def raude 
 la verdadera piedad, ni perjudique la causa publica 6 derecho de tercero. 
 * * * * * * * 
 
 (Edicion citada Vol. I, pp. 183-184.) 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "ACCOUNT OE THE PROVINCE OF 
 THE CALIFORNIAS, IN THREE LETTERS, WRITTEN BY A PRIEST, A 
 JMEMBER OF THE ROYAL CONVENT OF PREACHERS OF VALENCIA, TO A 
 FRIEND. PRINTED IN VALENCIA BY DE ORGA BROTHERS. MDCCXCIV. 
 
 List of the missions founded by the banished fathers, with mention of the year and of the 
 
 benefactors. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1 . Our Lady of Loreto, founded by Don Juan Caballero y Osio 1698 
 
 2. San Francisco Xavier, by the same 1699 
 
 3. Santa Rosalia Molex6, by Don Nicolas de Arteaga 1700 
 
 4. Los Dolores, by the congregation of Mexico 1701 
 
 5. S. Josef Comundu, by th6 Marquis de Villapuente 1704 
 
 6. Our Lady of Guadalupe, by the same 1709 
 
 7. La Purfsima, by the same 1713 
 
 8. San Luis, by D. Luis Velascq t 1718 
 
 9. Santiago, by the same '. 1719 
 
 10. S. Ignacio, by Father Juan Luyando 1725 
 
 11. S. Josef del Cabo, by the Marquis de Villapuente 1730 
 
 12. S. Rosa, by Dona Rosa de la Pefia 1731 
 
 13. S. Francisco de Borja, by the Duchess of Gandia 1757 
 
 Note. — S. Luis and Santa Rosa have been suppressed, but the latter 
 was removed to Todos Santos. Likewise the mission of Los Dolores 
 was suppressed, and the garrison of San Josef del Cabo served for the 
 mission of Santa Gertrudis in the year 1746, and it still exists. (Second 
 letter, pp. 48-49.) 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE WORK ENTITLED "LATEST COMPILATION OF 
 SPANISH LAWS, DIRECTED TO BE MADE BY DON CARLOS IV." 
 
 Law III. 
 
 D. Carlos III by royal decree of April 2, 1767: 
 
 Banishment of the regulars of the Society of Jesus from all the 
 dominions of Spain and the Indies, and the taking possession of their 
 temporalities. 
 
 Being in accord with the views of my royal council in the extraor- 
 dinary session called as a result of past events, and set forth in the 
 
 S. Doc. 28 29 
 
450 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 report of January 29, 1767, and with the opinion which persons of the 
 highest standing and recognized experience have expressed which con- 
 form to said report — impelled by gravest motives concerning the duty 
 imposed upon me to maintain my people in peace, tranquillity, and 
 justice — and for other urgent, right, and necessary causes, touching 
 which I reserve comment: 
 
 In virtue of the supreme economic authority vested in me by the 
 Almighty for the protection of my subjects and to insure the respect 
 due my crown, I have determined to order the banishment from all my 
 dominions in Spain, the Indies, and the Philippines, and other adjacent 
 islands of the Regulars of the Society of Jesus — both priests and lay 
 friars — who have taken their first vows, and novitiates who should wish 
 to follow them; and the taking possession of all the temporalities of 
 the society in my dominions. 
 
 For the uniform execution of these orders, I have given full and 
 special instructions and powers to the president of my council by an- 
 other royal decree of the 27th of February, with authority to imme- 
 diately proceed to take the necessary action. 
 
 ******* 
 
 5. I further direct that the taking possession of the temporalities of 
 the society is to include the effects and property, real and personal, 
 or the ecclesiastical revenues which lawfully belong to it- within the 
 Kingdom, without prejudice to the trusts imposed by the founders 
 and to the maintenance of the members, which shall be $ 100 for the 
 priests during their lifetime and $90 for the lay friars, payable out of 
 the general assets obtained from the property of the society. 
 
 ******* 
 
 8. With regard to the administration and proper application of the 
 property of the society for pious purposes, such as the endowment of 
 poor parishes, colleges, houses of mercy, and other pious objects, after 
 hearing from the ordinary clergy concerning what may be necessary 
 and proper, I reserve individually the adoption of appropriate meas- 
 ures, without true piety being in anyway defrauded or the public 
 cause or rights of third parties being injured. 
 
 [Translation.] - 
 Thadeua Amat and others v. Mexico. No. 493. 
 
 ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE BEFORE THE HONORABLE 
 
 UMPIRE. 
 
 The present case is of the greatest weight and importance, not only 
 on account of the questions which are raised, but also because of the 
 result which the decision rendered may have for Mexico in the future. 
 
 The undersigned, feeling sure that the umpire will examine with 
 his accustomed care, and even if it be possible with more diligence, all 
 the circumstances set forth in the papers in the case, does not doubt 
 that he will give to the clear argument of the defense written by 
 benor Aspiroz all the attention which, under whatever aspect the case 
 be examined, ought not to be refused it by one who is conscientiously 
 to decide the case. (It is the Document No. 46.) 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIA.S. 451 
 
 It is pardonable if the agen, of Mexico should make an especial 
 recommendation to the umpire asking that he give close attention 
 to the opinion of the Mexican commissioner, since, being called on to 
 settle the difference of opinions of the commissioners, it would be 
 almost an offense to his high sense of justice to suppose that he would 
 not study with particular interest the elements of those opinions. 
 
 All the questions of the present case having already been treated 
 with that intelligence and attention with which thev have in the argu- 
 ment and brief mentioned, it would be a vain presumption on the part 
 of the undersigned to attempt to say anything whatever new and 
 worthy to be on an equal footing with said works. 
 
 But, without any such pretension, and on the contrary, asking indul- 
 gence for the plainness of this writing, he, who to-day has the honor 
 to represent the Mexican Government before the Commission, is about 
 to try to make only some observations and a demonstration upon the 
 point of view from which he thinks the case should be considered in 
 conformity with the convention, by virtue of which it has been pre- 
 sented. 
 
 In order to form an opinion favorable to the claimants, the com- 
 missioner of the United States commences by upholding, or rather by 
 taking for granted, that the fund of the missions of the Californias 
 always had an object exclusively religious and not political in any sense. 
 
 The contrary is demonstrated with irrefutable historicalproofs in 
 the argument of Senor Aspiroz and in the opinion of Senor Zamacona. 
 
 But, whatever may have been the character of said fund on account 
 of the intentions of the founders, the American commissioner recog- 
 nizes that since the expulsion of the Jesuits to whom they (the found- 
 ers) had intrusted the employment of the properties of which there is 
 question here, the sovereign assumed, by virtue of his eminent do- 
 main, "the powers necessary to accomplish the execution of the wish of 
 those who had created the fund. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth admits not only that the bishop of California, and 
 before him that various religious corporations, and at least one lay cor- 
 poration, succeeded one another in the management and employment 
 of the fund solely by permission of the National Government, but also 
 the ample power of the said Government to intrust with this manage- 
 ment and employment anyone who in its judgment, being trustworthy, 
 was best able to accomplish the ends for which it was instituted. 
 
 It appears, nevertheless, that the American commissioner attributes 
 to the appointment of the bishop of California, by the said Government, 
 and on account of the said charge, a permanent effect and the trans- 
 mission of a perfect and irrevocable right in the bishop and his suc- 
 cessors. 
 
 And, as a foundation for such deduction (which is also the foundation 
 of the present claim) he cites the decree of October 24, 1842, which, 
 for that reason, ought to be borne in mind as one of the most important 
 pieces of evidence. 
 
 It runs as follows: 
 
 That whereas the decree of February 8 of the present year, directing that the 
 administration and care of the Pious Fund of the Californias should redevolve on 
 and continue in the charge of the Government, as had previously been the case, 
 was intended to fulfill most faithfully the beneficent and national objects designed 
 
452 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOJSNIAS. 
 
 by the foundress without the slightest diminution of the properties destined to the 
 end; and whereas the result can only be obtained by capitalizing the funds and 
 placing them at interest, on proper securities, so as to avoid the expenses of admin- 
 istration and the like, which may occur. In virtue of the power conferred on me 
 by the seventh article of the Bases of Tacubaya, and sanctioned by the nation, I 
 have determined to decree as follows: 
 
 Art. 1. The real estate, urban and rural, the credits, and all other property 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias are incorporated into the national 
 treasury. 
 
 2. The minister of the treasury will proceed to sell the real estate and other 
 property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias for the capital represented 
 bv their annual product at 6 per cent per annum. And the public treasury will 
 acknowledge an indebtedness of 6 per cent per annum on the total proceeds of the 
 
 3. The revenue from tobacco is specially pledged for the payment of the income 
 corresponding to the capital of the said fund of the Californias, and the department 
 in charge thereof will pay over the sums necessary to carry -on the objects to which 
 said fund is destined without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or 
 otherwise. ' 
 
 It is seen, therefore, that this decree, the foundation of the claim, 
 declares the objects for which the fund in question was destined to be 
 national. It is also seen that it left such funds incorporated into the 
 national treasury of Mexico; but especial attention should be directed 
 to the fact that in no part of the said decree is mention made either of 
 the bishop or church of California. 
 
 How is it, then, that in this decree they pretend to found the right 
 which is alleged? 
 
 How, from the fact that the Government of Mexico proposed to con- 
 tinue employing to its beneficent and national end the funds which it 
 declared to be under its exclusive charge, can it be deduced that these 
 funds had to be administered and employed perpetually by the church 
 of the Californias, which Mr. Wadsworth sustains? 
 
 If it (the decree) had explicitly and in so many words ordered that 
 the necessary quantities of the proceeds should be paid over to the 
 bishop of California, which the said decree destined to the objects of 
 the original foundation, nevertheless the title under which the suc- 
 cessors of said bishop could have and reclaim such quantities, from the 
 moment when the objects in which these quantities should have been 
 employed in California ceased to be of a national interest to Mexico, 
 would be more than doubtful. 
 
 According to the judgment of Mr. Wadsworth, not only did the 
 necessities for which the fund of the missions was destined by its 
 founders continue to exist in the locality we have just mentioned, but 
 also that they had been augmented by the influx of adventurers of the 
 whole world and by the Chinese immigration. The undersigned doubts 
 if the commissioner of the United States expressed this thought hoping 
 that it would be taken seriously, and he is more inclined to suppose 
 that the commissioner wished to lighten with a joke the dryness of the 
 subject with which he was occupied. 
 . . ^ * s there in common between the object of protecting and 
 civilizing the aboriginees of this continent and the converting to Catholi- 
 cism the Chinese and other heathen European immigrants who, in an 
 avalanche, precipitated themselves upon the rich prize wrested from 
 Mexico, and the treasures of which offered a greater incentive to 
 licentiousness than to the elements of religious advancement? 
 
 But, supposing that to-day it were as necessary as before the annex- 
 ation of California to the United States to employ certain sums for the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE QAXIFORNIAS. 453 
 
 conversion of the infidels or pagans or protestants to Catholicism, what 
 kind of obligation is the Mexican Government under to furnish these 
 sums ? A national one, like that which every sovereign is under to 
 satisfy the public needs? Then it is not from that Government, but 
 from the Government of the United States, which succeeded to all 
 Mexico's rights and obligations with respect to Dpper California, from 
 whom the bishops can ask the fulfillment of such an obligation. Is this 
 of a private character, as Mr. Wadsworth pretends? Whence does it 
 proceed ? 
 
 It has already been seen that it is not derived from the decree of 
 October 24, 1842, in which there is no mention either of the bishop or 
 of the church of California. 
 
 Not from the will of those who established the fund, because they 
 placed it exclusively in the charge of the Jesuits, and not in the charge 
 of anyone who might find himself at the head of a church which, at the 
 time of the foundation, did not even exist. 
 
 Not, finally, from the objects to which said fund was destined, 
 because the claimants have never fulfilled them, nor is it probable that 
 they will. 
 
 And, nevertheless, for Mr. Wadsworth, the supposed obligation of 
 the Government of Mexico to pay over to the bishops of California a 
 large portion of the proceeds of said funds is of a character so absolute 
 that he compares it to that of an individual in whose power said fund 
 is found, and whom the ordinary tribunals could not do less than con- 
 demn to the payment of said proceeds. 
 
 But would they do it in such a case unless the claimants should 
 prove their right, or rather their title to them? Evidently not. 
 
 And what is the title which those who make reclamation against the 
 Government of Mexico present to this high tribunal ? 
 
 A decree which gives them none — more than that — which withdrew 
 the only one which the Government had seen fit to give to the eccle- 
 siastical dignitary from whom they pretend to derive the right which 
 they allege; that is to say, the simple administration of the fund of 
 which there is question. 
 
 It is to be remembered that the decree of October 24, 1842, com- 
 mences by reiterating that which was enacted in the one of February 
 8 of the same year, by which the management of that fund was taken 
 away from the bishop of California, it being declared that its admin- 
 istration and its employment should remain under the charge of the 
 supreme national Government of Mexico, in the manner and terms 
 which it should adopt, in order to fulfill the object which the donors 
 proposed — the civilization and conversion of the barbarians. (Not 
 of the Chinese nor of the Europeans.) 
 
 It would be extremely doubtful, if the Jesuits had continued with- 
 out interruption to discharge the trust of the founders of the so-called 
 fund of the missions, and if the properties which formed it had not 
 gone out of the control of said trustee, whether the said corporation 
 of Jesuits could to-day reclaim for the benefit of Upper California — 
 separated from Mexico — the proceeds of any properties situated in the 
 territory of that Eepublic. 
 
 But when a century has passed since the discharge of said trust by 
 the Jesuits ceased; when, since the time of their expulsion from the 
 dominions of Spain, all their temporalities have been incorporated into 
 the royal treasury; when, by the same decree in which it is pretended 
 
454 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKOTAS. 
 
 that this reclamation is founded, the goods destined to the national 
 object of civilizing the savages ceased to constitute a special fund so 
 that it was confounded with the other public moneys, whose manage- 
 ment and employment are the exclusive prerogative of the sovereign; 
 and when, in a word, there is in the bishops of Upper California neither 
 the representation of the Jesuits — of whom they are not successors — 
 nor the authorization of the Government of Mexico, which could not 
 exist, since the said Government lacked the indispensable means of 
 superintending the carrying out of such authorization, which are 
 impossible in a territory now subject to a foreign power, it is scarcely 
 conceivable that said bishops have come to believe that thej T have any 
 right to make the claim which they have presented to this tribunal. 
 
 When did the right which they allege originate? At the moment 
 when Upper California was separated from Mexico ? On the day that 
 the exchange of ratifications of the treaty in which said .Republic 
 ceded that territory to the United States ? 
 
 Who at that time enjoyed the right to which the bishops, whose 
 sees did not then exist, now pretend to succeed ? Was it an individual ? 
 Was it a corporation ? Was it the whole of the people of Upper Cal- 
 ifornia? 
 
 If the first, the individual who" possessed the pretended right was 
 certainly not an American, nor could he begin to be an American until 
 after the expiration of one year, according to Article VIII of the 
 treaty of which mention has been made; that is to say, not before the 
 30th of May, 1849. 
 
 If the second, the corporation lost all its rights which it had with 
 respect to Mexico and its Government, because not only were they not 
 reserved in the treaty, but there was not even mention made in it of 
 corporations, care being taken nevertheless to guarantee the rights of 
 private individuals, and this only in their new relations with the United 
 States and not with respect to their rights or interests existing in 
 Mexico. 
 
 Finally, if there is question of the collective rights of the people of 
 Upper California, the correlative duties with respect to them passed 
 without any exception to the new sovereign, the prerogatives of sov- 
 ereignty having been transmitted to it without restriction. 
 
 But let us return to the first of these three suppositions, which 
 seems to be that which serves as a foundation for the claim— that is to 
 say, that it was an individual who, by virtue of an ecclesiastical minis- 
 ter, the immediate successor of Bishop Diego, possessed the right 
 which is claimed. Was he really entitled to receive any part of the pro- 
 ceeds of the fund of the missions in May, 1848 or 1849? Had he been 
 receiving any sums by this title up to those years? It is not even 
 intimated by the claimants. 
 
 What then is the pretended right to which they were the successors? 
 
 Only a vain hope, only a vanishing and perhaps already forgotten 
 illusion. 
 
 If the decree which withdrew from the bishop of Calif or nia the duty 
 of administering and employing the fund of the missions did not say 
 a word as to whether there should be delivered over to the same 
 bishop in the future the sums necessary for the objects of that extinct 
 fund, how could he believe that it would be so for him in the year 
 1842? J 
 
 Three years passed without such belief being realized, and the afore- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 455 
 
 said bishop, taking advantage of an accidental preponderance of the 
 church party in the Government of Mexico, obtained in 1845, a 
 promise more explicit, though probably not less illusive. 
 
 Such promise was contained in a decree which the claimants have 
 only cited, but which the commissioner of the United States has not 
 thought it convenient to take into consideration in his opinion. 
 
 It is dated April 3, 1845 — later than the one which is taken as the 
 foundation of the claim — and it runs as follows: 
 
 The credits and other properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias which are 
 now unsold shall be immediately returned to the reverend bishop of that see and 
 his successors for the purposes mentioned in Article VI of the law of September 29, 
 1836 (in order that they may administer and employ them in its objects and other 
 analogous ones, respecting always the wish of the founders) without prejudice to 
 what Congress may resolve in regard to the property that has been alienated. 
 
 In this decree there is, as has been said, an explicit promise to the 
 bishop of California; but what is it? Perhaps that there shall be 
 delivered to him and his successors the interests of which the decree 
 of the 24th of October, 1842, speak? No, certainly not. 
 
 The decrees of February and October, 1842, bad taken from the 
 bishop of California all interference in the management and employ- 
 ment of the funds of the missions, the public power of Mexico exer- 
 cising the same liberty with which it had before intrusted the said 
 management to the above-mentioned bishop. "Hujus est tollere oujus 
 est condere." 
 
 The decree of April, 1845, a measure of the clerical party, conferred 
 anew on the bishop of California the trust of the Government of 
 which three years before he had been dispossessed; but during this 
 time the funds had no doubt considerably diminished, and so great 
 must have been their diminution at the time of the issuance of the 
 decree that in it the credits are mentioned first; from which it may be 
 inferred that they constituted the greater or most important class of 
 property in hand. These {the properties not sold hy virtue of the decree 
 of 1842) were the only properties ordered to be delivered immediately 
 to the bishop of California and his successors. As to the sold proper- 
 ties, Congress reserved the right to later determine what should be 
 deemed advisable concerning them. 
 
 Another three years elapsed from the issuance of that decree before 
 the exchange of ratifications of the treaty which separated Upper 
 California from Mexico. 
 
 What was done, during those three years, with the remainder of 
 the fund of the missions ? 
 
 Did the bishop, to whom the property should be delivered immedi- 
 ately after the issuance of the decree, receive anything from it in 
 accordance with its provisions? 
 
 Very probably he would only receive the credits which could have 
 but an insignificant value, being in large part evidences of public 
 debt. The rest (if there happened to be more than such credits), it is 
 very probable, might have been consumed in the public expenses of 
 the war with the United States. 
 
 If it were so, what better employment could be given to the funds 
 destined for the political and religious conquest of the Californias 
 than the defending of the territory acquired by means in the employ- 
 ment of which those properties had so important a share ? 
 
 And if in fact the Mexican Government did use the remainder of 
 
456 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 the fund of the missions to maintain the war against the United States, 
 at the close of which it lost more than half of the national territory, 
 including Upper California, it would be strange if to-day it should be 
 made to pay, for the benefit of the United States, and for a religious 
 sect which , is endeavoring to predominate there, not only what they 
 may have taken from said funds, but a perpetual tribute as an income 
 reckoned upon the greatest value that they ever had. 
 
 And it is no less strange that this is claimed by invoking the very 
 decree which declares the objects to which those funds were destined 
 to be of truly national interest. The attorney of the bishops (page 10 
 of the printed argument), in an edifying manner, observes that the 
 Duchess of Gandia, having heard an old servant of hers, who had been 
 a soldier in Calif ornia, speak of the barrenness of that country, of the 
 miserable condition of the Indians, and of the suffering and apostolic 
 labors of the consecrated missionaries for the betterment of that 
 unhappy race, resolved to bequeath a part of her fortune for the aid 
 of those missions, and forthwith he inquires what the pious donor would 
 think if her legacy should finally have been destined to enter into the 
 public treasury of Mexico. 
 
 The undersigned answers the question with others: What would the 
 Duchess of Gandia think if the church which was to be favored with 
 her munificence should cease to belong to her native country; if that 
 country, whose barrenness and poverty had moved her charity, should 
 come to be one of the richest of the world; if those miserable Indians, 
 whose situation she pitied, instead of profiting from the fertility of the 
 the soil, would be driven from it by the new sovereign, and if those 
 holy missionaries, whose apostolic zeal and heroic abnegation she 
 admired and intended to encourage, had been supplanted by the high 
 dignitaries of a wealthy church ? 
 
 And when things have so much changed from what they were known 
 to be by the founders of the fund of the missions, is when the bishops 
 of California come to reclaim their participation — more than that— 
 their propriety in them? 
 
 And why? 
 
 Are they, perad venture, to fulfill the objects of the founders? 
 
 Are they about to bring to the unhappy Indians, relegated to the 
 borders of the territory which was theirs, the light of the evangelist 
 and the blessings of Christian charity? 
 
 If at least they propose to do it, it would be neither for the benefit 
 of Mexico nor could the Government of that Eepublic see that the 
 quantities received by the bishops, claimant, were employed for their 
 real objects. 
 
 But let us return to the point of departure. 
 
 We have seen that in April, 1845, a decree ordered that the credits 
 and other properties not sold of the funds of the missions should be 
 immediately returned to the Bishop of California and to his successors, , 
 and it is excusable to say that upon intrusting the administration of 
 such properties to the said bishop, the Mexican Government could 
 scarcely have thought that some strangers not recognized by the said 
 Government, nor named by any intervention on its part, would figure 
 as successors of Bishop Diego, in whose nomination it had a voice. 
 
 The only credits and properties whose administration and employment 
 the Government confided to him were immediately either returned, 
 or they were not returned, to Bishop Diego. Whichever it was, the 
 
PIOTJS FOND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 457 
 
 decree of April 3, 1845, should have been executed immediately or 
 it should have remained without any further effect. Afterwards 
 Bishop Diego died and no successor was named in the manner in which 
 he had been named; the war between Mexico and the United States 
 intervened, which was terminated by the treaty of February 2, 1848. 
 Not one word is said in it about corporations, and still less about 
 churches, the United States simply guaranteeing to Mexican citizens 
 who should continue living in the territory conquered by them (the 
 United States) the free exercise of their worship and the secure enjoy- 
 ment of their properties situated in the same territory. 
 
 So the Catholic Church of Upper California did not retain by the 
 treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo its character of a corporation recognized 
 by a new sovereign, nor with rights recognized, not only on the part 
 of the government of the nation which the members and pastors of that 
 church had ceased to defend, but even with respect to the properties 
 to which the said church could have believed itself entitled, in the 
 territory in which it was established. 
 
 Years passed, and said church continued to pursue a private exist- 
 ence without legal existence in the United States. The Popej who 
 was the only power with whom it had relations, considered it advis- 
 able — of course without any knowledge whatever of the Government 
 of Mexico — to name a new bishop for Upper California, to establish 
 therein another bishopric, and soon afterwards an archbishopric, and to 
 designate for these high offices naturalized citizens of the United States. 
 These changes in and additions to the personnel might of themselves 
 alone have operated so that the Government of Mexico would not have 
 left in the hands of persons thus named the charge of trust conferred 
 at another time upon the Mexican Bishop Diego. 
 
 Meanwhile, if the new dignitaries of the church of California did 
 not acquire from their immediate predecessor any property or rights 
 through any individual act, as by conveyance or will, one or the other 
 in conformity with the laws of the United States, by reason of office 
 they could not maintain any legal title in the United States while they 
 had not commenced to represent an association recognized in the civil 
 order by virtue of its formal incorporation. 
 
 This took place in the year 1854. (See documents Nos. 3 and 10). 
 The legal existence of the Catholic Church of California, in the United 
 States, dates from that time forward; and only from that time forward 
 could that corporation acquire rights and enforce them under the pro- 
 tection of the laws and of the authorities of the country. 
 
 Before its formal incorporation this church did not have collective 
 rights, and its members and ministers alone had the legal ability to 
 acquire individual rights. How, then, could the rights which Bishop 
 Diego may have had in 1842 be transmitted to the bishops claimant? 
 
 It seems that they pretend to attribute this effect to the canons of 
 the Catholic Church. 
 
 But how can such an absurdity be sustained? 
 
 The canon law only produces civil effects within the territory whose 
 government gives them such, and neither did the United States upon 
 annexing Upper California make this or any other concession to the 
 Catholic Church therein, nor could Mexico on relinquishing its control 
 over that territory leave the canon law in force therein. 
 
 Let it be supposed, nevertheless, that this right continued in full force 
 and effect, of itself, notwithstanding the change of government in the 
 
458 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA8. 
 
 locality of which there is question. Is there in it any provision which 
 obliges a government to place its trust in foreign prelates for the 
 administration and distribution of funds incorporated in its treasury 
 and intended for purposes of truly national interest? 
 
 And if there be such a canon law, is there a tribunal not ecclesias- 
 tical that would attempt to enforce it? 
 
 The attorney for the bishops who understands that it would not be 
 favorable to the interests which he defends to invoke as a title the 
 simple authorization of the Government of Mexico in favor of Bishop 
 Diego, wishes to maintain that the properties which are under con- 
 sideration belong by absolute right to the Church of Upper California, 
 and that the incorporation of these properties into the royal treasury 
 when the Jesuits were expelled from the dominions of Spain about a 
 century ago, was one unlawful sequestration of the property, and the 
 second incorporation of the same properties into the public treasury 
 in 1842 was another, it being worthy of note that it is on the very 
 decrees of that year that the demand is founded. 
 
 So that said attorney energetically repudiates (citing as authority 
 Catholic writers) the principle which considers as public property that 
 which is devoted to the church in countries in which there is but one 
 religion, under the exclusive protection of the state. 
 
 As much as might be said upon the above-indicated abstract principle 
 would be foreign to the question which occupies us; it is sufficient to 
 remark that it does not concern this tribunal to call to account the 
 Government of Spain, nor that of Mexico, nor any other for the 
 nationalization of church properties. 
 
 The question is simply as to whether the bishops of California have 
 had a right to receive interests on certain properties nationalized, or 
 incorporated, into the treasury of Mexico, whether it were done in 
 accordance with law or not. 
 
 After the Catholic Church of California had complied with the requi- 
 sites of incorporation necessary to give it a legal existence in the United 
 States, one of the ministers of that church — the pastor of Santa Clara — 
 demanded of a private individual the possession of a property known 
 by the name of "Orchard," which formerly belonged to the mission 
 of Santa Clara. 
 
 The lawsuit followed, with all its judicial proceedings, both litigants 
 presenting all the arguments they could to elucidate the questions raised 
 upon the rights of the church of California to the properties which at 
 earlier times had formed the fund of the missions. 
 
 Accompanying this argument is a complete copy of the opinion in 
 that case from the work, ' ' Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in 
 the Supreme Court of the State of California," Vol. VI, p. 325 et pas. 
 
 Judge Heyndfelt, in announcing the final judgment, expressed him- 
 self in these terms: 
 
 According to all the Spanish and Mexican authorities (which have been well col-' 
 lated in the respondent's argument), the missions were political establishments and 
 in no manner connected with the church. 
 
 The fact that the monks and priests were at the head of those institutions proves 
 nothing in favor of the claim of the church to universal ownership of the property. 
 ******* 
 
 The lands settled by them were not conveyed to anyone, neither to priest nor 
 neophyte, but remained the property of the Government. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Our conclusion is that the plaintiff has no right to the property in question and, 
 therefore, the judgment of the court below is affirmed. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 459 
 
 When competent tribunals have thus decided, treating of property 
 situated in the United States, what should be said of these pretended 
 rights of th6 church of California against the Government of Mexico 
 for interests on properties situated in Mexico, and, which, far from 
 having been acknowledged as belonging to that church, were explicitly 
 declared to be national? 
 
 It would be a monstrous injustice, considering that squatters on prop- 
 erties situated in the United States, and which formerly belonged to 
 the missions, and to which they had no title, were upheld in their pos- 
 session, if the Government of Mexico be condemned to pay a perpetual 
 tribute in favor of the bishops of California simply because at one 
 time it has seen fit to intrust to an ecclesiastical prelate, subject to its 
 dominion, the administration and employment of some funds which 
 ought to be destined to objects of national interest. 
 
 II. 
 
 The convention of Juty 4, 1868, submitted to the examination and 
 decision of this tribunal all the reclamations of individuals, corpora- 
 tions, and companies which, being citizens of the United States, had 
 suffered injuries in their persons or their properties inflicted by the 
 Mexican authorities. 
 
 That which is to be ascertained, therefore, in each case, is if any 
 authority of the nation defendant has done an injury to the party 
 claimant in his person or his property. 
 
 The first observation which occurs in this regard, on examining the 
 present case, is that neither the Government of Mexico nor any 
 authority of that country has had the slightest notice of the existence 
 of the gentlemen, Messrs. Alemany and Amat, nor of the corporation 
 which they represent. 
 
 This corporation commenced to exist legally in the United States, 
 or rather in the State of California, in the year 1854, when the require 
 ments for incorporation were complied with. From that time the said 
 gentlemen could represent the rights and civil interests of their 
 respective churches in the United States; but did the Government of 
 Mexico know anything of it? By whom and at what time was it 
 given notice of it? 
 
 Upon this particular there is not the slightest mention in the record. 
 
 And is it not truly extraordinary that the persons of whose indi- 
 vidual existence or of whose character as representatives of a corpora- 
 tion the Government of Mexico did not have the slightest notice 
 should declare. themselves injured? 
 
 That the claimants have been injured in their properties by said 
 Government is demonstrated to be entirely false, because neither the 
 fund of the missions — first incorporated into the treasury of Spain 
 and afterwards into the treasury of Mexico as national property — 
 nor the proceeds of that fund, whose employment has remained under 
 the charge of the Government since the expulsion of the Jesuits from 
 the dominions of Spain, have never been the property of the bishops 
 of the church of California. 
 
 But, above all, whatever may be the right that the claimants deduce 
 concerning the Pious Fund or its proceeds, nobody will dare to main- 
 tain that said right is clear, evident, un questionable. 
 
 Therefore, the fact that the said right is doubtful is enough to show 
 that the claimants can not say that they are injured by the omission of 
 
460 PIO0S FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 the Government of Mexico to carry it out without the slightest action 
 or solicitude on the part of those interested. 
 
 When, indeed, nothing more than a problematical obligation is 
 treated of, as is the one which it is pretended that the Government of 
 Mexico has failed to fulfill, and not of one well defined and explicit, 
 as that proceeding from a contract, it could not be said that an injury 
 had been done to the interested parties with regard to its fulfillment, 
 except when the latter prove that they have asked its performance 
 diligently without having obtained it. Only then ought it to be inves- 
 tigated, whether the refusal of the Government demanded constituted 
 an injury as being unjust or unfounded. 
 
 The claimants say that in 1859 (very late to be sure) they presented 
 their claim to the United States. 
 
 Such would have been the case; but as the latter Government did 
 not take any steps to prosecute this claim, nor even give notice of its 
 existence to the Government of Mexico; with respect to the latter it 
 was just the same as though it had not been made. 
 
 What, then, is the injury of which the claimants complain? 
 
 Have they at any time asked of the Government of Mexico the 
 recognition of the right which they pretend to have to the proceeds 
 of the fund of the missions ? 
 
 Not only have they not proved, but they do not even allege having 
 made such a demand. 
 
 And could they reasonably expect that, it not having occurred to 
 themselves to take any action to press their pretended right (even 
 though they did not think that they had it), the Government of 
 Mexico should have begun to punctually pay them the interests which 
 they now seek to collect since the year 1848? 
 
 Such an exaggerated pretension could not be qualified except as 
 absurd. 
 
 Supposing the condition in which the funds were in the year 1845, 
 supposing the complete change in the mode of existence of Upper 
 California produced by the war and the treaty which terminated it, 
 and suppose finally that by virtue of this change the objects to which 
 said funds were destined in Upper California were no longer of a 
 national interest for Mexico, nor that the Government of said Republic 
 could superintend their employment, it is the most natural thing in 
 the world that the said Government would not in any manner think 
 that the ministers of the Catholic Church of Upper California would 
 allege rights to the said funds. 
 
 How then can the ignorance, or the nonperformance, of an obliga- 
 tion, which it did not suspect being under and which the claimants 
 had never demanded, be classed as an injury on the part of the Mexi- 
 can Government? 
 
 If there was question of a formal agreement contracted by the Gov- 
 ernment of Mexico in favor of the claimants in incontrovertible terms, ♦ 
 nevertheless it would not be equitable to listen to the complaint of 
 those who had not theretofore diligently endeavored to procure the 
 recognition and execution of such contract; what should be said there- 
 fore, when a decree, in which there is no mention of the entity repre- 
 sented by the claimants, is alleged as a foundation for the demand? 
 What should be said when that entity had ceased to exist in the manner 
 in which it did exist when the Government of Mexico turned over to 
 it, not the titles to, but only the management of, the properties whose 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 461 
 
 proceeds are claimed — circumstances and conditions affecting this con- 
 fidential trust, as may be understood by reading the decree of Septem- 
 ber 29, 1836 — and, finally, what should be said when the right alleged, 
 although it might exist, is certainly not clear, obvious, and unques- 
 tionable ? It would be necessary to change the meaning of the word 
 injury in order to say that anything that merits this name had been 
 practiced on the part of the Government of Mexico in the present 
 case. 
 
 Wherefore, even on the absolutely unfounded supposition that the 
 bishops of California could deduce any right to a part of the proceeds 
 corresponding to the properties of the fund of the missions sold by 
 virtue of the decree of October 24, 1842, their demand is not open to 
 the investigation and decision of this tribunal, because it is not founded 
 upon an injwry done to the citizens of the United States by the Gov- 
 ernment of Mexico, nor since February 2, 1848, when the person from 
 whom they pretend to derive their right had no citizenship which could 
 be taken into account, nor since 1854, when they began to have legal 
 representation, nor at any other time prior to the exchange of rati- 
 fications of the convention of July 4, 1868, because they have not 
 had recourse to that Government with their pretensions, as was indis- 
 pensable that they should previously in order that the justice of the 
 claim might be examined. Thus, then, without taking into considera- 
 tion the foundations of it, the claim should be rejected. 
 
 Eleuterio Avila. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 Thadeus Amat and Joseph Alemany v. Mexico. No. 493. 
 PETITION FOE, REHEARING. 
 
 The Government of Mexico does not doubt that the honorable 
 umpire has rendered the decision in this case in accordance with the 
 dictates of his conscience; but it believes it to be its unavoidable duty 
 to present the important reasons which perhaps the umpire did not 
 take into consideration when he rendered his judgment, reasons which 
 establish the basis for the necessity of a rehearing. 
 
 The undersigned has therefore received instructions from his Gov- 
 ernment to immediately solicit the rehearing of this case, and he 
 having found it convenient to make the petition before the functions 
 of the commissioners have ceased, will only indicate in this document 
 some of the reasons that exist for the rehearing, reserving the right 
 to enlarge upon them when this motion shall have been granted. 
 
 The first point to which the attention of the umpire should be called 
 is that, whatever the right of the petitioners might be for themselves 
 or as representatives of a corporation to a part of the Pious Fund of 
 the Californias, there is no injury to be regarded in this case, since the 
 Government of Mexico has not done any injury to the claimants by 
 not recognizing in them such a l'ight, it not having been required to 
 do so. 
 
 "The Pious Fund," says the memorial, "being the property of the 
 church of both Californias, Upper and Lower, and being devoted to 
 the propagation of the Catholic faith in both countries, it would hawe 
 
462 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 been necessary to divide it when Upper California was separated from 
 the dominion of Mexico and was annexed to the United States. This 
 fact and the consequent separation of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions 
 should have made necessary a proportional division of the interests 
 and proceeds which ought to have accrued after the treaty of 
 Guadalupe." 
 
 This part of the statement made by the claimants points out two 
 different periods at which the division of the fund ought to have taken 
 place, viz, when the territory of Upper California was separated from 
 Mexico and when the ecclesiastical jurisdictions were separated. 
 
 Would it be reasonable to claim that at either time it was obligatory 
 for the Government of Mexico to take steps to bring about the appor- 
 tionment of the fund ? 
 
 When the treaty of peace between the Republics of Mexico and the 
 United States was celebrated, by which treaty the first of said Republics 
 ceded to the latter part of its territory, it became the duty of the United 
 States Government to secure all the rights and interests of those who 
 were about to become its citizens, and no omission in this respect can 
 be charged against the Mexican Government. 
 
 When later the churches of Upper and Lower California were sepa- 
 rated, it was the duty of the representatives of the former to take steps 
 in order that the apportionment of the fund might be brought about. 
 
 The very terms of the memorial presented by the claimants clearly 
 show that no formal step was ever taken in that direction. 
 
 "But this apportionment," it says, "was never made, and the claim- 
 ants allege and demand that it be made, taking as a basis the respective 
 populations." 
 
 No matter how just it might be to make an apportionment, since it 
 was never demanded, and now, after the exchange of ratifications of 
 the convention of July 4, 1868, for the first time the interested parties 
 allege and demand that it ought to be made, there has been no injury 
 on the part of the Mexican Government. 
 
 Neither was the convention negotiated nor the Commission created 
 in order to liquidate debts or apportion undivided properties, but 
 solely and exclusively to repair injuries; and evidently in this case 
 there is no injury to repair. 
 
 If, notwithstanding all that has been said, it be insisted that it is 
 part of the Commission's duty to make the apportionment solicited, 
 justice and equity demand that it first be determined what is to be 
 apportioned, whether the properties of the fund in question or its 
 proceeds, and in what proportion such division ought to be made. 
 
 The Pious Fund of the missions consisted of rural and city estates, 
 part ownership in others, capital invested in annuities, or mortgages 
 upon estates and other assets. 
 
 By the second article of the decree of October 24, 1842, it was 
 ordered that the_ estates and other properties belonging to the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias be sold for the price which their annual pro- 
 ceeds represented, capitalized at 6 per cent, and that the public treas- 
 ury would recognize at the said rate of 6 per cent the sum produced 
 by those sales. 
 
 In no way is it to be understood that amongst said properties to be 
 sold the assets {creditos activos) of the fund were to be included, 
 because although mentioned in the first article of the decree, they are 
 not referred to in the second; since it would not be rational to suppose 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 463 
 
 that the Mexican Government would offer for sale credits of which it 
 was itself the debtor, and most of which bore an interest of less than 
 6 per cent, and others bearing no interest at all; and, lastly, because 
 in the later decree of April 5, 1845, it was ordered that the credits and 
 other properties which remained unsold should be returned to the 
 Bishop of California, which clearly proves that such credits had never 
 oeen offered for sale. 
 
 The Government undertook to pay 6 per cent, not upon the nominal 
 value of the properties belonging to the Pious Fund, but upon the 
 total produced by those whose sale might be effected, and since the 
 sale of the credits was not ordered, nor does it appear that it was 
 made, but quite the reverse, the obligation of the Government of 
 Mexico to pay interest upon such credits can not be deduced from the 
 decree of 1842, and they ought in any event to be separated in this 
 respect from the divisible interest. 
 
 The justice of this separation is still more clearly perceived by 
 noticing that the greater part of said credits consisted of unpaid 
 interests, and which certainly yielded no annual income, which was 
 the basis for estimating the values in conformity with the decree of 
 October 24, 1842. 
 
 The first of the assets against the public treasury is a capital of 
 $20,000, which it acknowledged with an interest of 5 per cent per 
 annum, said $20,000 having been deposited in the treasury during 
 the time of the Spanish rule. Its interests were paid until the year 
 1812, but since then to February, 1842, they have not been paid, and 
 amount to $29,166 5 reals 4 granos. (Inventory of Don Pedro 
 Ramirez.) These twenty -nine thousand and odd dollars yielded no 
 annual income. 
 
 There follows another capital of $201,856 6 reals 4 grains at the 
 same rate of interest (5 per cent), which was borrowed by the Spanish 
 Government to meet its expenses. The interest on this amount was 
 also paid until the year 1812, but not afterwards, and the accrued 
 interest down to February, 1842, amounted to $294,434 2 reals 5 
 granos. (Inventory above cited.) These interests yielded no annual 
 income either. 
 
 The third item of credits against the public treasury is $162,618 
 3 reals 3 grains which was acknowledged by the "Tribunal of the 
 Consulate * at 6 per cent per annum since the year 1810, and which 
 had remained a burden upon the public treasury. Two hundred and 
 six thousand five hundred and twenty-one dollars 2 reals 11 grains 
 were owed as back interest. Neither did these interests £>roduce any 
 annual income. 
 
 Thirty-four thousand eight hundred and forty-two dollars 4 reals 
 were also owed as interest upon two other debts. 
 
 There was also a debt of $68,160, another for $7,000, another for 
 $3,000, and an acknowledgment for $15,973 5 reals, which bore no 
 interest and consequently produced no annual income. 
 
 If, by the decree of October 24, 1842, the Government of Mexico 
 only held itself responsible to the Pious Fund of California for the 
 amount of 6 per cent per annum on the total produced by the sale of 
 the estates and other properties belonging to said fund (its assets being 
 excluded), the basis for the value of the property being represented 
 by 6 per cent of its annual income; if, moreover, supposing said assets 
 to be included, their unpaid interests did not produce any annual 
 income; and, finally, if far from there being any proof that such cred- 
 
464 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 its were really sold, it appears that in April, 1845, they were ordered 
 to be returned to the Bishop of California, they ought not to be 
 included in the capital whose interests are to be divided by virtue of 
 the decree of 1842. 
 
 This does not mean to say that, supposing that the right of the 
 claimants to a part of the properties of the fund of the missions may 
 be acknowledged, they are not to have a right also to part of the 
 already mentioned assets; but only that the division of the latter can 
 not be made in conformity with the above-mentioned decree. 
 
 By the decree of April 3, 1845, the credits and other properties not 
 sold were to be returned to the bishop of California, and, with respect 
 to those which were sold, it was agreed that Congress should make 
 disposition afterwards. From the latter decree spring the rights 
 which the bishop of the Californias could have enforced in 1848, and 
 which his successors, the claimants, could later on have derived, since 
 it was in force at the time Upper California was separated from 
 Mexico. 
 
 They could have demanded the evidences of debt and that there be 
 turned over to them the portion due them of the proceeds of the 
 property sold. 
 
 What else could they expect that the Mexican Congress would 
 decree concerning such property ? 
 
 How could it be believed that the Government of Mexico would 
 constitute itself a perpetual tributary (trihutario) of a foreign church? 
 
 It would have preferred, without doubt, to make any sacrifice in 
 order to free itself at once from such a burden, even if it had con- 
 sidered it just. 
 
 But this it could not be under any aspect, since by it it would be 
 obliged to pay a part of its public debt or its interest in preference to 
 the rest. 
 
 The most advantageous settlement that the bishops of California 
 could have made with the Government of Mexico would have been 
 that the latter should turn over to them a part of the proceeds of the 
 properties of the Pious Fund sold in conformity with the decree of 
 October, 1842, and the evidences of public debt which belonged to them 
 proportionally. 
 
 If Upper California had continued to belong to Mexico after 1848, 
 and only by reason of local contingencies the jurisdiction of its bishop 
 had been limited to that region, he could not, in strict justice, have 
 demanded of the Government of Mexico more than the delivery of 
 the part proceeds of the properties sold of the fund of the missions 
 which it was his right to administer, and the evidences of public debt 
 proportional to it. 
 
 The greater part, almost the whole, of that debt was contracted by 
 the Spanish Government, and the Government of Mexico has only,, 
 been responsible for its payment as successor thereto. 
 
 It might be contended that the Government of the United States, 
 having succeeded to that of Mexico in the rights and obligations- 
 which the latter derived from Spain with respect to Upper California, 
 should to-day be responsible for said indebtedness. But even if it 
 were not so, evidently neither the Government of Mexico nor that of 
 the United States has intended to submit to this commission claims 
 for the collection of the public debt. 
 
 The interposition of these Governments in favor of their respective 
 citizens is for the double object of repairing the injwries done by the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 465 
 
 authorities and suffered by said citizens, and to effect a complete, per- 
 fect, and final settlement of every claim which might proceed from 
 transactions of a date prior to the exchange of ratifications of the con- 
 vention of July 4, 1868 (articles 1 and 5). 
 
 The undersigned sincerely believes that the claimants in this case 
 can not complain of an injury done to them by the Government of 
 Mexico from the 2d of February of 1848 to February 1, 1869, because 
 they never notified it of the rights which they allege before this 
 Commission. 
 
 If at any time (as the umpire seems inclined to believe, bearing in 
 mind the position and character of him who alleges it, who is the 
 bishop of San Francisco) he demanded from the Mexican Government 
 the payment of the interest or the capital of the Pious Fund, and said 
 Government replied that it could not grant such petition; the umpire 
 also recognizes that it is not possible to form any judgment on the 
 subject because of the absolute lack of documentary evidence. 
 
 But since, for reasons not understood by the undersigned, this case 
 is considered as one of injury and coming, therefore, within the scope 
 of the convention of July 4, 1868, at least it seems that in conformity 
 with its spirit, the case should form the basis for a complete, equita- 
 ble, perfect, and final settlement. 
 
 If the interested parties had taken the proper steps for this settle- 
 ment, through the mediation of the Government of the United States, 
 it is very probable that it would not have been relatively more oner- 
 ous for Mexico than that reached by it with the Government of Spain 
 concerning the Philippine fund of December 7, 1844, and which the 
 claimants have cited in support of their pretensions. 
 
 The want of diligence on the part of the interested parties, which 
 ought to be prejudicial to no one more than to themselves, increases 
 to-day the burden of the depleted Mexican treasur y ; but, at least, the 
 the settlement of this debt ought to be reduced to reasonable bounds 
 and have a definite character. 
 
 Several of the donations which helped to form the Pious Fund were 
 especially intended for the missions of Lower California, and the un- 
 dersigned will present in evidence the deeds relating thereto, which he 
 has just received from his Government. 
 
 If formerly no observations were made nor evidence presented by 
 the defense concerning the amount claimed in this case, it was not 
 because the Government defendant acknowledges such an amount, but 
 because the question as to whether this case was by its nature one 
 proper for the consideration of this commission was previously to 
 be determined. 
 
 How was it possible, for instance, that said Government could 
 acknowledge its responsibility for bad debts of individuals to the Pious 
 Fund and to the payment of interest at 6 per cent in lieu of interest at 
 5 per cent on debts contracted by the Spanish Government? 
 
 How in justice could it be claimed that the fund, having lost the law- 
 suit which it conducted with respect to the Cienega del Pastor, said 
 Government should make good what, without the least neglect on its 
 part, was lost to the fund on that account? 
 
 And notwithstanding all this, account has been taken of it in the 
 claim. 
 
 No; the Mexican Government hoped that this case would be decided 
 to be outside the jurisdiction of the commission, and for this reason 
 S. Doc. 28 30 
 
466 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 had refrained from disputing the statement of amounts made by the 
 claimants. 
 
 In deciding the case of Edgar Keller (No. 95) the claimant was 
 invited to present proofs which he had omitted with respect to the 
 true amount of his claim. Why, then, should the right be denied 
 the Mexican Government, in this case, to take part in the liquidating of 
 a debt for which it did not believe itself obliged to answer before this 
 commission ? 
 
 On account of the foregoing, the undersigned considers that the 
 equitable, and just basis for the division of the Pious Fund of the 
 Missions, which the bishops of Upper California have demanded 
 before the commission, would be to deduct that which was especially 
 designed for Lower California; to estimate the cash values' of the 
 estates and other properties, sold in conformity with the decree of 
 October 24, 1842; and that the Government of Mexico pay the portion 
 of this sum corresponding to Upper California and interests from said 
 date to the time of final settlement. 
 
 A correct estimate of the available assets of the fund in February, 
 1842 — that is to say, a few months before the above-mentioned 
 decree — seems to be the following: 
 
 "Value corresponding to the annual rent of $2,625 of houses Nos. 11 
 and 12 Vergara street f 43, 750 
 
 Id. corresponding to the rent of $2,000 of the hacienda de Ibarra. 33, 333 
 
 Id. corresponding to $12,705, for the rent of the three estates 
 
 leased to Sefior Belaunzaran 211, 750 
 
 $288, 833 
 
 Capital for which the hacienda Sta. Lugarda and its annexes were 
 mortgaged 42, 000 
 
 Id. for which the hacienda Arroyozarco was mortgaged 40, 000 
 
 370, 833 
 
 If half of this capital were to be applied to Upper California, its 
 share would be $185,416.50. 
 
 As regards the assets of the fund represented by debts against pri- 
 vate individuals, it is not conceivable how the Mexican Government 
 could be held responsible for them. 
 
 In no way would it be just to exact from it the payment of those 
 which were not recoverable, as according to the • inventory of Sr. 
 Kamirez most of them wei*e, except the debt of $13,997, 4 reals, owed 
 by Sr. Vertiz. 
 
 Adding, therefore, half of this amount to the share assigned to 
 Upper California, the total would be $199,414. 
 
 This sum, with interest at 6 per cent per annum since October 24, 
 1842, would be the most that the Government of Mexico should be 
 obliged to pay to the bishops, plaintiffs, as a final settlement. 
 
 With respect to the credits of the fund against the public treasury 
 prior to that date, the most that could be done would be to grant the 
 claimants the right to half of said credits, so that they might take 
 steps for their recovery just as any other creditors of the treasury of 
 Mexico. 
 
 The undersigned respectfully asks of the umpire that, being willing 
 to open this case for a new examination under the points of view 
 indicated, he permit him to enlarge upon the reasons which demand a 
 modification of the decision. 
 
 Eleuto. Avila. 
 January 28, 1876. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 467 
 
 [Translation.] 
 Thadeus Amat and Others v. Mexico. No. 493. 
 
 ARGUMENT FOR A REHEARING. 
 
 § 1. While petitioning for a rehearing-, on the 29th of January last, 
 of the present case by the commissioners, the undersigned offered to 
 develop the grounds for his motion. 
 
 § 2. Hoping that the umpire, upon completing the difficult task which 
 he has with such good will endeavored to fulfill, will not refuse to cor- 
 rect the errors into which he may have fallen, the undersigned asks him 
 to consent to devote a few moments to the perusal of this document; 
 and in case he finds in it anything which merits his attention, he will 
 not deny the Government of Mexico the revision which it solicits, nor 
 permit it to suffer greater burdens than those which in justice and 
 equity, and in accordance with the convention of July 4, 1868, it must 
 bear. 
 
 § 3. The points to which the undersigned especially desires to call 
 the umpiie's attention are the following: 
 
 The Government of Mexico did not do the claimants any injury by 
 failing to recognize in them a right which, if they had, they did not 
 try to enforce at the proper time and in the manner and with the dili- 
 gence necessary. 
 
 II. 
 
 By the decree of October 24, 1842, the Government of Mexico did 
 not obligate itself to pay 6 per cent on the nominal value of the proper- 
 ties belonging to the Pious Fund of the Missions of the Calif ornias, 
 but only upon the total sum produced from the sales of the estates and 
 other properties which might be made by virtue of said decree, esti- 
 mating their value "3y the capital represented by its annual product 
 capitalized at 6 per cent." 
 
 III. 
 
 By the later decree of April 3, 1845, the assets and other properties 
 belonging to the Pious Fund were ordered to be returned to the 
 bishop of California and his successors, further providing that those 
 which remained unsold should immediately be turned over to him in 
 order that he might administer and employ them to their proper ends 
 according to the law of September 29, 1836, which law had been 
 repealed in this respect by the decree of February 8, 1842. 
 
 IV. 
 
 If the claim submitted by virtue of the convention of July 4, 1868 — 
 that is to say, the one presented within the time designated and in the 
 way of a "complete, perfect, and final settlement" — is to be decided, 
 it ought to be decided upon the right of the church not with respect 
 to the proceeds or income of the fund, but to the fund itself, to the 
 possession of which the representatives of said church claimed to have a 
 right, and should any part of the properties of the fund be adjudged 
 to them it ought to be in the nature of a final settlement. 
 
468 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 V. 
 
 The commission can not decide with respect to the credits of the fund 
 against the public treasury of Mexico contracted as loans and before 
 the bishop of the Californias was deprived of the administration of 
 said fund. 
 
 I. 
 
 § 4. This argument would seem out of place were it to demonstrate 
 that the fund here treated of never did by any exclusive right belong 
 to the Catholic Church of the Californias, nor that the Government of 
 Mexico ought to have considered itself under obligation to devote its 
 entire value, or a part of it, or a part of its proceeds, to the benefit of 
 the inhabitants of a region which at that time did not belong to said 
 Republic; but, at least, there is one thing that no one will undertake 
 to deny, and that is that neither the right which the claimants seek to 
 enforce before this commission, nor that which it has conceded them, 
 has ever been able to be considered as clear, evident, and unquestion- 
 able. 
 
 § 5. Because, who can maintain that the archbishop and bishops of 
 Upper California ought to receive from the Government of Mexico 
 the whole of the fund of the missions and its proceeds which were not 
 delivered to Bishop Diego, which was the claimant's allegation in 1859 
 and in March, 1370? 
 
 § 6. Nor how could the following proposition be held as an indu- 
 bitable fact since the 30th of May, 1848? 
 
 The Catholic Church of Upper California has a right to one-half the interest at 6 
 per cent on the total nominal value of the properties, debts, and interest not paid 
 to the fund of the missions on February 28, 1848. 
 
 § 7. Before the American commissioner had for the first time given 
 expression to this view, absolutely no one had ever conceived such an 
 idea. The claimants themselves said, in July, 1859 (See No. C), that 
 they believed that the Mexican Government was indebted to them in 
 not less than the total value of the Pious Fund; on the 30th of March, 
 1870, they alleged that "they had a just claim for a large amount of 
 money, to wit, for three million dollars, and that they had a right to 
 the possession of the whole fund" (No A), and still later, on December 
 28 of that year, the claimants so expressed themselves in their 
 memorial : 
 
 Whatever be the method of apportionment adopted, the share corresponding to 
 the Catholic Church of Upper California could not be less than seven-tenths of the 
 whole. 
 
 _ § 8. And, nevertheless, the umpire has decided that "there can be 
 little doubt that Lower California needs the beneficial assistance of 
 the Pious Fund as much as or more than Upper California, and that an 
 equal division of the interest seems to be most just." 
 
 § 9. The right alleged before the commission being, therefore, so 
 doubtful that not even the claimants themselves could define it, how 
 can blame be attached to the Government of Mexico because it did 
 not recognize such right of its own motion? 
 
 S 10. Even in treating of an obligation to deliver an ascertained sum 
 to an ascertained person, if he does not take steps for its recovery, its 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 469 
 
 simple omission can not properly be said to be an injury. How, there- 
 fore, can the omission to pay over an unascertained quantity to a per- 
 son or persons equally undetermined be considered such? 
 
 § 11. And if the difference existing between the obligations of pri- 
 vate persons, whose individuality never changes, and those of govern- 
 ments, which change form, is taken into consideration, then such 
 charge would have still less foundation. 
 
 § 12. In order that this might be so, it would be necessary that at 
 the time Upper California was separated from Mexico the Govern- 
 ment of that Republic was actually paying to the Catholic Church of 
 that part of the country a sum specially designed for its use, and that 
 there was no reason whatever for doubting that it ought to continue 
 paying said sum after the separation; and even in that case it could be 
 said only with excessive hardship that it was bound to make such 
 payment without anyone soliciting it, because that this might be so, it 
 would have to commence by inquiring who the person was, legally 
 entitled to receive it, and even to incur the expense necessary for the 
 remission of the sum of which it might consist. 
 
 § 13. But since for six years before Upper California ceased to belong 
 to Mexico the fund of the missions had ceased to exist in fact and no sum 
 was paid to anyone on account of it; since there was no law which obliged 
 the Government of Mexico to pay any determined or undetermined sum 
 to the bishops of the Californias, and much less any provision or agree- 
 ment to set aside a determined portion for Upper California, and since, 
 finally, such bishop did not exist, nor did any person assert the alleged 
 right of that church, it is more than a hardship — it is a veritable injus- 
 tice — to charge the Mexican Government with the violation of rights. 
 Certainly no government in the world can be charged with violation 
 of rights under such circumstances. 
 
 § 14. It has been said on the part of the claimants that the true scope 
 of the convention of July 4, 1868, was to submit to the commission 
 "all the claims presented, etc., for damages, either to their persons or 
 rights of property, sustained since the date of the treaty of Guadalupe- 
 Hidalgo, proceeding from acts or wrongful omissions of the author- 
 ities, etc." 
 
 § 15. But what is here contended would add in a very arbitrary 
 manner to the text of the convention, which does not speak of damages, 
 but of injuries, not of omissions, but only of acts' {injuries made, etc.). 
 Everybody knows, and the claimants themselves have said in some of 
 their arguments, that there can be damage without injury, "damnum 
 absque injuria," and this commission has decided in a great number of 
 cases that although the interested parties had suffered damages or could 
 have rights against the government sued, no injury had been done 
 them, and their complaints could not, therefore, in accordance with 
 the spirit of the convention, be considered. 
 
 § 16. With respect to omissions, even in the text improvised by 
 the claimants it is necessary, in order that they may be a proper sub- 
 ject for the consideration of this tribunal, that they constitute a notori- 
 ous wrong — that is, that they imply the violation of an unquestionable 
 right or the failure to comply with a clear and well-defined obligation, 
 or that they consist in positive acts, as would have been in case a peti- 
 tion duly presented requesting the acknowledgment of such rights 
 herein considered had been denied. 
 
 § 17. All that there is in the evidence upon this point is the state- 
 
470 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 ment made by one of the claimants, the archbishop of San Francisco, 
 to the effect that "when he was in Mexico in 1852 he asked the Gov- 
 ernment to turn over to him the amounts or property of the Pious 
 Fund, and having received no reply he repeated his request until he 
 was officially notified that the Government could not accede to it;" 
 that is, to a vague petition concerning sums of money and property. 
 
 § 18. Without questioning the truth of said statement, the under- 
 signed can not do less than designate the action of Mr. Alemany as 
 informal, because neither the demand of which there is mention nor 
 the reply made to it seems to have been in writing, as has been 
 observed by the umpire, and because in July, 1859, it was told the 
 secretary of state, on behalf of the claimants, that taking into consid- 
 eration the difficulties in which the Government of Mexico found 
 itself, there had been a delay in making the application to it for pay- 
 ment (No. "G" should be "C"); which proves that they did not con- 
 sider the petition before referred to as formal, if, in effect, any was 
 made by the person so affirming, and who, no matter how respectable 
 he may be, is undoubtedly interested in the claim. 
 
 § 19. It has also been alleged that even if some claims have not been 
 covered by the convention they ought to be considered and decided by 
 this' tribunal, because otherwise it would result that the Government 
 of Mexico would remain absolutely discharged of all the claims of what- 
 ever class, while satisfaction could only be had of those proceeding 
 from injuries to person or property. 
 
 § 20. This observation refers to the article by which the two Gov- 
 ernments agreed to consider the result of the proceedings of this com- 
 mission as a complete, perfect, and final settlement of every claim 
 presented or not presented proceeding out of transactions of a date 
 prior to the date of the exchange of ratifications. 
 
 § 21. But this does not mean that every claim should be specially 
 allowed or disallowed, since in the last part of article 3 it was provided 
 that the commissioners— or in case of disagreement, the umpire — 
 should decide whether a claim had been duly made, presented, and 
 submitted to the commission. 
 
 § 22. In the exercise of this power the commissioners and the umpire 
 have omitted to consider several claims, not because they denied to the 
 interested parties the rights which they sought to enforce, but leaving 
 the rights which they had intact, and simply declaring that in such 
 cases there was no injury to repair. 
 
 § 23. Thus, for example, irt claims arising out of forced loans which 
 were not considered by the present umpire because such loans imposed 
 upon American citizens in Mexico did not constitute an injury, surely 
 the right which they might have had to be repaid the value of such 
 loans has not been denied to the claimants. 
 
 § 24. In the decision rendered in the case of Treadwell & Co., No. 
 149, the umpire has thus expressed himself: 
 
 The umpire can not doubt that, if well founded, the claims will be finally paid 
 by the Mexican Government, to which, the claimants state in their memorial, they 
 have never been finally presented. 
 
 § 25. The same could have been declared in this case, and the under- 
 signed asks that it be so declared, without depriving the claimants of 
 the right, which they may have, to a share of the Pious Fund of the 
 Missions. 
 
Pious fund of the californias. 4^1 
 
 II. 
 
 § 26. But if the umpire should find in this case any injury to be 
 repaired, done by the Government of Mexico since February 2 or 
 May 30, 1848, or shall he believe that the division requested by the 
 claimants ought to be made by this commission, he ought very care- 
 fully to investigate whether on the above-mentioned dates the Govern- 
 ment of Mexico was under any obligation to the Catholic Church of 
 Upper California. 
 
 § 27. The last laws relative to said fund were, that of February 8, 
 1842, that of October 24, of the same year, and that of April 3, 1845. 
 
 By the first of these the care and administration of the fund were 
 turned over to the Government, as they had been until the close of 
 1836, when they were intrusted to the bishop of the Californias by the 
 second; the sale of the productive properties of the fund was ordered 
 so as to avoid the expense of administration, and by the third the 
 properties which had not been sold were ordered to be returned 
 to said bishop, and the right to dispose of those sold was reserved to 
 Congress. 
 
 § 28. With respect to the decree of October 24, 1842, the following 
 points should be examined: 
 
 A. What were the properties belonging to the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias ordered sold by its second article besides the estates ? 
 
 B. What was the price assigned to the estates and other properties 
 which were to be sold? 
 
 C. What was the total amount upon which the obligation to pay 
 interest at 6 per cent was imposed upon the public treasury? 
 
 A and B. 
 
 § 29. The properties of the fund consisted of the following: 
 
 Country real estate. 
 
 Money invested on mortgages on country real estate. 
 
 A "censo enfiteiitico" upon city real estate. 
 
 Debts of private parties in favor of the fund. 
 
 Debts against the national treasury. 
 
 § 30. The objects for which the decree herein referred to was made 
 were undoubtedly two: First, that the fund should produce an income 
 without deduction on account of expense for administration or any 
 other; and,- second, to enable the Government to obtain advantages 
 with the proceeds of the sale of such properties. 
 
 § 31. The first of these objects is textually set forth in the preamble 
 of the decree; the second is so obvious that no one can place it in 
 doubt." 
 
 § 32. When by virtue of the decree of February 8, 1842, General 
 Valencia, who had been appointed administrator of the properties of 
 the fund, demanded the titles of the property, Senor Ramirez, who 
 then administered them as attorney in fact of the bishop of the Cali- 
 fornias, said to him under date of March 4 of that year: 
 
 I hope that you will tell me, for the sake of the fund, what means you have 
 adopted to secure your contracts, when you yourself did not have any, and on 
 account of which a great loss will result to it, because I must in any event obtain the 
 money necessary for the sacred purpose to which the Government applies it, "and 
 
472 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 which was the will of the testator, if interpreted with the prudence and patriotism 
 necessitated by the actual condition of affairs. (No. 15, Exhibit "A," pp. 19 and 20. ) 
 
 It seems that the purpose to which this letter referred was the 
 defense of the integrity of the national territory. 
 
 § 33. Therefore, if the Government, in order to obtain the resources 
 which it needed, realized upon the saleable properties of the fund less 
 than their real value, it does not seem just to burden the fund with 
 the consequent loss; but neither would it be just to hold the Govern- 
 ment responsible for properties from which it was not able to derive 
 any benefit because they had no cash value. 
 
 § 34. Even the American commissioner has recognized this principle 
 of justice and equity in his opinion in favor of the claimants. 
 
 " It will be seen," says he, " that I take no account of the estate of 
 Cienega del Pastor because it was attached and held by Sr. Jauregui, 
 and there is no evidence in this record that the Government ever obtained 
 the property or derived any profit from /#." 
 
 § 35. Thus, therefore, the decree of October 24 ought to be inter- 
 preted in such a manner that by it the Pious Fund should not suffer 
 any loss nor that the Mexican treasury should feel any burden. The 
 properties of that fund ought to be worth the same after the decree as 
 they were before it — no more nor less. 
 
 § 36. In order that this might be so, the same decree adopted the 
 most just method which could be adopted to determine the cash value 
 of these properties. 
 
 § 37. Considering that 6 per cent would have to be paid upon such 
 value, this value couM not be other than what the properties repre- 
 sented by their proceeds capitalized at 6 per cent. For example, the 
 estates of Santa Lugarda and its annexes were mortgaged to the fund 
 for $42,000 at 5 per cent per annum. If the Government should have 
 been obliged to pay 6 per cent upon the same capital, there would have 
 resulted a gain to the fund and an unjust loss to the treasury of $420 
 per annum. 
 
 § 38. But in conformity with the decree it could not be so, because 
 the two following operations would have to take place: First, $42,000 
 at 5 per cent produce $2,100 annually; second, $2,100 interest at 6 per 
 cent represents $35,000. Result: The public treasurv would acknowl- 
 edge an indebtedness in favor of the fund of $35,000 at 6 per cent, in 
 lieu of $42,000 at 5 per cent, the fund receiving, therefore, the same 
 amount as before, no more, no less.* 
 
 § 39. For the computation of values upon this basis, established by 
 this decree, there is a necessary condition that the properties to which 
 it refers should have an annual income, because the only thing which 
 the Government promised to do was to see to it that these proceed, 
 were not less than those which the fund received previous to thedecrees 
 and not to give it those which it did not have. 
 
 § 40. The advantage for the fund was to consist in not incurring any 
 expense of administration, and for the Government in making use of 
 the proceeds of the sale for its momentary necessities. 
 
 « In the brief history of the fund, presented by the claimants on page 5, the follow- 
 ing is said: " On October 24 another decree was issued by which it was ordered that 
 the properties belonging to said fund should be sold for the sum which their income 
 represents (capitalized at the rate of 6 per cent); that the products of this sale be 
 incorporated into the public treasury, and that an obligation to pay an interest of 6 
 per cent upon the above-mentioned capital be recognized on the part of the Govern- 
 ment." 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENTAS. 473 
 
 c. 
 
 ' § 41. Therefore, it follows that in order to collect the interest 
 accrued by virtue of the decree of October, 1842, the claimants ought to 
 have proved, not what the nominal value of the properties of the fund 
 was, but what was the total produced by the sales made in conformity 
 with said decree. 
 
 § 42. When its 3rd article pledged the revenue from tobacco "for 
 the payment of the interest corresponding to the capital of the Pious 
 Fund of the Californias" it undoubtedly referred to the capital which 
 would bring in an income in accordance with said decree, that in to say, 
 to the capital produced from the sales of the properties which at the 
 time produced annual incomes, estimating its value by that which cor- 
 responds to said products capitalized at 6 per cent. 
 
 § 43. To interpret that article without relation to the preceding one 
 is contrary to the principles of equity, which does not permit one 
 party to better his condition to the detriment of the other. "Natura 
 non partitur aliquem locupletio rem fieri cum alterius jactura." (L. 
 206, de Keg. jus.) 
 
 § 44. To condemn the Government of Mexico to pay interest on 
 nominal values and even upon doubtful assets, which had no value and 
 which produced nothing at the time in question, is clearly to make the 
 fund of the missions richer than it then was at an enormous cost to 
 said Government. 
 
 § 45. A court of equity, such as is this commission, can not proceed 
 against the fundamental principle of natural equity. A learned judge 
 can not interpret a part of an instrument without reference to its 
 object and to the fundamental idea of its text. 
 
 § 46. The first steps toward ascertaining the obligations contracted 
 by the Government of Mexico in virtue of the aforesaid decree must 
 be, therefore, to determine the cash value of the properties belonging 
 to the fund of the missions of the Californias by the amount repre- 
 sented by their annual proceeds capitalized at 6 per cent. 
 
 § 47. In accordance with the detailed inventory delivered by Senor 
 Ramirez, attorney for the bishop of Californias, to the administrator 
 of the fund on the 28th - . of February, 1842, in consequence of the 
 decree of the 8th of the same month and } T ear (eight months before the 
 24th of October), the following settlement may be proposed: 
 
 PROPERTY HELD IN EMPHYTEUSIS. 
 
 Interest. Capital. 
 
 The fund received in this manner by the disposition made 
 of the houses Nos. 11 and 12 Vergara street and of an out- 
 building in the Betlemitas alley, $2,625 annually, which 
 represents, at 6 per cent, 143,750 $2, 625. 00 $43, 750. 00 
 
 CITY PROPERTIES." 
 
 The first mentioned in the inventory is the estate Ci^naga 
 
 del Pastor, whose value is not to be taken into account 
 
 for the reason set forth in the opinion of the American 
 
 Commission. (§ 34.) 
 The estate San Pedro de Ybarra was rented for $2,000 
 
 annually, which represents, at 6 per cent, a capital of 
 
 $33,333J $2,000.00 $33, 333. 33£ 
 
 « This undoubtedly should be country properties. — Translator. 
 
474 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNlAS. 
 
 Interest. Capital. 
 
 The estates Custodio, San Agustin de los Amoles, and out- 
 lying properties yielded $12,705, which, at 6 per cent, 
 represents a capital of 1211,750 $12, 705. 00 $211, 750. 00 
 
 Secured by mortgage.— The estate Sta. Lugarda was mort- 
 gaged to the fund for $42,000 at 5 per cent, the annual 
 proceed of which, $2,100, represents, at 6 per cent, a 
 capital of $35,000 2, 100. 00 
 
 35, 000. 00 
 
 $19, 430. 00 $323, 833. 33J 
 
 § 48. The Pious Fund owned no other properties besides those 
 mentioned which actually yielded an annual income, and, therefore, 
 according to the decree of October 24, 1842, the public treasury of 
 Mexico only acknowledged itself indebted to said fund in the sum 
 of $323,833.33i, a which at an interest of 6 per cent would produce 
 annually $19,430. 
 
 § 49. Therefore, according to this decree, there corresponds to the 
 church claimant an annuity of but $9,715. 
 
 § 50. But it will be said that no matter how little the claims of the 
 Pious Fund against private individuals may be worth, it was not just 
 that the fund be deprived of their value, whatever it might be, and 
 that they be incorporated into the national treasury of Mexico, the 
 former losing forever all right to receive any revenue therefrom. 
 
 § 51. Certainly it was not the object of the decree to confiscate the 
 assets of the Pious Fund; and inasmuch as equity does not permit of 
 the improvement of the condition of this fund, neither does it permit 
 of its deterioration. 
 
 § 52. It is necessary therefore, in order to proceed justly and equi- 
 tably, to find a means to avoid both of these extremes, which are 
 equally opposed to natural equity. 
 
 § 53. It would be as unjust to require of the Mexican Government 
 the payment of interest upon capitals which were not yielding any 
 when they were incorporated into the national treasury and upon 
 debts which could not be collected as it would be to declare these 
 capitals and these debts totally lost to the fund. 
 
 § 54. In order to proceed justly it is necessary to examine one by 
 one the sums incorporated into the treasury of Mexico, bearing in 
 mind that the meaning of the decree of incorporation was neither to 
 decrease nor increase the amount of the fund, but simply to do away 
 with the expense of administration and to afford resources to the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 § 55. If the object of the decree had been to give to the fund more 
 than it had had, to guarantee all debts in its favor, however irrecover- 
 able they might be, and to tax the national treasury with the payment 
 of interest upon amounts which previously yielded nothing, and at a 
 greater rate than that apportioned to some of the capitals, the decree 
 would have been enacted simpl y in these terms : , 
 
 All properties and assets of the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias shall be incorporated 
 into the national treasury, which will recognize an indebtedness at 6 per cent on the 
 entire amount which they now represent. 
 
 § 56. But since, instead of this, the decree directed that the acknowl- 
 
 a According to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury for the year 1843, pre- 
 sented by the claimants, up to December 31 of said year there had been paid into 
 the national treasury on behalf of the Pious Fund of the Californias the sum of 
 $323,274.51; that is to say, very nearly the value of the productive properties above 
 expressed, with the difference of less than $558.82. 
 
PIOUS FUNl) Off THE OALIFOKNIAS. 475 
 
 edgment of an indebtedness at 6 per cent would be only on the amount 
 produced by the sales of real estate and ,other properties for the sum 
 which their annual proceeds represent at 6 per cent, there is no doubt 
 that there was. no intention of taxing the public treasury with the pay- 
 ment of interest upon amounts which had not previously yielded any, 
 nor with an increase of the rate of interest on amounts whose proceeds 
 had been less than 6 per cent. 
 
 § 57. What, then, will be asked, was the object of article 3 of the 
 decree? 
 
 It was to insure the payment of interests — referred to in article 2 — 
 on the properties which constituted the capital of the fund, in con- 
 formity with that article — of the properties whose administration was 
 a source of expense to the fund, but which produced regular revenues, 
 because the Mexican treasury was not in so flourishing a condition that 
 it could not only insure the fund against losses, but increase it at its 
 own expense with proceeds which formerly the properties had not 
 yielded to it nor would subsequently yield to the treasury. 
 
 § 58. Consider, with an unprejudiced mind, how absurd a different 
 interpretation of said article would be. 
 
 § 59. "The revenue from the tobacco," it says, "is hereby specially 
 pledged for the payment of the interest on the capital of said fund 
 of Californias, and the director of the office (tobacco revenues) will 
 deliver the necessary amount for the fulfillment of the objectc for 
 which said fund is intended, without any deduction for costs of admin- 
 istration or for other purposes." 
 
 § 60. Now, then, why should it be construed that the interest corre- 
 sponding to the capital of the fund should be 6 per cent of the entire 
 nominal value of the principal and interests and assets of the fund? 
 
 § 61. Does not the decree immediately before say that only that 
 sum, which its annual proceeds capitalized at 6 per cent would repre- 
 sent, would be acknowledged at 6 per cent as the capital of the fund? 
 
 Therefore by interests corresponding to the capital of the fund is 
 to be understood those which correspond to 6 per cent on the capital 
 which yielded annual proceeds, said capital being the only one whose 
 administration occasioned expense. 
 
 Any other interpretation is arbitrary, because it has no foundation 
 either in the letter or in the spirit of the decree, and is contrary to 
 natural equity because it would enrich the fund with serious loss to 
 the Mexican treasury. 
 
 § 62. The most that can be said with respect to the assets ' of the 
 fund is that the state of those incorporated into the national treasury 
 will be neither improved nor injured from what it was prior to their 
 incorporation. 
 
 Let us see, now, what was this condition. 
 
 § 63. The undersigned, in order that this document may be no longer 
 than necessary, has deemed it advisable to limit his remarks upon 
 these assets to those considered as good by the American commissioner, 
 whose figures the umpire has adopted. 
 
 § 64. After repeated efforts to solve the problem concerning which 
 of these assets are the ones which are considered to amount to the sum 
 of 172,122, or the ones which have been disallowed to the extent of 
 $46,617, the undersigned has discovered that there has been an error 
 in the arithmetical operations employed. 
 
476 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA 8. 
 
 § 65. These amounts could be no others than the following: 
 
 Debts of private individuals to the fund taken into consideration. 
 
 1. Mortgage upon the estate Santa Lugarda $42, 000. 00 
 
 2. Dn. Luis Vazquez: 
 
 Capital $3, 000. 00 
 
 Interest 2,275.00 
 
 5, 275. 00 
 
 3. Administratrix of Sra. Huesca 9, 850. 00 
 
 4. Dn. Juan de Dios Navarro 13, 000. 00 
 
 5. Admx. of Sr. Velez Escalante . 33, 782. 62J 
 
 6. Daughters of General Cosio - 325. 00 
 
 7. Dn. Manuel Prieto 316 00 
 
 8. Da. Agustina Montenegro 193. 00 
 
 9. Bondsmen of Dn. Ramon Vertiz 13,997.00 
 
 Total 118, 738.62J 
 
 In order to facilitate the calculation, the five realm, or 62£ cents, of 
 the fifth item were taken as a dollar, and by this means the sum 
 obtained was $118,739. 
 
 § 66. The following were deducted as bad debts: 
 
 The fourth $13, 000 
 
 The fifth 33, 783 
 
 The sixth 325 
 
 The seventh 316 
 
 And the eighth 193 
 
 Total : 47,617 
 
 The following were considered as good: 
 
 The first $42, 000 
 
 The second . 5, 275 
 
 The third 9, 850 
 
 And the ninth 13 997 
 
 Total 71, 122 
 
 In this manner, then, was charged an additional thousand dollars to 
 the good accounts, failing, however, to deduct an equal amount from 
 the bad ones. a 
 
 § 67. The first of these accounts qualified as good has already been 
 considered by the undersigned among the properties which actually 
 yielded annual proceeds; not, however, at its nominal value, but at the 
 value of the capital represented by its proceeds capitalized at 6 per cent, 
 in accordance with the express provision of the decree of the 24th of 
 October, 1842. (See SS 37 and 38.) 
 
 § 68. The second account considered as good was found, according to 
 the inventory of Senor Ramirez, to be in the following condition: 
 
 Don Luis Vazquez, upon his estate Minyo, situated in the department of Yxmi- 
 quilpan, which was sold at public auction in the year 1826, acknowledges in favor of' 
 the Missions $3,000 at 5 per cent, to which amount the $20,000 with which it was 
 encumbered in 1872 (I think this should be 1827, S. Doyle) had been reduced. It 
 appears, from what can be gathered, that the interest was paid onlv the first year, 
 and that accrued from 1827 to February 28, 1842, is still due, amounting to $2,275. 
 
 § 69. That is to say that this capital remained sixteen years in an 
 
 "This arithmetical error implies a charge of $1,260 upon Mexico from the point of 
 view of the decision rendered; that is to say, for interest at 6 per cent for twenty-one 
 years. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 477 
 
 unproductive condition, which obliged Senor Ramirez to express him- 
 self in the resume" of his inventory in these terms: 
 
 Inasmuch as no agreement has been reached for the payment of the interests upon 
 the capital secured by a mortgage of the estate Minyo, no mention is here made of its 
 proceeds. 
 
 § 70. How then could such a debt be considered good? It would be 
 necessary to presume that as soon as it became incorporated into the 
 national treasury with the right to collect it, its entire amount was 
 paid in and commenced to produce a greater income than it had previ- 
 ously yielded, inasmuch as the capital having been invested at 5 per 
 cent a claim is now brought for interest at 6 per cent upon the capital 
 and the unpaid interests. 
 
 What proof is there that the Mexican Government ever received 
 one cent from such a debt? (§ 34.) 
 
 § 72. If in each of. the sixteen years elapsed the debtor was unable 
 to pay the $150, how could he be expected to pay the $5,275 in cash? 
 
 § 73. Supposing that the title or right to collect this debt had not 
 been granted to the public treasury, what can reasonably be supposed 
 were the fund's prospects of collecting it? 
 
 Certainly nothing for interest in arrears, and at the most, after, 
 great expense, the payment of the interest as it falls due. 
 
 § 74. Having considered these circumstances, if this debt is to be 
 taken into account, its cash value should be estimated at half of its 
 total amount, that is to say, $1,500. 
 
 § 75. If the Government is to be held responsible for all the capital, 
 it should not be made liable for the interest in arrears, because the 
 interest owed was as bad a debt as any of those so qualified by the 
 American commissioner and by the umpire; no doubt worse than the 
 debt owed by Dn. Manuel Prieto, who had only paid $100 on account. 
 
 § 76. Now, then, since the revenue from this capital, bearing 5 per 
 cent, would be $150 per annum and as this amount corresponds at 
 6 per cent to a capital of $2,500, only the latter sum can be charged 
 to the Government of Mexico, according to the decree of October, 
 1842, and in conformity with natural equity. (See §§ 37 et passim.) 
 
 § 77. The third debt considered as good is mentioned by Senor Rami- 
 rez in these terms: 
 
 Sefiora Dona Dolores Reyes, resident of Puebla, who as testatrix represents Dona 
 Petra Garcia de Huesca, owes $9,850 for interest in arrears on the $42,000 secured by 
 a mortgage on the Santa Lugarda estate and its annexes before their sale to Sr. Bar- 
 rientos. Many attempts have been made to collect this debt, without result, and therefore 
 an agent was to have been appointed to make this collection. 
 
 § 78. That is to say, that this was a debt not acknowledged, and 
 not then secured by mortgage (because the estate had already passed 
 out of the control of the debtor), and against the estate of a widow, 
 represented by another woman. 
 
 § 79. What were the probabilities of obtaining the payment of this 
 debt? There were none, or at least they were remote. 
 
 § 80. And since it has not been proved on the part of the claimants 
 that the Mexican Government has received one cent of this debt, could 
 it be just and equitable to charge the entire amount to said Govern- 
 ment? 
 
 No matter how little one reflects upon it, one can not answer this 
 question in the affirmative. (See §§33 and 34.) 
 
478 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 §81. It, would have been a veritable fortune to the fund to have 
 recovered, after a costly and lengthy litigation, one-third or one-fourth 
 of said debt. 
 
 § 82. If, then, any conjectural cash value is to be given to this debt, 
 it can not be more than $4,525, it being worthy of notice that this debt 
 represents the interest at 5 per cent since the capital of $42,000 was 
 invested in a mortgage at that rate upon the Sta. Lugarda estate. 
 
 § 83. With regard to the last debt held as good, the undersigned will 
 only remark that although in the inventory of Sr. Ramirez it is stated 
 that that debt had been acknowledged twenty days previously (Febru- 
 ary 8, 1842), it does not mention when it had to be paid, nor that it will 
 bear interest. 
 
 § 84. As has been shown, the other debts of private individuals for 
 which the Mexican Government can be held responsible, supposing the 
 capital secured bj 7 a mortgage upon the estate Sta. Lugarda be in the 
 situation and of the value in which it was considered by the undersigned 
 (§ 47), are the following: 
 
 Annual 
 revenues. 
 
 Mortgage upon the estate Minyo 
 
 Debt of the executrix of Sefiora Huesea . 
 Id of Dn. Vertiz 
 
 1,285.32 
 
 § 85. The undersigned has observed that the American commissioner 
 and the umpire did not take into account the debt charged to the 
 Messrs. Revilla, mentioned in the inventory of Senor Ramirez in these 
 terms: 
 
 The firm of the Messrs. Revilla, for the balance of the estate Arroyozarco, which it 
 bought from the Spanish Government, acknowledges an indebtedness of $40,000, at 
 6 per cent annually. It owes the interest accrued up to the 28th of February of the current 
 year, §26,7703 reals 1 grano. Suit was brought for this amount by the abolished junta, 
 and a receiver appointed, through which, I am informed, resulted serious losses to 
 both the debtors and to the fund, wherefore it was deemed advisable to divide it 
 into installments, and to accept payment of it in small amounts, in hope of a suitable 
 opportunity presenting itself for better securing the debt. 
 
 § 86. This signifies that the firm, the debtor, was virtually in a state 
 of bankruptcy, that it owed back interest covering a period of more 
 than eleven years, and that it had been granted an indefinite extension 
 in which to meet its payments. 
 
 Under these circumstances the debt was absolutely worthless. 
 
 § 87. Did the opportunity which was awaited ever arrive for improv- 
 ing it? Could anything be obtained for it? Was it secured by mort- 
 gage? Nothing of this sort appears, and for these reasons the under- 
 signed is compelled to believe that this debt was not taken into account. 
 
 § 88. But if this debt had been allowed, it surely would not have 
 been for the whole of its nominal value, because no one could estimate 
 what it might bring. The most that could possibly be obtained for a 
 debt of this kind would be to collect half of the capital and nothing 
 for the back interest; that is to say, $20,000. 
 
 § 89. But, on the other hand, the liabilities of the fund, which 
 amounted to $32,350, have not been taken into account, and which the 
 claimants themselves admitted ought to be deducted when they first 
 presented their claim to the Government of the United States in" July, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 479 
 
 1859, until their last argument, dated January 1, 1875, prepared by 
 Mr. John T. Doyle, who first made the claim of 1859. (Document 
 No. 54). 
 
 § 90. And as such discount has not been made without giving any 
 reason for it, the undersigned believes that the amount of said liabili- 
 ties has purposely been offset, with the greatest possible value of the 
 asset chargeable against Senores Revilla. It is impossible that anyone 
 would have knowingly acted against the well-known principle of law, 
 "Bona intelliguntur deducto sere alieno." (L. 72, De jure dotale.) 
 
 § 91. Let us proceed now to examine the debts against the public 
 treasury prior to the 28th of February, 1842, date of the inventory of 
 Sefior Ramirez, although such debts were not offered for sale, nor 
 could they be incorporated into the national treasury, as that same 
 treasury was the debtor: 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 A capital of $20,000, which the public treasury acknowledged at an annual interest 
 of 6 per cent, which was deposited in the ''Caja de Consolidacion" during the time of 
 the Spanish Government. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Another sum of $201,856 6 reals 4 grains, at the same rate of interest, which the 
 Spanish Government took on irregular deposit to meet its urgent deficiencies, pledging 
 its entire revenue for its payment. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 Another sum of $162,618 3 reals 3 grains, which the "Tribunal del Consulado" 
 of this city acknowledged at 6 per cent, with a lien upon the revenue from the 
 tobacco since the year 1810, and which is at present chargeable against the public 
 treasury, which is now responsible for the debts of said corporation. This sum was 
 derived from the sale which was made of the estate Arroyozarco to Don Juan Angel 
 and Don Antonio Revilla. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 Another sum of $38,500, which the college of San Gregorio acknowledged at 3 per 
 cent, in favor of the fund prior to the first expulsion of the Jesuits, and which is now 
 recognized by the public treasury, as Don Antonio Ycara has informed me. 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 Another sum of $68,160, 3 reals, which in 1825 was deposited in the national mint 
 (it having been ordered that the capital of the fund be so deposited) by Don Jose 1 
 Yldefonso Gonzalez del Castillo, who administered these affairs. This amount he 
 received from the Senores Revilla on account of the value of the estate Arroyozarco, 
 which property was disposed of by Sr. Esteva, as is stated in the document from 
 which I derived this information. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Another of $7,000, which, in consequence of an executive order of the supreme 
 Government, that the Srs. Revillas should pay $20,000, their attorney, Don Francis. o 
 Barrera delivered on the 20th October, 1829, together with a promissory note against 
 the German-Mexican Company. 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Another sum of $3,000 borrowed from the fund, on promise of repayment, to cover 
 the expenses mentioned in Article 5 of the law of September 19, 1836. (For the 
 promulgation of the bulls of the bishop of California and for his transportation to 
 the Episcopal See. ) 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 A certificate of deposit for $15,973, 5 reals, payable whenever the cash shall bs 
 available in "the ten per cent fund," proceeding from the loan of $60,000 negotiated 
 by the Supreme Government, which was secured by a mortgage upon the properties 
 of the Californias. 
 
480 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 § 92. It appears, then, that the debts of the national treasury to the 
 fund were the following: 
 
 No. 1 at o per cent 
 
 No. 2 at 5 per cent 
 
 No. 3 at 6 per cent 
 
 No. 4 at 3 per cent 
 
 No. 5 without interest 
 No. 6 without interest 
 No. 7 "without interest 
 No. 8 "without interest 
 
 Total 
 
 Capital. 
 
 Annual 
 interest. 
 
 000. 00 
 856. 79 
 618.40 
 500. 00 
 160. 37J 
 000. 00 
 000. 00 
 973. 62, 
 
 $1, 000. 00 
 10,092.84 
 9, 757. 10 
 1,155.00 
 
 22, 004. 94 
 
 s< 93. If the decree of October 24, 1842, had referred to these assets 
 on ordering the sale of the properties of the fund, and if this sale had 
 been possible in pursuance of the same decree, the interest to be paid 
 after the issuance of the decree would have amounted to the same as 
 before the issuance of said decree, except that instead of represent- 
 ing a capital of $422,975.19 at different rates of interest it would rep- 
 resent $366,749 at 6 per cent, which is the capital represented at this 
 rate by the income of $22,004.94, namely: 
 
 The asset of $20,000, which, acknowledged at 5 per cent, would produce 
 $1,000 per annum, in accordance with the decree, should be estimated at 
 $16,666.66, which is the capital represented by that income at 6 per cent 
 
 That of 8201,856, 6 reals, 4 grains, also recognized at 5 per cent, would pro- 
 duce 810,092.84 per annum, and this income at the rate of 6 per cent corre- 
 sponds to a capital of $168,214 
 
 That of $162,618.40, acknowledged at C per cent, would have remained in 
 accordance with the decree, at its integral value 
 
 That of $38,500, acknowledged at 3 per cent, should produce $1,155, and this 
 annual yield at 6 per cent represents a capital of 
 
 Total assets which might he considered as included in the debt ac- 
 knowledged at 6 per cent interest 
 
 Total interest which these assets would produce after the issuance of 
 this decree 
 
 Capital. 
 
 $16, 666. 60 
 
 168, 214. 00 
 162, 618. 40 
 19,250.00 
 
 306, 749. 06 
 
 Annual 
 interest. 
 
 $1, 000. 00 
 
 10,092.84 
 9, 757. 10 
 1,155.00 
 
 § 94. With regard to the amounts which were due for interest for a 
 long time back, they would have been left, after the decree, in the 
 same condition as they were before, without yielding interest, because 
 neither did the decree require, nor is it reasonable to suppose that 
 such was the intention of the legislator, since it was clearly stated that 
 his aim was none other than that of economizing the expenses of 
 administration of the fund and not to increase its income; and this 
 was true to such an extent that in order to equalize the rate of interest 
 on the capital that yielded an annual income it was ordered that the 
 capital that earned less than 6 per cent should remain only of the value 
 that would represent this same income estimated at 6 per cent. 
 
 § 95. According to the inventory of Senor Ramirez, the following 
 amounts were due for interest: 
 
 On asset No. 1 noo irb a<u 
 
 On asset No. 2 ;i". IS'ls**) 
 
 o nasse *No.3 "::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: llt:ti:it 
 
 On asset No. 4 34 842 50 
 
 Total „.,.,,„.. «564,964.82i 
 
PIOUS FOND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 481 
 
 Therefore the unpaid interest on the assets, which caused the same, 
 amounted then to more than all the assets, including those which did 
 not yield interest. (See § 92.) 
 
 § 96. It should be borne in mind that Senor Ramirez's inventory was 
 made, not by virtue of, and in relation to, the effects of the decree of 
 October 24, 1842, but eight months before that decree was issued — on 
 February 28th of that year — solely for the purpose of delivering the 
 properties of which said gentleman, as attorney for the bishop of the 
 Californias, was actually or virtually in possession, and in compliance 
 with the decree of the 8th of the same month and year, which, article 
 6 of the decree of September 19, 1836, having been repealed, again 
 charged the Government with the administration and employment of 
 the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 § 97. So that on adding in said inventory' the amount of the interest 
 due to the assets upon which it had accrued, nothing else was done 
 except to form a total of the amounts which the Government owed 
 under both aspects, which might have been clone at any other time. 
 
 § 98. For instance, if after the decree of February 8, 1842, no other 
 decree than that of April 3, 1845, had been issued, whereby it was ordered 
 to return to the bishop of the Californias, and his successors, the admin- 
 istration of the Pious Fund, which had been taken from him by virtue 
 of said decree, the account concerning the values of the public debt 
 could have been none other than the following: 
 
 Capital $517, 109. 19 
 
 Interest due up to February 28, 1842 564, 964. 82 
 
 Interest from that date to April 3, 1845 95, 969. 79 
 
 Total 1,178,043.80 
 
 § 99. Because upon what ground could it be maintained that from 
 the day on which the administration of the fund was taken from the 
 bishop the securities of the public debt which before did not bear 
 interest should begin to do so; and, further, that compound interest 
 should commence to run on the amount of the accrued interest? 
 
 There certainly could have been no reason for such a decision, 
 because the decree of February 8, 1842, did not authorize it. 
 
 And it is equally true that it was not authorized by the decree of 
 October 24 of that same year. 
 
 Therefore, there is no reason for computing interest from the date 
 thereof on capital that did not bear interest, nor upon interest accrued 
 up to February 28, 1842. 
 
 § 100. If the intention of the decree of October 24 had been to make 
 so important an innovation, it would undoubtedly have been made in 
 terms so clear that there would have been no room to entertain the 
 least doubt about it. 
 
 § 101. Because the burden that such an innovation would have 
 imposed upon the depleted treasury of Mexico would reach annually 
 the following amount: 
 
 Increase of 1 per cent on $20,000 capital, which bore interest at 5 per cent. $200. 00 
 Increase of 1 per cent on the asset of $201,856.79, which bore interest at 
 the same rate 2, 018. 56 
 
 "Adding this sum to the capital represented by the interest, $517,109.19, makes a 
 total of $1,082,074, leaving a difference of $4, compared with the total stated in 
 the inventory, due to an error hv its author in calculation, he giving as a total of 
 the amounts $206,521.36 and $162,618.41, $369,143.77 instead of $369,139.77. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 31 
 
482 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Increase on the asset of 138,500, which bore interest at 3 per cent $1, 155. 00 
 
 Increase to 6 per cent on the asset that did not bear interest (marked on 
 
 the list as Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 ) , amounting to $94, 134 5, 648. 04 
 
 Increase to 6 per cent on $564,964,825, which was the amount of the interest 
 
 accrued on the assets that bore interest 33, 897. 89 
 
 Annual amount of the burden *- 42,919.49 
 
 Is it reasonable to presume that this new debt should be imposed 
 upon the Treasury without even expressing it in a clear manner in the 
 text of the decree? 
 
 § 102. And what is there in said decree which, though not explicit, 
 may even reasonably be so construed ? 
 
 There is certainly nothing in article 1; in article 2 there is only the 
 obligation to pay interest at 6 per cent on the total produced from the 
 sales of city and country real estate and other properties (it is under- 
 stood that they were marketable), estimated by the capital which their 
 annual proceeds capitalized at 6 per cent represent; that is to say, on 
 the capital that yielded a yearly income, not upon that which was 
 neither capital nor produced incomes; not upon the amount of the 
 unpaid interest, nor of the assets which did not bear interest; and, 
 finally, in the third article the pledge of the revenue of tobacco for 
 the payment of the interest corresponding to the capital of said fund. 
 
 § 103. If then, in the other two articles, it is not stated that the 
 assets which before bore no interest should commence to draw interest, 
 nor that the assets which before bore interest at 5 per cent and at 3 
 per cent should bear afterwards 6 per cent, nor that the amount of the 
 accrued and unpaid interest should in future bear interest at 6 per 
 cent, to declare that all these provisions were comprised in the words 
 "to the payment of the interest corresponding to the capital of the said 
 fund," is to interpret in the most arbitrary manner a phrase whose 
 clear, obvious, and logical meaning is that the revenue from tobacco 
 was pledged to the payment of the interest that should be paid to the 
 fund by the public treasury, according to the provision immediately 
 preceding. 
 
 § 104. The agreement contracted by the Government of Mexico with 
 respect to the fund in question being thus interpreted, let us see how 
 it has been practically construed in the present case, and how it should 
 be construed in justice and equity. 
 
 § 105. The commissioner of the United States, in his decision, says: 
 
 By the decree of October 24, 1842, the public treasury acknowledged an indebt- 
 edness to the Pious Fund of the Californias of 6 per cent per annum on the total 
 proceeds of the sales and pledged the revenue from the tobacco for the payment of the 
 income. This pledge was never kept, but the revenue from the tobacco was other- 
 wise appropriated by the Government. Nevertheless, there is an acknowledged indebt- 
 edness of 6 per cent on the capital of the fund, payable annually. Thh amounts to the 
 sum of $86,161.98, and the first installment was due October 24, 1848. 
 
 § 106. There is in these words a true and an erroneous idea, which, 
 consequently, caused an incorrect calculation. 
 
 It is true that by the decree of October 24, 1842, it was acknowl- 
 edged that the national treasury would pay to the fund 6 per cent 
 per annum on the proceeds of the sales that might be made by virtue of 
 it, but it is not true that interest should be paid at this rate upon the 
 total nominal value of the fund, but only upon the amount which the 
 sales of country and city real estate and other properties that could 
 be sold, and which yielded reven ues, fixing the price at the sum which 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 483 
 
 the actual proceeds of such property capitalized at 6 per cent, would 
 produce. 
 
 § 107. Therefore, the foundation of the argument of the American 
 commissioner should have been the following: 
 
 By the decree of October 24, 1842, the public treasury acknowledged an indebted- 
 ness to the Pious Fund of the Californias of 6 per cent per annum on the proceeds of 
 the sales of the property of the fund that produced revenues, these being estimated as if they 
 rejiresented capitals bearing 6 per cent interest, or, in other words, the Government agreed 
 to pay to the fund as interest the same amount that the fund' received before as revenues of 
 the property which constituted said fund. 
 
 In the second place, it should have determined what were the actual 
 cash proceeds of the fund, and not what was its nominal value, and 
 finally to designate only the amount of said proceeds as being the sum 
 upon which the Government had to pay interest to the fund. 
 
 That is to say, the same settlement that the Government made with 
 regard to the revenues of the hacienda de Ibarra, of the houses Nos. 
 11 and 12 Vergara street, of the three haciendas that were previously 
 leased to Mr. Belaunzaran, it should have made with regard to the 
 capital secured by a mortgage on the hacienda de Santa Lugarda, and 
 as regards the capital secured by a mortgage in the hacienda de Minyo, 
 if said Government found more reason to estimate its revenues than 
 for taking into account those of the hacienda of Cienega del Pastor; 
 and if it should also wish to estimate as saleable property the securities 
 against the treasury, it was not the nominal amount of these securi- 
 ties but that of their revenues which ought to have been taken into 
 consideration. 
 
 S 108. But if, under the supposition that all the goods and assets of 
 the fund were sold, he preferred to charge interest at 6 per cent upon 
 the total produced by such sale, without taking into consideration the 
 sums which such properties had produced, then, in order to be con- 
 sistent with the plan adopted by him of not taking into consideration 
 sums which did not appear to have been converted to the use of the 
 Government (see § 34), he ought to search in the record for the evi- 
 dence concerning what properties of the fund entered into the Mex- 
 ican treasury, and in view of the data which appeared concerning this 
 subject, to have formed the following statement: 
 
 In accordance with the report of the treasury department for the year 
 1843, presented by the claimants (No. 54, p. 196), up to December 
 31 of that year, the receipts of the treasury for the mission fund 
 amounted to the sum of 5323, 274. 51 
 
 According to the report of the treasury department for 1844, also pre- 
 sented by the claimants (No. 54, p. 196), the receipts of the treas- 
 ury in that year from said fund amounted to the sum of 124, 726. 01 
 
 Total receipts of which there is any evidence 448, 000. 52 
 
 Annual interest corresponding to this sum -- 26,880.03 
 
 Half corresponding to Upper California 13, 440. 015 
 
 § 109. It should therefore have devoted to the claimants half of 
 this interest from October 21, 1849, as they themselves requested, 
 until 1868, which amounts to $268,880.30. 
 
 § 110. Indeed, if the decree of October 24, 1842, is taken as the 
 basis of the decision, the important thing to verify is not what proper- 
 ties were sold in conformity with that decree, but how much their sale 
 produced, because, as has already been shown, by that decree it was 
 only acknowledged that the national treasury would pay interest at the 
 rate of 6 per cent on the proceeds of the sale of the properties of the 
 
484 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENTAS. 
 
 fund. If, then, some of the properties were not sold, there should 
 not be charged upon their value interest in accordance with said 
 
 § 111. The claimants have said in their brief history of the fund 
 (p. 5), the following: 
 
 The properties of the Pious Fund at the time of the decree of October 24, 1842, 
 consisted of real estate, urban and rural; demands on the Public Treasury for loans 
 theretofore made to the State; moneys invested on mortgage and other security, and 
 the like. * * * The greater part of the property was sold m pursuance of the 
 last-mentioned decree for the sum of about two million dollars of Mexican money, 
 being the equivalent of that sum in gold coin of the United States (certainly not so 
 at the present time). Although the names of the purchasers are not known to the 
 claimants, they are stated bv Mr. Duflot de Mofras * * * to have been the house 
 of Barai'o and Messrs. Rubio" Brothers: In the above-mentioned sale of the properties 
 of the Pious Fund were not included the securities of the said fund against the Government 
 by reason of loans, etc. 
 
 § 112. It is evidently inaccurate to say that the sale of the properties 
 of the fund, without including the securities against the Treasury, 
 produced two million dollars, because, supposing that all those stated 
 by Sr. Ramirez in his inventory should have been realized upon at the. 
 nominal value stated in said inventory, they would only have been 
 worth $649,047.34, namely: "Capital, representing an annual income 
 at 6 per cent of 134,665 (including that derived from the hacienda 
 "Cienega del Pastor"), $577,583.33; and debts of private individuals 
 (not excluding the bad ones), $71,464.01. 
 
 § 113. But since the claimants knew, through M. de Mofras, who 
 the persons were who paid the two miliums of dollars for properties 
 whose entire nominal value did not amount to a third of this sum, and 
 since it evidently devolved on them who collect interest on the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale of the fund to prove the amount of those proceeds, it 
 is logical to believe that they have tried to do so, and that the only 
 existing data are those which they have furnished to the commission. 
 
 § 114. Therefore, to said commission, the only thing which the 
 party who was bound to furnish the proof has demonstrated, is, that 
 the sale of the properties of the fund, made in accordance with the 
 decree of October, 1842, yielded the amount of $448,000.52, and if 
 there should only be granted to the claimants what belongs to them by 
 virtue of said decree, the amount assigned to them should not be more 
 than half of the interest upon said sum. As to the lack of contra- 
 dictory proofs on the part of the Mexican Government, even suppos- 
 ing that said Government is bound to produce them when it did not 
 acknowledge in said commission the authority to take cognizance of 
 this case, the only thing that can be legally presumed is that the state- 
 ment concerning the properties and assets which constituted the fund 
 presented by the claimants is correct, but not that all of said properties 
 and assets were sold for their nominal value, which is the essential 
 basis in the application of the decree of October, 1842. 
 
 III. 
 
 § 114a. But if this case is to be decided — supposing that the commis- 
 sion believe itself authorized to do so — by the last obligation contracted 
 by the Government, defendant, with regard to the fund, prior to Feb- 
 ruary 2, 1848, that which there is to be assigned to the church, claim- 
 
 a See note of the fourth settlement at the end of this argument. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 485 
 
 ant, is not a part of the revenues of the fund, but that share of the fund 
 iUelf which might correspond to the church. 
 
 In giving to this claim the support which was at the last two sessions 
 of the commission systematically given to the greatest possible number 
 of claims presented against Mexico, the American commissioner not 
 discovering any act of the Government, defendant, which merited the 
 name of injury, proven, the only thing hj said was the following: 
 
 I am firmly convinced that whatever the right or interest of the church of Upper 
 California in the fund for the aid of the works of its missions might have been before 
 the cession of Upper California, that right or interest continued as before; it suffered 
 no alteration. 
 
 That is to say, it is sufficient that the church, claimant, had a right 
 or interest, whatever it might be. in the fund of the missions, before 
 the annexation of Upper California to the United States, in order that 
 such right continue afterwards. 
 
 § 116. If such a conviction be believed sufficient in order to allow 
 the demand as if the commission were created to render effective all 
 rights or interests of Americans, what remains for it to determine is, 
 what was the right or interest of the church, claimant, at the time of 
 the annexation of Upper California to the United States. In order to 
 accomplish this, it is necessary to take into consideration not the pro- 
 visions made since the creation of the fund, nor the condition the lat- 
 ter may have been in during its most prosperous period, but the last 
 enactment relative thereto, and the condition in which it was at the 
 time of said annexation. 
 
 § 117. The last enactment was to the effect that the assets and prop- 
 erties of the fund remaining unsold be returned to the bishop of Cal- 
 ifornia, or his successors, to carry out the purpose of article 6 of the 
 decree of September 29, 1836, without prejudice to the right of Con- 
 gress to decide in regard to such of the property as had been sold; 
 and the fact is, that when said last enactment was made, the greater 
 part of the fund had already been sold. 
 
 § 118. But as this tribunal can not extend its investigation further 
 back than the 2d of February, 1848, and in this case not even so far, 
 but only to the 30th of Ma3 T of that year, when said tribunal consid- 
 ered the church as being possessed of American citizenship, it is 
 necessary, for the only presumption that can benefit the church, 
 to suppose that the devolution had been ordered on May 31, 1848, and 
 that on the same date the claimant requested its fulfillment. 
 
 § 119. They would then have been obliged to formulate their demand 
 
 in these terms: 
 
 The Government has engaged to deliver to the successors of the bishop of the Cali- 
 fornias the unsold properties of the fund of the missions. We are the successors of 
 said bishop in upper California; we ask, therefore, that our share of this property be 
 delivered to us. When the bishop ceased to administer the fund, an inventory was 
 made of the properties that formed it, according to which they should be returned 
 to us less those which may be proved to us to have been sold. 
 
 § 120. With regard to the proceeds which those properties yielded 
 while their administration was in charge of the Government, the claim- 
 ants have no right to exact an account of their employment at a time 
 when they could not claim them as American citizens. 
 
 § 121. The umpire, in giving utterance to the opinion that ' ' the assets 
 of which mention is made in the law of April 3, 1845, should include 
 the debt of the Government for payment of interest upon the proceeds 
 
486 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 of the properties sold which had been incorporated in the national 
 treasury," certainly referred to the time when this law was put in 
 force and to the person who could then demand its fulfillment — that is 
 to say, the Mexican bishop of the Californias — to whom should be 
 delivered, according to the opinion of the umpire, the interest the 
 Government agreed to pay by the decree of October 24, 1842. 
 
 § 122. But this interpretation, even being well founded, would only 
 be applicable to the claimants by the commission, if they had had not 
 only the right to exact the interests, but also the right to claim them 
 before the commission; and it is such a well-known fact that they did 
 not have such rights, that it has believed itself able to concede to them 
 only one-half of the interest accrued since the church acquired Ameri- 
 can citizenship. In other words, the right of the Mexican bishop of 
 the Californias, if he had any, to receive the proceeds of this fund 
 continued in force until the 29th of May, 1848, and this commission is 
 not empowered to inquire whether such right was or was not respected. 
 The right of the American bishop of Upper California commenced, as 
 is said, on the 30th of May, 1848, and only from that date could the 
 part of the fund which should have been delivered to them in con- 
 formity with the law of April, 1845, commence to yield profits to 
 them. 
 
 IV. 
 
 § 123. But the interested parties, instead of presenting their claim 
 at the proper time and in due form to the Government of Mexico, let 
 years and years elapse without advancing any until July of 1859, when 
 they presented the exaggerated claim (qualifying it in the most favor- 
 able manner possible) in which they took unto themselves all t he prop- 
 erties of the fund, without excluding even a small share for Lower 
 California, and all the interests that had not been surrendered to the 
 bishop of the two Californias. 
 
 § 124. As foundation for this claim they quoted neither the decree 
 of October 24, 1842, nor that of the 3d of April, 1845, but solely a 
 fictitious contract between the Government of Mexico and the Pope, 
 by which the former was bound to confide the administration and 
 employment of the fund of the missions to the bishop of the Californias. 
 
 § 125. The undersigned understands that it would be useless for him 
 to attack before the umpire this and the other grounds of the pre- 
 tended-right of the church claimant to the fund in question. It is suf- 
 ficient at pi esent for his purpose to quote the terms in which this claim, 
 under date of July 20, 1859, was presented to the Government of the 
 United States, begging its interposition with that of Mexico, bv means 
 of a petition signed by Mr. John T. Doyle, attorney for the claimants. 
 
 They [says that petition] claim that the Government of Mexico is indebted to them, 
 as trustees for the Catholic people of California, in the total amount of the aforesaid 
 Pious Fund, with the arrears of interest thereon. 
 
 They not only, therefore, demanded the interests of the fund, but the 
 entire capital of said fund, and, in addition, its unpaid interests.' 
 
 § 126. The Government of the United States paid no attention to 
 this claim, and did not even give notice of it to the Mexican Govern- 
 ment. Nine years after, and very probably without having taken it 
 into account, the two Governments negotiated the Convention of July If., 
 1868, article 1 of which says: 
 
 All claims on the part of corporations, etc., citizens of the United States, arising 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORN1AS. 487 
 
 from injuries to their persons or property by the authorities of the Mexican Republic, 
 which may hare been presented to either Government, for its interposition with the 
 other since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo * * • * and which yet remain 
 unsettled, as well as any other such claim which may be presented within the iirne here- 
 inafter specified, shall be referred to two commissioners, etc. 
 
 Article 3, which specifies said time, directed that it should be eight 
 months, counted from the first meeting of the commissioners, and at 
 the most an addition of three months was allowed in the cases where 
 the causes of delay were satisfactorily proved. 
 
 § 127. The first meeting of the commissioners occurred on August 1, 
 1869, and on the 31st of March terminated the ordinary time for the 
 presentation of the claims referred to them by the convention. 
 
 § 128. On the day previous, the 30th of March, 1870, Mr. E. Cas- 
 serly presented the following claim: 
 
 Joseph S. Allemany, archbishop of San Francisco, and Thadeus Amat, bishop of 
 Monterey, California, successors of Francisco Garcia Diego, bishop of the Californias, 
 in their own behalf and in the behalf of all interested, represent that they have a just 
 claim against the Republic of Mexico for a very large sum of money, to wit, for the 
 sum of three millions of dollars. That said claim had its origin in the seizure by the 
 authorities of Mexico of moneys belonging to and property purchased with the pro- 
 ceeds of a fund known as the Pious Fund and created by private contributions, 
 etc. * * * Said Joseph S. Allemany and Th. Amat claim, that as the successors 
 of the said bishop of the Californias they are entitled to the possession of said moneys 
 and of said property, and to the increase, profits, rents, and proceeds of said fund. 
 They therefore ask the aid and intercession of the Government of the United 
 States in obtaining from Mexico recompense for the wrongful seizure of said fund moneys 
 and property, and for the detention of the same, and the payment of all damages 
 resulting from said seizure and detention. (Letter A.) 
 
 § 129. There elapsed afterwards the extra term of three months in 
 which other claims could be presented, and nothing further was offered 
 in this case; and it remained, in consequence, referred to the decision of 
 the commissioners, as above set forth. 
 
 § 130. Any impartial person whatever, and even the American com- 
 missioner himself , could do no less than refuse the claim thus formulated, 
 noticing only that the seizure of the fund by the Mexican authorities, 
 to which it makes allusion, occurred before the 2d of February, 1848. 
 
 § 131. The interested parties must have understood it thus, so they 
 sought a means of transferring the transaction which should serve as 
 a base to the claim to the time over which the jurisdiction of this tri- 
 bunal extends. But it appears that such means did not occur to them 
 until the term for the presentation of claims had already expired. 
 
 § 132. This, nevertheless, was not an obstacle to putting it into exe- 
 cution, since on the 31st of December, 1870, under the guise of a memo- 
 rial of the claim presented in the proper time, they presented another 
 claim entirely distinct. 
 
 § 133. In the former they demanded all the capital of the fund and 
 its accrued interest; in the latter they asked neither the one thing nor 
 the other, but simply the revenues due since 1818; in the former the 
 seizure of the fund by the Government of Mexico was alleged as the 
 cause and origin of the claim; in the latter an agreement to pay certain 
 revenues annually; in the former was asked the reparation for an 
 injury (recompense for the wrongful seizure); in the latter simply a 
 division without alleging, much less proving, any injury. 
 
 § 134. In order to show more clearly the essential difference between 
 the first and second claim, let us suppose a private individual in the place 
 of the corporation that presents it, since for the purposes of the con- 
 vention the case is identical. Juan Fernandez, a Mexican citizen by 
 
488 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 birth and a resident of Upper California, by having continued his resi- 
 dence there after the 30th of May, 1848, without manifesting the 
 desire to preserve his original citizenship, became a citizen of the 
 United States, when the y5ar designated %n the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo had elapsed— -that is to say, the 31st of May, 1848; certainly 
 not before, since until the day immediately preceding he had only to 
 go out of the American territory to preserve his Mexican citizenship. 
 
 Let us suppose that in 1859 Fernandez presented a claim to his new 
 Government against Mexico, alleging that the latter in 1842 had seized 
 some properties that belonged to him, and asking that the return of 
 these properties be demanded of it and the delivery of the profits 
 which they had yielded during the time of their detention. This tri- 
 bunal having been instituted, Fernandez repeated the same claAmwitAin 
 the limit fixed for the purpose — that is, the 30th day of March, 1870. 
 
 How would the commission have decided? Surely it would have 
 denied it, as it has denied No. 114 of Antonio Miranda, No. 141 of 
 Melquiades and Josefa Chavez, No. 379 of Irinea and Francisca Baca, 
 No. 386 of Mariano Armijo, No. 942 of Alejandro Valle, 945 and 946 
 of Donaciano Vigil, and various others presented by Mexicans by 
 birth, but naturalized citizens of the United States by virtue of the 
 treaty of the 2d of February, 1848, for alleged injuries to their per- 
 sons and property caused before that date. 
 
 § 135. Therefore, if the Catholic Church of Upper California, which 
 it was decided to consider as a citizen of the United States \>y virtue 
 of said treaty (as if it were a private individual), should not be privi- 
 leged further by distinguishing its claim, without any reason, from 
 that of any private individual formerly a Mexican citizen and to-day 
 an American citizen, then the claim which it presented within the time 
 fixed in the convention should be disallowed in conformity with the 
 spirit of said convention. 
 
 § 136. The fact that the American commissioner who denied the 
 aforesaid claims took the latter into consideration is sufficient to show 
 that the claim presented in December, 1870, is essentially distinct 
 from the former, since, although the decided inclination of that func- 
 tionary to favor the American claimants can not be doubted, it would 
 be necessary to attribute to him a complete change of opinion to sup- 
 pose that solely because the claim in question was made by the Catho- 
 lic Church he violated knowingly the most explicit stipulation of the 
 international agreement which created this commission. 
 
 § 137. And even supposing that he had carried to this limit his dis- 
 regard for the stipulations of said compact, the umpire, who has 
 refused to sanction many other transgressions of authority attempted 
 bythat functionary, surely would not have supported him in this case. 
 _ § 138. He has done it, without doubt led by the American commis- 
 sioner into the error thatthe claim referred to is the one presented in 
 December, 1870 (which was not the case), in conformity with the con- 
 vention, and not the one presented on March 30 of that year; that is, 
 not the one in which the division of the revenues of the fund in question 
 has been claimed according to the decree of the 24-th of October, 1842, . 
 hut that in which the same fund was ashed, it being alleged that, the 
 claimant church had been deprived of it. 
 
 § 139. This grave error being discovered, since the decision rendered 
 under such misapprehension has not a final and irrevocable character, 
 because the proceedings of the commission have not yet terminated, it 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 489 
 
 ought to be entirely corrected, declaring that the claim referred to it 
 in the present case, not being within the jurisdiction of this tribunal, 
 must remain among the ones rejected for the same reason. 
 
 § 140. But the undersigned can scarcely hope, although he asks it 
 in justice, that after having rendered a judgment so favorable to the 
 church claimant for the benefit not only of the heathen to be converted, 
 but also of the inhabitants of Upper California and the whole people 
 of the United States, it will be entirely reversed. 
 
 I) 141. Considering this, the undersigned was compelled to suggest 
 a point of view by which it may be possible to combine the character 
 of the decision with that of the claim legally presented, even if that 
 point of view does not conform to the text of the convention, which 
 can in no way support the pretension of the claimants, even should he 
 endeavor to reconcile the desire to consider such pretensions in the 
 spirit of said convention. 
 
 § 142. The umpire has f oi'med the opinion that it is morally just that 
 the funds of the missions be employed for the purposes designated by 
 those who created it; that it was intended partly for Upper California, 
 and that the ecclesiastical authorities are the best fitted to employ the 
 share of the fund intended for that region, without taking into con- 
 sideration the circumstance that Upper California, having ceased to 
 form part of the Mexican Republic, may have prejudiced in some way 
 its right to share in the fund. This judgment once having been formed 
 against the opinion of the Mexican commissioner, the umpire saw in 
 the opinion of the American commissioner the question formulated in 
 these terms: 
 
 The question turns upon the amount of the proceeds of the fund that ought to be 
 applied to' each one of the Californias, and upon the total of those proceeds. 
 
 And honestly considering such question as the one referred to this 
 tribunal by the Governments that created it, the umpire sought a way 
 that would express his opinion in the sense referred to. 
 
 § 143. Cei'tainly the undersigned can not believe that the umpire 
 has formed the opinion that the Government of Mexico was obliged bj r 
 law to remit each j-ear on the 24th of October a certain amount of 
 money to the bishops of California, in virtue of a decree that does not 
 so provide, and without it previously having been determined what 
 share of said fund corresponds to Upper California, or even if the 
 latter had any right to such share after its separation from Mexico. 
 
 § 144. No; such obligation could not have been created, except 
 impliedly and upon the supposition that the division which the claim- 
 ants solicited in December, 1870, had been made since the 30th of 
 May, 1848. The undersigned feels fully assured in asserting it thus 
 that he can not be contradicted. 
 
 § 145. By decree of February 8, 1842, the charge of administering 
 and employing the fund of the missions for the purposes designed was 
 withdrawn from the bishop of the Californias, and on October 24 of 
 that same year, when said bishop, not being so charged, on the proper- 
 ties of the funds being ordered sold, it was simply provided that those 
 in charge of the revenue of the tobacco that remained pledged for the 
 payment of the interest at 6 per cent upon the capital to which 
 the decree refers should furnish the sums necessary to fulfill the pur- 
 poses for which the fund was intended. 
 
 § 14fi. In order to declare that according to this provision the Gov- 
 ernment of Mexico has been obliged to remit to the claimants each 
 
490 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 year since 1848 the amount of $43,080.99, the following suppositions 
 are necessary: 
 
 1. That either by the decree of October 24, " issued as supplementary 
 to that.of February 8 of said year, which provided that the supreme 
 Government should resume the care and administration of the Pious 
 Fund of the Calif ornias, as formerly had been the case," that the 
 decree of February 8, 1842, was repealed with respect to that portion 
 by which the bishop of the Californias was retired from the adminis- 
 tration of the fund, or that such decree (that of the 8th of February) 
 was entirely null and void because it violated a contract made with the 
 Holy See in 1836, as the claimants alleged in 1859. 
 
 2. That where the decree of October 24 says simply "those having 
 the revenue of tobacco in charge will furnish the sums necessary to 
 accomplish the purposes of the fund," it must be understood that it 
 orders that each year, on the date of the decree, all the interests on the 
 capital of the fund should be delivered to the bishop of the Californias. 
 
 3. That although by the same decree the public treasury should 
 acknowledge an interest of 6 per cent only upon the total produced by 
 the sales which were made conformably to said decree, of the estates 
 and other properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias, for the cap- 
 ital represented by their proceeds capitalized at 6 per cent, it is to be 
 understood by capital of the fund for the purposes of said decree, the 
 nominal value of the estates, properties and assets of the fund, and the 
 interests accrued upon such assets. 
 
 4. That either the same decree provided that one-half of the sums 
 to be paid should be destined for Upper California, or that on its sep- 
 aration from Mexico it was determined that this part belonged to it 
 and should immediately be turned over to its ecclesiastical authorities. 
 
 § 147. It is seen that in this series of deductions and suppositions 
 the moral conviction that the bishop of the Californias always had the 
 right to administer the fund in question enters largely, and that the 
 text of the decree endeavored to be applied, and that of the 8th of 
 February, 1842, for whose completion the former was issued, are of 
 no value. 
 
 § 148. The umpire in support of his opinions has made the follow- 
 ing observations: 
 
 Neither by tbe Spanish nor the Mexican Government was it ever pretended that 
 the proceeds of the fund were not finally to find their way into the hands of the 
 ecclesiastical authorities or that they were to be applied to any other objects than 
 those pointed out by the donors. After the decree of October 24, 1842, the Mexican 
 Government admitted its indebtedness and the obligation it was under to remit the 
 proceeds of the fund to the bishop of the Californias by issuing orders in his favor 
 upon the custom-house at Guaymas 
 
 The undersigned does not believe that these observations are other 
 than supplementary deductions for want of a positive proof. With 
 respect to the first, it seems to him that it is certainly not the same 
 thing not to oppose a thing going into the hands of a certain person as 
 to be obliged by law to remit it to him; and with regard to the orders 
 issued in favor of the bishop (only one of which the undersigned has 
 been able to see in a printed copy of one of the arguments presented 
 by the claimants), the only thing they prove is that once or several 
 times it was ordered that there be paid to the bishop of the Califor- 
 nias certain sums, but not that the scope of the decree of October 24, 
 1842, should be extended by informal orders, and much less that by 
 the same means be annulled the decree of February 8 of that year, 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 491 
 
 which revoked the last part of the law of 1836, and returned to the 
 Government the administration and employment of the fund, as the 
 umpire has considered in his decision. 
 
 § 149. The last deduction in it, concerning the obligation of the 
 Government of Mexico to remit the properties of the fund to the bishop 
 of the Calif ornias, is the following: 
 
 Such obligation is recognized also by the law of the Congress of April 3, 1845, 
 in which is ordered the return to the bishop of the Californias and to his successors 
 of all of the assets and properties of the Pious Fund that had not been sold, for the 
 purposes expressed in the law of September 29, 1836, without prejudice to what Con- 
 gress might determine with respect to the properties which had already been sold. 
 
 § 150. The undersigned does not see how anything else can be 
 deduced from this law than the fact that properties belonging to the 
 fund of the missions had been sold. Beyond this there is only the 
 declaration that hereafter the bishop of the Californias would be 
 the one to administer the unsold properties of the fund, putting into 
 effect anew that portion of the law of 1836 bearing on the subject which 
 had been revoked in February, 1842. So then, far from recognizing 
 that the bishop of the Californias should have received the proceeds 
 of the fund as legally charged with its employment between 1842 and 
 1845, it shows that he did not have such charge lawfully during that 
 time, since had he held it legally it would not have been deemed neces- 
 sary to restore it to him, citing the law which had at one time con- 
 ferred it upon him and which had been formally revoked in this 
 respect in February, 1842; and at no time previous to the 3d of 
 April, 1845, again put in force in the necessary form, to wit, in that of 
 a law or decree. 
 
 § 151. The undersigned, on showing thus the tenor of the law of the 
 3d of April, 1845, does not intend in any way to reflect upon the inter- 
 pretation of the umpire but only to demonstrate that this, just as the 
 preceding observations made with the same intent, has for a founda- 
 tion not the legal antecedents of the transaction but a moral conviction; 
 not the substance of a law in which is confided to the bishop of the 
 Californias the charge of administering and employing the fund of 
 the missions but the moral conviction that that bishop was the only 
 person for such charge; because, it must be repeated by the written 
 law, just or unjust, he was deprived of it on the 24th of October, 1842, 
 and so remained until April 3, 1845. 
 
 § 152. Undoubtedly for a tribunal not of equity or conscience but 
 a civil one, there is in the present case no other law to consider than 
 that of April 3, 1845, nor other positive obligation to be enforced 
 against the Government of Mexico in behalf of the bishop of the 
 Californias and his successors, than that of returning to them the 
 properties of the fund of the missions unsold at that date. 
 
 § 153. If, therefore, this commission, which is not a court of equity, 
 should not in this case enforce a moral obligation on the part of the 
 Government, defendant, as it has justly refused to enforce all those of 
 like character in other cases, the only thing.it can declare is whether 
 the church, claimant, in its character as citizen of the United States 
 has the right to ask the fulfillment of that law, and what part should 
 be intrusted to it of the properties of the fund to which said law refers. 
 
 § 154. In this manner would have been decided the only claim 
 referred to this tribunal, which, although exaggerated as all are,, in 
 spite of coming from holy persons, can not but be considered as the 
 
492 PIOUS FOND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 claim that the share which legally might belong to it of the fund of 
 the missions be assigned to the Catholic Church of Upper California. 
 The claimants ask all the fund and all its former proceeds. It is for 
 the commission to decide (if it believes itself to be competent), accord- 
 ing to article 3 of the convention, what part of the claim duly made, 
 presented, and submitted ought to be allowed to the interested parties; 
 that is to say, what part of the fund is to be intrusted to them. 
 
 § 155. But also, according to the convention, it is necessary that in 
 the interest of the two Governments that celebrated it, and in con- 
 formance with the spirit in which it was negotiated, the case be decided 
 in a manner complete, perfect, and final, bearing in mind that "the 
 claim. presented in it and referred to the commission will be considered 
 and treated, the proceedings concerning it having been concluded, as 
 finally settled, rejected, and forever inadmissible." 
 
 The claim presented in this case previous to the convention, and after- 
 wards within the time allowed it, and consequently the one referred to 
 the commission, concerns the delivery of the fund, and the proceed- 
 ings of the commission having terminated, it ought to be considered 
 by the two Governments interested as forever settled, notwithstanding 
 the reservation made by the claimants at the end of their memorial, or, 
 more exactly, the new claim of December 28, 1870. 
 
 § 156. But if the decision rendered is sustained, the claimants will 
 probably pretend to give it a permanent effect, alleging that by it they 
 have been adjudged entitled to receive a determined sum annualty. 
 The Government of Mexico, which can not believe itself bound, accord- 
 ing to the convention, except for the payment of the sum that may 
 be charged against it as balance, a balance having been struck between 
 the amounts of the indemnities expressly assigned to the claimants, 
 one country against those of the other, shall refuse to extend the effect 
 of such judgment after the 24th of October, 1868; and it will be nec- 
 essary to discuss anew the question whether the decree of the 24th of 
 October, 1842, gave to the Catholic Church of Upper California the 
 right to receive annually 143,080.99 or any other quantity whatsoever. 
 
 § 157. The immense sacrifice the Mexican people has made to free 
 its own country from the ecclesiastical yoke are well known to the 
 world. How, therefore, would they receive the claims which would 
 constitute it a perpetual tributary to a foreign church ? Would this be 
 the way "to maintain and increase the friendly relations between the 
 Mexican Republic and the United States," which was the object of the 
 celebration by the two Governments of the convention of July 4, 1868? 
 
 It would have a contrary effect certainly, and for this reason the 
 undersigned has said that the present case should be decided conform- 
 ably to the spirit of the convention; that is to say, without leaving any 
 motives or pretexts for fresh claims. 
 
 V. 
 
 _ § 158. The point of view proposed by the undersigned for the deci- 
 sion of this case being adopted (which point of view is only suggested 
 because of the reason shown in § 140), there must be determined what 
 are the properties of the fund in question, of whose value a share must 
 be assigned to the church claimant, according to the law of April 3, 1845. 
 § 159. This law directed that there should be returned immediately 
 to the bishop of the Californias and his successors the assets and other 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 493 
 
 properties belonging to the Pious Fund remaining unsold, but since 
 those which were then sold, not having been designated, we suppose 
 that the Government contracted the obligation to return all the assets 
 and properties of the fund in the same state they were in when the 
 attorney of said bishop delivered them in virtue of the decree of Feb- 
 ruary 8, which took from him the charge of administering and em- 
 ploying them for their objects. 
 
 § 160. In respect to the proceeds which such assets and properties 
 had yielded during the time the Government had them in charge, if it 
 did not employ them for the purposes for which they were intended 
 no one had the right to demand from it any account of them , 
 
 § 161. Let us suppose, moreover, that no properties nor debts 
 against private parties were returned to the bishop of the Californias, 
 and let us examine this point relative to the return of the debts owed 
 by the public treasury. 
 
 § 162. In regard to them, what was there that should be returned? 
 Certainly not the amounts which they were worth, but the titles that 
 represented them — that is, the right to collect them. Just as in the 
 return of a debt owed b} T a private person, for example, that of 
 $13,997 that the bondsmen of Dn. Ramon Vertiz had promised to pay 
 to the fund, not the sum due but the security given by said bondsmen 
 on February 8, 1812, would have been returned "to the bishop, so also 
 the return of the debts against the Treasury should - have been made 
 by the delivery of their titles. 
 
 § 163. But in the instruction or inventory which the attorney of the 
 bishop delivered with the properties of the fund we find the follow- 
 ing note: 
 
 Only a few days ago was I able to recover of the debts (against the public treas- 
 ury) the certificate of indebtedness for the capital of $162,618 3 reals 3 granos that 
 the consulate received. All that is known of the others is that the interest was 
 paid by the general treasury, and these items can be proved by the books which are 
 there kept. 
 
 So it is seen that only one of the sums was represented by transfer- 
 able security. The others were only recorded in the book of the pub- 
 lic debt. 
 
 § 164. How, therefore, could the delivery of those sums be made? 
 Purely and simply by the effect of the law or ipso jure. From the 
 moment it was ordered that the debts against the public treasury 
 be returned immediately to the bishop of the Californias it must 
 be understood that the right to collect them was returned to him, 
 that he received the titles necessary to that end. In going to the 
 treasury to demand the payment of the interest he would not have 
 had to present any other title than the law which had returned those 
 estates to him, even with respect to the only one which was acknowl- 
 edged, since it is sufficient that they belong to the fund in order that 
 by virtue of that law the bishop of the Californias might have the legal 
 personality necessary to that end. 
 
 § 165. So it is that by a simple supposition, but one according to 
 law, the credits of the Pious Fund against the national treasury ought 
 to be considered as returned to the bishop of the Californias April 3, 
 1845, by virtue of and the immediate effect of the law of that date; said 
 law being entirely fulfilled in this part, and the above mentioned 
 bishop being in possession of all those assets. 
 
 In consequence according to that law, nothing can be conceded to 
 
494 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKTJIAS. 
 
 the claimants in respect to the assets, because the only thing they could 
 ask as successors of the bishop of the Californias he had obtained. 
 
 § 166. But the ground of their claim in regard to the assets of the 
 fund against the national treasury is distinct from the rest of it. In 
 their "Brief History of the Fund, etc.," presented on December 31, 
 1870, as an exhibit attached to the new claim which they made under 
 the guise of a memorial, we read the following: 
 
 In the said sale (the one made in virtue of the decree of October 24, 1842), the 
 assets of the fund against the Government, by reason of loans, icere not included * * *. 
 Some of these debts (the largest certainly) antedated the separation of Mexico from 
 the dominion of Spain; but as they were debts of the viceroyalty of New Spain they 
 were assumed and recognized as debts of the Mexican Republic, not only by the law 
 of the 28th of June, 1824, but also by article 7 of the treaty of December' 28, 1836, 
 between Mexico and Spain. The interest of this capital must therefore be added to 
 that of the proceeds of the sale in order to determine the amount of the revenue due 
 and now unpaid by Mexico to the Pious Fund. (Page 6. ) 
 
 Therefore the claimants demand that the commission compel the 
 Government of Mexico to pay a part of its public debt simply because 
 by a law and a treaty it acknowledged itself responsible for the debts 
 contracted by the viceroyalty of J\ew Spain. 
 
 § 167. In order that we may see more clearly the character of the 
 claim, it is convenient to consider it as that of an individual, as has 
 been done with the other in § 134. 
 
 The Juan Fernandez who was there mentioned presents the follow- 
 ing claim: 
 
 My ancestors possessed large estates in Mexico at the time when it was a Spanish 
 colony. The viceroys demanded of them various loans to cover the public expenses. 
 After Mexico became independent it acknowledged the debts of the viceroyalty. In 
 my inheritance I acquired the right of recovering the debts originated by those loans, 
 but during the time I was a Mexican citizen I could obtain nothing for them. Now 
 that I am a citizen of the United States I ask the commission that it direct that they 
 be paid to me. 
 
 § 168. Could such a claim be successful before this tribunal? The 
 undersigned believes he can assure himself it would not, basing his 
 opinion on all the decisions of analogous cases. 
 
 In the first place the commission is not competent to determine if 
 the loans from which the debt claimed proceeded were legally exacted 
 or constituted an injury, because they date from an epoch over which 
 the jurisdiction of this tribunal does "not extend; in the second place, 
 although such loans had been exacted from an individual or a corpora- 
 tion with American citizenship after February 2, 1818, according to 
 the decisions of the umpire, they should not be considered, from a gen- 
 eral point of view, as matter proper for the cognizance of the com- 
 mission; and finally, there is set up as an origin for the claim the 
 enforcement of a contract made with Spain, or one which the law by 
 which the Mexican Government acknowledged the debts of the vice- 
 royalty implies, then, as this species of contract was made when the 
 church claimant did not have American citizenship, the case becomes 
 identical in this respect to that of Morris Taussig (No. 39 R. A.), in 
 the decision of which the umpire expressed himself as follows: 
 
 This contract was made some time before Morris Taussig became a citizen of the 
 United States * * * the umpire does not think that the commission can make any 
 moard m compensation for losses suffered on account of a contract entered into before 
 Taussig was a citizen of the United States. 
 
 Secondly, if the fact that the party claimant is a religious corpora- 
 tion does not give it any privilege over any other private individual, a 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 495 
 
 citizen of the United States, a demand for the enforcement of the 
 contract entered into by the Government of Mexico before said party 
 possessed American citizenship should not be allowed. 
 
 § 169. Summing up all that has been said in relation to the assets of 
 the fund against the public treasury there results: 
 
 1. That they are not claimed (nor can be claimed) according to the 
 decree of October 24, 1842, because they were not nor could have been 
 affected by it; because it is absurd to suppose that a debtor incorpor- 
 ates into his treasury his own debt; because the claimants declare that 
 the debts against the State were not included in the sales of the prop- 
 erties of the fund; and, finally, because by said decree the Government 
 did not contract further obligation than that of paying to the fund 
 (not to the bishop of the Calif ornias) interest at 6 per cent on the pro- 
 ceeds of the sales of the country estates and other properties of the 
 fund for the sums represented by their proceeds capitalized at 6 per 
 cent. 
 
 • 2. That, according to the law of the 3d of April, 1845, the only obli- 
 gation contracted by the Government in regard to assets was to return 
 them to the bishop of the Calif ornias; and this obligation was entirely 
 fulfilled in regard to the debts against the public treasury by the imme 
 diate effect of the same law. 
 
 3. That this commission can not, if it is to be consistent with its own 
 decisions and be subject to the convention that created it, order paid 
 debts contracted by the Spanish Government only because the Govern- 
 ment of Mexico acknowledged them in the years 1824 and 1836, since 
 neither the jurisdiction of said tribunal extends over said epoch, nor 
 had the legal person making the collection when the obligation orig- 
 inated the citizenship which he to-day claims. This is applicable also 
 to the sums borrowed from the fund by the Mexican Government, for 
 the recovery of which the claimants do not allege any reason. 
 
 For these reasons the commission ought not to decide anything 
 respecting the debts of the fund against the public treasury of Mexico 
 proceeding from loans which antedate the separation of the manage- 
 ment of the same fund from the bishop of the Californias. 
 
 § 170. But there is even another motive for this refusal to decide, 
 which the undersigned respectfully submits to the consideration of the 
 umpire. Since the obligation of the Government of Mexico regarding 
 the debts contracted by the viceroyalty in favor of the fund to cover 
 the public expenses of what was then the colony of New Spain proceeds 
 from the fact that that Government on succeeding the Spanish in the 
 representation of the sovereignty became substituted in the agreements 
 to pay the debts contracted by the public administration, the Govern- 
 ment of the United States should also, as successor of Mexico in Upper 
 California, pay pro rata, or proportionally to the territory acquired by 
 it, the part of the debt contracted to defray the general expenses of 
 the colony of which that territory formed part. 
 
 If it should appear improper for this tribunal to decide it thus, it is 
 no less so to determine any other question whatever relating to the 
 public debt of the Government of Mexico, especially taking into 
 account the debt contracted in an epoch to which the jurisdiction of 
 this commission does not extend. And for this reason it can not be 
 declared whether the Government is obliged to pay the capital taken 
 b}^ its predecessor and by it as a loan before February 2, 1848, nor can 
 anything be determined in respect to the interest of that capital, 
 
496 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 because to order their payment would be absolutely the same in prin- 
 ciple as to order the payment of the capital. 
 
 § 171. Finally, to oblige the Government of Mexico to pay the inter- 
 est of one part of its public debt — when it is well known that it can 
 not pay it to all of its creditors — is to establish an irritating privilege 
 in favor of an American corporation which could not even make valid 
 this title at the time of the origin of the debt. 
 
 § 172. Having treated of the points indicated at the beginning of 
 this argument, it remains for the undersigned to respectfully request 
 the umpire that, weighing carefully the arguments set forth, he adopt 
 for his final decision the point of view that appears to him most just, 
 equitable, and proper, with respect to the two parties interested, fur- 
 ther taking into consideration that since February 2, 1848, the Gov- 
 ernment of Mexico has not received anj>- benefit from the fund in 
 question, and if the Catholic Church of Upper California has had the 
 right since May 30 (1848) to the amount that to-day may be assigned 
 to it of the capital of this fund, it has been the fault of its representa* 
 tives not to have diligently demanded the division of the fund from 
 that time forth. It is not just, therefore, to burden that Government 
 with the payment of interest on that sum, for the same reason given 
 by the umpire f of not conceding to the claimants the payment of com- 
 pound interest, to wit, that the refusal of the Government to adjust 
 this matter at the proper time is not satisfactorily proved. The pay- 
 ment of interest for a sum is either the return of proceeds received 
 or a penalty for culpable delay, and in the present case there is neither 
 one reason nor the other for pronouncing in favor of such payment. 
 
 § 173. According to what has been shown, the writer could limit 
 himself to the formulation of the following: 
 
 PETITION. 
 
 That if the umpire finds sufficient reasons for considering this claim 
 as coming within the jurisdiction of the commission, he will decide the 
 claim completely, assigning to the Catholic Church of Upper Califor- 
 nia the share of the capital of the fuitd to which he believes it is 
 entitled, excluding the debts against the public treasury, . without 
 granting it interest for the time in which the representatives of the 
 church should have taken steps for the division of the fund and failed 
 to do so. 
 
 Supposing that the share assigned to said church be half of the fund, 
 its amount would be the following: 
 
 For half of the cash value of the properties of the fund (see § 47) $161, 916. 66£ 
 
 For half of the cash value of the debts against private parties (see 
 §§63-90) 10,711.00 
 
 Total 172,627.66^ 
 
 § 174. But as the undersigned can not hope that his observations are 
 formulated with sufficient clearness for their importance to be per- 
 ceived, he deems it convenient to present also the other settlements 
 which could be made in the decision of the case, on the basis that may 
 be adopted for it, to wit: 
 
 1. Granting interest upon the amount assigned as half of the capital 
 of the fund for the time elapsed since the church claimant might have 
 recovered it until July 31 of the present year, the period of time 
 designated for interest in the cases in which it has been granted. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS, 497 
 
 2. Assigning to the church claimant half of the capital of the debts 
 of the fund against the public treasury. 
 
 3. Granting interest upon the half assigned of said debt also from 
 May 30, 1848, to July 31, of the present year. 
 
 4. Insisting on assigning to the church, claimant, only interest, as if 
 the decree of October 24, 1842, had given it right to receive it; but 
 regulating its settlement according to said decree. 
 
 5. Conceding, moreover, the payment of the interest, which can be 
 considered as acknowledged as being due on the debts of the fund 
 against the public treasury on account of the law of June 28, 1824, and 
 article 7 of the treaty of December 28, 1836, between Mexico and 
 Spain — the only grounds alleged in support thereof, and the only pro- 
 visions applicable in this particular case. 
 
 First settlement. 
 
 Annual interest upon the sums of $172,627.66$, $10,357.66, computeu. 
 from May 30, 1848, to July 31, 1876 $291,746.09 
 
 Note. — This settlement is made from May 30, 1848, that being the date from which 
 the umpire has considered the claimant as having American citizenship; but accord- 
 ing to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the Mexican residents of Upper California 
 were not to be considered as American citizens until after May 30, 1849. 
 
 Second settlement. (See § 91.) 
 
 Half of the debt of $20,000 placed in the Caja de Consolidation during 
 
 the Spanish rule $10, 000. 00 
 
 Half of $201,856, 6 reals 4 grains which the Spanish Government took 
 
 from the fund for its necessities 100, 928. 37$ 
 
 Half of $162,618, 3 reals 3 grains that the Tribunal del Consulado owed. 81, 309. 20 
 Half of the capital of $38,500 that the College of San Gregorio owed to 
 
 the fund 19,250.00 
 
 Half of $68, 160, 3 reals that Minister Esteva distributed in 1825 34, 080. 18J 
 
 Half of $3,000 taken from the fund to promulgate the bulls of Bishop 
 
 Fr. FranciscoG. Diego 1,500.00 
 
 Half of a note for $15,973, 5 reals due when a certain mortgage on the 
 
 fund (not well defined) should be paid 7, 986. 81 
 
 Total 255,054.57 
 
 Note. — -The debt, of $7,000, classed as bad by the American commissioner, is not 
 included. 
 
 Third settlement. 
 
 Interest, at 5 per cent, on half of the debt of $20,000, this being the rate 
 which the public treasury acknowledged according to the instruction of 
 Sr. Ramirez, $500. Amount of this interest from May 30, 1848, to July 
 31,1876 $14,083.56 
 
 Interest, at 5 per cent, on half of $201,856, 6 reals 4 grains taken at that 
 rate by the Government according to the instruction mentioned .. 142, 143. 13 
 
 Interest, at 6 per cent, on half of the debt acknowledged at this rate by the 
 Tribunal del Consulado 137, 414. 72 
 
 Interest, at 3 per cent, on the half of the debt acknowledged at this rate by 
 the College of San Gregorio 16, 266. 51 
 
 Total 309,907.92 
 
 Note. — The interests have been computed at the rate of their respective invest- 
 ments and only upon the assets that yielded them, because neither the law of June 
 28, 1824, nor article 7 of the treaty of December 28, 1836, nor any law or decree 
 changed the rates of the interest of the public debt to the fund, nor was the part of 
 that debt which yielded no income acknowledged as bearing interest. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 32 
 
498 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Fourth settlement. 
 
 Half of the annual interest 6n the value of the properties of the fund, 
 estimated according to the decree of October -24, 1842 — that is, by that 
 corresponding to their proceeds calculated at 6 per cent (see § 47), 
 $9,715. Amount in twenty years, viz, from October 24, 1849, until the 
 same date of 1868 $194,300.00 
 
 Half of the annual interest of the proceeds of the debts of fund against 
 private parties (see §§ 63-90), $642.66, amounting in the time stated in 
 the previous item to 12, 853. 20 
 
 Total 207,153.20 
 
 Note. — The interests have been computed only from October 24, 1849, because 
 the claimants themselves have recognized that it should be thus, expressing them- 
 selves in these terms: 
 
 " We have no right to claim all that was due and remained unpaid before the treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo, because until that time the nationality of the church had not 
 changed, and the damage (absque injuria) was not caused to citizens of the United 
 States. But the first, payment after that date became due on October 24, 1849, and 
 then, for the first time, it could have been demanded (although it was not)." (See the 
 last reply of Mr. Doyle, dated January 1, 1875, No. 50. ) 
 
 Thus, to grant interest to the claimants from the year 1848, inclusive, is to give 
 them more than what they themselves ask, and, as it is said, "to show one's self 
 more popish than the Pope." 
 
 Fifth settlement.. 
 
 Annual interest upon half of the first debt of the fund against the public 
 treasury at the rate of its investment, $500. Amount in twenty years 
 from 1849 to 1868 $10, 000. 00 
 
 Annual interest upon half of the second debt at the same rate of 5 per 
 cent, $5,046.41 100, 928. 20 
 
 Annual interest upon half of the third debt at 6 per cent, which was the 
 rate of its investment, $4,878.55. Amount in twenty years 97, 571. 00 
 
 Annual interest upon half of the fourth debt at 3 per cent, the rate rec- 
 ognized, $577.50 11,550.00 
 
 Total 220, 049. 20 
 
 Note. — The reasons for this proposed settlement are the same as expressed in the 
 notes to settlements 3 and 4. 
 
 The Government of Mexico trusts that the umpire examining this 
 case anew will render finally a decision on it that, without depriving 
 unjustly the inhabitants of Upper California and all the people of the 
 United States of the benefits to which they may be entitled with 
 respect to the Pious Fund of the missions, will either leave the question 
 intact as outside the jurisdiction of this tribunal or decide it in a com- 
 plete manner and without imposing more hardship upon the Mexican 
 people than that which legal justice, equity, and the principles of 
 public law require. 
 
 Eleuterio Avila. 
 Washington, September 19, 1876. 
 
PAET VI. 
 
 Record of proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration 
 under The Hague Convention of 1899 in the matter of the Pious Fund 
 of the Calif ornias, from September 15, 1902, to October 14, 1902, 
 including copy of the official minutes, or proces-verbaux, with index. 
 
 499 
 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 In the judge's room before the opening of the sessions of the Tribu- 
 nal, the following address of welcome was delivered by Baron Melvil 
 van Lynden, President of the Administrative Council: 
 
 " Messieuks les Membres'du Premier Tribunal Arbitral: C'est 
 avec un veritable int^ret et un sentiment, je dirais presque d'allegresse, 
 que nous vous faisons accueil au nom du Conseil Administratif dans ces 
 locaux, destines au f onctionnement de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage. 
 
 "Ladite Cour, dont vous §tes les representants, a ete institute par 
 l'entente commune des Puissances, qui se sont reunies sur la genereuse 
 initiative de l'Auguste Souverain, Empereur de toutes les Russies, 
 pour diminuer autant qu'il leur serait possible les horreurs de la 
 guerre, et, en premier lieu, de les preVenir, en fournissant au mond'e 
 une autre maniere de r^soudre les difficultes et les questions qui sur- 
 giraient entre Nations. Cette entente a mene a la conclusion de la 
 Convention de La Haye pour le reglement pacifique des conflits inter- 
 nationaux, par laquelle, entre autres moyens, un systeme d'arbitrage 
 a ete elabore, partant du principe que la decision des questions inter- 
 nationales serait devolue aux hommes les plus competents, designes a 
 cet effet par les Gouvernements signataires, et jouissant d'une inde- 
 
 f>endance complete. Les hommes eminents, ainsi designes, formeraient 
 a Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage, du sein de laquelle seraient pris les 
 juristes, qui composeraient pour chaque cause le Tribunal arbitral. En 
 son entier, la Cour nese reunit jamais; mais chaque Tribunal arbitral 
 la repre"sente, en quelque sorte comme dans la procedure ordinaire 
 chaque Chambre d'une Cour rend ses arrets au nom de cette Cour. 
 
 "Apres la conclusion de la Convention on a de suite procede aux 
 mesures necessaires pour la mettre a, execution, en sorte qu'au premier 
 Janvier 1901 tout se trouvait pr§t pour mettre en activite le systeme 
 d'arbitrage. Les locaux se trouvaient prepares, les fonctionnaires du 
 Bureau International etaient nommes, les services etaient organises, un 
 nombre suffisant de Membres de la Cour etaient designes, on n'attendait 
 plus que les causes a juger, mais — comme si les questions n'abondaient 
 pas — les causes faisaient defaut. Personne ne semblait vouloir inau- 
 gurer une maniere de proceder, que tous avaient pourtant juge" etre la 
 meilleure. 
 
 "II etait reserve au Nouveau-Monde de donner l'exemple et de 
 reVeiller la Vieille Europe, qui semblait assoupie, ou du moins insou- 
 cieuse a cet egard. La grande Bepublique de l'Amerique du Nord et 
 sa voisine, celle du Mexique, voyant que personne ne bougeait, et qu'une 
 institution, qu'elles aussi avaient contribue & fonder, risquait de tomber 
 dans l'oubli par d6su6tude, se sont mises d'accord pour montrer au 
 monde civilise que ce n'est pas a une vaine chimere qu'elles avaient 
 adhe're' en constituant cette Cour, mais qu'elles entenaaient en faire 
 vraiment un instrument vivant de paix et de concorde, en lui deferant 
 la solution de differences d'opinion existant depuis longtemps entre 
 elles. 
 
 501 
 
502 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 "Eh bien, Messieurs, le Conseil Administratif, qui n'a ni le droit ni 
 le d^sir de s'immiscer dans la jurisprudence de la Cour, a pourtant 
 senti le besoin de vous temoigner la vive satisfaction qu'il eprouve a, la 
 suite de ce noble exemple, donne" par les deux R6publiques d'outremer, 
 et de venir vous souhaiter, a vous, premiers Arbitres fonctionnant de 
 la maniere prevue par la Convention de la Haye, la bienvenue dans 
 ces lieux a l'occasion de votre premiere stance. 11 met a, votre pleine 
 et entiere disposition le personnel et les locaux du Bureau International 
 et il exprime le voeu, qu'une fois entamee, Taction de la Cour Perma- 
 nente d Arbitrage ne cessera pas tant que des causes de dissentiment 
 continueront a exister entre les Nations, et que son intervention, 
 appellee par celles-ci de leur propre gre* et ne s'imposant par la force 
 a personne, contribuera puissamment au maintien de la paix du monde." 
 
 To the foregoing address of welcome Prof. H. Matzen, president of 
 the tribunal, replied as follows: 
 
 "Excellences: Au nom da Tribunal ici present j'ai l'honneur de 
 remercier Votre Excellence pour les bonnes et aimables paroles qu'Elle 
 a bien voulu nous adresser, ainsi que toutes Vos Excellences ici pre- 
 sentes, President et Membres du Conseil administratif de la Cour Per- 
 manente d'Arbitrage, du courtois accueil qu'Elles ont bien voulu 
 nous faire. 
 
 "Je tiens a, vos exp rimer notre sincere gratitude pour toutes les 
 mesures efficaces que vous avez prises pour l'installation de la Cour 
 dArbitage et de ses differents services administratifs, dont nous som- 
 mes les premiers a, profiter. 
 
 " Nous espeVons que Vos Excellences nous feront l'honneur d'assister 
 a la premiere seance du premier Tribunal d'Arbitrage emane de la 
 Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, qui a ete' e"tablie par les Puissances des 
 deux Mondes pour faciliter le recours a 1' Arbitrage et le Tribunal 
 actuellement constitue est la preuve evidente que l'institution de la 
 Cour n'a pas ete infructueuse. 
 
 "Le Tribunal represente les premiers de ces fruits. Peut-etre. di- 
 ra-t on que ces fruits sont encore un peu rares et plut6t modestes et 
 qu'une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps, mais il nous est permis 
 d'esperer neanmoins que dans l'avenir sous 1'egide et grSce aux bons 
 soins du Conseil administratif, representant les Puissances reunies 
 qui ont cree l'institution, elle portera de plus en plus de bons fruits de 
 sorte que la Ville de la Haye, la Residence Royale, ou siege la Cour 
 sous les auspices de Sa Majeste l'Auguste Souveraine des Pays-Bas, 
 deviendra de plus en plus le centre de la justice internationale et par 
 cela mgme le foyer de la paix d'oii rayonne la bonne et cordiale 
 entente entre les Nations." 
 
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL. 
 
 Seance du 15 septembre 1902 {matin). 
 
 ,. L l a , udience est ouverte ^ Hi h. du matin sous la pr&idence de 
 M. Matzen. r 
 
 M. Matzen prend place au fauteuil de la Presidence et pronounce le 
 discours suivant: 
 
 Excellences! Messieurs! Comme President du Tribunal d'Arbi- 
 trage, institue en vertu du traite conclu a Washington le 22 mai 1902 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 503 
 
 entre les Etats-Unis de l'Amerique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains, je 
 declare la premiere seance du Tribunal ouverte. 
 
 "C'est la premiere fois qu'a ete constitue un Tribunal d'Arbitrage, 
 siegeant sous le regime de la Convention de la Haye sur 1' Arbitrage 
 International et compose" de membres de la Cour Permanente 
 d'Arbitrage, cr£e par la Convention; et je remercie Vos Excellen- 
 ces ici presentes, President et Membres du Conseil Administratif 
 de la Cour Permanente, d'avoir bien voulu nous faire l'honneur 
 d'assister a la premiere stance du premier Tribunal d'Arbitrage, 
 emane de la Cour permanente. 
 
 "Ce premier Tribunal est constitue" grace a l'initiative de deux 
 Grrandes Puissances du Nouveau Monde, qui, animees du m6me 
 sincere desir de faire regler un differend survenu entre eux a 
 l'amiable et d'une maniere satisfaisante et juste, sont tombees 
 d'accord de le soumettre a un Arbitrage conforme dans son essence 
 aux regies de la Convention de la Haye. 
 
 "Toutesles stipulations du traite susmentionne relatives a la consti- 
 tution de ce Tribunal d'Arbitrage ont ete" dument ex^cutees. 
 
 "Les Membres du Tribunal ici presents sont prets a remplir con- 
 sciencieusement la t&che importante et honorable, qui leur a ete" 
 confiee. 
 
 "Les Arbitres, choisis par les puissances, brillent au premier rang 
 des jurisconsultes du monde et sont bien au-dessus des mes e"loges. 
 
 "Le fait d'avoir 6te" appele par leur vote, a presider leurs seances 
 est consider^ par moi comme un grand honneur illustrant toute 
 mon existence, mais il serait de nature a m'effrayer, si je n'avais 
 pas la ferme certitude de pouvoir compter sur leur constante et 
 bienveillante collaboration. 
 
 "Au nom du Tribunal je souhaite une respectueuse et cordiale 
 bienvenue aux illustres personnages representant les Puissances devant 
 le Tribunal et aux Conseil s eminents, qui les assistent de leurs lumieres, 
 dont les savants discours elucideront les faits et tixeront des bases pour 
 nos deliberations. 
 
 "Au moment de l'ouverture des seances du Tribunal j'^mets le 
 vceu qu'il nous soit donn6, grace aussi au concours zele et a la col- 
 laboration des Hautes Parties d'inaugurer les travaux des tribunaux 
 d'arbitrage de la Convention de la Haye d'une maniere conforme a" la 
 penstje sublime qui l'a inspiree et au but glorieux, qu'elle est appelee 
 a faciliter: le reglement pacifique des litiges entre les Etats sur la 
 seule base solide, la base du respect du droit. " 
 
 Avant de proceder a l'instruction, j'ai encore quelques communi- 
 cations a faire. Les arbitres choisis par les Puissances, et qui m'ont 
 fait l'honneur de me mommer president du Tribunal, sont: 
 
 "Le Tres Honorable Sir Edward Fry, docteur en droit, siegeant a 
 la Cour d'Appel, membre du Conseil Prive de Sa Majeste Britannique, 
 membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, arbitre designe par les 
 fitats-Unis d'Amerique; 
 
 "Son Excellence Mr. de Martens, Conseiller prive, membre du 
 Conseil du Ministere imperial des affaires etrangeres a Saint Peters- 
 bourg, membre de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage, arbitre designe" 
 par les Etats-Unis d'Amerique; 
 
 "M. T. M. C. Asser, docteur en droit, membre du Conseil d'Etat 
 des Pays-Bas, ancien professeur a PUniversite d' Amsterdam, membre 
 de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, arbitre designe par les Etats- 
 Unis Mexicains; 
 
504 PIOUS FUND OF THE C ALIFORM AS. 
 
 "M. le Jonkheer de Savornin Lohman, docteur en droit, ancien 
 ministre de PInterieur des Pays-Bas, ancien professeur a PUniversite 
 libve d'Amsterdam, membre de la seconde Chambre des Etats-Gene- 
 raux, membre de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage, arbitre d^signfe par 
 les Etats-Unis Mexicains. 
 
 "Les agents des parties sont: 
 
 " M. Jackson Harvey Ealston, agent pour les Etats-Unis d' Amenque, 
 et Son Excellence M. Emilio Pardo, envoye" extraordinaire et ministre 
 plenipotentiaire du Mexique pres de Sa Majeste la Reine des Pays-Bas, 
 agent pour les Etats-Unis Mexicains. 
 
 "Les conseils sont: 
 
 "Pour les Etats-Unis d'Amerique: 
 
 "Mr. William Lawrence Penfield, juge, 
 
 "M. le Senateur Stewart, 
 
 "M. le Chevalier Descamps, senateur du royaume de Belgique, 
 Secretaire-General de PInstitut du droit international, membre de la 
 Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage, 
 
 "Mr. Charles J. Kappler, 
 
 "Mr. W. T. S. Doyle, 
 
 " Mr. Garrett W. McEnerney. 
 
 "L'agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains sera assiste de Son Excellence 
 M. Beernaert, ministre d'Etat membre de la Chambre des represen- 
 tants de Belgique, membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage. 
 
 "Auxtermesde Particle 4 (1) de la convention de La Haye, le 
 President doit nommer les secretaires. J'invite done M. Ruyssenaers, 
 Secretaire-General de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, a remplir les 
 m6mes f onctions aupres du Tribunal d'Arbitrage. 
 
 "Comme secretaires lui sont adjoints: 
 
 "Mr. WalterS. Penfield. 
 
 "M. Luis Pardo, premier secretaire de la Legation du Mexique a 
 La Haye, et M. le Jonkheer W. Roell, premier secretaire du bureau 
 international de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage. 
 
 "D'apres Particle 38 de la Convention de La Haye, le Tribunal 
 decide du choix des langues dont il sera fait usage et dont Pem- 
 ploi sera autorise devant lui. Le Tribunal a decide que la langue 
 officielle devant lui serait la langue fi-ancaise, mais il a autorise 
 Pemploi des langues f rancaise et anglaise. Les proces-verbaux seront 
 en rediges en francais et sous une forme concise; cependant les Parties 
 seront libres d'engager des stenographes pour les comptes-rendus des 
 debats. 
 
 "D'apres Particle 41 de la Convention de La Haye, le Tribunal, 
 avec Passentiment des Parties, a decide que les debats seront publics, 
 mais a cause de la place restreinte dont il dispose, Padmission aux 
 seances sera reservee aux personnes munies de cartes a deiivrer par le 
 Secretaire- General du Tribunal. 
 
 " Telles sont les communications que j'avais a faire. 
 
 "M. l'agent des Etats-Unis d'Amerique du Nord a la parole." 
 
 Mr. Jackson Harvey Ralston, Agent des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, 
 prononce le discours suivant: 
 
 "On behalf of the United States, it is my honor and pleasure to 
 offer a brief reply of thanks to the courteous sentiments of the dis- 
 tinguished president of this court. 
 
 "At this moment, permit me to express my appreciation of the 
 action of the Netherlands Government in extending many courtesies in 
 connection with the establishment of the court of arbitration, as well 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 505 
 
 as in facilitating the work of the first litigants, and furthermore to 
 acknowledge most heartily the compliment shown by the attendance 
 on this occasion of the members of the administrative council. 
 
 "We, who represent the United States, esteem highly the oppor- 
 tunity of presenting before this learned body a controversy involving 
 the two foremost nations of the North American continent. It is per- 
 haps natural that we should felicitate ourselves upon the fact that the 
 first nations to resort to this tribunal are of the Western Hemisphere, 
 and are nations which may take pride in the fact that they are legiti- 
 mate offspring of the peoples of Europe, and as such, inheritors of 
 centuries of a common civilization, the most advanced that the world 
 has ever known. 
 
 " We of the United States find satisfaction in the fact that the first 
 suggestion of arbitration of the question now offered for your consid- 
 eration was made by Mr. Secretary Hay, of the United States, whose 
 fame as a diplomatist and as a statesman knows no national bounds. 
 We congratulate our neighbours upon the other side that after this 
 suggestion Mr. Hay and the distinguished secretary of foreign affairs 
 of Mexico, Mr. Mariscal, came to a speedy accord upon the proposi- 
 tion to refer the proposed arbitration for settlement under the provi- 
 sions of The Hague Peace Convention. 
 
 "On May 22, 1902, the protocol was signed at Washington, and 
 without loss of any time the Mexican Senate, on May 30, validated its 
 requirements by ratifying the instrument. 
 
 " That the two countries should have been willing to arbitrate their 
 differences before five members of the permanent court of arbitration 
 is, I venture to say, conclusive evidence of belief in the impartiality 
 and ability which would be displayed by those whom the signatories 
 of The Hague Convention had designated from among their most emi- 
 nent jurists and publicists. 
 
 "Inaugurating our proceedings under such circumstances, I may 
 assure you, Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, that the deter- 
 minations of this court, whatever they may be, will command and 
 receive the respect and unquestioned acquiescence of the United States. 
 After your award shall have been rendered, no matter what our pre- 
 vious opinions may have been, we will remember the language of a 
 distinguished English jurist who, on the occasion of a famous inter- 
 national arbitration, said: 
 
 I hope that the English people will obey the decisions of the judges with the sub- 
 mission and respect due to the decision of a tribunal whose decree they have freely 
 agreed to accept. 
 
 " I do not wish to take my seat without expressing the hope of my 
 country that the precedent of appealing to the judges forming the Per- 
 manent Court of Arbitration may be followed with increasing fre- 
 ^uency as years go by. While the unique honor must remain to the 
 fnited States of America and the United Mexican States of being the 
 first voluntarily to submit their differences to the jurisdiction of this 
 court, it will be a source of the greatest satisfaction to my Government 
 if the action thus taken should pave the way to similar settlements in 
 the future, whereby in later cases misunderstandings which might 
 otherwise lead to conflicts between states may receive peaceable adjust- 
 ment, believing as it does that the most happy rivalry that can possi- 
 bly exist between nations is to be found in a common effort to excel in 
 whatever tends to bring about the contentment and well-being of man- 
 kind. The good of humanity is an end to which the United States 
 
506 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 steadily and consciously struggles, and toward the same end, we believe, 
 assuredly the formation and the extension of the employment of the 
 Permanent Court of Arbitration must largely contribute. 
 
 "In again thanking you, Mr. President, for your own expressions 
 of courtesy and good will, let me once more express the hope that our 
 labors may conduce towards the coming of the time when, to para- 
 phrase the language of England's great poet: 
 
 The war drum throbs no longer, 
 
 And the battle flags are furled 
 In the parliament of man, 
 
 The federation of the world. 
 
 M. le President. M. l'agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains a la parole. 
 
 Son Excellence M. Emilio Pardo, agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains, 
 prononce le discours suivant: 
 
 "Messieurs! Au nom du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains, 
 je profite de cette occasion solennelle pour exprimer ses remerciments 
 tres sinceres et tres cordiaux aux 6minents publicistes qui formentla 
 Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage, appelee a prononcer la derniere parole 
 sur le diffeVend suscite' entre les representants de l'Eglise Catholique 
 de la Haute Californie et mon Pays, au sujet de la reclamation, d6sor- 
 mais celebre, du Fond Pie de Californie. 
 
 " Je me fais un devoir de remercier egalement le Gouvernement des 
 Pays-Bas, pour l'hospitalite si f ranche et si genereuse qu'il a bien 
 voulu nous accorder, et qui rentre si bien dans les traditions du peuple 
 Neerlandais, et je me permets de presenter la reconnaissance de mon 
 Pays et de son Gouvernement aux tres distingues membres du Corps 
 Diplomatique qui ont bien voulu honorer de leur presence, cette impo- 
 sante ceremonie. 
 
 " La grande institution creee par le Congres de la Paix, est appelee 
 pour la premiere fois a rendre ses importants services a la cause du 
 Droit et de la Justice, et je m'empresse de faire profession publique de 
 la foi du Gouvernement Mexicain en la sagesse, en la science et en 
 l'impartialite de la Cour qui vient d'etre installed. 
 
 " Quoiqu'il en soit pour nous du jugement de. la Cour, nous pouvons 
 dire avec le plus legitime orgueil que, comme le prouve la correspond- 
 ance diplomatique echangee entre les deux Gouvernements en cause, 
 pour preparer la signature du Protocole du 22 mai dernier, le Mexique 
 f ut le premier a proposer l'application de l'arbitrage international etabli 
 par la Convention du 29 juillet 1899. 
 ^ " L'eVenement, dont nous sommes les temoins, marquera, j'en suis 
 sur, une date inoubliable dans les fastes de l'histoire de l'arbitrage 
 international, si modeste que soit le Htige qui a motive" la convocation 
 de la Cour, et nous devons esperer tous, les puissants et les faibles, 
 tous egaux devantla Justice, que Pexemple donne" par les deux Republi- 
 ques de PAmerique du Nord ne restera pas infecond et isole." 
 
 (L'audience est suspendue a 11 h. 45 du matin.) 
 
 DEUXIEME SEANCE. 
 
 15 septembre 1902 {apres-midi). 
 
 L'audience est reprise a 2± heures de l'apres-midi, sous la pre"sidence 
 de M. Matzen. 
 M. le President. Je donne la parole d'abord a M. le Secretaire- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORN1AS. 507 
 
 General, pour faire lecture des communications qui ont ete" adressees 
 au Tribunal d' Arbitrage, par l'interm^diaire du Secretaire-General de 
 la Cour Permanente. 
 
 M. le Secretaire-General. Voici la liste des communications 
 recues: 
 
 1°. Deposition notariee du 24 juillet 1902 de 1'archevSque de San 
 Francisco; 
 
 2°. Catholic Register de 1902; 
 
 3°. Annexe de la Reponse du Mexique "Pleito de Rada;" 
 
 4°. Deux copies certifiers conformes du compte-rendu en la cause de 
 Alemany et al. vs. le Mexique, dans lesquelles setrouvent relives: des 
 copies certifiers conformes de la correspondance diplomatique entre 
 les Hautes Parties, concernant 1'affaire soumise au Tribunal, ainsi que 
 le Memorandum de 1' Amerique se rapportant a cette affaire et l'original 
 du compte-rendu susmentionne; 
 
 5°. Deux enveloppes scelleTs, concernant les nominations de l'arche- 
 v§que de San Francisco: Mgr. Riordan, et de l'eveque de Monterey; 
 Mgr. George Montgomery; 
 
 6 °. Lettre de l'agent du Mexique du 3 septembre 1902 avec une tra- 
 duction anglaise de la reponse de Mexique du 6 aout 1902 aux demandes 
 Ame'ricaines. 
 
 7 °. Lettre de l'agent d' Amerique du 3 septembre 1902 concernant la 
 communication a l'agent du Mexique du volume contenant .le compte- 
 rendu en la cause Alemany et al. v. le Mexique; 
 
 8°. Lettre de l'agent d' Amerique du 4 septembre 1902 au sujet du 
 discours a prononcer par M. le senateur Stewart. 
 
 Communication addressee a M. Pardo a ce sujet. 
 
 9°. Des extraits assermentfe de publications se rapportant a 1'affaire 
 soumise au Tribunal; 
 
 10°- Sept extraits assermentes de l'ouvrage intitule " Noticias de 
 la Provincia de Californias," etc. 
 
 11°. Deux copies certifiers conformes du traite de Washington; 
 
 12°. Une copie certifiee conf orme du document intitule ' ' Testimonio 
 de la escritura de venta," etc.; 
 
 13°. Une lettre de l'agent d'Amerique du 12 septembre 1902 faisant 
 part d'une communication faite par lui le 12 septembre a S. E. M. 
 Pardo, pour lui faire savoir que les documents deposes au Secretariat- 
 General par Mr. Ralston peuvent etre consulted par l'agent du Mexique; 
 
 14° Une lettre de l'agent d'Amerique du 13 septembre 1902 notifiant 
 qu'il sera assists en qualite de conseils par M. le juge William Law- 
 rence Penfield, M. le senateur W. M. Stewart, M. le Chevalier Des- 
 camps, senateur du Royaume de Belgique, Secretaire-General de l'ln- 
 stitut du droit international d' Arbitrage; Mr. Charles J. Kappler, 
 Mr. W. T. S. Doyle, Mr. Garret W. McEnerney. 
 
 15°. Une lettre du Ministre d'Amerique du 12 septembre 1902 pour 
 transmettre au Tribunal deux enveloppes scellees contenant la deposi- 
 tion de Mr. John T. Doyle et les pieces justificatives dans 1'affaire 
 soumise au Tribunal; 
 
 16°. Une lettre du S. G. du 13 septembre 1902 au Tribunal portant 
 a sa connaissance que Son Excellence Mr. Emilio Pardo qui sera assiste 
 de Son Excellence Mr. Beernaert en qualite de conseil, a e"te nomme' 
 agent des Etats-Unis mexicains; 
 
 17°. Une lettre du charge d'affaires d'Amerique communiquant que 
 M. Jackson H. Ralston, qui sera assiste" de M. William Lawrence 
 
508 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 Penfield en qualite de conseil, a 6te nomme agent des Etats-Unis 
 d'Amerique. 
 
 M. le President. Maintenant je demande aux Parties si elles ont 
 encore des actes ou des documents a nous communiquer. 
 
 M. Delackoix. En l'absence de M. Pardo, qui va arriver, j'ai 
 l'honneur de vous faire savoir que le Mexique a en effet encore des 
 documents qui lui sont annonc^s, qui devront §tre deposes et qui n'ont 
 pas ete communiques plut6t a raison de certaines circonstances qui 
 seront exposees et qui expliquent le retard. Cependant, s'il convient 
 au Tribunal d'entendre des plaidoiries, sous reserve de notre droit de 
 deposer certains documents des qu'ils nous parviendront, nous serions 
 a la disposition du Tribunal. 
 
 Mr. Kalston. If I might speak in English upon that subject, we 
 have made certain demands for discovery upon Mexico. Some of 
 these demands have been met. The protocol, you will recall, permits 
 one party to demand certain information from the other. The 
 demands which have been made relate simply to the correctness of 
 certain documents which are contained in the volume which you have 
 before you, and I am correct in saying that while the Mexican Gov- 
 ernment has made certain corrections in the Spanish referred to, yet 
 the English translation of those in question contained in the document 
 is in substance correct. 
 
 We have also demanded from Mexico the production of a document 
 known as the Escritura de Venta, in other words, the deed (in English) 
 of a hacienda, or place, ranch, known as Ci^nega del Pastor. That 
 discovery has been made by Mexico, and a copy of the deed has been 
 placed in the hands of the secretary general, and in a moment I will 
 furnish this tribunal with a translated copy. 
 
 Mexico has made certain demands upon us. We nave telegraphed 
 to Washington and to San Francisco for suitable responses to those 
 demands. We expect them to arrive almost daity. They will cer- 
 tainly, I think, reach here before Monday, but there will be nothing 
 contained in them, I am satisfied, which will in any way interfere with 
 the case proceeding immediately. I should add that we are ready to 
 submit certain documents, arguments, and other papers which I think 
 fully state our case, aside perhaps from the discoveries of which I 
 have spoken. We are ready now to submit them in writing, and I 
 will place them before the court and in a word explain exactly for 
 what purpose they are placed before the court, with your permission. 
 
 Our memorial, which is in substance the claim of the United States, 
 has already been filed with the secretary -general as a part of the vol- 
 ume before you. At the end of the volume is a copy in English of 
 our memorial. The answer of Mexico, I understand, has not yet been 
 filed. 
 
 „ T ¥' P ^ RDO - Elle doit etre avec le dossier envoye" par le departement 
 d'Etat des Etats-Unis. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Certainement non. 
 
 M. Paedo. D'apres leprotocole, cette reponse devait etre deposee 
 par le Departement des Etats-Unis. 
 
 Mr. Kalston. J'ai des copies en espagnol, mais cela ne vaut rien ie 
 pense devant ce Tribunal. 
 
 However, 1 have been able to place before the gentlemen of this 
 tribunal an English copy of the Mexican answer— a translation. I 
 nave presumed that Mexico would file here its own pleadings, there- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 509 
 
 fore I have not filed a Spanish copy. I want to say, and I should 
 explain to Mr. Pardo, that I am about to place before the tribunal 
 again a copy of the English translation. Some little inaccuracies .were 
 noted in the translation submitted to Mr. Pardo. Some little cor- 
 rections have been made in the English turns of expression. The 
 translation, in other words, is, I think, a little better. We have 
 adhered with as great fidelity as has been possible to the Spanish 
 original; but I have thought it proper to call Mr. Pardo's attention 
 at this moment that, word for word, the translation which will now be 
 submitted is not identical with the translation already submitted, 
 while I do not believe there is any departure of any possible moment. 
 I think it is simply perfected, not changed. 
 
 With this explanation, I desire to submit to this honorable court, 
 first, what I have taken the liberty of terming, in accordance with 
 the law to which I am accustomed, a replication; that is to say, en 
 Francais, "replique," to the answer — to the response — of Mexico to 
 our memorial. I have discussed the points which have been raised 
 by Mexico in her answer, and I have undertaken to answer them. 
 To this replique I have added, as exhibits, certain documents. The 
 first is the English translation of the answer of Mexico, with footnotes 
 in the way of corrections, which it seemed to me proper to make. 
 There were various manifest errors which crept into the answer of 
 Mexico, mistranslations perhaps in some cases of the documents 
 referred to, references to wrong pages, and to matters of that sort 
 which the court will find corrected in the footnotes of the document 
 about to be submitted. I have added a further exhibit, which is 
 entitled "Resume" of litigation relating to the de Rada property," 
 referred to in the answer or Mexico. The secretary -general has placed 
 before the court the volume entitled "Pleito de Rada," which is entirely 
 in Spanish, and I might say, very ancient Spanish; but we have under- 
 taken at considerable toil to extract the substance of that volume, 1 
 think correctly, and we have added a statement in Exhibit B of the 
 effect of that volume, and copied entirely the decree upon which 
 Mexico relies, and which is found at its end, giving an English trans- 
 lation parallel with the Spanish. 
 
 We have also added as Exhibit C a statement taken from a work of 
 authority, tending to show the amount of the Indian populations of 
 Lower California. You gentlemen, and honorable members of the 
 court, will understand the difference between Lower and Upper Cali- 
 fornia, as it will be termed in the discussions; Lower California being 
 a peninsula, as will be pointed out, and Upper California, or as we say 
 simply California, now being a part of the United States. We have 
 concluded the exhibits with a copy in Spanish, with parallel English 
 translation, of the document of which I have already spoken, the 
 Escritura de Venta, the deed of a property formerly belonging to the 
 Pious Fund of Mexico, and of which we asked discovery from Mexico. 
 That discovery was given, and, as I take the liberty of saying, the 
 document so discovered, has been translated and is added as an exhibit 
 to our replication. In addition, I desire to present at this time for the 
 convenience of this court, and I trust for the convenience of Mr. 
 Pardo as well, and ourselves, a translation of the laws of Mexico relat- 
 ing to the Pious Fund, the matter out of which the present dispute 
 arises. In some of the briefs and memoirs which will be submitted, 
 this honorable court will find references to various laws, but the trans- 
 
510 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 lation was made many years ago, and in one or two instances, in our 
 judgment, not made with sufficient care, and we should much prefer, 
 and I believe on examination Mr. Padro, the agent of Mexico, will 
 agree' with me, that the translation of these laws, which is now sub- 
 mitted, is much more carefully and accurately done. 
 
 I shall also desire to submit a statement and brief of the counsel and 
 agent of the United States. I may say that this is designed to embrace 
 practically all of the points, which we believe will call for the consid- 
 eration of this court, and while its length may alarm you, I trust that 
 it may, nevertheless, prove somewhat useful. 
 
 At the same time, in submitting all of our papers to this honorable 
 court and to the inspection of our friends upon the other side, I desire 
 to add a brief, which has been prepared by Senator Stewart and Mr. 
 Kappler on behalf of the United States, and also a similar brief pre- 
 pared by Messrs. Doyle and Doyle, the senior of these gentlemen hav- 
 ing been connected with the litigation, of which this is an outgrowth, 
 from its very commencement. (I shall at this moment take the liberty 
 of asking the secretary to hand to the court several of these documents.) 
 
 M. le Prseident. Est-ce que l'un des d&eguds a encore des docu- 
 ments a produire? 
 
 M. Emilo Pakdo. Avec la permission de la Cour. Quand nous 
 sommes venus ici pour la premiere fois, je me suis addresse offici- 
 ellement a Mr. Ralston pour lui proposer de demander au Tribunal 
 ou a son Secretariat- General la permission de nous renseigner sur 
 le dossier qui avait 6te envoye par le Departement des Etats-Unis. 
 J'ai renouvele cette demarche aupres de Mr. Ralston; mais peut- 
 etre a, cause de ce que les correspondances respectives etaient 
 ecrites en espagnol il ne m'a pas bien compris, et au lieu de 
 repondre a, ma demande de faire une demarche collective pour 
 permettre aux Parties et aux conseils de voir les dossiers, il m'a 
 repondu en m'envoyant le volume imprime que Messieurs les Arbitres 
 connaissent. Ce n'est qu'au dernier moment, c'est a, dire hier, que 
 nous avons pu nous expliquer devant l'honorable President du Tribunal, 
 et que Mr. Ralston a manifesto son bon vouloir de nous permettre de 
 nous renseigner sur le dossier. II est bien vrai qu'on nous a dit que 
 dans le volume imprime qui se trouveentre les mains de Messieurs les 
 Arbitres, et dont Mr. Ralston a bien voulu nous envoyer des exem- 
 plaires, se trouve tout le dossier, c'est-a-dire toutes les pieces qui ont ete - 
 presentees a la commission mixte qui a siege a Washington, les allega- 
 tions des Parties, la correspondance diplomatique 6changee entre les 
 deux Gouvernements, et meme une annexe qui contenait les divers 
 traitesqui sont pertinents dans lespece; mais je viens d'apprendre de 
 la bouche de M. Ralston que la re"ponse du Gouvernement Mexicain ne se 
 trouve pas dans le dossier. Cependant dans le protocole du 22 mai 
 dernier se trouve le passage suivant que je veux tacher de traduire en 
 francais: 
 
 Aht. 5. Tout t&noignage oral qui ne se trouve pas dans les archives du premier 
 arbitrage pourra etre deposS par 1' une ou 1' autre des Parties, pourvu que le temoignage 
 soit redige par ecrit, qu'il soit signe par le temoin et legalist par le fonctionnaire 
 devant lequel il aura ete rendu. II devra 6tre dirige vers le Tribunal etant scelle\ 
 II sera confix au Departement des affaires etrangeres du Mexique pour qu'il soit remis 
 au Tribunal qui est etabli quand celui-ci sera reuni. 
 
 Art. 7. Dans le deiai de 40 jours aprfis la deposition du memorial, l'agent ou l'avocat 
 du Mexique fera part a son Departement de la meme facon avec les memes references, 
 de ses allegations et arguments pur r£futer a. la reclamation. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 511 
 
 Ainsi done, e'est le D6partement d'Etat des Etats-Unis qui est charge 
 de presenter a la Cour le dossier des reclamations; ce dossier comprend 
 l'ancienne instruction faite devant la commission mixte et la reponse 
 du Gouvernementmexicain, parce qu'elle a et& communiquee au D6parte- 
 ment des Etats-Unis. 
 
 Je viens done d'apprende de la bouche de Mr. Ralston que cette 
 reponse ne se trouve pas dans le dossier. Alors nous avons de quoi 
 nous 6tonner, et e'est pourquoi j'ai insists tant sur la pretention de 
 connaitre le dossier, d'etre en mesure de nous renseigner sur les pieces 
 qu'il renf erme. 
 
 Si cette reponse ne se trouve pas dans le dossier, le Tribunal sera 
 force de nous admettre a la presenter; cette reponse est d'ailleurs deja 
 traduite en francais; le Tribunal en effet ne peut pas juger l'espece 
 actuelle sans connaitre la reponse du Gouvernement Mexicain. 
 
 Nous avons entendu que, d'apres diverses clauses du protocole, 
 me"me apres cette espece d'instruction prealable, l'agent des Etats-Unis 
 du Mexique avait le droit de presenter de nouveaux arguments, de 
 nouvelles defenses ou exceptions a la demande, et tous les documents 
 ou pieces qu'il jugerait convenable. Ainsi done le Gouvernement 
 mexicain par mon conduit s'est reserve expressement le droit de pre- 
 senter ses pieces, et il les presentera sans delai, e'est-a-dire a la pro- 
 chaine audience. 
 
 II y avait un point sur lequel la difficulte" etait un peu plus grande: 
 e'est au sujet du livre imprime dont MM. les agents americains connais- 
 sent le texte et qui f ut annexe a la reponse du Gouvernement mexi- 
 cain. Cependant on dit que cette reponse ne se trouve pas dans le 
 dossier, alors que cependant le livre s'y trouve a, ce qu'il parait! Nous 
 etions force's de faire les demarches necessaires pour obtenir l'authen- 
 ticite de ces documents, notamment de la partie qui contient la decision 
 . rendue dans le proces entame entre les heritiers de la principale dona- 
 trice des biens qui constituent le Fonds pieux de la Californie. Sur ce 
 sujet, heureusement, M. Ralston et moi nous sommes d'accord, et cette 
 question peut etre considered comme 6cartee. Nous pouvons admettre — 
 je prie Monsieur l'agent des Etats-Unis de prendre note de mes paroles — 
 nous pouvons admettre comme prouve et etabli le jugement prononce 
 dans le proces dont je viens de parler et qui se trouve a la fin du volume 
 imprime presente avec la reponse du Gouvernement Mexicain. 
 
 Quant aux exhibitions qui viennent d'etre faites par l'agent des 
 Etats-Unis, le Tribunal ne peut pas s'e"tonner si nous nous reservons 
 le droit de voir tout cela, le droit de voir quelles sont ces pieces, quelle 
 est leur opportunity dans ce proces, et le droit aussi de presenter des 
 preuves a l'encontre des documents et des pieces produits par le Gouv- 
 ernement de Etats-Unis. 
 
 Enfin je crois que notre conseil, M. Delacroix, a deja dit au Tribunal 
 que nous etions tout a fait disposes a ce que la plaidoirie d'un des 
 avocats americains soit entendue tout de suite, sous reserve, d'apres 
 les termes expres du protocole, de produire les documents qui font 
 partie inte*grale de la reponse du Gouvernement mexicain, parce que 
 autrement le proces serait juge sans preuves, et le Gouvernment mex- 
 icain se trouverait dans une situation tout-a-fait penible parcequ'il 
 serait juge vraiment sans etre entendu. 
 
 Je renouvelle done la reserve de droits qui vient d'etre faite par 
 M. Delacroix, et je prie le Tribunal de vouloir bien prendre note de 
 
512 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 ces reserves, sous la reserve de presenter des documents a la prochaine 
 audience. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Ou plut6t a, unedes prochaines audiences: il y a des 
 documents qui ne sont pas encore recus. 
 
 M. Pakdo. C'est toujours compris dans les termes du protocole. 
 
 M. le President. Alors apres-demain nous aurons la reponse du 
 Gouvernement Mexicain ? 
 
 M. Pardo. Je demande la permission au Tribunal de mous permettre 
 de connaitre le dossier pour savoir si la reponse du Gouvernement 
 mexicain s'y trouve ou non; parce que c'est une d^couverte tout-a-fait 
 extraordinaire que nous venons de faire, a savoir que le Gouvernement 
 americain charge de presenter un dossier n'a pas voulu consigner la 
 reponse du Gouvernement mexicain ! 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je n'ai demande" la parole que pour appuyer ce que 
 vient de dire M. Pardo. Nous sommes dans une situation assez extra- 
 ordinaire; il a 6te entendu et stipule" que le dossier commun serait 
 depose a Washington; il semble que rien n'etait plus naturel que de 
 nous mettre a meme de verifier ce dossier; or c'est en vain que M. 
 Pardo d'un c6te" et M. Delacroix envo3 7 e par moi a La Haye pour cela, 
 ont demande" a prendre connaissance de ce dossier. 
 
 II est done indispensable que le dossier soit mis a notre disposition 
 et puisse etre verifie. C'est une besogne a laquelle nous pourrons nous 
 mettre des demain, mais il est indispensable qu'elle soit faite. C'est 
 une reserve a ajouter a celles qui viennent d'etre exprim£es. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I wish to confirm what has been said by the agent 
 of the Mexican Government upon the question of the authenticity of 
 the Pleito de Eada, the printed document presented by Mexico. We 
 cheerfully admit that it is an authentic copy of the proceedings of 
 which it purports to be a copy. There is no question between us. I 
 think there are perhaps some misunderstandings of no great moment, 
 if I have carefully followed the address of the agent, and which may 
 be speedily explained. The provisions of the protocol say, on page 
 50, section 3: 
 
 All pleadings, testimony, proofs, arguments of counsel, and findings or awards of 
 commissioners or umpire, filed before or arrived at by the mixed commission above 
 referred to, are to be placed in evidence before the court hereinbefore provided for, 
 together with all correspondence between the two countries relating to the subject- 
 matter involved in this arbitration, originals or copies thereof duly certified by the 
 Department of State of the high contracting parties being presented to said new 
 tribunal. 
 
 Reference to that paragraph will show, I think, to the court that it 
 has no regard whatever to the proceedings before the present tribunal, 
 but refers entirely to everything which happened before the tribunal 
 of some thirty years ago. All of the proceedings before that tribunal, 
 absolutely everything, is to be found in the printed volume at the dis- 
 posal of this honorable court, and which has been filed here now some 
 two weeks, and there have also been deposited with this court two copies 
 of that same record duly certified, as provided by this article. More 
 than that the United States was not obliged to do in that respect. We 
 have filed at the same time our original memorial, and according to 
 the practice with which we have any familiarity, it is the duty of the 
 defendant to file his own answer to the complaint which is made by 
 the complainant (le demandeur). However, if the agent of Mexico so 
 desires, and if I catch his point correctly, there is no possible objec- 
 tion on the part of the United States to file with the secretary -general 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 513 
 
 of this court a copy of the Mexican answer in Spanish. We certainly 
 want to have no delay, because on our part we nave misapprehended 
 our duty, although to our mind the view taken by the agent of Mexico 
 is extraordinary. There has been some correspondence between the 
 agent of Mexico and myself relative to what is termed in Spanish the 
 " expediente," a word with which we are not familiar in English, and 
 these technical words always present some difficulty of translation. We 
 understood the "expediente" to relate to all the papers in the old case. 
 They are filed here and are before this court in the printed volume. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. I would like to put a question. Do you propose 
 to file a replication; that is to say, a reply to the Mexican answer? 
 It appears to me that if you refer to the compromis, that provides 
 for two pleadings. By the language of Section VI, the United States, 
 through their agent or counsel, shall prepare and furnish to the 
 Department of State aforesaid a memorial in print of the origin and 
 amount of their claim, and Section VII provides for the delivery 
 by Mexico of its memorial or statement of the case, but it makes 
 no provision for a replication by the United States to the pleadings 
 of Mexico. It seems to me if we allow that we must allow a reply 
 by Mexico, and we would go on ad infinitum. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. That perhaps is correct. There is no express pro- 
 vision in the protocol. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. There is not. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. It is quite possible, but perhaps I have in mind the 
 usual practice in our cases at law. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. This is the code [referring to the protocol]. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I submit to that. 
 
 M. Asser. Monsieur le President; je voudrais m'associer a l'obser- 
 vation de mon honorable collegue, et je me permettrais d'ajouter ceci: 
 M. l'agent et les conseils des Etats-Unis du Mexique ont entendu ce 
 qui vient d'etre dit; d'apres le compromis il n'y a que deux memoires, 
 un memoire du demandeur et un memoire du defendeur; maintenant, 
 nous trouvons dans les documents qui viennent de nous etre produits 
 un deuxieme memoire du demandeur. La question est de savoir si le 
 defendeur permet que ce deuxieme memoire reste au dossier, ce que 
 j'espere on permettra, mais si dans ce cas on ne demandera pas aussi 
 d'avoir l'autorisation de repondre par un memoire. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Cela est evident. Nous ne faisons pas objection a 
 ce qu'on produise une seconde f ois les documents de l'adversaire, mais 
 a la condition d'y pouvoir repondre. 
 
 M. Ralston. C'est chose entendue. 
 
 With the permission of Mexico, if I correctly understand, we may 
 present this replication. I have your permission ? 
 
 M. Pardo. Nous sommes d'accord d'avoir l'occasion de connaitre ce 
 memoire. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Nous y repondrons d'une maniere complete lorsque 
 nous aurons ete a meme de prendre connaissance du dossier, que nous 
 n'avons pas encore vu. 
 
 M. le President. Est-ce que l'agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains 
 admet de faire le Statement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique? 
 
 M. Beernaert. En effet, mais sous la condition expresse, a laquelle 
 adhere le representant des Etats-Unis, que de meme qu'il a eu le droit 
 de faire une replique nous avons le droit de faire une reponse, 
 
 S. Doc. 28 33 
 
514 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Ecrite? 
 
 M. Beernaert. Bien entendu. 
 
 M. le President. Nous sommes d'accord que c'est- admi3 sous 
 reserve d'y repondre par ecrit. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. May it please your honors, if it is understood, and I 
 suppose it will be, that the filing of this replication, so called by us, 
 does not involve any unusual delay to the case, I will cheerfully agree 
 to the reservation made by the agent of Mexico. Otherwise it seems 
 to me to be simply this: That we would change the title of "replica- 
 tion" to that of "argument," and submit an additional argument at 
 this moment; so I think that we may assume that the agent of Mexico 
 will have as much time to reply to this as to anything else, no more, 
 no less. We have wished to place our case fully before the_ court, 
 absolutely to put the court in possession of everything which might be 
 of any assistance to it in reaching a just conclusion, and it is for that 
 reason that we have thought it convenient at this moment to put our 
 additional considerations upon the answer of Mexico in the form of a 
 replication. If the name be objectionable, we will change it to an 
 argument. 
 
 M. de Martens. Je crois, si j'ai bien compris, qu'il n'y a pas de 
 malentendu sur le fond de la question. Tout le monde est d'accord 
 que d'apres le protocole de Washington il n'y a qu'un memorial et une 
 replique ecrite; maintenant, si une des parties presente au Tribunal 
 encore une replique ou un memoire * * * 
 
 M. Beernaert. C'est fait. 
 
 M. de Martens. Sans doute alors l'autre partie a le droit de donner 
 sa replique; seulement je ne vois aucune necessite que la replique soit 
 ecrite. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Si, elle sera ecrite: nous y tenons. 
 
 M. de Martens. Je crois que dans ce cas l'autre partie a le droit 
 de faire d'autres reponses devant le Tribunal et de refuter ce que 
 l'autre partie a dit oralement ou par ecrit. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Nous r^pondrons par ecrit: il est preferable que la 
 meme forme soit toujours observee. 
 
 M. Descamps. II est entendu qu'en ce qui concerne les plaidoiries 
 qui auront lieu ulte"rieurement, si celui qui a plaide desire remettre 
 une conclusion ecrite de ce qu'il aura dit il pourra le faire? 
 
 M. Beernaert. Parfaitement. 
 
 qui 
 
 ont pu en deposer; d'autre part il n'y en a pas 
 
 M. Beernaert. II y a eu une mission commune. 
 
 M. Descamps. Nous avons fourni a nos adversaires un tres grand 
 nombre de documents; evidemment cela presente une tres grande 
 importance; ils pourront y repondre; seulement il doit etre bien 
 entendu qu'en ce qui concerne les plaidoiries qui auront lieu on 
 pourra remettre sous forme de conclusions les elements essentiels 
 permettant au Tribunal de se rendre un compte absolu et par ecrit de 
 l'opinion du def enseur. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Nous sommes tout a faint d'accord. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I suppose that the answer to the replication, if we 
 may be permitted so to term it, will come within ample time, within 
 the thirty days, and that the presentation of the replication will not be 
 a cause for delay beyond that time; otherwise I will withdraw the 
 title at any rate. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 515 
 
 M. Pardo. Je dois appeler l'attention du Tribunal sur le point que 
 l'agent des Etats-Unis a eu 1' occasion de connaitre la re*ponse du Gou- 
 vernement mexicain depuis le 12 du mois dernier, c'est-a-dire qu'il a eu 
 tout le temps necessaire pour preparer la replique que l'on vient de 
 nous distribuer. Nous sommes d'accord sur la necessite de faire 
 marcher la procedure pour finir le plus t6t possible, mais je crois qu'il 
 est d'equit6, de justice, de nous permettre de disposer au moins du 
 temps necessaire pour nous renseigner sur ce memoire. Pour le dire 
 en tres peu de mots, l'agent du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis mexi- 
 cains est tout-a-fait d'accord que tous les documents, toutes les pieces, 
 toutes les argumentations qui seront presentes des deux cotes, soient 
 mis a, la disposition du Tribunal, parceque le but que poursuit le Gou- 
 vernement mexicain est que cette question soit resolue en pleine con- 
 naissance de cause. Tous les documents de nature a eclairer la religion 
 de la Cour doivent done 6tre admis. Le gouvernement Mexicain ne 
 s'y oppose pas du tout, mais il demande, car e'est la justice et l'equite, 
 d'avoir les m§mes droits que ceux qui ont ete exerces par l'agent des 
 Etats-Unis. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I wish to add one word with reference to the testi- 
 mony. There are in the volume submitted to you certain extracts 
 from Spanish works, commencing about page 187 or 189, and running 
 to page 221. The translations into English of these Spanish works 
 were not made before the old tribunal. We have caused them to be 
 prepared for the use of this tribunal, and with your permission, and 
 under such reservations as the agent of Mexico may agree to make 
 with regard to our translations, we shall desire to submit them, but 
 the printing will not be completed before Wednesday morning. 
 
 Before presenting Senator Stewart, whom we will ask to make the 
 first speech, with your permission, there is one question which has 
 arisen between the agent of Mexico and myself upon which I should 
 be pleased to have the court pass, as it may determine the course of 
 the arguments somewhat. According to English, I think, and I know 
 to American, practice the complainant (demandeur, so to speak) has 
 the right to open and to close the case; to make the opening argument 
 and the closing argument. The defender may make two or three or 
 more intervening arguments, or if there be a large number of counsel 
 the counsel should arrange it in such manner the closing speech is 
 made on the part of the plaintiff (demandeur). I know that this prac- 
 tice is an absolutely uniform one. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Not in England. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. It is with us. I want to submit the question of the 
 order of debate at this time to the decision of the court. 
 
 M. le President. Est-ce que vous demandez une decision du Tri- 
 bunal sur cette question ? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. S'il vous plait. 
 
 M. le President. Est-ce que l'agent des Etats-Unis mexicains est 
 d'accord? 
 
 M. Pardo. La remarque faite par l'agent des Etats-Unis d'Amerique 
 prouve ce que je m'^tais permis d'indiquer dans une reunion pr^alable 
 de la Cour: la necessite absolue de fixer la procedure a, suivre. Le 
 protocole n'a pas pu comprendre tous les details de cette procedure; il 
 faut absolument, pour eviter une discussion a chaque pas, que le Tri- 
 bunal daigne fixer une bonne fois au moins les elements d'une proce- 
 dure reguliere, autrement nous serons a chaque instant l'une et l'autre 
 
516 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 partie aux prises pour savoir combien de fois chacun des avocats peut 
 parler, si les documents peuvent etre produits pendant l'audience ou 
 en dehors. 11 faut je crois que le Tribunal daigne fixer une bonne 
 fois la procedure qui doit etre suivie devant elle, autrement le proces 
 sera embrouill^ed'unefacon telle que nous ne nous entendrons jamais. 
 
 J'adhere done a la proposition de M. l'agent des Etats-Unis, et je 
 demande au Tribunal de fixer une bonne fois la procedure a suivre 
 devant lui. 
 
 (MM. les arbitres se concertent a voix basse.) 
 
 M. le President. Le Tribunal en deliberera apres la cloture de la 
 seance et prendra une decision sur les questions que les agents ont 
 relevees. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. If the court is prepared at this moment, or as soon 
 as the court will be prepared, Senator Stewart is ready to proceed to 
 address the court whenever the court desires. 
 
 (Discussion between the members of the court as to order of debate.) 
 ' Mr. Ealston. If you will, the Senator will wait until the court 
 shall decide the question before it. 
 
 M. le President. Alors Monsieur le conseil das Etats-Unis de 
 l'Amerique du Nord peut commencera discuter; nous nous retirerons 
 apres. 
 
 M. Beernaert. II est bien entendu, Messieurs, qu'en entendant 
 Mr. Stewart nous n'abandonnons pas les questions prealables, et que 
 e'est sous le benefice de nos reserves que nous ecouterons Mr. Stewart. 
 
 M. le President. La question n'est pas decided maintenant, nous 
 la deciderons plus tard. Je donne la parole a Mr. Stewart, avocat des 
 Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: This con- 
 troversy grows out of donations made by pious persons in the eight- 
 eenth century to create a fund for the civilization and conversion of 
 the natives of the Californias, and for the maintenance and support of 
 the Catholic religion in that country. The fund created by such dona- 
 tions was covered into the Mexican treasury by the decree of October 
 24, 1842, with an undertaking on the part of Mexico to pay interest 
 thereon for the purposes intended by the donors. After the sale of 
 California to the United States the Mexican Government failed to 
 pay the agreed interest on that part of the principal belonging to the 
 missions of Upper California. The questions as to the amount of the 
 principal and the amount of the interest due thereon, with all col- 
 lateral questions necessary to be decided for the determination of 
 those questions, were submitted to arbitration by the United States 
 and Mexico by the convention of Ju1} t 4, 1868. The commissioners of 
 the United States and Mexico failing to agree, Sir Edward Thornton, 
 the British minister at Washington, made the decision as umpire, and 
 found that the principal, which was a permanent investment, amounted 
 to $1,435,033; that the part to be apportioned to Upper California 
 was $717,516.50; and that the interest then payable amounted to 
 $904,070.79. He therefore rendered judgment for such interest 
 against Mexico and in favor of the bishops of California. Mexico 
 thereupon paid the judgment, but she has paid no interest on the 
 principal since October 24, 1868. The present proceeding is to deter- 
 mine what interest, if any, is now due and payable to the bishops of 
 California. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 517 
 
 I. The United States contend that all questions relating to the prin- 
 cipal investment and the annual interest due thereon, and all questions 
 of the rights of the bishops of California thereto, were determined 
 and became res judicata by the decision in the former arbitration. 
 
 I will not now discuss the question of res judicata, as that subject 
 will be fully treated in the argument to be made by the agent and 
 counsel of the United States. I will, however, venture the assertion 
 that no tribunal of recognized authority, whether national or interna- 
 tional, having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, has 
 ever held that any question, either of law or fact, which it was neces- 
 sary to decide to reach the final judgment was not res judicata and 
 binding upon the parties and their privies in all subsequent proceed- 
 ings involving the questions thus put in issue and decided. This 
 principle is especially important in international courts of arbitration, 
 because if matters decided by them are not finally settled, such courts 
 will naturally fall into disuse. 
 
 II. The United States are now confronted with the denial by the 
 representative of Mexico that anything became res judicata by the 
 judgment in the former arbitration, except the duty of Mexico to pay 
 the sum of $904,070.79 awarded, and also with his contention that 
 every matter of law and fact upon which such judgment was founded 
 and which was necessarily decided to reach the final conclusion, is still 
 open to investigation and decision. I confess my surprise at the posi- 
 tion taken by the representative of Mexico. But without waiving 
 the question of res judicata, and being desirous of treating respect- 
 fully any argument the representative of Mexico may advance, I will 
 make the following statement of the case: 
 
 The Californias consisted of the Peninsula of California and the 
 western part of the Spanish dominions in North America (indicating 
 on map). The harbors of San Diego, Monterey, San Francisco, and 
 numerous other harbors and landings were visited and the rivers and 
 streams connected therewith explored a considerable distance inland 
 by Spanish navigators and adventurers. The explorers had p'ene- 
 trated and described the country sufficiently to show that Upper Cali- 
 fornia was a vast region, blessed by nature with a salubrious climate 
 and boundless resources. It was occupied by numerous tribes of 
 Indians, furnishing an almost unlimited field for the work of the Chris- 
 tian missionaries in converting the natives to the Catholic religion. 
 
 As early as 1697 donations were made, and thereafter continued to 
 be made from time to time down to 1765, by the Christian people of 
 Spain to the fund now known as the " Pious Fund of the Californias," 
 to be used for the civilization and conversion of the natives of the 
 Californias. These donations were made for the avowed purpose of 
 civilizing and converting the natives to Christianity and for the main- 
 tenance and support of the Catholic missions in the Californias. In 
 1735 a large donation was made by the Marchioness de las Torres de 
 JRada and the Marquis de Villapuente. The object and desire of the 
 donors were then fully set forth and particularly descrioed. The 
 habendum of their deed, which is denominated the foundation deed, 
 proceeds as follows: 
 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be 
 founded, in the Californias, as well for the 'maintenance of their religious, and to pro- 
 vide for the ornament and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the native 
 
518 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 converts and catechumens with food and clothing, according to the destitution of 
 that country; so that if hereafter, by God's blessing, there be means of support in 
 the "reductions" and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their 
 lands, thus obviating the necessity of sending from this country provisions, clothing, 
 and other necessaries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new 
 missions to be established hereafter in the unexplored parts of _ the said Calif ornias, 
 according to the discretion of the father superior of said missions; and the estates 
 aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that, even in case 
 of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic faith, the profits of 
 said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their- support; and in 
 case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should aban- 
 don said missions of the Calif ornias or (which God forbid) the natives of that coun- 
 try should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such contingency, 
 then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father provincial of 
 the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being, to apply theprofits of said 
 estates, their products and improvements, to other missions in the undiscovered por- 
 tions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, according as he may 
 deem most pleasing to Almighty God ; and in such ways that the dominion and govern- 
 ment .of said estates be always and perpetually continued in the reverened Society of 
 Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or secular, shall exercise any con- 
 trol thereon, or intervene in or about the same; and all such rents and profits shall 
 be applied to the purposes and objects herein specified — i. e., the propagation of our 
 holy Catholic faith. And by this deed of gift we, the said grantors, both divest our- 
 selves of, and renounce absolutely all property, dominion, ownership, rights and 
 actions, real and personal, direct and executive, thereover, and all others whatever, 
 which belong to us, or which from any other cause, title, or reason may belong, 
 appertain to us; and we cede, renounce, and transfer the whole thereof to said rev- 
 erend Society of Jesus, its missions of Calif ornias, its prelates and religious, under whose 
 charge may happen to be the government of said missions and of this province of New Spain, 
 now and at all times hereafter, in order that from the profits of said estates, and the 
 increase of their cattle, large and small, their other gains, natural or otherwise, 
 they may maintain said missions in the manner above proposed, indicated, defined, and laid 
 down forever. (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. May I interpose a question ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Certainly. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. If you take this deed, you will find that it pro- 
 vides on page 106 for the expulsion and abandonment of the missions 
 by the Jesuits, and then it proceeds in these terms: 
 
 And in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should 
 abandon said missions of the Californias, or (which God forbid) the natives of that 
 country should rebel and opostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such con- 
 tingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father 
 provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain, for the time being, to apply the 
 profits of said estates, their products and improvements, to other missions in the 
 undiscovered portions of this North America. 
 
 Now, that event has happened. The Jesuits have been compelled to 
 abandon the missions. Therefore the contingency has happened. 
 Then it is left with the Society of Jesus to do as they think fit. How 
 can that deed help you? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It helps us very much if the whole document is con- 
 sidered. The fund was to be used in the Californias unless the rever- 
 end father provincial of the Society of Jesus of this New Spain ordered 
 it to be used elsewhere. He never did so order. On the contrary, the 
 fund was used in the Californias from the time of the expulsion of the 
 Jesuits until the cession of Upper California to the United States. It 
 makes no difference what reason the reverend father provincial of the 
 Society of Jesus had for not acting. It is sufficient for the purposes 
 of this case that he did not act. The reverend father and every mem- 
 ber of the Jesuit order were expelled from the Spanish dominions by 
 the King of Spain and suppressed by the bull of the Pope. The King 
 then assumed the management of the fund as trustee and proceeded to 
 carry out the designs of the donors. He first divided the Californias 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 519 
 
 into two provinces, Upper and Lower California. He assigned the 
 Dominicans to Lower California and the Franciscans to Upper Cali- 
 fornia to continue the work of converting, civilizing, and educating 
 the Indians at the missions and the creation of new missions. He 
 appointed a royal commission to manage the estates of the Pious 
 Fund, collect the proceeds, and deposit the same in the treasury, and 
 assigned the duty to certain officers of the treasury department to 
 transmit the same to the missions in the Californias. 
 
 III. The above quotation, and, in fact, the entire deed, shows a very 
 clear conception on the part of the donors of the magnitude of the 
 undertaking to convert the natives of the Californias. It devotes 
 the entire fund to the civilization and conversion of the natives, and the 
 maintenance and support of the Catholic religion in that country, and 
 provides particularly that after the civilization and conversion of the 
 natives the proceeds of the fund are to "be applied to the necessities 
 of said missions and their support" in the Californias. The language 
 is as follows: 
 
 And the estates aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable and shall never be sold, 
 so that, even in case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy 
 Catholic faith, the profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said 
 missions and their support. (Transcript, p. 106. ) 
 
 The donors state in what events the proceeds of the Pious Fund may 
 be diverted to the support of missions other than those in the Cali- 
 fornias. This exception is so important in fixing the Californias as 
 the place which the donors intended the proceeds of their gifts to be 
 employed that I quote the language: 
 
 And in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should 
 abandon said missions of the Californias, or (which God forbid) the natives of that 
 country should rebel and apostatise from our holy faith, or in any other such con- 
 tingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father 
 provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being to apply the 
 profits of said estates, their products, and improvements to other missions in the 
 undiscovered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of the world, 
 according as he may deem most pleasing to Almighty God, and in such ways that 
 the dominion and government of said estates be always and perpetually continued 
 in the reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or 
 secular, shall exercise any control thereon, or intervene in or about the same; and 
 all such rents and profits shall be applied to the purposes and objects herein speci- 
 fied, i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 The natives did not rebel or apostacise, and there is no pretext for 
 claiming that exception as an excuse for the use of the Pious Fund 
 elsewhere than in the Californias. The reverend Society of Jesus did 
 not voluntarily abandon the missions, but was expelled by the King of 
 Spain. The reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this 
 New Spain did not order the fund to be used elsewhere, because he was 
 also expelled and deprived of his functions, so that he could not con- 
 trol the fund or order its use elsewhere. The royal decree of Febru- 
 ary 27, 1767, declares: 
 
 Therefore, by virtue of the supreme authority vested in me by the Almighty for 
 the protection of my subjects and maintaining the respect due to my crown, I have 
 decided to order the banishment from out of all my dominions in Spain, the Indias, 
 Philippine and other islands of the regulars, both priests and laymen, of the Order 
 of Jesus; also such as may have taken up vows and the novices who may desire to 
 follow the calling; and that all the temporalities belonging to the order within my 
 dominions be taken possession of; and for the uniform execution of the same I have 
 given full powers and instructions to Count Arrauda, president of my council, to 
 immediately proceed to take the necessary measures, as set forth by my other royal 
 decree of the 27th of February. (Transcript, p. 410.) 
 
520 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 The Pope, after the expulsion of the Jesuits by the Xing, sup- 
 pressed the order of Jesuits, which deprived them of the control of 
 the Pious Fund and of the missions for which it was established. In 
 his bull of July 21, 1773,- he said: 
 
 But as regards the religious missions, we desire to extend and include all that has 
 been decreed concerning the suppression of the society (of Jesuits) , reserving (at the 
 same time) the privilege of providing the means by which not only the conversion 
 of the infidels, but also the peaceful settlement of dissensions may be obtained and 
 secured with greater facility and stability. (Transcript, p. 335, par. 32.) 
 
 The Jesuits having thus been excluded and deprived of all partici- 
 pation in or control of the properties of the Pious Fund or the distri- 
 bution of the proceeds thereof, the King of Spain assumed to himself 
 the trusteeship of the Pious Fund and the management of the proper- 
 ties belonging thereto. The Franciscan Fathers were substituted in 
 the place of the Jesuits as to Upper California, to continue the work 
 inaugurated by them in establishing missions and in educating and 
 converting the natives. The King appointed agents to manage the 
 properties of the Pious Fund and to collect the proceeds thereof, and 
 authorized the officers of the Spanish treasury to transmit the same to 
 the fathers in the Californias. 
 
 IV. On acquiring her independence Mexico, as we shall hereafter 
 see, followed the policy of Spain and provided by law for the manage- 
 ment of the properties of the Pious Fund and the collection and trans- 
 mission of the proceeds thereof to the fathers conducting the missions 
 in the Californias. In 1836 she made an important change. On the 
 19th of September of that year she passed a law petitioning the Pope 
 to create the Californias into a diocese and to appoint a bishop therein. 
 The Pope appointed as such bishop the Right Rev. Francisco Garcia 
 Diego, who was consecrated on the 27th of April, 1840. (Transcript, 
 
 B182.) The residence of the bishop was located at Monterey, in 
 _ pper California, about five hundred miles northerly from the north 
 line of Lower California, and in what was then about the center of the 
 population of the missions in the Californias. The bishop of Monterey 
 remained in office during his life. 
 
 The bishop of a diocese has charge of the Roman Catholic Church 
 and all missions, charities, and Christian establishments in his diocese. 
 He also has charge of all the temporalities and the receipt and dis- 
 bursement of all moneys to be used or distributed within his juris- 
 diction. The creation of the Californias into a diocese and the 
 appointment of the Right Reverend Francisco Garcia Diego bishop 
 thereof conferred upon him and his successors in office the control of 
 the temporalities of the church, and the right to collect, receive, and 
 disburse all moneys belonging to the church, the missions, and all 
 Catholic establishments in such diocese. When upon the petition of 
 Mexico a bishop was appointed for the Californias, it became the duty 
 of such bishop to receive and distribute the proceeds of the Pious 
 Fund in his diocese. 
 
 V. I will now consider the action of Mexico in her dealings with 
 the Pious Fund as successor of Spain. 
 
 On the 25th of May, 1832, Mexico passed a law providing for the 
 renting and management of the properties of the Pious Fund, and 
 created a board for that purpose. The sixth paragraph provides that: 
 
 The proceeds of such properties (of the Pious Fund) shall be deposited in the 
 treasury of the Federal city, to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions 
 of the Californias. (Laws of Mexico, p. 2.) 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 521 
 
 And by the tenth paragraph, under subdivision nine, the board was 
 required: 
 
 To name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each one of 
 the Californias, in accordance with their respective expenses and available funds. 
 (Laws of Mexico, p. 3. ) 
 
 Thus it will be seen that Mexico commenced the discharge of her 
 duties as successor of Spain by adopting a system entirely similar to 
 the one established when the Jesuits were expelled. 
 
 A change of policy was adopted, as we have already shown, by 
 Mexico on the 19th of September, 1836, when she applied to the Pope 
 for the appointment of a bishop for the Californias. In the sixth 
 article of that application it is provided 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. (Laws of Mexico, p. 5.) 
 
 This article recognized the authority of the bishop of the Californias 
 to manage the properties belonging to the Pious Fund, which were 
 situated outside of nis bishopric, and to use the proceeds thereof for 
 the benefit of the missions in the Californias, which he accordingly did, 
 and appointed Don Pedro Ramirez his general agent in Mexico, who 
 received the rents, paid the expenses, and attended generally to the 
 business of the Pious Fund. 
 
 On the 8th of February, 1842, President Santa Anna repealed Arti- 
 cle VI of the law of 1836, above quoted, and Mexico again assumed the 
 management of the properties of the Pious Fund (Laws of Mexico, 
 p. 5) ; but she did not attempt to deprive the bishop of the right to 
 manage the temporalities of the church and receive whatever money 
 and property which might be for the use of the missions and the Cath- 
 olic Church in his diocese. 
 
 VI. The officers of the Mexican Government then demanded a state- 
 ment of the properties belonging to the Pious Fund from Ramirez, the 
 general agent of the bishop of the Californias, which, after protest, he 
 furnished. The properties embraced in the inventory, as computed in 
 the memorial of the United States, amountto $1,853,361.75. (Memo- 
 rial, p. 11). Thereupon the Mexican Government, by the decree of 
 October 24, 1842 (having the force of a legislative enactment), ordered 
 the real estate and other property of the Pious Fund sold, and the 
 entire fund reported by Ramirez covered into the treasury, which was 
 accordingly done. In the same decree Mexico undertook to pay inter- 
 est on the capital so turned into the treasury at the rate of six per cent 
 per annum, and pledged the revenue from tobacco for the payment of 
 such interest. The following is the language of the decree: 
 
 The revenue from tobacco is specially pledged for the payment of the income cor- 
 responding to the capital of the said fund of the Californias, and the department in 
 charge thereof will pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said 
 fund is destined without any deduction for costs, whether of administration or 
 otherwise. (Laws of Mexico, p. 9.) 
 
 The revenue thus pledged was abundantly sufficient to pay the 
 interest. Sr. Juan Rodriquez de San Miguel delivered a speech in 
 the Mexican Congress on 28th of March, 1844, in which he said that 
 this revenue (from tobacco) was merely nominal, so far as the missions 
 were concerned, but that the officers of the Government received from 
 tobacco with the greatest punctuality the sum of $35,000 monthly. 
 
522 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIA8. 
 
 (See Mexican Pamphlets about the Pious Fund of the Californias, 
 Nos. 24, 25, p. 12.) 
 
 The failure of Mexico to pay to the bishop of the Californias the 
 interest due him from the revenue on tobacco was not because she did 
 not know to whom the same ought to be paid, for we find in the Mexi- 
 can archives an entry, ordering $8,000 from such revenue transmitted 
 to the bishop of the Californias. The following is the entry: 
 
 Minister of the treasury sec. 2° 297. His excell. the President has been pleased to 
 order me to inform your excell., as I now do, to give an order on the maritime cus- 
 tom-house of Guymas, which shall be payable to Sr. Juan Rodrigues de San Miguel, 
 as the representative of the rt. rev. bishop of the Californias, for the sum of $8,000, 
 on account of the income belonging to the Pious Fund of California, the properties 
 of which were incorporated into the national treasury; and let this be done with the 
 greatest punctuality although it may be paid in partial payments. And let this 
 order be obeyed with all exactness, notwithstanding my communication of yesterday 
 to your excells. under No. 277 that the former order of Jan. 30 should be without 
 effect. Contracted in order that the quantity mentioned in it might be paid by the 
 aforesaid custom-house; and without injury to the assignment of the $500, monthly 
 made upon the product of tobacco from the state of Zacatecas. (Transcript, p. 149.) 
 
 Mexico also recognized the right of the bishop to receive the prop- 
 erty of the Pious Fund by decreeing on April 3, 1845, that — 
 
 The credits and other properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias which are 
 now unsold shall be immediately returned to the reverend bishop of that see and 
 his successors, for the purposes mentioned in article 6 of the law of September 29, 
 1836, without prejudice to what Congress may resolve in regard to the property that 
 has been alienated. (Laws of Mexico, pp. 7, 8. ) 
 
 This decree would not have been made unless the bishop, as such, 
 was entitled to receive the property referred to. The fact that no 
 property was actually transferred does not affect the designation of 
 the bishop as the proper official to receive any property that might be 
 transferred. 
 
 1 call attention to the treatment by Mexico of a fund contributed by 
 the pious people of Spain for the establishment of missions in the 
 Philippines, which is a precedent for the claim of the bishops of Cali- 
 fornia. 
 
 In 1844, eight years after the independence of Mexico was acknowl- 
 edged by Spain, a treaty was entered into for the settlement of a claim 
 of the missions in the Philippines against Mexico. The property out 
 of which the claim of the missions arose consisted of two haciendas, 
 the Ohica and the Grande, both situated in Mexico. By the latter 
 convention Mexico agreed to pay, and did pay, $115,000 as principal 
 and $30,000 in addition thereto as interest or rent. The money was 
 paid to Father Moran, the representative of the Philippine missions. 
 (Transcript, p. 25.) 
 
 The fact that Mexico recognized the bishop of the Californias as 
 the proper officer to receive the proceeds of the Pious Fund proves 
 that she did not agree to pay interest, intending at the same time to 
 avoid such payment for want of a person to receive the same. 
 
 The United States appreciate the honor of Mexico too highly to 
 suppose for a moment that she would promise to pay interest on the 
 Pious Fund, knowing her promise was nugatory for the want of a 
 payee, and we hope that no one will hereafter accuse Mexico of such 
 insincerity. But suppose that Mexico intended to confiscate the fund 
 which she covered into her treasury, and to deny that anyone had 
 a right to receive the interest which she agreed to pay; she has now 
 made ample amends for such unfair conduct. She has agreed that 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 523 
 
 this honorable tribunal, if it finds that the former judgment is not res 
 judicata, shall determine "whether the claim be just," and "render 
 such judgment or award as may be meet and proper under all the cir- 
 cumstances of the case." (Protocol, p. 3). 
 
 M. Pardo. Nous pr^senterons a la Cour avant l'ouverture de la 
 prochaine audience la reponse du Gouvernenaent mexicain en espagnol, 
 avec sa traduction en francais et avec les documents cites a, l'appui. 
 
 M. le President. M. l'agent des Etats-Unis a et6 assez bon de dire 
 tant6t qu'il mettrait & la disposition du Tribunal le Code Civil de 
 Calif ornie; je le prie, s'il le veut bien, de nous le fournir. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Je le demanderai par le telegraphe. 
 
 (L'audience est levee a 3 h. 45 et-la suite des d^bats renvoyee au 
 mercredi 17 Septembre, a 9i h. du matin.) 
 
 TROISIEME SEANCE. 
 
 17 septembre 1902 (matin). 
 
 L'audience est ouverte a 9 h. 45 sous la presidence de M. Matzen. 
 
 M, le President. Je donne d'abord la parole a notre Secretaire- 
 General pour lire quelques decisions que le Tribunal a prises a l'occa- 
 sion des discussions qui ont eu lieu a la derniere stance. 
 
 M. le Secretaire-General. Voici la premiere decision, qui a ete 
 communiquee aux deux agents par 4crit: 
 
 Le Tribunal: Attendu que l'agent de la partie defenderesse (Etats-Unis Mexi- 
 cains) a consenti a ce que la replique ecrite de la partie demanderesse (Etats-Unis 
 d' Amerique) soit jointe au dossier, sous la condition que la partie defenderesse ait le 
 droit d' y repondre par ecrit, a decide que ladite replique sera acceptee par le Tribunal 
 et que la partie defenderesse aura le droit d' y repondre par ecrit, pourvu que cette 
 reponse soit deposee au greffe du Tribunal en manuscrit au plus tard le 25 de ce mois, 
 et qu'au plus tard le meme jour une copie en soit remise a, la partie demanderesse. 
 
 Le Tribunal autorise M. le Secretaire-General a notifier cette decision aux agents 
 des deux parties. 
 
 Seconde de"ci«ion: 
 
 Vu la necessity de fixer l'ordre des plaidoyers et se conformant au reglement de la 
 procedure arbitrale, consign^ dans la Convention de la Haye de 1899 (art. 30 et sui- 
 vants), le Tribunal a decide ce qui suit: 
 
 1°. Attendu que ce sont les representants des Etats-Unis d' Amerique qui ont ouvert 
 les debats en leur quality de partie demanderesse, la parole sera donnee aux repre- 
 sentants des Etats-Unis Mexicains comme partie defenderesse aussitot que la partie 
 demanderesse aura termine son plaidoyer. Ensuite les deux parties, si elles le desirent, 
 alterneront encore une fois dans le mtoe ordre. 
 
 2°. Les parties ont le droit de faire parler tous leurs conseils tant pour le premier 
 plaidoyer que pour la reponse. Pour la replique et la duplique chaque partie desi- 
 gnera un seul de ses conseils pour prendre la parole, sauf le droit des autres conseils 
 d'intervenir pour repondre aux objections qui concerneraient sperialement les dis- 
 cours qu'ils ont prononces. 
 
 M. le President. Monsieur l'agent des Etats-Unis d' Amerique a la 
 parole. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I will ask the permission of this tribunal for an 
 opportunity to examine more carefully the decision of the court just 
 read, and to consider the exact order in which we will offer our coun- 
 sel. I suppose I may have that opportunity, perhaps, at noon hour — 
 this noon, between the morning and evening sessions. 
 
 The President. You will get a copy of the decision. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Thank you. For the present upon that point I would 
 simply say that Senator Stewart having opened the debate will conclude 
 
524 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 it — with your permission, will conclude his speech for the United States; 
 and, if I understand correctly what has been read, and the disposition, 
 I believe, of the court, it is the desire of this tribunal that in our 
 case— all the points of our case that we consider necessary to be relied 
 upon— should be fully presented, offered to the court, before the Mexi- 
 can reply; and if I understand correctly, for the purpose of obtaining 
 that end it will be proper for Senator Stewart to be followed by 
 another of our counsel who will complete the opening of our case. 
 That will be, with the permission of the court, Mr. McEnerney, who 
 will follow Senator Stewart, and who, I hope, will be able to finish 
 to-day what he may desire to present to the court, although I want to 
 safeguard what I say by saying that perhaps part of his argument 
 may go over until Monday. But that is not our desire. We desire 
 to present, and hope to be able to present, our opening of the case 
 fully at this session. 
 
 Now, having said this much, I promised the court at its last session 
 that I would present for its consideration a translation into English 
 of a number of pages in the record, the dossier, of the old case, which 
 are there found in Spanish, French, Italian, and German, and the 
 translation has been completed and printed, and I therefore take 
 pleasure in handing to the secretary-general a number of copies for 
 the court, individual members of the court, and for the files of the 
 court, and also in delivering some copies to the agent of Mexico. Mr. 
 President and honorable arbitrators, you will note, of course, on the 
 face of the paper that it is a translation of extracts which are to be 
 found on pages 187-221 in the large printed volume of the record 
 you have before you. 
 
 Furthermore, Mr. President, about three weeks ago, scarcely that 
 much, I received information from the Department that Mexico had 
 made a demand upon the United States for a discovery as to what had 
 become of the proceeds of the award which was made against Mexico 
 more than 26 years ago in the case before you. While we do not 
 admit, and in fact expressly deny, that information of that nature 
 comes within the design of the Protocol of last May, because we do 
 not think that it is in any degree pertinent to the present case, and 
 that when the award was made it became a matter of absolute indif- 
 ference to Mexico what was done by the Catholic bishops of California 
 in distributing the money — while I say that is our position, neverthe- 
 less, subject to the reservations which I now make as to the materiality 
 and the relevancy and the pertinency of the demand made by Mexico, 
 I stand ready to answer the demand, as I at once telegraphed for the 
 specific information desired by Mexico. This 1 indicated would be 
 here shortly. I so indicated at the last session of the court, and in 
 fact it was delivered to me Monday evening. 
 
 Mr. Asser. It was a written document? 
 
 Mr. JRalston. Yes, it was a written document, the contents of which 
 I will very briefly explain. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. It should be handed to the other side, so that they 
 can use it. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. As the court will. We were required to produce it. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. You produce it and leave it. They can use it if 
 they see fit. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Very well; and for the convenience of the court, if 
 the court desires hereafter to examine it, we have prepared printed 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 525 
 
 copies of the same, coupled with the affidavit of the archbishop of San 
 Francisco to the truth of the facts. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. This is not part of your case. It is part of the 
 Mexican case. Under these circumstances you produce it and leave it 
 to them to use it. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. So be it. 
 
 M. le President. Est-ce que M. l'agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains 
 a quelques observations a faire a present? 
 
 M. Pardo. L'agent Mexicain a entendu la decision de la Cour; il s'y 
 soumet naturellement. H se reserve de r^pondre aux communications 
 qui viennent d'etre f aites par l'agent des Etats-Unis une f ois qu'il aura 
 " pris connaissance des documents qui viennent d'etre mis a sa disposi- 
 tion. 
 
 M. le President. Le Tribunal decide maintenant d'entendre le 
 representant de l'Amerique du Nord. M. le secateur Stewart a la 
 parole. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: I will again 
 call attention for a few moments to what is called the ' ' foundation 
 deed." This deed so clearly declares the purposes and* designs of the 
 donors, and is so frequently referred to by both sides, that I will be 
 indulged in reading a small portion of it. It was made in 1735, although 
 there were many donations made previous to that time, which we 
 have not in writing. This is taken by both sides as a sample of the 
 donations, and indicating the purposes of the donors. The tribunal 
 will pardon me for rereading the portion of the foundation deed pre- 
 sented to you last Monday. I read from the habendum: 
 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be founded 
 in the Californias, as well for the maintenance of their religious, and to provide for the orna- 
 ment and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the native converts and 
 catechumens with food and clothing, according to the destitution of that country; so 
 that if hereafter, by God's blessing, there be means of support in the "reductions" 
 and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their lands, thus- 
 obviating the necessity of sending from this country provisions, clothing, and other 
 necessaries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new missions, 
 to be established hereafter in the unexplored parts of the said Californias, accord- 
 ing to the discretion of the father superior of said missions; and the estates aforesaid 
 shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that, even in case of all Cali- 
 fornia being civilized and converted to, our holy Catholic faith, the profits of said 
 estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their support; and . 
 in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, should 
 ■ abandon said missions of the Californias or (which God forbid) the natives of 
 that country should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such 
 contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend 
 father provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being to 
 apply the profits of said estates, their products and improvements, to other missions 
 in the undiscovered portions of this North America, or to others in any part of the 
 world, according as he may deem most pleasing to Almighty God, and in such ways 
 that the dominion and government of said estates be always and perpetually con- 
 tinued in the reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or 
 secular, shall exercise any control thereon, or intervene in or about the same, and 
 all such rents and profits shall be applied to the purposes and objects herein specified, 
 i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. And by this deed of gift we, the 
 said grantors, both divest ourselves of and renounce absolutely all property, dominion, 
 ownership, rights, and actions, real and personal, direct and executive, thereover, 
 and all others whatever which belong to us, or which from other cause, title, or 
 reason may belong, appertain to us, and we cede, renounce, and transfer the whole 
 thereof to said reverend Society of Jesus, its missions of Californias, its prelates and 
 religious, under whose charge may happen to be the government of said missions and of this 
 province of Neio Spain, now and at all times hereafter, in order that from the profits 
 of said estates and the increase of their cattle, large and small, their other gains, 
 
526 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 
 
 natural or otherwise, they may maintain said missions in the manner above proposed, indi- 
 cated, defined, and laid down forever. (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 I am still of the opinion that the exception discussed on Monday 
 emphasized the intention of the donors that the fund should be used in 
 the Calif ornias. That exception reads as follows: 
 
 And in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compulsion, 
 should abandon said missions of the Californias, or (which God forbid) the natives 
 of that country should rebel and apostatise from our.holy faith, or in any other such 
 contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the discretion of the reverend father 
 provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain for the time being to apply 
 the profits of said estates, their products and improvements, to other missions in the 
 undiscovered portions of tbis North America, or to others in any part«of the world, 
 according as he may deem most pleasing, to Almighty God; and in such ways that 
 the dominion and government or said estates be always and perpetually continued 
 in the reverend Society of Jesus and its prelates, so that no judge, ecclesiastical or 
 secular, shall exercise any control thereon, or intervene in or about the same; and 
 all such rents and profits shall be applied to the purposes and objects herein specified, 
 i. e., the propagation of our holy Catholic faith. (Transcript, p. 106. ) 
 
 It is not claimed that the Jesuits voluntarily abandoned the missions, 
 nor that the natives rebelled or apostatized, nor that any other contin- 
 gency arose whereby the proceeds of the Pious Fund might be used 
 elsewhere than in the Californias. The expulsion of the Jesuits 
 undoubtedly meant a condition of things which would make it impos- 
 sible for them to continue their work of converting the natives in the 
 Californias. It could not have had reference to the expulsion or 
 removal of the Jesuits by the King and the substitution in their place 
 of the Franciscan order, nor to the suppression of the Jesuits by the 
 Pope. It was as well known then as now that the King had power to 
 expatriate the Jesuits and that the Pope had power to suppress them, 
 but in that case other orders of the church would take their place. The 
 bishops, for example, in most all religious organizations have charge 
 of the temporalities of the church, but they have no property rights in 
 such temporalities, and when they are removed another church official 
 is substituted. The temporalities of the church are then under the 
 charge of the new official. It is very certain that the Pious Fund was 
 not diverted from the Californias or used elsewhere by virtue of the 
 exception under consideration. 
 
 The conveyance was made to the Missions. The language is: 
 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be 
 founded, in the Californias, as well for the maintenance of their religious, and to 
 provide for the ornament and decent support of divine worship as also to aid the 
 native converts and catechumens with food and clothing according to the destitution 
 of that country. 
 
 The object of the exception under consideration manifestly was to 
 maintain the existence of the fund, and if it could not be used in the 
 Californias, the reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus 
 might order its use elsewhere; but the time never arrived when it was 
 not used in the Californias, and the time never arrived when the rev : 
 erend father provincial of the Society of Jesus ordered its use else- 
 where. It must be remembered also that the Jesuit Order itself was 
 Ho v^ 6 co . ntro1 of the Catholic Church and could be removed from 
 
 m ■ -£ f ormas and anotb -er order substituted, as was done in this case. 
 
 Mr. Kalston. At this point will you allow an interruption? 
 
 Mr. Stewakt. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. If the tribunal please: After consultation with other 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNTAS. 527 
 
 counsel in the case, we will not insist upon the objection I had 
 thought it my duty to call to the attention of the tribunal with refer- 
 ence to this exhibit, but we will offer it on our own account. 
 
 I may state in just a word the substance of its contents, as it has an 
 important bearing upon the argument made by Senator Stewart, and 
 upon the point to which he is now addressing himself. 1 have stated 
 the purport of the demand by Mexico. I nave here, to begin, the 
 affidavit of the secretary of the 'Roman Catholic archbishop of San 
 Francisco to the effect that he has in his possession and is the custodian 
 of "all the books, records, files, papers, and documents of the Roman 
 Catholic archbishop of San Francisco." This is on page 3. And that 
 the "annexed document is a full, true, correct, and verbatim copy of 
 the pontificial decree directing the distribution of the monies of the 
 Pious Fund, which said pontificial decree is among the files, papers, and 
 documents of the said Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco." 
 
 Then we have on page 4 the Latin copy of the pontifical decree, and 
 on page 5 an English translation of the same, wherein it appears that 
 by the decree "there having been deducted from the whole sum the 
 expenses of the suit and the sum of $26,000 to be paid to the family of 
 Aguirre (since it is plainly evident that such a sum is due to the 
 aforesaid family), and payment having been made of $ 24, 000 to the 
 right reverend the archbishop of Oregon for the missions of the eccle- 
 siastical province of that name and the vicariate apostolic of Idaho, 
 and $40,000 to the fathers of the Order of St. Francis and the fathers 
 of the Society of Jesus, to be equally divided between them; of the 
 remaining sum there shall be taken seven equal parts, of which one 
 shall remain perpetually assigned to the missions of the Territory of 
 Utah and the remaining six shall be divided equally between the three 
 above-named bishoprics of the ecclesiastical province of San Fran- 
 cisco." The rest is not material upon that point. To this is added 
 upon page first the affidavit of the archbishop himself, the material 
 part for your consideration being particularly the last paragraph: 
 
 I am acquainted with all of the facts relative to the distribution of the proceeds of 
 the judgment obtained in the case of Amat v. Mexico, referred to in said pontifical 
 document, and am personally cognizant of the fact that distribution of all the said 
 proceeds was made in strict conformity with the terms of said instrument; and my- 
 self supervised the distribution of seven out of fourteen of the installments thereof, 
 having received the necessary receipts from all of the parties in interest. 
 
 I may very briefly explain to the tribunal that there were claims 
 presented before the former commission on behalf of citizens of the 
 United States against Mexico, and by citizens of Mexico against the 
 United States, and when the proceedings of the court were terminated 
 a balance was struck and it was found that a considerable excess became 
 payable to citizens of the United States, and Mexico paid that excess 
 in different instalments, the last payment being made in 1890. 
 
 Just one word before I close. It will be noted that the division was 
 made among a number of States which were considered as forming 
 part of what was anciently known as Upper California, on behalf of 
 which we claim: First of all, all California shares in the division; next, 
 Oregon, forming part of ancient California; next Idaho, which runs 
 up to the British possessions on the north; and Utah, which is in itself 
 a very large State. 
 
 Nevada then belonged to the California dioceses, and Washington, 
 Idaho, and Montana were attached to the Oregon diocese. 
 
528 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 So that we have this whole extensive country, many thousands, in 
 fact several hundreds of thousands, of square miles in extent, with an 
 extremely large population and many thousand Indians, perhaps fifty 
 to one hundred thousand, who shared in the benefits of the former 
 award as against the narrow and barren strip of Lower California, 
 which was adjudged by Sir Edward Thornton as entitled to one-half 
 of the entire interest under the whole award. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. That evidence confirms to some extent my opinion 
 of the clause "by compulsion." It had reference to some circum- 
 stance other than the regular change which the church had the 
 power to make in the society or church officialc which should take 
 charge of the missions. It will be seen that there was $40,000 of this 
 money given to the Jesuits. The Jesuit Order was not perpetually 
 suppressed. It was revived in 1814. It is doing service in many 
 parts of the world, and particularly in Upper California. The recep- 
 tion of a part of the Pious Fund recovered in the former arbitration 
 after a century of silent acquiescence, removes any pretense that the 
 order ever had even a desire that the Pious Fund should be used else- 
 where than in the Californias. It appears then that the reverend 
 father provincial not only did not order the fund to be used elsewhere, 
 but the entire society remained silent on that subject for many years 
 after the order was revived, and finally received and used a portion of 
 the fund in the Californias. It will be seen by the following para- 
 graph of the bull of the Pope suppressing the Order of Jesus that he 
 intended to promote, and not to destroy, the work of establishing 
 missions and converting the heathen in the Californias: 
 
 But as regards the religious missions, we desire to extend and include all that has 
 been decreed concerning the suppression of the Society (of Jesuits), reserving (at 
 the same time) the privilege of providing the means by which not only the conver- 
 sion of the infidels but also the peaceful settlement of dissentions may be obtained 
 and secured with greater facility and stability. (Transcript, p. 335, par. 32.) 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Where is that bull to be found? The only note 
 I have is page 461. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It is in Spanish, and this is a translation, paragraph 
 32, page 335. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Where is it to be found; in what book? 
 
 Mr. Kalston. Transcript page 323, in Spanish. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. And we have it translated. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. That is all right. I only wanted to get it. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. It is also translated in the answer of the representa- 
 tive of Mexico. 
 
 At all events, this part of the bull of the Pope shows that the 
 intention was to secure peaceable administration of this fund and to 
 make larger provisions if necessary. 
 
 VII. 1 now call attention to the foundation deed for the purpose of 
 showing that the representative of Mexico was misled in his answer 
 to the memorial of the United States by the omission from his extract, 
 quoted from that document, of most essential parts. His extract is 
 certainly most misleading. 
 
 The parts omitted and represented by stars are essential in deter- 
 mining the intention of the donors. In order that the materiality of 
 the parts omitted may be judged, I quote in parallel columns a true 
 extract from the foundation deed and the extract used by the repre- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 529 
 
 sentative of Mexico. The parts omitted by the representative of 
 Mexico are printed in italics in the true copy: 
 
 TRUE COPT. 
 
 This donation, which we make 
 good, pure, perfect, and irrevocable 
 as a firm contract inter vivos from 
 this day, henceforth and forever. 
 
 To have and to Iwld, to said mis- 
 sions founded, and which here- 
 aftei may be founded, in the 
 Californias, as well for the main- 
 tenance of their religious, and to 
 provide for the ornament and 
 decent support of divine worship, 
 as also to aid the native con- 
 verts and catechumens with food 
 and clothing, according to the 
 destitution of that country, so 
 that if hereafter, by God's bless- 
 ing, there be means of support 
 in the "reductions" and missions 
 now established, as ex. gr. by 
 the cultivation of their lands, 
 thus obviating the necessity of 
 sending from this country pro- 
 visions, clothing, and other neces- 
 saries, the rents and products 
 of said estates shall be applied 
 to new missions to be established 
 hereafter in the unexplored parts 
 of the said Calif ornias, accord- 
 ing to the discretion of the father 
 superior of said missions; and 
 the estates aforesaid shall be per- 
 petually inalienable, and shall 
 never be sold, so that, even in case 
 of all California being civilized 
 and converted to our holy Catholic 
 faith, tlie profits of said estates 
 shall be applied to the necessities 
 of said missions and their sup- 
 port; and in case that the rever- 
 end Society of Jesus, voluntarily 
 or by compulsion, should abandon 
 said missions of the Californias, or 
 (which God forbid) the natives of 
 that country should rebel and 
 apostatize from our holy faith, or 
 in any other such contingency, 
 then, and in that case, it is left to 
 the discretion of the reverend 
 
 MISQUOTED COPT. 
 
 This donation, we make 
 
 to said missions founded, 
 and which may hereafter be 
 founded, in the Californias, as 
 well as for the maintenance of 
 their religious, and to provide for 
 the support and con- 
 
 duct of divine worship, as also 
 to aid the native converts and 
 catechumens by the same (prob- 
 ably "from the misery") of that 
 country; so that if thereafter, 
 by God's blessing, there be means 
 of support in the "reductions" 
 and missions now established, — 
 as ex. gr. by the cultivation of 
 their lands, thus obviating the 
 necessity of sending from this 
 country clothing and other 
 
 necessaries — the rents and prod- 
 ucts of said estates shall be applied 
 of (surely "to") new missions 
 
 and in case the 
 
 Society of Jesus, voluntarily or 
 by compulsion, should abandon 
 said missions of the Californias or, 
 which God forbid, the natives of 
 that country should rebel and 
 apostatize from our holy faith, 
 or in any other such contingency, 
 then, and in that case, it is left to 
 the discretion of the reverend 
 father provincial of the Society of 
 Jesus in this New Spain for the 
 time being to apply the profits of 
 said estates, their products and 
 improvements, to other missions 
 in the undiscovered portions of 
 this North America, or to others 
 in any part of the world, 
 as he may deem most pleasing to 
 Almighty God; and in such a way 
 that the government of said 
 
 estates be always and perpetually 
 continued in the reverend Society 
 of Jesus and its prelates, so that 
 
 S. Doc. 28- 
 
 -34 
 
530 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 father provincial of the Society of 
 Jesus in this New Spain for the 
 time being to apply the profits of 
 said estates, their products, and 
 improvements to other missions 
 in the undiscovered portions of 
 this North America, or to others 
 in any part of the world, according 
 as he may deem most pleasing to 
 Almighty God; and in such ways 
 that the dominion and government 
 of said estates be always and per- 
 petually continued in the reverend 
 Society of Jesus and its prelates, 
 so that no judge, ecclesiastical or 
 secular, shall exercise any control 
 thereon, or intervene in or about 
 the same; and all such rents and 
 profits shall be applied to the pur- 
 poses and objects herein specified, 
 i. e. , the propagation of our holy 
 Catholic faith. And by this deed 
 of gift we, the said grantors, both 
 divest ourselves of and renounce 
 absolutely all property, dominion, 
 ownership, rights, and actions, real 
 and personal, direct and execictive, 
 thereover, and all others whatever 
 which belong to us, or which from 
 any other cause, title, or reason 
 may belong, appertain to us; and 
 we cede, renounce, and transfer the 
 whole thereof to said reverend So- 
 ciety of Jesus, its missions of Cali- 
 fornias, it sprelates and religious, 
 under whose charge may happen to 
 be the government of said missions 
 and of this province of New Spain, 
 now and at all times hereafter, in 
 order that from the profits of said 
 estates and the increase of their 
 cattle, large and small, their other 
 gains, natural or otherwise, they 
 may maintain said missions in the 
 manner above proposed, indicated, 
 defined, and laid down forever. 
 
 And we, the said grantors, both 
 desire that at no time shall any 
 judge, ecclesiastical or secular, 
 undertake to investigate or intrude 
 himself to ascertain whether the 
 conditions of this donation be ful- 
 filled; for our will is that in this 
 matter there shall be no pretence 
 
 no judge, ecclesiastical or secular, 
 
 shall exercise any control therein. 
 
 ***** 
 
 we, desire that at no 
 
 time shall this donation be set 
 aside, nor shall any judge, eccle- 
 siastical or secular, undertake to 
 investigate or intervene to ascer- 
 tain whether the conditions of 
 this donation be fulfilled; for our 
 will is that in this matter there 
 shall be no pretence for such in- 
 tervention, and that whether the 
 said reverend Society fulfils or 
 does not fulfil the trusts in favor 
 of the missions herein contained, 
 it shall render account to God our 
 Lord, alone. 
 
 (Answer to Memorial in English, 
 p. 4.) 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 531 
 
 for such intervention, and that 
 whether the said reverend society 
 fulfils or does not fulfil the trusts 
 in favor of the missions herein 
 contained it shall render an account 
 to God our Lord alone. 
 (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 In comparing the foregoing extracts the materiality of the parts 
 omitted by the representative of Mexico will be readily observed. 
 
 VIII. The contention of the representative of Mexico that all the 
 natives in Upper California have been converted, and that therefore 
 there is no necessity for the use of the interest on the Pious Fund in 
 that locality, rests on two mistakes: 
 
 1. There are many thousands of natives in Upper California who are 
 still unconverted. 
 
 2. It was not the intention of the donors, as we have already seen, 
 that the use of the proceeds of the Pious Fund should terminate upon 
 the conversion of all the natives in the Californias. On the contrary, 
 they intended that the use of such proceeds should be continued 
 indefinitely for the benefit of Christian missions in that locality. For 
 the purpose of calling particular attention to the provision in the 
 foundation deed which makes the use of the Pious Fund in the Cal- 
 ifornias perpetual, we again quote one of the parts omitted in the 
 extract from the foundation deed used by the representative of Mexico, 
 which is as follows: 
 
 And the estates aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, 
 so that even in case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic 
 faith the profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and 
 their support. (Transcript, p. 106.) 
 
 The foregoing provision shows that the donors anticipated the argu- 
 ment of the representative of Mexico that there would be no further 
 use for the Pious Fund in the Californias after all the natives were 
 converted and gave a complete answer thereto. Such conversion is 
 not yet accomplished. The necessities for the continuance of the 
 work of conversion and the maintenance of the Catholic faith in the 
 missions will remain indefinitely, and the donors made special provision 
 therefor. 
 
 IX. The contention of the representative of Mexico that the United 
 States, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, proclaimed July 4, 1848, 
 which, among other things, ceded a large territory, including Upper 
 California, to the United States for the sum of $15,000,000, discharged 
 Mexico from all demands on account of the Pious Fund can not be 
 maintained. Article XIV of the treaty, quoted by the representative 
 of Mexico as establishing a full defense to this proceeding, reads as 
 follows: 
 
 The United States do furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims 
 of citizens of the United States, not heretofore decided against the Mexican Govern- 
 ment, which may have arisen previously to the date of the signature of this treaty: 
 which discharge shall be final and perpetual, whether the said claims be rejected or 
 be allowed by the board of commissioners provided for in the following article, and 
 whatever shall be the total amount of those allowed. (Appendix to Record, p. 16. ) 
 
 There are several conclusive reasons why the foregoing article does 
 not discharge Mexico from the obligation she assumed to pay interest 
 
532 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 on that part of the Pious Fund dedicated to Upper California. The 
 United States did not undertake to exonerate Mexico from her obliga- 
 tions to persons who were then Mexican citizens and who might there- 
 after become citizens of the United States on compliance with the pro- 
 visions of the treaty. The undertaking of the United States, was 
 confined to the then citizens of the United States. Neither the Roman 
 Catholic Church nor its dignitaries or members of its fold, were citi- 
 zens of the United States at the time ratifications of the treaty were 
 exchanged. Whether they would ever become citizens of the United 
 States depended upon an election or option to be exercised by them 
 after such exchange of ratifications. 
 
 The Pious Fund by the action of Mexico, was a permanent invest- 
 ment upon which she agreed to pay interest annually. No claim for 
 interest has been made by the United States in behalf of the bishops 
 of California for any instalment of interest which became due and was 
 payable previous to July 4, 1848, but interest arising after that date 
 was submitted to arbitration under the convention of July 4, 1868, and 
 decided in favor of the United States. The claim for interest in this 
 proceeding has arisen subsequent to October 24, 1868. There is noth- 
 ing in the treaty which can give the slightest pretext for the assertion 
 that the United States either agreed to extinguish the obligations of 
 Mexico to Mexican citizens or to pay the debts of Mexico to citizens 
 of the United States which might become due after the execution of 
 the treaty. 
 
 X. The recital of the representative of Mexico of various statutes 
 of his Government confiscating church property, barring debts by 
 limitation, and fixing times within which demands against the Mexican 
 Government must be presented, has nothing to do with this proceed- 
 ing. Whatever efforts Mexico may have made to close her own tri- 
 bunals against the claim of the bishops of California by her local 
 legislation do not concern us. It is sufficient for the purpose of this 
 proceeding that both the United States and Mexico have agreed that 
 the alleged obligation of Mexico to pay interest to the bishops shall be 
 tried before this honorable tribunal. 
 
 Fortunately, Mexico does not now repudiate the various recitals in 
 her statutes that her intention was to preserve, maintain, and apply 
 the Pious Fund to the conversion and civilization of the natives of the 
 Californias, and for the maintenance and support of the Catholic 
 religion in that country, but on the contrary agrees that this honorable 
 tribunal shall, in the event the matters ai-e not res judicata, determine 
 whether the beneficiaries of the Pious Fund have a just claim against 
 Mexico, and " render such judgment as maybe meet and proper under 
 all the circumstances of the case." 
 
 This honorable conduct on the part of Mexico ought not to be dis- 
 paraged by her own representative, or any one else, by an intimation 
 that she is willing to oppose the rendering of a judgment which shall 
 be just and equitable. Even if Mexico had confiscated the Pious Fund 
 before California became a part of the United States, why has she not 
 the right to waive any advantage such confiscation or any other arbi- 
 trary act might afford her, and submit the justice of the claim as it 
 onginally.existed to arbitration ? If the claim is j ust, no act of Mexico, 
 however arbitrary or wrong, stands in the way of a judgment directing 
 the payment thereof, because by her agreement to arbitrate she has 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 533 
 
 swept away all defenses to the claim of the beneficiaries of the Pious 
 Fund, except the plea that it is unjust. 
 
 Can there be any question of the justice of the claim? If there was 
 no Pious Fund of the Calif ornias, why did Mexico, by the law of May 
 25, 1832, provide for leasing the same? If the proceeds of such prop- 
 erty when leased did not belong to the missions of the Californias, why 
 did Mexico declare, in the sixth section of that law, that "the proceeds 
 of such property shall be deposited in the treasury of the Federal City 
 to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions of the Californias ? " 
 If the proceeds were not to be remitted to the Californias, why did 
 Mexico, in section 10, subdivision 9, of that law, require the adminis- 
 trators of the fund "to name to the Government the amounts which 
 may be remitted to each one of the Californias, in accordance with 
 their respective expenses and available funds ? " 
 
 Again, why did Mexico on the 24th of October, 1842, in the pre- 
 amble of the decree, directing the sale of the Pious Fund, say that the 
 decree of February 8, 1842, "was intended to fulfill most faithfully 
 the beneficent and national objects designed by the foundress without 
 the slightest diminution of the properties destined to end?-' Why 
 did Mexico pledge, by the third section of that act, the revenues aris- 
 ing from tobacco for the payment of interest on the Pious Fund, ' ' with- 
 out any deduction for costs, whether of administration or otherwise?" 
 Why did Mexico, by the law of April 3, 1845, order all unsold prop- 
 erty of the Pious Fund restored to the bishop if it was not the property 
 of the missions and the Catholic Church of the Californias ? 
 
 In short, why did every law or decree enacted or promulgated by 
 Mexico recognize the existence of the Pious Fund and also that it 
 belonged to the missions of the Californias and the Catholic Church in 
 that region? Why was neither the existence of the Pious Fund nor 
 the objects and purposes of its founders not questioned until after the 
 beneficiaries of the fund become citizens of the United States ? If the 
 Pious Fund was not the property of the missions and the Catholic Church 
 of the Californias, why did not Mexico claim it as her own ? Why did 
 she continually declare, in effect, that it was not her property, by assert- 
 ing that it belonged to the missions and the Catholic Church of the 
 Californias ? 
 
 XI. Very different questions are submitted to this tribunal from 
 those which the arbitration under the convention of 1868 was called 
 upon to decide. Under that convention the arbitrators were not 
 authorized to disregard any defense which would be allowed under 
 the ordinary rules of procedure in courts of justice. Confiscation or 
 any other arbitrary act, which would have been a bar in Mexico to the 
 recovery of the Pious Fund while California was a part of that coun- 
 try, might have been urged as a defense under the general language of 
 Article II of the protocol of 1868. 
 
 Article II of that protocol contains the following: 
 
 The commissioners shall then conjointly proceed to the investigation and decision 
 of the claims which shall he presented to their notice, in such order and in such 
 manner as they may conjointly think proper, but upon such evidence or information 
 only as shall be furnished by or on behalf of their respective governments. They 
 shall be bound to receive and peruse all written documents or statements which may 
 be presented to them by or on behalf of their respective governments in support of 
 or in answer to any claim, and to hear, if required, one person on each side in behalf 
 of each government on each and every separate claim. (Appendix to Record, p. 31.) 
 
534 PIODS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Under such a submission any defense might have been interposed 
 that would be good in ordinary proceedings at law. There was no 
 revising of contracts, no reforming of instruments authorized. 
 
 But the issue submitted to this tribunal, in case the matters are not 
 rex judicata, is different. It submits the justice of the claim without 
 regard to technical defenses. The protocol reads: 
 
 1. If said claim, as a consequence of the former decision, is within the governing 
 principle of res judicata. 
 
 That is the first question this tribunal is to consider. 
 
 If not, whether the same be just. 
 
 And to render such judgment or award as may be meet and proper under all the 
 circumstances of the case. (Protocol, p. 3. ) 
 
 This is the broadest possible pleading. No court can have more 
 liberal rules to redress wrongs of whatever nature than are prescribed 
 in the protocol in this case. This tribunal is directed in so many words 
 "to render such judgment or award as may be meet and proper under 
 all the circumstances of the case." The question submitted is untram- 
 meled by any rules of pleading or practice, and this tribunal is directed 
 to the one issue: Is it just t 
 
 I am not familiar with the pleadings and rules of practice in any 
 country where the English language does not prevail, but whatever 
 rules may exist anywhere which would prevent this tribunal from 
 deciding this case according to the principles of justice must be disre- 
 garded. 
 
 The courts of equity in England and America redress many wrongs 
 which can not be adjudicated in courts of law. I will read, for an 
 illustration, a passage or two from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Pawle's 
 Revision, Vol. I, page 684: 
 
 Third, where the courts of equity administer equitable relief for the infraction of 
 legal rights, in cases in which the courts of law, recognizing the right, give a remedy 
 according to their principles, modes, and forms, but the remedy is deemed by equity 
 inadequate to the requirements of the case. This is sometimes called the concurrent 
 jurisdiction. This class embraces fraud, mistake, accident, administration, legacies, 
 contribution, and cases where justice and conscience require the cancellation, or refor- 
 mation of instruments, or the rescission, or the specific performance of contracts. 
 
 The courts of law relieveagainst fraud, mistake, and accident, where a remedy can 
 be had according to their modes and forms; but there are many cases in which the 
 legal remedy is inadequate for the purposes of justice. 
 
 The modes of investigation and the peculiar remedies of the courts of equity are 
 often of the greatest importance in this class of cases. 
 
 Sixth. Where, from a relation of trust and confidence, or from consanguinity, the 
 parties do not stand on equal ground in their dealings with each other: As, the rela- 
 tions of parent and child, guardian and ward, attorney and client, principal and agent, 
 executor or administrator, and legatees or distributees, trustee and cestui que trust. 
 
 If a court of equity could have full jurisdiction to investigate all 
 matters culminating in the act of October 24, 1842, whereby the real 
 property of the Pious Fund was sold and the entire fund covered intq 
 the Mexican treasury, a much larger judgment might be rendered 
 against Mexico than the United States ever demanded! 
 
 This tribunal is not restrained from "rendering such judgment or 
 award as may be meet and proper under all the circumstances of the 
 case" by any matter not affecting the justice of the original claim. 
 All honor is due to President Diaz for the liberal conditions of this 
 arbitration. He has fully reciprocated the example of the United 
 States in returning to Mexico the money awarded by the former arbi- 
 tration to Weil and La Abra, which I will hereafter mention. His 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNTAS. 535 
 
 agreement that full justice shall be done to the missions and the Catholic 
 Church of California, waiving all excuses and objections not affecting 
 the jwtice of the claim, is a full and cordial response to the action of 
 the United States in protecting Mexico from dishonest demands. 
 
 XII. The complaint of the representative of Mexico, under various 
 headings, that the United States are demanding of Mexico extrava- 
 gant and inequitable claims, is unreasonable. The United States 
 demand nothing from Mexico which the officers of the United States 
 do not believe, after careful investigation, to be absolutely just. The 
 good faith of the United States is illustrated by their treatment of the 
 Weil and La Abra claims. Those claims were submitted to and 
 decided by the arbitration under the convention of July 4, 1868, and 
 the aggregate of the judgments in the two cases rendered against 
 Mexico amounted to $1,130,506.55. Upon the suggestion by Mexico 
 to the United States of a discovery of false evidence and perjury in 
 obtaining such judgments, the United States, although Mexico had 
 paid the money into their treasury, refused to pay the same to the 
 claimants. Congress thereupon passed a law giving the courts of the 
 United States jurisdiction to hear and determine both of those cases, 
 and after a full and fair hearing such courts held that the claims were 
 fraudulent; whereupon all the money deposited in the treasury for 
 the payment of the Weil and La Abra claims was refunded to Mexico 
 in gold coin. But the United States have continued to insist upon the 
 solemn obligation of Mexico to pay to the bishops of California the 
 interest on the Pious Fund dedicated for use in the Californias. The 
 character and standing of the various Secretaries of State of the United 
 States who have called the attention of Mexico to and reminded her 
 of her obligation to make such payment, ought to be accepted as some 
 proof of the good faith of that Government. 
 
 The following is a list of the officers of the United States who have 
 
 conducted the negotiation with Mexico, which has terminated in the 
 
 present proceeding: 
 
 Hon. William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary of State, August 3, 
 
 1891. (Transcript, Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 23.) 
 Hon. James G. Blaine, February 19, 1892. (Same, p. 24.) 
 Hon. John W. Foster, September 15, 1892. (Same, p. 24.) 
 Hon. Walter Q. Gresham, June 8, 1893. (Same, p. 24.) 
 Hon. John Sherman, October 30, 1897. (Same, p. 122.) 
 Hon. W T . R. Day, Acting Secretary, July 17, 1897. (Same, p. 22.) 
 Hon. John Hay, December 4, 1899. (Same, p. 46.) 
 These men have world-wide reputations. They have figured in the 
 
 great affairs which the United States have had with the balance of the 
 
 world for many years. 
 
 XIII. I will now briefly consider the complaints of extravagant 
 demands and bad faith made by Mexico against the United States. 
 
 The claim of the United States that the interest due to the bishops 
 of California should be paid in the gold coin of Mexico and not in 
 depreciated currency is made one cause of complaint. Mexico can 
 hardly afford to insist upon paying the bishops of California in silver 
 since she has recognized her duty to pay her other foreign obligations 
 in gold. The interest on her bonded debt, which is dealt in by for 
 eigners, is paid in gold. Her recognition of the money current in 
 commercial nations has strengthened her credit and been of great 
 
536 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 benefit to her both at home and abroad. The payment to the bishops 
 in silver would be grossly inequitable. 
 
 At the time Mexico sold the estates belonging to the l^ous * una 
 and covered the entire property belonging to that fund into her 
 treasury, and undertook to pay interest thereon, her silver coin was 
 at a premium over the gold coin of any other country. In the second 
 section of the act of October 24, 1842, we read: 
 
 The minister of the treasury will proceed to sell the real estate and other prop- 
 erty belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias for the capital represented by 
 their annual product at six per cent per annum. (Laws of Mexico, p. 7. ) 
 
 In the unsettled and revolutionary condition of Mexico the vast 
 haciendas belonging to the Pious Fund could not possibly have pro- 
 duced a net income corresponding to their aetual value. Mexico had 
 just passed through a struggle for independence, and was in a revolu- 
 tionary condition. It is certain that no hacienda in that country was 
 producing at the time a net revenue equal to six per cent on the value 
 of the property. It is even doubtful if two per cent was then realized 
 upon any hacienda in the Republic. The property sold must have been 
 worth at least three times what was received and covered into the 
 treasury. The former members of the tobacco monopoly, to wit, 
 Messrs. Don Francis de Paula Rubio and brother, Don Manuel Fer- 
 nandez, Don Joaquin Maria Errazu, Don Felippe Neri de Barrio, Don 
 Manuel Escandon, Don Benitto de Magua, and Muriel Brothers, made 
 an offer of purchase within 24 hours from the passage of the law. 
 These gentlemen knew the value of the property, and were ready to 
 purchase as soon as, and perhaps before, the law was passed. Their 
 prompt action indicates that they realized that the sale of the haci- 
 endas at the price fixed was an opportunity to make money. 
 
 For example, Mexico sold the Hacienda del Pastor capitalized at six 
 per cent on $17,000 income per annum. The purchasers immediately 
 thereafter rented this hacienda for more than $24,000 per annum, 
 which would have made a difference in price of more than $100,000. 
 (See Deed, Exhibit D to Replication on behalf of the United States.) 
 
 Since Mexico by that sale must have sacrificed a very large part of 
 the property of the Pious Fund, it would be extremely inequitable to 
 allow her to pay such an obligation in depreciated money. If Mexico 
 keeps in circulation depreciated currency, it should not affect the claim 
 of the bishops. She coins both gold and silver, and her gold coin 
 corresponds in value to the money she covered into her treasury 
 belonging to the Pious Fund, but her silver coin is at a discount, when 
 compared with gold, of nearly 60 per cent. 
 
 While Mexico may require her citizens to receive any kind of money 
 which by her law is current, it is grossly inequitable for her, in her 
 capacity as trustee, to pay in a depreciated currency an obligation 
 contracted by her when her money was gold or its equivalent. Not- 
 withstanding Mexico, as we have already seen, forced the sale of the 
 properties of the Pious Fund without the consent of the beneficiaries, 
 she has failed to perform her undertaking as trustee in the payment of 
 interest. The former award reduced the annual instalments of inter- 
 est due the bishops to $43,080.99, which for 33 years amounts to 
 $1,420,682.27, which sum must be accepted if the matter is res judicata. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. The amount is $1,420,682.67? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. Yes. In that case simple interest at six per cent on 
 each of such instalments from the time it became due, without includ- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 537 
 
 ing the principal, amounts to $2,858,652, which, according to the 
 principles of equity, Mexico ought to pay in gold. It is not "meet 
 and proper under all the circumstances of the case" to exonerate 
 Mexico from the payment of interest and at the same time permit her 
 to pay in depreciated currency. Article X of the protocol, submitting 
 the kind of currency in which the judgment is to be paid, must be 
 considered in connection with the power conferred upon this honorable 
 tribunal to do justice between the parties. 
 
 XIV. There is another consideration which the representative of 
 Mexico has entirely overlooked, and that is the liberality shown to 
 Mexico in the judgment rendered by Sir Edward Thornton, the 
 umpire, in allowing Upper California only one-half of the interest due 
 on the Pious Fund belonging to the two Calif ornias. 
 
 The King of Spain ordered his council, immediately upon the expul- 
 sion of the Jesuits, to make a division of the Californias in order that 
 he might place the Franciscans in one part and the Dominicans in the 
 other. You will see that here [indicating on the map] is the dividing 
 line. The eastern boundary of the Californias must have been at that 
 time somewhat indefinite. California was separated from Mexico by 
 the Gulf of California, and then came the Colorado River. Bishop 
 Alemany, in his testimony which is printed in the transcript, bounds 
 this country by the Colorado, the upper branch of the Colorado River 
 being called the Green River, terminating up here somewhere [indicat- 
 ing]. All this belongs to the watershed of the Pacific; consequently 
 when the Pious Fund was distributed by the bishops parts were given 
 to Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and California. The King assumed 
 the trusteeship of the fund and designated the Franciscans to take 
 charge of the missions and use a part of the fund in Upper California 
 and the Dominicans to do likewise in Lower California. The officers 
 of all churches to a greater or less extent, whether they be priests, 
 preachers, or bishops, have charge of the temporalities of the church 
 and officiate wherever directed by the governing power of the church. 
 When the Jesuits were removed and suppressed the Franciscans were 
 substituted by the authority of the King with the approval of the 
 church to do the work of the missions, while the King nimself acted 
 as trustee for the property, the proceeds of which were transmitted 
 to the missions. 
 
 Mr. de Martens. Can you fix the boundaries of the Californias as 
 they were at the end of the 18th century ? We can not quite fix the 
 boundaries of California at this time from the geographical point of 
 view. 
 
 Mr. Stewart. The State of California is bounded thus [indicating 
 it on the map]. That is the State of California as it now is. I was 
 there before California became a State with General Vallejo and 
 other residents (Mexicans). They claimed then that it would follow 
 up the Colorado River. They wanted more country taken in, but 
 that was the division that was made by the United States. The 
 eastern boundary at the time these donations were made in 1735 prob- 
 ably had not been traced. They followed up the Colorado River on 
 the east and the Pacific coast on the west, which was all Spanish 
 country, clear over to the Mississippi River. The western part of 
 Spain's vast dominion was called the Californias. There was no other 
 name for it that we know of. The rivers and harbors along the coast 
 had been explored, and upon that exploration the title of Spain rested. 
 
538 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 It might not have been exactly known at that time how far the Cali- 
 fornias extended east, but it was the name of the western coast. Sub- 
 sequently this has been treated by the church according to the 
 boundary suggested by Bishop Alemany. He was undoubtedly cor- 
 rect, as he did not go east of the watershed flowing into the Pacific 
 ocean. It was the great western coast, a vast region. 
 
 It is true that the work was commenced by the Jesuits in Lower 
 California, because that locality was more easily reached from Mexico 
 than the great body of the country contemplated by the donors. Com- 
 paratively little was accomplished in Lower California on account of 
 the barren and desolate character of the country, which afforded sus- 
 tenance for only a very few natives, and could not be made the home 
 of any considerable population. Father Rubio, who gave evidence 
 before the mixed commission in 1868, declared that he was sixty-eight 
 years of age at that time; that he had resided at the mission of San 
 Jose for thirty years, and at the mission of Santa Barbara nine years; 
 that he had been most of that time a vicar general in the Catholic 
 Church, and had been engaged in instructing and converting the natives. 
 He testified that the number of missions in Upper California was twenty- 
 one and in Lower California thirteen, giving the date of the establish- 
 ment of each; that in Upper California in 1832, when he first went 
 there to reside, there were 17,364 converted natives living at the sev- 
 eral missions; that in Lower California there were scarcely any Indians 
 in the missions; that in some of the missions there were none; that 
 more than seven-tenths of the whole population of the Californias, 
 subject to the missions, belonged to Upper California. (Transcript, 
 p. 148.) The reason for the diminution of the population of Lower 
 California was the want of water and fertile soil. 
 
 In 1857 Mexico appointed a commissioner, by the name of Ulises 
 Urbano Lassepas, to examine into and report upon the resources and 
 population of Lower California. The examination was very thorough 
 and the report exhaustive. The country was found to be practically a 
 rocky, barren waste, almost destitute of water, and the population to 
 be very small and continually growing less. The report fully verifies 
 the testimony of Vicar General Rubio. (See De La Colonization de la 
 Baja California by Ulises Urbono Lassepas-Primer Memorial: 1859.) 
 
 I visited the missions of Upper California in 1850. At that time I 
 conversed with many reliable persons familiar with Lower California, 
 who described to me the country and the inhabitants thereof. Lower 
 California was, I was told, destitute of water for irrigation and prac- 
 tically uninhabited. The missions of Upper California were in a more 
 prosperous condition. They had immense herds of cattle, horses, and 
 sheep and cultivated fields sufficient to more than supply the inhabi- 
 tants with vegetables and cereals. Their vineyards and orchards were 
 especially important. They furnished grapes and fruit for a popula- 
 tion of many thousands of miners. 
 
 If the work done and the natives converted in the two Californias, 
 when I visited that country in 1850, were compared, it would be an 
 exaggeration to assume that as much as one-tenth of the proceeds of 
 the Pious Fund was required to be used in Lower California. Cer- 
 tainly the result produced by the expenditure was at least as much as 
 ten to one in favor of Upper California. The statement of Vicar- 
 General Rtjbio that in 1832 seven -tenths of the whole population of 
 the Californias subject to the missions belonged to Upper California, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 589 
 
 was undoubtedly true. Notwithstanding these historical facts, the 
 umpire in the former case, to make it as easy for Mexico as possible, 
 gave only one-half of the interest on the Pious Fund to Upper Cali- 
 fornia. If the matter were not res judicata, but were open to reex- 
 amination as to all the facts, the United States would confidently 
 contend for 85 per cent of the interest instead of one-half, which 
 would then be a more liberal allowance to Lower than to Upper 
 California. 
 
 XV. The statement of the representative of Mexico that there is no 
 legal basis on which to claim anything from the donation of properties 
 made by the Marchioness de las Torres de Rada and the Marquis de 
 Villapuente to the Pious Fund, is not sustained by the evidence. He 
 has not pointed out how Mexico has lost one dollar by any alleged 
 defective title of the estate of the Marquis, nor what claims the heirs 
 of the Marquis have against Mexico in consequence of the sale of the 
 property and the covering of the proceeds thereof into the treasury. 
 On the contrary, the value of the estate which the umpire rejected and 
 excluded from the fund was more than the amount demanded by the 
 claimants under the Marquis in full satisfaction of their pretended 
 judgment. (Transcript, p. 520.) In addition to that, the representa- 
 tive of Mexico has utterly failed to show by the evidence adduced that 
 Mexico has not retained in her treasury the entire proceeds from the 
 sale of the Cienaga del Pastor, amounting to $213,750. The evidence 
 of such disbursements, if it exists, is in the possession of Mexico, and 
 that Government not having furnished such evidence it is fair to pre- 
 sume no disbursements have been made in consequence of the alleged 
 attachment. 
 
 It must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
 which, if it existed, Mexico could and would produce, that the entire 
 proceeds of the sales of the property of the Pious Fund were covered 
 into the treasury and there remain. There is no evidence whatever 
 in the record to warrant the exclusion of the $213,750 for which the 
 Ci^nega del Pastor was sold. 
 
 The amount of the fund, if the matter is not res judicata, as we have 
 already seen, is $1,853,361.75, but the American commissioner, in the 
 arbitration under the convention of 1868, leaving out sundry small 
 items as bad debts or claims not sufficiently proved, and also the value 
 of the Cienaga del Pastor, reduced the total to $1,436,033. The umpire 
 at first concurred in this amount, but afterwards deducted $1,000 on 
 account of an error in calculation. He found the principal to be 
 $1,435,033, and awarded one-half thereof, or $717,516.50, to Upper 
 California. 
 
 On an accounting, if the matter is not res judicata, the claimants 
 would contend that the Cienaga del Pastor, valued at $213,750, with 
 six per cent interest thereon since July 4, 1848, together with the 
 other items mentioned in the memorial, should be added to the capital 
 of the Pious Fund, and that the bishops are entitled to 85 per cent 
 thereof, making an aggregate of at least $3,108,207. 52 now due, as the 
 following figures show: 
 
 Grand total $1,853,361.75 
 
 The interest on this at 6 per cent per annum is Ill, 201. 70 
 
 85 per cent of the last-named sum is 94, 521. 44 
 
 33 instalments of $94,521.44 amount to 3,108,207.52 
 
 (Memorial, p. 11.) 
 
540 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 The charge of exaggeration of amounts must be disregarded, 
 because Mexico has the records to prove such exaggerations, if they 
 exist, and no such proof has been furnished. In the former arbitra- 
 tion, Sir Edward Thornton, although he felt constrained to adopt the 
 views of the Commissioner of the United States, who excluded from 
 his finding a large portion of the claim, was manifestly dissatisfied 
 because the Mexican Government did not exhibit in its defense the 
 records in its possession showing the actual amount which was covered 
 into the treasury. He said: 
 
 A larger sum is claimed on the part of the claimants, but even with regard to this 
 larger sum the defense has not shown, except indirectly, that its amount was 
 exaggerated. 
 
 There is no doubt that the Mexican Government must have in its possession all 
 the accounts and documents relative to the sale of the real property belonging to the 
 Pious Fund and the proceeds thereof; yet these have not been produced, and the 
 only inference that can be drawn from silence upon this subject is that the amount 
 of the proceeds actually received into the treasury was at least not less than it is 
 claimed to be. (Transcript, p. 609. ) 
 
 Notwithstanding the matter was called to the attention of Mexico by 
 Sir Edward Thornton thirty -three years ago in the forcible language 
 above quoted, the records and accounts referred to by him are still 
 retained in the archives of Mexico, to which the claimants have no 
 access. The nonproduction of the records, which ought to show the 
 amount of the Pious Fund covered into the Mexican treasury, leaves 
 no other inference than that "the amount of the proceeds actually 
 received into the treasury was at least not less than it is claimed to be." 
 
 The introduction of a book relating to legal proceedings which took 
 place long ago, without proving that it affected the fund covered into 
 the treasury, is indirect evidence that there is nothing in the Mexican 
 archives showing that the amount claimed is excessive. Thelnventory 
 of Eamirez, and the items particularly described in the memorial, can 
 not be charged by the defense as excessive in the absence of proof to 
 sustain such charge. The basis for everything claimed in the memo- 
 rial must have been of record and must now be in the possession of the 
 defense. No evidence having been produced by Mexico to contradict 
 the claimant's case, the presumption that the amount stated is correct 
 will prevail. 
 
 XVI. I have gone into the details of this case, not because I doubt 
 that the decision in the former arbitration is res Judicata as to the 
 amount of interest annually due to the bishops of California from the 
 Mexican Government, but to answer charges of unfairness against the 
 United States. 
 
 I thank you for your kind attention. 
 
 M. le President. Maintenant, avant de donner la parole a un 
 autre conseil des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, je dois l'avertir que le 
 Tribunal sera ajourne a 11 h. f ; peut-etre alors le conseil pre"ferera- 
 t-il commencer son discours lundi matin a, 10 heures. Le Tribunal 
 : siegera alors et continuera de sieger tous les jours; le matin et 
 apr&s le dejeuner; alors j'espere que les de"bats marcheront bien 
 rapidement. 
 
 Mr. Ealston. I wish to speak a moment to Mr. McEnerney, whom 
 we have contemplated would follow Senator Stewart, if you will per- 
 mit me just a moment to explain to him what you have said. 
 
 M. Beebnaekt. Je demande la parole. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 541 
 
 M. le President. M. Beernaert a la parole. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Serait-il absolument impossible que le second conseil 
 des Etats-Unis d'Am^rique prit encore la parole cette apres-midi, par 
 exemple? S'il faut que la semaine prochaine nous r^pondions imme- 
 diatement a. sa plaidoirie cela nous offrira de tr&s grandes difficultes, 
 
 Sarce qu'il ne nous est pas possible d'apprtjcier completement la plai- 
 oirie a une simple audition. Nous la f aisons st^nographier, il nous la 
 faut faire traduire; par consequent l'intervalle qui s'ecoulerait entre 
 la journee d'aujourd'hui et celle de lundi serait extr&mement utile au 
 point de vue de l'eclaircissement du d6bat. 
 
 M. le President. II nous faut continuer lundi matin. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Sans doute, Monsieur le President; mais je deman- 
 dais si les convenances du Tribunal ne lui permettraient pas de nous 
 donner encore une seance cette apres-midi — cela avait £te* entendu je 
 crois — ce qui nous permettrait d'avoir une connaissance complete de la 
 plaidoirie de la partie demanderesse. 
 
 M. le President. Ce n'est pas possible; des membres du Tribunal 
 ne seront pas presents cette apres-midi. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je me permets de faire remarquer d'avance la situ- 
 ation dans laquelle nous nous trouverions en presence d'une plaidoirie 
 a laquelle nous devrions repondre sans la connaitre suffisamment. 
 
 M. le President. Alors; nous nous retirons un moment pour 
 deliberer. 
 
 (L'audience est suspendue pendant quelques instants). 
 
 M. le President. La seance est reprise. Le Tribunal a decide 
 qu'il siegerait encore jusqu'a midi et qu'il y aurait une stance a 2£ h. 
 Je donne la parole au conseil des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I understand, Mr. President, that we will proceed 
 now until 12 o'clock, and at half past two o'clock we will begin again, 
 and for what time, how long will the sessions continue? 
 
 Mr. President. Until about five o'clock. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: The 
 State of California became a State of the American Union on Septem- 
 ber 9, 1850. In anticipation of its admission to the American Union, 
 the question was largely debated whether as a State it should adopt for 
 the basis of its jurisprudence the civil law or the common law. By a 
 small majority it was finally determined to adopt the common law as 
 the basis of its jurisprudence. 
 
 Consequently, the lawyers educated for practice at the California 
 bar deal almost exclusively with a jurisprudence which has its origin 
 in the common law of England. I am one of the number, and I have 
 accordingly been accustomed to the jurisprudence of the common law 
 and have but a fragmentary acquaintance with the civil law. It will 
 be necessary for me, therefore, to discuss this case largely from the 
 outlook of one acquainted only with the common law of England. I 
 console myself, however, with the recollection that a court has every- 
 where been defined to be a place where justice is' judicially adminis- 
 tered. The function of all courts, the function of all systems of 
 jurisprudence, is the attainment of justice, and in the essentials which 
 find their origin in the moral law all nations and all peoples think 
 alike. So, if I shall be able to establish in this discussion any propo- 
 sition which, according to the jurisprudence of the common law, is 
 deemed consonant with and the result of the application of justice, I 
 
542 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 feel assured that the members of this court will find something closely- 
 analogous to it in the system of jurisprudence with which they them- 
 selves are perhaps more familiar. 
 
 If in the course of this argument I shall frequently refer to the sys- 
 tem of jurisprudence to which I have been accustomed, it will not be 
 on account of any belief on my part that it is a system superior to the 
 continental system. My resort to it will arise out of the necessity of 
 the case, which is, that being conversant with but the one system of 
 jurisprudence, I can argue this case only in the light of its juris- 
 prudence. 
 
 Our case, as appears from the title, is the case of the Pious Fund of 
 the Californias. It is the subject which you are here called upon to 
 consider. And naturally you are prompted of the outset of the inquiry 
 to ask, What is the Pious Fund? When did it have its origin? Who 
 created it? What is its history ? When did it come to a close ? What 
 work did it accomplish? What were its objects ? Were they changed 
 or altered bj T the flood of time? Because Plato has said that "Time 
 and time alone is the maker oiS states," likewise is it true that time 
 and time alone is the maker of all great historical institutions; and the 
 Pious Fund of the Californias, far away on the Western Hemisphere, 
 has been a great historical institution. 
 
 1 shall therefore in the exposition of this case, and in consonance 
 with what I conceive to be the logical order, first concern myself with 
 what the Pious Fund was. The first proposition to which 1 shall 
 address myself is that " the Pious Fund of the Californias has had an 
 unbroken and generally recognized existence from 1697 down to the 
 cession of Upper California to the United States by the treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo, exchanged February 2, 1848." 
 
 Upon the former arbitration, there was submitted to the tribunal, 
 in support of the memorial of the archbishop and the bishop of Cali- 
 fornia a brief history, so called, of the Pious Fund of the Californias, 
 compiled by Mr. John T. Doyle, who has had charge of this case for 
 now fifty years, and whose advanced age and infirmities make it impos- 
 sible for him to appear before this tribunal to sustain the cause, which 
 he has so successfully sustained in the past. 
 
 The brief history of the Pious Fund will be found in the transcript 
 which you have, pages 17 to 22. Accompanying that brief history of 
 the Pious Fund was a production by Mr. Doyle, which we know as 
 "Extracts from various historical works bearing upon the Pious 
 Fund." These extracts, in the original French, Italian, Spanish, and 
 German, but not translated, are found in the Transcript, pages 187 to 
 221. The United States have prepared and presented a translation of 
 these extracts. The brief history and these extracts were submitted 
 to the former arbitral court at the beginning of the litigation. In no 
 essential was the correctness of either the history or the extracts dis- 
 puted by Mexico; and we could safely rely upon that brief history for a 
 full, fair, and unchallenged account of our case were it necessary for us 
 to do so. The brief history was very largely confirmed by subsequent 
 investigations made upon behalf of the archbishop and the bishop, the 
 results of which were laid before the former tribunal. It was also 
 confirmed in so many particulars by the argument of Sr. Don Manuel 
 de Azpiroz, counsel for Mexico, and I shall have occasion in treating 
 of this question to make frequent use of his argument for confirmation, 
 extension, and elucidation of our theory of the case, a theory from 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE ALIFOTJNI AS 543 
 
 which we have not deviated from the beginning. And it will be found 
 that most of the facts which I shall have occasion to call to the atten- 
 tion of this honorable tribunal are to be found either expressed or 
 implied in the brief history. 
 
 Having made this preliminary statement with respect to the sources 
 from which the proofs will be forthcoming, I shall now recur to the 
 first proposition, which I propose to sustain and which I have already 
 stated to your honors. 
 
 It is that the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias has had an unbroken and 
 generally recognized existence from 1697 down to the cession of Upper 
 California to the United States of America by Mexico by the treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of date February 2, 1848. It has come to be 
 ari accepted fact that the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias had its origin 
 in 1697 in money collected from charitable people to enable certain 
 Jesuit priests to commence their missionary effort in the Californias. 
 Attached to the argument of Sr. de Azpiroz will be found the permis- 
 sion of the viceroy, dated February 6, 1697, whereby the missionaries 
 were granted permission (quoting the language) "to penetrate into 
 the provinces of California and convert the gentiles there residing 
 upon the terms and conditions set forth in this instrument." The 
 document appears at page 401 in English, Anexo n°. 1. 
 
 In his argument, Sr. de Azpiroz stated, page 374 in English and 
 226 in Spanish, that the conquests of California were commenced by 
 the Society of Jesus upon the charitable contributions collected by 
 Fathers Salvatierra and Ugarte in the beginning of 1697, and were 
 continued for some time without becoming a burden upon the royal 
 treasury, which was one of the conditions contained in the permission 
 authorizing the undertaking. 
 
 Sr. Aspiroz also mentions, at page 374 in English and 227 in Span- 
 ish, a number of contributions to the fund, made as early as 1703, 
 which aggregated fifty -five thousand dollars. He also says at the page 
 to which I have last referred you, "up to this time" — meaning the 
 year 1716 — "the means belonging to those already established" — that 
 is, the missions — ' ' had not been delivered to the Society. The founders 
 retained it in their possession, and paid the annual interest, which 
 reckoned for each of them from the date of their establishment." 
 And then, after recounting that one of the gentlemen who had made a 
 contribution to the missions became bankrupt, the missions in conse- 
 quence losing his donation, he goes on to say that "Father Salvatierra 
 in 1717 requested and obtained permission to receive the capitals and 
 invest them in real estate, which he did through Father Romano, the 
 attorney of the missions. This permission was indispensable, because 
 the Society of Jesus was not competent to acquire temporalities." 
 Accepting this statement as true, for we have no evidence or informa- 
 tion which would enable us to either affirm or deny it, it will be seen 
 that until 1716, the principal donations for the propagation and main- 
 tenance of the Catholic religion in California had a close analogy to 
 what is known in English and American jurisprudence as a covenant 
 to stand seized to the use of another. The donors agreed to hold the 
 property for the benefit of the missions. They said: " We contribute 
 ten thousand dollars; we pay you interest upon that sum;" the inter- 
 est was computed at 5 per cent and amounted to five hundred dollars 
 annually. In the early history of this fund it was supposed, and the 
 idea prevailed in Mexico, that five hundred dollars was a sufficient 
 
544 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 sum for the maintenance of one mission for one year. Contributions 
 for the purpose of founding missions were accordingly asked in the 
 sum of ten thousand dollars each, each ten thousand dollars founding 
 a separate mission. 
 
 I have now carried the history of the Pious Fund from 1697 to 1716, 
 a period of twenty years. The period saw the origin of the fund, saw 
 the first work of the missionaries, and saw the chief event with which 
 I close the period, namely, the delivery of the capital, which thereto- 
 fore had been held by the contributors, into the possession of the 
 Jesuits for administration. 
 
 The next period with which I propse to deal covers fifty years, 
 starting with 1717, when the Jesuits were permitted by law to assume 
 the corporal possession of the property, and ending with 1768, the 
 year in which they were expelled from Mexico by virtue of a royal 
 decree passed in the preceding year. During that period the Jesuits 
 had possession of the fund and administered it. A copy of the royal 
 decree of February 27, 1767, of Charles III, banishing the Society of 
 Jesus and taking possession of their temporalities will be found in the 
 transcript at page 410. During these hfty years, from 1717 to 1768, 
 the fund grew for that age to enormous proportions. We find it his- 
 torically stated in a work devoted to the history of California that the 
 minor contributions amounted in 1731 to one hundred and twenty- 
 thousand dollars. In 1735 came the Villapuente benefaction, evi- 
 denced by a conveyance undoubtedly drawn by some one versed in the 
 law of Mexico. J3y examining that deed, you will notice that the con- 
 veyance is to the missions. The language is " To, have and to hold to 
 the said missions. " Whether the object or function of that conveyance 
 was to pass the title to the missions or to the Society of Jesus, my 
 unfamiliarity with the Mexican system of jurisprudence will not allow 
 me to say; but it is evident to demonstration that the benefaction was 
 intended for the benefit and behoof of these missions, subject, if you 
 please, to the exercise of a power which I shall have occasion hereafter 
 to discuss. This benefaction given by the Marquis of Villapuente and 
 his cousin or wife, the Marquesa de la Torres de Kada, conveyed to 
 the missions properties of great area and value. The area was four 
 hundred and fifty thousand acres, and the estimated value of the dona- 
 tion was four hundred and eight thousand dollars. The value as esti- 
 mated at that date is derived from a recital in the deed, at the foot of 
 page 104 of the transcript, which is to thit effect: 
 
 And, whereas, the said Marquis of Villapuente, my cousin, is my only creditor, he 
 having supplied me out of his own means with over two hundred and four thousand 
 dollars, which he has furnished me, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, 
 and which is well known whereby our rights in the premises are just and equal 
 
 In other words, the Marquis of Villapuente and the Marquesa de la 
 Torres de Rada, undertaking to donate an estate to the missions owned 
 by the Marchioness de Rada, but subject to a lien in favor of the Mar- 
 quis de Villapuente, recited and engaged between themselves that her 
 right in the property, after the debt was paid, was equal to the debt; 
 consequently, according to the values which they put upon the trans- 
 action, now one hundred and sixty -five years ago, his donation was 
 two hundred and four thousand dollars, and her donation was two hun- 
 dred and four thousand dollars. The deed is found in English in two 
 places in the transcript, and it is in Spanish in two places. In English 
 it is found at pages 104 and 452 and in Spanish at pages 99 and 309. 
 
 L'audience est levee a midi et renvoyee a 2 h. 1/2 de l'apres-midi. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 545 
 
 17 septembre 190% (apres-midi). 
 
 A la reprise de la seance a 2£ heures M. McEnerney continue son 
 discours jusqu'a 4^ heures. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. With the permission of Mr. McEnerney, and to pre- 
 vent any misunderstanding, I simply want to announce that in view of 
 the terms of the order passed by the court and read this morning, to 
 which we have given careful consideration, that I shall follow Mr. 
 McEnerney on Monday, with your permission, in the presentation of 
 the case of the United States, and while I have not, unfortunately, had 
 an opportunity to consult with Monsieur le Chevalier Descamps, 1 
 anticipate that he will close the opening arguments for the United 
 States. In reply to the argument from Mexico, which will thereafter 
 be presented, we shall have the pleasure of the assistance of Mr. Pen- 
 field, the solicitor of the Department of State. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: At the 
 time the tribunal rose for midday intermission we had under discus- 
 sion the period of the Pious Fund, which I have arbitrarily assumed to 
 have begun with 1717 and to have continued for fifty-one years — that 
 is, to the expulsion of the Jesuits under the royal decree of Charles 
 III of Spain. We had pointed out that to 1731 the minor donations 
 to this fund aggregated $120,000, and that in 1735 a donation was 
 made estimated by the grantors between themselves to have been 
 worth $408,000. The next donation to which I shall call your atten- 
 tion is that made by the Duchess of Gandia, which amounted, accord- 
 ing to the historical authority which we have for it, to about $120,000. 
 You will realize that it was impossible upon the former arbitration 
 to account, item by item and donation by donation, for this great ben- 
 efaction extending over a period of one hundred years. When we 
 came to make our claim we made it upon the condition of the fund as 
 it existed in 1842. But it was necessary for us, in view of its magni- 
 tude, to trace the history of this fund, to show that its proportions, as 
 we claimed them, were no exaggeration; and therefore we were enti- 
 tled to refer, and we did refer, to the history of the early Calif ornias 
 to show that pious and wealthy people had contributed to it benefac- 
 tions of great value and extent, approximating the proportions of the 
 fund as we claim them to have existed in 1842. 
 
 I have already shown you benefactions amounting to half a million 
 dollars — more than $520,000. The historical reference by which it is 
 shown that the Duchess of Gandia contributed to this fund $120,000 
 is one of the extracts to be found in the original at the foot of page 
 198 of the transcript. It is taken from the "Story of California," 
 printed in Venice in 1789. I desire, with the permission of your 
 honors, to read that extract from the translation on page 8 of the trans- 
 lation of extracts furnished to you this morning: 
 
 Two things were needed to advance the missions to the northward as the mission- 
 aries desired, namely the capital to found them and the locations to establish them 
 in; and there was no hope of the one or the other until God moved the mind of an 
 illustrious and most noble benefactress. This was the Duchess of Gandia, Dona 
 Maria Borja, who having heard an old servant of hers, who had once been a soldier 
 in California, speak of the sterility of that region, the poverty of the Indians there 
 and the apostolic labors of the missionaries, thought that she could not do anything 
 more pleasing to God than to devote her fortune to the aid of these missions. She 
 therefore ordered in her will that there be provided, out of her ready money, those 
 large annuities which she left her servants during their lives, and that all the. rest 
 
 S. Doc. 28 35 
 
546 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 of her estate should go to the missions of California, together with the capitals of 
 the above-mentioned annuities, after the death of those who who enjoyed them; 
 and that a mission, consecrated to the honor of her beloved ancestor, St. Francis 
 Borgia, be founded in said peninsula. The sum of money acquired from this legacy 
 by these missions amounted, in 1767, to sixty thousand dollars, and a like amount 
 ought to be obtained after the death of the pensioned servants, over and above some 
 very large debts which there was hope of recovering. With such a large capital, 
 many missions could be founded in California, as in fact they would have been 
 founded, if the Jesuits had not been obliged in the above-mentioned year to abandon 
 that peninsula. 
 
 I now pass to what is known as the Arguelles benefaction, under 
 which, from Senora Arguelles, who died before the expulsion of the 
 Jesuits, the fund received what is estimated to be $600,000. This 
 benefaction passed to the missions of the Californias under the follow- 
 ing circumstances. Senora Arguelles bequeathed one-quarter of her 
 estate to a college in Guadalajara owned by the Jesuits; three-quarters 
 of her estate she devised in trust to the missions. The Jesuits 
 renounced the benefaction and thereupon an officer, representing the 
 State, and claiming that the benefaction should not lapse either as to 
 the quarter or as to the three-quarters, intervened on behalf of the 
 Government. The case continued in litigation for more than twenty- 
 five years; and it was finally decided that the gift of the one-quarter 
 lapsed, I presume upon the theory that the devise of the one-quarter 
 was a gift to the Jesuits personal in character, given to their college 
 as a private institution. But it was decided as to the other three- 
 quarters, that it did not fail; because, presumably, it was a public 
 charity, and it is the law the world over, that public charities do not 
 fail for want of a trustee; the declination of the trustee to whom 
 property is given or devised for charitable uses can not cause the trust 
 to lapse, nor does he control its destinies nor defeat its execution. In 
 the court of last resort in Spain it was decided as to the three-quarters 
 of the estate, that one-half of it should go to the Philippine missions in 
 accordance with Senora Aguellas' will, and that the other half should 
 
 §o in accordance with an appointment which His Majesty the King of 
 pain should thereafter make. His majesty appointed that the bene- 
 faction should go to the Pious Fund of the Californias. This appoint- 
 ment was final and irrevocable; no attempt has ever been made to 
 retract or alter it. 
 
 I wish the members of this court to keep in mind the fact just 
 stated, that half of the Arguelles benefaction went to the Philippine 
 missions. It is connected with an important event in the history of 
 Spain and Mexico, upon which we rely as a precedent to establish the 
 rights we are contending for before this tribunal . The Arguelles estate 
 was thereafter distributed: $10,000 as a legacy tothe children of Carro; 
 one-fourth of the estate to the heirs at law, because as to the one-fourth 
 subject to the $10,000 it was decided that the declination of the Jesuits 
 defeated the gift; the other three-quarters in equal shares to the Phil- 
 ippine-missions and to such other missions as the king should designate 
 (theCalifornia missions being subsequently designated by him). 
 
 I invite the attention of the members of this tribunal, in connection 
 with this Arguelles benefaction, to a report in the record at page 22, 
 which has been called throughout the litigation " Manuel Payno's 
 report." It commences on the middle of page 22 and continues to the 
 top of page 36. Mr. Payno's deposition follows, and then the certifi- 
 cate of the consul of the United States to Mexico at the top of page 37, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 547 
 
 It appears by Mr. Payno's deposition that in 1862 he was commis- 
 sioned by the Mexican Government to prepare a history of its financial 
 condition. He says, at page 22: 
 
 Being commissioned by the Supreme Government to make a report upon and 
 adjust the debt contracted in London, the diplomatic conventions — and some other 
 financial affairs which should be arranged by the treaty about to be made between 
 the Republic and the commissioners of the three allied powers — I have endeavored 
 in the short space of time at my disposal scrupulously to examine the records and 
 books of the public offices, with the object of treating every affair separately, by 
 forming a concise historical extract of each, and giving at the end a statement of what 
 the treasury owes up to date. 
 
 It is interesting to ascertain who the three powers were to which 
 reference is made in Payno's report, and this happily we are able to do 
 by a reference to the second volume of Moore's International Arbitra- 
 tions, page 1289. 
 
 He says: 
 
 October 31st, 1861, France, Great Britain, and Spain entered into a convention 
 with reference to combined operations against Mexico for the enforcement of claims. 
 
 Mr. Moore premises the account of this convention with a state- 
 ment that there were complaints to various nations from their subjects 
 having domicile in Mexico that their claims were not recognized and 
 discharged by the Government of Mexico. 
 
 Returning now to the Payno report. 
 
 We know that Mr. Payno's report was prepared bv him with great 
 care and in obvious hostility to the claims of the Philippine missions 
 and that the report is an official publication of the Republic of Mexico, 
 which she can not and never has disputed. 
 
 I invite your attention to an item of this Payno report on page 23. 
 You will notice that it is a list of the sums, according to the journals 
 of the general treasury, that were received into the treasury on account 
 of the property bequeathed by Dona Josefa de P. Arguelles to the 
 missionaries of the Philippine Islands; 
 
 which list is formed in virtue of the supreme order of the 1st of the present month 
 of May, number 191, and in conformity with the agreement entered into between 
 the supreme government and the agent of those missionaries; which was communi- 
 cated to the general treasury on the 24th of December, 1845 (of this document we 
 have asked discovery from Mexico); it being observed that the present list shall 
 serve for no other purpose than as evidence to the Spanish legation; for which object 
 it is remitted to the finance department in compliance with the said supreme order. 
 
 Now note: 
 
 As appears by the entry of the 2d of August, 1803, up to that date there had 
 been delivered on account of the property of Dona Josefa de P. Arguelles the sum 
 of $544,951.10, of which $10,000 corresponded to- the children of Carro; and of the 
 remainder, one-quarter part to the heirs and the residue in equal parts between the 
 Oalifornian and Philippine missions; consequently to these latter $200,606.54. 
 
 And so on, item for item, until the sum total was $306,901.62, not 
 $316,901.62, for you will notice that on the 15th of May, 1804, $10,000 
 was assigned to the children of the Carro. Keep in mind that the estate 
 went $10,000 to the children of the Carro; one-fourth to the natural 
 heirs, one-half of three-quarters, or three-eighths, to the Pious Fund of 
 the Californias, and the other three-eighths, one-half of three-quarters, 
 to the Philippine missions. 
 
 That I may make this matter clear beyond all question I beg to 
 invite the attention of your honors to an extract from one of the briefs 
 of Mr. Doyle (which will be found at page 467 of the Transcript), 
 
548 PlOITS FUND OP THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 where he gives the history of these Arguelles benefactions. If I may 
 be permitted to read it, I think it will help to simplify the labors of 
 your honors: 
 
 On May 29, 1765, Dona Josefa Paula de Arguelles, a wealthy lady of Guadalajara, 
 executed her will, wherein she bequeathed $10,000 to a foundling hospital at Manila, 
 one-fourth of the residue of her property to the Jesuit College of St. Thomas, Aqui- 
 nas, in Guadalajara, and the other three-quarters to the missions in China and New 
 Spain. She died about a year and a half thereafter, leaving an estate of about 
 $800,000. The Jesuits, at that time pressed by a storm of obloquy in Spain and Por- 
 tugal, renounced the legacy in their favor, and the heirs of the deceased lady brought 
 an action to have her declared intestate as to all her estate, save the small legacy 
 to the foundling hospital. The Crown intervened in the action, claiming the po. n 
 bequeathed for missions. And one Agustin de Mora in like manner put forward a 
 claim for "Sustitucion vulgar," with respect to the quarter bequeathed to the col- 
 lege, but on behalf of what institution or in what right I have been so far unable to 
 discover. It will be remembered that at this time the missions both in New Spain 
 and the Philippines were in the hands of the Jesuits, so that if their renunciation could 
 affect the bequests in favor of the missions in their charge, the heirs had as clear a case as to 
 the three-fourths bequeathed to the latter as they had for the quarter bequeathed to the college. 
 The case, after going through the lower courts, came before the " audiencia real " of 
 New Spain on appeal; which tribunal on June 4, 1783, gave judgment denying Mora's 
 claim for the "sustitucion vulgar" as to the quarter bequeathed to the college, and 
 declared the deceased, in consequence of the renunciation of the Jesuits, intestate as 
 to that quarter. As to the other three-quarters, however, it decided that the missions 
 took under the will, and declared that said three-quarters, therefore, vested in the 
 Crown a to be employed in the conversion of the infidels in this Kingdom and the 
 Philippines ( one-half in each) , under the orders of the King, whom it especially con- 
 cerns; and that a report be made to His Majesty to the end that he may be pleased 
 to determine what may be his sovereign will with respect to the direction, consistency, 
 and security of the funds so destined for the pious work of missions. This decree 
 simply vested in the Crown a power of appointment as to what particular missions 
 should be supported out of the bequest, subject to the sole condition that one-half 
 should be destined to Asia and the other to America. The Crown exercised its 
 power of appointment by ordering one-half of the three-quarters so devised to be 
 aggregated to the Pious Fund of California, and the other half to the missionary fund 
 of the Philippine Islands. 
 
 Then Mr. Doyle continues, but I shall not read further. 
 
 Mr. de Martens. May 1 ask a question? On page 467 (of the 
 Transcript, line 14) there is no number of dollars given. 
 
 Mr. McEneeney. There is not, your honor, and I cannot tell you 
 what it is. We shall be able to furnish you that from the original, but 
 I cannot give it exactly now. 
 
 Mr. W. T. S. Doyle. It is 1600,000. 
 
 Mr. McEneeney. It should be $600,000. 
 
 Mr. McEneeney (continuing). This will of Senora Arguelles was 
 the subject of litigation until 1793, about twenty -five years after the 
 expulsion of the Jesuits, when its benefaction was confirmed to and 
 became a part of the Pious Fund. During the seventy years from 
 1697 to 1768 the Jesuits founded in Lower California thirteen missions, 
 as you will see by reference to the testimony of Father Rubio, pages 
 148 to 150. You will find there stated the missions founded in Upper 
 California and the missions founded in Lower California. Father 
 Rubio was the vicar-general of the first bishop of the Californias, who 
 was appointed, as 1 shall presently have occasion to show you, in 1840. 
 The bishop died in 1846, and Father Rubio was vicar-general from 
 1846 until 1850, the year in which the second bishop — Bishop Alemany, 
 who was one of the claimants before the former arbitral court— was 
 consecrated. 
 
 «This decree passed after the expulsion— indeed, after the suppression of the 
 Jesuits; hence the trust devolved of necessity on the Crown as parens patriae. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 549 
 
 1 have now stated the chief events connected with the Pious Fund 
 during the period which I have taken as covering the years 1717 to 
 1768. I now come to the period from the expulsion of the Jesuits to 
 the time of Mexican independence, which is stated by Mr. Moore 
 (second volume of Moore's International Arbitration, 1209) to have 
 been achieved in 1821, although the treaty with Spain recognizing it 
 is of date December 28, 1836. 
 
 From the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1768 until Mexico achieved 
 her independence the fund was administered by the Crown of Spain 
 through officials appointed for that purpose. The trust character of 
 the fund and its dedication to the establishment and maintenance of the 
 Catholic religion in the Californias was always recognized. 
 
 In the royal decree of February 27, 1767, at page 410 of the Tran- 
 script, concerning the banishment of the regulars of the Society of 
 Jesus and the taking possession of their temporalities, we find in par- 
 agraph 5, which occurs on page 411 of the Transcript, that it is 
 declared by His Majesty: 
 
 I further declare that the taking possession of the temporalities belonging to the 
 order embraces their property, real and personal, as well as the ecclesiastical rev- 
 enues which legally belong to it within the kingdom, but without prejudices to such 
 charges as may have been imposed upon them by their endowers. 
 
 This is an express recognition of the obligation assumed by the 
 Crown when it took over trust properties. 
 
 And we have it upon the authority of Mr. Azpiroz, counsel for 
 Mexico, in his argument before the former arbitral court, paragraph 
 33, page 375: 
 
 Upon the expulsion of the regulars, the King took possession of their temporalities 
 within his dominions, and among these was included the Pious Fund of the Califor- 
 nias. Nevertheless, this was separately administered and its proceeds continued to 
 be employed for the purposes for which they were instituted by the civil officers of 
 the Crown. 
 
 In other words, when the King made his royal decree he said, "I 
 take over these properties subject to these obligations. " And we have 
 it upon the authorhty of the learned counsel for Mexico, now its min- 
 ister plenipotentiary at Washington (who executed the protocol under 
 which this tribunal is organized), that the King not only promised, in 
 the decree whereby he expelled the Jesuits and took possession of their 
 properties, to assume the obligations attached to those properties, but 
 that he actually carried out this promise. 
 
 At the end of an official publication of New Spain, which is anexo 
 No. 5 to the argument of Mr. Azpiroz, found between pages 416 to 425 
 of this record, your honors will find it stated (see top of page 425) that 
 the "foregoing is taken from the 42d volume of the Section of His- 
 tory belonging to the general archives of the nation." All that 1 
 desire to call to your attention in this report at the present time are 
 paragraph 19, on page 420, and paragraph 38, on page 423. Para- 
 graph 19, page 420, says: 
 
 Each missionary receives a stipend of $350 per annum, which is paid out of the 
 gross of the Pious Fund acquired by the Jesuit fathers, and to which I will refer in 
 its proper place. 
 
 And it is said, in paragraph 38, page 423: 
 
 They receive no contribution or duties, but each mission receives a stipend of $400 
 per annum, drawn from the Pious Fund left by the extinct regulars. One thousand 
 dollars from the same fund is also furnished both to the Fernandinos and Domini- 
 cans, respectively, for the establishment of each new mission. 
 
550 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Sir Edward Fey. I do not quite understand what amount is to be 
 received— what mission or missionary is to receive the three hundred 
 and fifty dollars and what four hundred dollars. 
 
 Mr. McEneenet. Both paragraphs deal with the missions ot Cali- 
 fornia. One says that each missionary receives $350, and the other 
 says each mission receives $400. # 
 
 Official archives were kept by Spain and preserved by Mexico, 
 containing an official history of the Pious Fund of California (see 
 English translation, page 425 of the transcript and continuing to the 
 foot of page 433). You will notice the extract is certified by Mr. 
 Azpiroz, as chief clerk, presumably of the foreign office, before he 
 became counsel for Mexico. Under date of Mexico, September -27, 
 1871, he says: 
 
 " The foregoing is a copy of the original found in a book called Fondo de Piadoso 
 de California, belonging to the general archives." 
 
 Here we have it clearly stated that in the archives of Mexico there 
 was kept an official record' devoted to the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias. 
 This name— The Pious Fund of the Californias, here mentioned in the 
 certificate — is not only the common and ordinary designation of the 
 fund, but, as will appear, document after document, official recogni- 
 tion after official recognition, make use of this designation as the offi- 
 cial title of these properties. They were from a period shortly after 
 the expulsion of the Jesuits down to 1842 known officially, by the 
 action of the Crown in one instance and by the Government in the 
 other, as the "Pious Fund of the Californias," a name denoting first 
 that they were devoted to pious uses, and, secondly, to pious uses in 
 the Californias. 
 
 I was speaking of and had referred you to the official history of the 
 Pious Fund of the Californias, and I desire to read to you two or three 
 lines from paragraph 3 on page 425 (of the transcript): 
 
 The superior government, without loosing sight of the pious purpose to which they 
 devoted, by order of the 12th of October, 1768, directed Fernando Mangino, the 
 director of temporalities, to pay special attention to the examination of the property 
 destined for the propagation of the faith in that peninsula. 
 
 From this same official history of the Pious Fund we find (page 426, 
 paragraph 9) that an agreement was made March 21, 1772, between the 
 board or war and the treasury department on the one hand and the 
 Dominicans and Franciscans on the other, by which it was agreed that 
 the Dominicans should have charge of the missionary work of Lower 
 California and the Franciscans of the missionary work in Upper Cali- 
 fornia. 
 
 In other words, we find four years after the Jesuits had been 
 expelled, that is in 1772, that the religious orders of the church, by 
 agreement with the Government and, of course, necessarily and pre- 
 supposing the confirmation of their ecclesiastical superior, agreed upon, 
 a division of this missionary work — the Dominicans assuming the labors 
 in Lower California and the Franciscans assuming them in Upper Cali- 
 fornia. I ask your honors to dwell upon that fact because I snail here- 
 after undertake to enforce an argument upon one branch of this case 
 predicated upon the fact that the Spanish Government did make that 
 agreement and that from it there followed consequences shortly to be 
 considered. 
 
 But even before that time — even before 1772 — to wit, on the 8th 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 551 
 
 of April, 1770, His Majesty the King of Spain, by royal order, had 
 directed a division of the missions between the Dominicans and Fran- 
 ciscans. That will be found stated in the transcript, English transla- 
 tion, page 426, in the recital of the proceedings which occurred in 1772. 
 But although that order had been made in 1770, the missionary work 
 of the Franciscans commenced even earlier than that date; for we find 
 that in 1769 they journeyed overland from Lower California to Upper 
 California, and on their way thither founded the mission of San Fer- 
 nando de Villacate in 1769, which was then the most northerly mission 
 in Lower California. By the year 1823 (from 1769 to 1823, 54 years) 
 they founded in Upper California 21 missions, making, with the mis- 
 ' sion which they founded in Lower California, 22 in all. The 21 mis- 
 sions which they founded in Upper California, with the date of the 
 foundation of each, will be found in Father Bubio's deposition, page 
 150 of the transcript. An examination of that list of missions will 
 give you the beginnings of all the civil and the social history of Califor- 
 nia; for we find among these mission foundations that of San Fran- 
 cisco, now the chief metropolitan city of the Pacific coast, founded in 
 1776; we find the mission of San Bafael, a well-known town in Cali- 
 fornia; of Santa Cruza, another well-known place; of Santa Barbara; 
 of San Buenaventura, of San Luis Obispo, all well-known places; and 
 finally of San Diego, also very well known, the most southerly mission 
 of Upper California. 
 
 In the report of the treasury of Mexico, to which I invite your 
 attention (the English translation of which will be found from pages 
 135 to 146) there will be found repeated acknowledgements of the 
 trust character of these properties subsequent to the expulsion of the 
 Jesuits. For instance, it appears therein that his majesty the King 
 of Spain directed that "the administration of the said fund shall be 
 kept with entire separation" (page 143, section 20). It also appeal's 
 there that on October 1st, 1781 (1 now ask your attention to section 
 22) the King ordered the sale of the properties. Listen to the con- 
 ditions attached to the authority to make this sale: "Your excellency 
 shall proceed immediately to the sale of those of the Pious Fund" — that 
 is, the properties of the Pious Fund — "and that you shall secure the 
 amount thereof in favor of the missions, giving due advice thereof 
 through the department under my charge," meaning under the charge 
 of the viceroy, who communicated the order to the director of the 
 temporalities by whom the sale was to be made. 
 
 It having, however, been brought to the attention of his majesty that 
 such sale was contrary to the expressed wish and will of the Marquis 
 de Villapuente, another later decree was issued on December 14, 1715, 
 whereby, in view of these facts, his majesty (see paragraph 26) " has 
 been pleased to order, that for the present the sale shall be suspended 
 and the administration continued," and whereby (paragraph 28), "His 
 majesty .... bearing in mind the instructions of the Marquis de 
 Villapuente, who gave his estates for that purpose, has been pleased to 
 order that the surplus money shall be invested in safe landed property 
 for the increase of the funds and that reports shall be made immedi- 
 ately, etc., etc." 
 
 This brings us to the period from the independence of Mexico to 
 November 2, 1840, the day of the transfer of these properties to the 
 first bishop of the Californias. 
 
552 PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1FOKNTA8. 
 
 Mr. de Maktens. You were speaking about the different missions in 
 San Francisco and other places. Have you some facts concerning the 
 situation of these missions ? 
 
 Mr. McEneeney. There are reports in the record. For instance, 
 one of the publications to which I have referred you is a report on the 
 condition of the missions. The proof on that subject is very meager, 
 however. But there is a report showing how the missions are con- 
 trolled, what their source of revenue is, whether there are contribu- 
 tions of the natives, and what the source of revenues of the missionaries 
 are, etc. (Of course, there are reliable histories published in Califor- 
 nia which give an authentic history of the missions.) It appears by 
 one of the paragraphs I read that they had no revenues except those 
 derived from the Pious Fund. In other words, the natives had no 
 means to assist the missionaries and they were dependent on the rever 
 nues derived from the Pious Fund. 
 
 Sir Edwakd Fey. Were there also payments by the Government? 
 
 Mr. McEneeney. There were payments ordered, but never made. 
 There is not a single fact here to show that any payment was ever 
 made for the missions as such — for the military service — yes — for the 
 Presidio as distinct from the missions. 
 
 I have now come to the period commencing with the Mexican inde- 
 pendence and running down to November 2, 1840. 
 
 At what date subsequent to the attainment of its independence 
 Mexico actually took possession of these properties the record does 
 not say. But we do know that it passed a law on May 25, 1832, for 
 the leasing of these properties by a board of directors, created by that 
 act, and called a "junta," in which it was expressly stated that the 
 monej^s derived from the leasing of these properties should be paid 
 into the mint or treasiny for the account of the missions for which the 
 funds were " solely and exclusively destined." 
 
 There is not in the entire history of this fund, from the year in 
 which Mexico achieved its independence down to the cession of Upper 
 California to the United States on February 2, 1848, a single repudia- 
 tion of the obligation under which Mexico labored with respect to this 
 fund. Not one. 
 
 To illustrate this I quote from Mr. Azpiroz (paragraph 99, page 390): 
 
 Hence both the civil and canonical law clothed the endowment fund with the 
 character of a trust, and acknowledged the same respect with regard to the inten- 
 tion of the founders or endowers as to those of the devisers. In fact no name better 
 suits the class of pious funds to which the "fund " of the mission belongs, than that 
 of trust, for the purpose of designating the legal effects of its creation. It is still more 
 convenient for us to do so, for in doing so we agree with the claimants. 
 
 Sir Edwaed Fey. In 1772 the King, after taking possession of this 
 property, issued a direction (page 456) to all the representatives of the 
 Jesuits, etc. Then he goes on to say that these purposes shall be " car- 
 ried into effect by my said viceroys and governors in my name as part t 
 and parcel of my royal crown." Is that consistent with his being a 
 trustee ? 
 
 Mr. McEneeney. I think that you must interpret the royal decree 
 by the conduct of the Crown. It will appear by all of the documents 
 which we cite that it was administered by him in his capacity as a 
 trustee. 
 
 And again Mr. Azpiroz says (paragraph 92, page 388): 
 
 Still, as the owners of their property they could or not contribute it to the estab- 
 lishment of the missions, and in so doing they had the right to place conditions upon 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 553 
 
 the administration and employment of their property. In fact they made use of 
 this legal right and the Society of Jesus when it accepted their alms as their trustee, 
 which it was, and upon the conditions prescribedj beyond doubt compromised its 
 principal, the Government, to respect the intentions of the donors, to the same 
 extent that they themselves were bound. This fact has always been recognized by 
 the Spanish sovereign and his successor, the Mexican Government. 
 
 Indeed in the answer of Mexico to our memorial (Replication, page 
 20) it is said: 
 
 The Mexican Government which succeeded the Spanish Government, was, as the 
 latter had been, trustee (comisario) of the fund, and in this conception successor of 
 the Jesuit missionaries, with all the rights granted to them by the founders. 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that it is an admitted fact in this case that 
 Mexico always held and administered the fund as a trust estate. She 
 herself claims in the answer already mentioned that she had the rights 
 of the Jesuits. This argument necessarily implies that she, Mexico, 
 had all of the duties of the Jesuits in respect of the fund. 
 
 We shall hereafter consider what the duties of Mexico were with 
 respect to the fund, but for our immediate purposes we emphasize the 
 deliberate admission of Mexico that she held the Pious Fund as trustee. 
 Among the evidences of her recognition of her duties as trustee is that 
 contained in the legislative act of Mexico, dated May 25, 1832, pro- 
 viding that the rural properties belonging to the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias should be leased. 
 
 This law is to be found on the first page of the pamphlet, Laws of 
 Mexico Relating to the Pious Fund. It is provided in paragraph 6, 
 on page 4, that — 
 
 The proceeds of such properties shall be deposited in the treasury of the Federal 
 city, to be solely and exclusively destined for the missions of the Californias. 
 
 It is also provided in subdivision 9 of section 10 (on page 5, near 
 the bottom) that this board shall — 
 
 name to the Government the amounts which may be remitted to each one of the 
 Californias, in accordance with their respective expenses and available funds. 
 
 And there is no provision in this act for any distribution of these 
 moneys or for the diversion of any part of the income except to the 
 Californias, according to the state of their funds and according to the 
 state of their necessities. 
 
 The title of this act is "Law. That the Government proceed with 
 the lease of the rural property belonging to the Pious Fund of the 
 Californias;" and in Article I it is provided that "The Government 
 shall proceed to rent the rural property belonging to the Pious Fund 
 of the Californias. " It is to be noted that I read those two clauses for 
 the reason that in them Mexico declares that these properties belong 
 to the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 
 I have already called to your attention section 10, subdivision ninth, 
 and have pointed out that, there is no provision for the disbursement 
 of those funds to any missions other than the missions of the Cali- 
 fornias. But there are other legislative evidences that Mexico recog- 
 nized her duty as trustee throughout the period under consideration. 
 These need not, however, to be cited. It is sufficient for the present 
 controversy that it is an undisputed proposition, made so by the 
 answer of Mexico, that she never made any claim of title to this prop- 
 erty except as a trustee thereof. I may stop for a moment, however, 
 to speak of one or two of these laws. The law of September 19, 1836, 
 concerning the erection of the bishopric in the two Californias, with 
 
554 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 which your honors are already familiar, is another recognition by 
 Mexico of its duty with respect* to the Pious Fund. In that act it is 
 provided that the property belonging to the Pious Fund of the Cali- 
 fornias shall be placed at the disposal of the new bishop and his suc- 
 cessors, to be by them managed and employed for its objects, or other 
 similar ones, always respecting the wishes of the donors of the fund. 
 By the enactment of that law and the subsequent surrender of the 
 
 Rroperty to the Bishop of California, presently to be mentioned, 
 [exico simply discharged its clear duty as a trustee in possession. 
 On April 27, 1840, His Holiness Gregory XVI, upon the petition of 
 Mexico, erected Upper and Lower California into a diocese, and 
 appointed as its first bishop Francis Garcia Diego, at that time, and 
 for some time before, president of the Missions of the Californias. 
 You will find that fact established at page 182, by the deposition of 
 Archbishop Alemany, claimant before the former arbitral court. 
 
 Bishop Diego was consecrated October 4, 1840, as is stated at page 
 91 of this record. On November 2, 1840, the properties of the Pious 
 Fund were surrendered to him by Mexico, in conformity to its duty 
 as trustee, recognized by the legislative act of September 19, 1836 — 
 a fact shown by some of the correspondence of Pedro Ramirez, to be 
 found at page 520 in English and 495 in Spanish. This brings us to 
 November 2, 1840. 
 
 Within the period from November 2, 1840, to February 2, 1848 — 
 from November 2, 1840, until the cession of Upper California to the 
 United States under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of February 2, 
 1848, made in consideration of 118,250,000 — Mexico took no measures 
 with respect to the properties of the Pious Fund except those to be 
 now stated. The first one was the decree of February 8, 1842, by 
 which it is provided: 
 
 Article 1. The sixth article of the law of the 19th of September, 1836, by which 
 the Government relinquished the management of the Pious Fund of the Californias, 
 and the same was then placed at the disposal of the right reverend bishop of the new 
 diocese, is hereby repealed. 
 
 Article 2. The administration and employment of this property shall therefore again 
 become the charge of the Supreme Government, in such way and manner as it shall 
 direct, for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the donor, in the civilization 
 and conversion of the savages. 
 
 This decree of February 8, 1842, is preceded by correspondence, to 
 which I shall refer your honors and pass on. It is the correspondence 
 called the Valencia-Ramirez correspondence. It covers two or three 
 months in 1842. It opens on page 499 with a letter of January 26, 
 1842, wherein the minister of justice asked Mr. Ramirez, as the agent 
 of Bishop Diego, to pay $2,000 due to the English consul for money laid 
 out, which it was claimed by the Government of Mexico was lawfully 
 chargeable against the Pious Fund. 
 
 The answer to this was made on the 28th of. January, 1842 (page 500) 
 by Mr. Ramirez. It is substantially to the effect that the condition of 
 the fund was such that he could not pay the $2,000; and he suggested 
 that, as under the law of 1836 more than $8,000 was-due to the bishop 
 from Mexico on account of the $6,000*per annum which she agreed to 
 pay for the support of the bishopric, it would be proper for the Mex- 
 ican Government to pay the $2,000 out of that money. There followed 
 a short letter from the minister of justice to Mr. Ramirez, on the 5th 
 of February, and his reply thereto; and finally came the decree of 
 
PIODS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 555 
 
 February 8, 1842, to which I have referred you. The correspondence 
 will be found from page 499 to the foot of 502. 
 
 On February 21, 1842, as will be seen by a reference to page 505, 
 Gen. Santa Anna, President of the Mexican Eepublic, having legisla- 
 tive power, appointed Gen. Gabriel Valencia, his chief of staff, ' ' gen- 
 eral administrator of said goods, upon the same terms and with the 
 same powers as were conferred to the board (junta) of the same depart- 
 ment (ramo) by the decree of the 25th of May, 1832." 
 
 Next follows the decree of October 24, 1842. This decree of Octo- 
 ber 24, 1842, recites that the decree of February 8, 1842, ' ' was intended 
 to fulfil most faithfully the beneficent and national objects designed 
 by the foundress without the slightest diminution of the properties 
 destined to that end." The act then provides that all of the properties 
 belonging to the Pious Fund of the Californias are incorporated into 
 the national treasury, and further provides that the revenue from 
 tobacco " is specially pledged for the payment of the income corre- 
 sponding to the capital of the said fund of the Californias." It fur- 
 thermore provides that the Department in charge of the revenues " will 
 pay over the sums necessary to carry on the objects to which said fund 
 is destined, without any deduction for costs, whether of administration 
 or otherwise." 
 
 You will note that this act provides that the department of tobacco 
 will pay over these moneys to the objects for which the fund is destined. 
 Note that a few months before this decree was passed Gen. Gabriel 
 Valencia was appointed to manage the fund upon the terms upon which 
 it was managed by the junta under the law of May 25, 1832; and note, 
 furthermore, that it is recited in the law of May 25, 1832, that the 
 funds are solely and exclusively destined for the missions of California. 
 
 It is evident, when the act of May 25th, 1832, the appointment of 
 General Valencia February 21, 1842, and the decree of October 24, 
 1842, are read together, that there can be no doubt that the decree of 
 October 24th, 1842, was intended to recognize the rights of the mis- 
 sions of the Californias, and was also intended to contain a recognition 
 of the fact that the properties of the Pious Fund were solely and 
 exclusively destined and designed for and dedicated to the use of the 
 missions of the Californias. 
 
 I next come to the treasury order of April 23, 1844, which will be 
 found on page 149 of the record, in the deposition of Father Rubio. 
 The same order in Spanish is a footnote on page 88 of the record. 
 Father Rubio, whom you will remember was first the secretary and 
 then the vicar-general of the bishop, and also exercised the faculties 
 of a bishop ad interim from 1846 to 1850, deposed that he saw in about 
 the year 1845 this official notice in the diary of Mexico. That it is a 
 genuine and authentic document was not disputed upon the former 
 hearing, and the fact stated in it was equally unchallenged. It was an 
 order made by the minister of the treasury of Mexico, from which it 
 appears that the President of Mexico had given an order on the custom- 
 house of Guaymas, payable to the representative of Bishop Diego. 
 The language is this: 
 
 For the sum of $8,000, on account of the income belonging to the Pious Fund of 
 California, the properties of which were incorporated into the national treasury. 
 
 This document, the genuineness and authenticity of which, I say, are 
 not disputed — there being no evidence that the document did not exist 
 
556 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOItlftAS. 
 
 ov that the notice was not given — is proof that as late as April 23, 1844, 
 the Mexican Government affirmatively recognized its obligation to the 
 missions arising out of the facts already stated. 
 
 I come now to the act of April 3, 184*5, also to be found in the pam- 
 phlet, which is a law passed by Mexico concerning the restitution of 
 debts and properties of the Pious Fund of the Californias. By this 
 act it is provided that the debts and other properties of the Pious Fund 
 of the Californias which are now unsold shall be immediately returned 
 to the right reverend bishop of California and his successor, "for the 
 purposes mentioned in article 6 of the law of September 19, 1836, with- 
 out prejudice to what Congress may resolve in regard to the property 
 that has been alienated." No property was ever returned pursuant to 
 this statute. We quote it here only for its evidential value. From the 
 foregoing facts as I have detailed them to you I deduce the proposi- 
 tion which I enunciated at the beginning: That from 1697 down to the 
 cession of California to the United States by Mexico, under the treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Pious Fund of the Californias had a gen- 
 erally recognized existence and a continuous life. 
 
 The second proposition which I desire to advance is, ' ' That at no 
 time during the existence of this fund, beginning with 1697 and con- 
 tinuing to February 2, 1848, was the Pious Fund of the Californias 
 considered to be other than a trust fund. Its character as such was 
 continuously and repeatedly recognized by Spain and thereafter by 
 Mexico." Not only was it recognized as a trust in the abstract, but 
 during all the period of time from the expulsion of the Jesuits down 
 to the cession of California to the United States by Mexico, it was 
 recognized as a trust in favor of the missions of the Californias. This 
 proposition was unavoidably but only partially dealt with in the dis- 
 cussion of my first proposition. It appears that during all the years 
 from the expulsion of the Jesuits down to the cession of California 
 to the United States, in all of the documents issued under the Crown 
 of Spain and the Government of Mexico, this fund, consisting of the 
 properties which I have described, bore the title wJiich we claim desig- 
 nated both its purposes and the persons for whose benefit it existed. 
 In other words, in all the documents of this period the fund is specif- 
 ically called "The Pious Fund of the Californias. 1 ' It is true that 
 the two decrees of February 8 and October 24, 1842, implied that on 
 those days Mexico claimed the right to manage and possess (that is, 
 take into her keeping) these properties; but there is nothing in either 
 decree which involves a repudiation by her of the idea that the prop- 
 erties were to be devoted to carrying out the intention of the donors, 
 namely, the conversion to the Catholic faith of the inhabitants of the 
 territory known as the Californias, and' after their conversion the 
 continued maintenance and support of the Catholic religion in that 
 country. 
 
 In addition to what we have already shown to be the facts, wo 
 again call to your attention that it is expressly conceded by Mexico 
 in her answer to our memorial that the property was given in trust 
 and that the trust character was never disavowed. We wish to em- 
 phasize the declaration made by her minister of foreign affairs in the 
 answer which he has sent here for the consideration of the members 
 of this tribunal. He says that the fund was a trust estate and that 
 Mexico never denied its trust character. Let me read from the Eng- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 557 
 
 lish translation of Mexico's answer, to be found in the replication, 
 pages 19 and 20: 
 
 The claimants agree with the Government of Mexico in admitting the following 
 facts, proved by irrefutable documents: 
 
 First. The Jesuits were the original trustees or administrators of the properties 
 which constituted the Pious Fund of the Californias up to the year 1768, when they 
 were expelled from Spanish dominions. 
 
 Second. The Spanish Crown, in place of the Jesuits, took possession of the prop- 
 erties which constituted the aforesaid Pious Fund, and administered them by means 
 of a royal commission until the independence of Mexico was achieved. 
 
 Third. The Mexican Government, which succeeded the Spanish Government, was, 
 as the latter had been, trustee (comisario) of the fund, and, in this conception, suc- 
 cessor of the Jesuit missionaries, with all the rights .granted to them by the founders. 
 
 The claim by the Mexican Government that it succeeded to the Jesuits 
 in this benefaction, with all the rights granted to the Jesuits by the 
 founders, carries with it, as a consequence, that it also assumed all the 
 correlative duties. If Mexico obtained, by reason of her subrogation, 
 so to speak, all of the rights, she became burdened with all of the 
 duties. The assumption of all of the rights necessarily carried with 
 it and connoted the assumption of all of the duties. 
 
 I therefore pass the proposition that the Pious Fund was recognized 
 as a trust estate by Spain and Mexico. We have Mexico's deliberate 
 admission that our claim in that regard is true. 1 come, then, to the 
 point that the trust purpose of the Pious Fund of the California mis- 
 sion was the conversion of the natives of the two Californias, Upper 
 and Lower, and the establishment, maintenance, and extension of the 
 Catholic religion and worship in that country. It is conceded by 
 Mexico that the trust purpose of the Pious Fund of the Californias 
 was the conversion of the natives of the two Californias, Upper and 
 Lower.' This is stated in paragraph 4 of her answer, Replication, 
 page 30: 
 
 The claimants state that the object of the Pious Fund of the Californias was to 
 provide for the conversion of the Indians and for the support of the Catholic Church 
 in the Californias. This being a double object, it is necessary to distinguish between 
 the two parts which constitute it. The first part, the conversion of the pagan Indians 
 to the Catholic faith, and to the obedience of Spanish authority is unquestionable, 
 and must be considered as the principle and direct object of the missions entrusted 
 to the Society of Jesus by the Catholic King, endorsed by the founders of the Pious 
 Fund, and subsidized by the public treasury of Mexico. The other part of the 
 object, that is, the support of the church in California, was not the principal or 
 direct object of the establishment of the fund, but the means of carrymg out Ihe 
 spiritual conquest of uncivilized Indians through the religious missionaries. 
 
 We do not concede, as is claimed by Mexico in the foregoing extract, 
 that the Pious Fund had for its object the conversion of the pagan 
 Indians to obedience to Spanish authority, nor that the fund was ever 
 subsidized to the extent of a single dollar " by the public treasury of 
 Mexico." 
 
 These propositions heretofore and now advanced by Mexico were 
 considered in the arguments upon the former arbitration and are 
 referred to in other arguments for the United States already submitted 
 to this tribunal, and need not now be dwelt upon. 
 
 It will be seen from the extract above quoted from the answer of 
 Mexico, that it is therein stated that one of the objects of the Pious 
 Fund was the conversion of the natives to the Catholic faith. Mexico 
 says this proposition is unquestionable. Mexico likewise concedes 
 that another purpose of the Pious Fund was the support of the church 
 
558 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 in California. She so concedes, although she also claims that this pur- 
 
 fose was suhordinate to the spiritual conquest of the uncivilized 
 ndians. But Mexico does concede, and we have properly claimed, 
 therefore, that one of the purposes of the donors of the Pious Fund 
 was the support of the church in California; but even without this 
 admission the proof upon this point is complete. The Pious Fund of 
 the Californias was, as its name implies, a fund to be devoted to pious 
 uses in the Californias, and to pious uses of the Roman Catholic type. 
 But how can you devote properties to pious uses of a Roman Catholic 
 type in California without devoting them to the support of the Roman 
 Catholic Church and the extension of her religious work there? The 
 object of all missionary work is first to establish religion, and having 
 established it, next, to maintain it. To establish it and then to abandon 
 it is to have wasted and misspent your means. 
 
 What the object of this fund in the Californias was in the beginning 
 is clearly shown by the deed of the Marquis of Villapuente and the 
 Marchioness of Torres de Rada, executed in 1735. As I have already 
 called to your attention the contributions to the fund in 1731, four 
 years before the Villapuente donation, amounted to $120,000. Of 
 that sum the Marquis of Villapuente hud contributed $40,000 himself, 
 so that all of the contributions to this fund, of which we have any 
 evidence, prior to the de Rada donation, amounted to about $80,000. 
 
 The contributions to the fund which followed the munificent endow- 
 ment of the Marquis of Villapuente and Marchioness of Torres de 
 Rada were necessarily given to objects in close affinity to those for 
 which the Villapuente and de Rada donation was given. Let us 
 examine the Villapuente and de Rada deed for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining what religious object was sought to be achieved thereby. ' I 
 shall come afterwards, and under a separate head which I have designed 
 for it, to the question as to what effect the clause of that deed men- 
 tioned by Sir Edward Fry during the course of the argument yester- 
 day, has upon the case; but I desire now to examine the deed to 
 ascertain for what religious objects in the Californias the Marquis of 
 Villapuente and the Marchioness of Torres de Rada made this great 
 donation. I called to your attention this morning that the deed is a 
 deed in terms to the missions. 1 desire to read to you an extract, 
 commencing with the word " and," about the middle of page 104, in a 
 line which contains the words "of all things visible and invisible." 
 What goes before is a mere religious preamble: 
 
 And whereas the reverend Society of Jeaus, with its well-known religious zeal, 
 has been heretofore employed and is steadily engaged in the conversion of the 
 heathen natives of the Californias; and its members, by preaching and instruction, 
 have drawn into the fold of our holy Catholic faith great numbers of those barbarous 
 people, to whom they have devoted and are devoting themselves, according to their 
 institute; sacrificing their lives and exposing themselves to contumely from the 
 heathens, solely for the greater glory of our Lord God. And whereas, in the propa- 
 gation of His holy faith (which at the sacrifice of so much labor they have estab- 
 lished) , and in order also that the many other tribes which are now at the doors of 
 the church, as well as those remaining yet undiscovered, may not be deprived of the 
 same advantages, they need human aid as a means of successfully prosecuting their 
 labors; considering all which, and that we both are without forced heirs, who have 
 tne right to succeed to our inheritance, and are without hope of having such. 
 
 I next desire to quote two lines, the thirteenth and fourteenth lines, 
 on page 105: 
 
 We give to the missions of the Society of Jesus founded, and which in after times 
 the said society may found in said Californias, the abcive^mentioned estate, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THF CALIFORNIAS. 559 
 
 Here follows a description of the estates granted until we reach the 
 middle of page 106, where the description ends. 
 The habendum clause then commences. 
 It reads as follows: 
 
 To have and to hold, to said missions founded, and which hereafter may be 
 founded, in the Californias, as well for the maintenance of their religious, and to 
 provide for the ornament and decent support of divine worship, as also to aid the 
 native converts and catechumens with food and clothing according to the custom of 
 that country; so that if hereafter, by God's blessing, there be means of support in 
 the reductions, and missions now established, as ex. gr. by the cultivation of their 
 lands, thus obviating the necessity of sending from this country provisions, clothing, 
 and other necessaries, the rents and products of said estates shall be applied to new 
 missions to be established hereafter in the unexplored parts of the said Californias 
 according to the discretion of the father superior of said missions; and the estates 
 aforesaid shall be perpetually inalienable, and shall never be sold, so that even in 
 case of all California being civilized and converted to our holy Catholic faith, the 
 profits of said estates shall be applied to the necessities of said missions and their 
 support. 
 
 In other words, the fund, except in a given contingency, which I 
 shall consider under another head of my argnment, is granted first for 
 the support of the missions which then existed, then for additional 
 missions, and finally, in the case that all California became civilized 
 and converted to the holy Catholic faith, the fund, or profits of said 
 estate, for the necessities of all of the missions of the Californias and 
 their support. So far as that clause of the deed is concerned, the 
 fund was to be a perpetual endowment for the support of religion in 
 that country. 
 
 Again, it is said at the first line on page 107: "We the said grant- 
 ors " (continue reading on the fifth line of said page). 
 
 Renounce and transfer the whole thereof to said reverend Society of Jesus, its mis- 
 sions of Californias, its prelates and religious, under whose charge may happen to be 
 the government of said missions and of this province of New Spain, now and at all 
 times hereafter, in order that from the profits of said estates, and the increase of their 
 cattle, large and small, their other gains, natural or otherwise, they may maintain 
 said missions in the manner above proposed, indicated, defined, and laid down for- 
 ever. 
 
 Then two lines below: 
 
 And we give power and authority, so far as by right may be required, for said 
 missions and said reverend Society of Jesus, that of their own right and authority, 
 as they may be advised, they may take the seizin and possession of said estates — 
 
 and the like. 
 
 I desire to call your attention to the clause commencing on the 
 seventeenth line of page 108: 
 
 And we, the said grantors, both desire that at no time shall any judge, ecclesias- 
 tical or secular, undertake to investigate or intrude himself to ascertain whether the 
 conditions of this donation be fulfilled, for our will is that in this matter there shall 
 be no pretence for such intervention, and that whether the said reverend society 
 fulfils or does not fulfil the trusts in favor of the missions herein contained it shall render 
 an account to God our Lord, alone, for we have entire confidence that it will com- 
 ply with its duty and do what may be most pleasing to God. And Father, John 
 Fraucis de Tompes, of said reverend Society of Jesus, the attorney in fact to that 
 end, instructed and named by the most reverend Father Andrew Nieto, late pro- 
 vincial of said society, in and by the power of attorney given him in this city 
 November 3, 1729, before John Alvarez de la Plata, royal notary, for all things 
 concerning the missions of the Californias, being also present, declares: That by 
 virtue of said power he accepts the donation in manner and form as above made, 
 expressed, and declared, and from this time forth he acknowledges, in the name of 
 said missions, to have received the said estates. 
 
 I therefore say that whether the Villapuente deed, considered tech.* 
 
560 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 nically, was a conveyance to the missions of the Californias founded 
 and to be founded, or a conveyance to the Society of Jesus, or how- 
 ever it operated, considered as a technical conveyance, it certainly was 
 a benefaction to the missions and had for its object the promulgation 
 of the Roman Catholic religion in the Californias, and the maintenance 
 and extension of that religion in the same country. 
 
 It is true that there is a clause in the deed, called to attention by 
 Sir Edward Fry, bj^ which the properties are authorised to be diverted 
 in a given contingency. I shall consider this clause shortly; but we 
 are now dwelling upon the deed to ascertain what the religious motive 
 was which actuated the donors to make it. Laying aside for the 
 moment its technical legal effect, we submit that it is very clear that 
 it was the object of the grantors of that deed (and of all who, after 
 them, contributed to the Pious Fund of the Californias) to establish a 
 fund for the foundation and support of pious works of the Roman 
 Catholic type in the Californias. 
 
 In passing I may say that it was claimed upon our behalf before the 
 former arbitral court that, according to the law of Mexico, each 
 bishop, parish priest, monastery, hospital, and religious foundation 
 had legal personality, was, in law, a corporation, and had capacity to 
 receive conveyances of real propertj r . To this contention the very 
 form of the Villapuente deed lends support. The habendum clause is 
 "to have and to hold to the said missions." It may be in view of 
 these facts that technically the conveyance was to the missions. 
 
 It is not important to our case, however, whether this be true or 
 not. It is not to be expected that we shall be able to trace each piece 
 of property into this great historical fund, comprising properties 
 aggregated in the manner which I have attempted to detail, by the 
 same clear chain of title, by which owners of real property trace the 
 title to their estates. We made no attempt to trace titles in this man- 
 ner before the former arbitral tribunal, nor do we undertake to do so 
 before this tribunal. We proved to the satisfaction of the former 
 tribunal the amount and value of the fund on October 24, 1842. Upon 
 that proof, supplemented by some evidence since discovered, and over 
 and above all upon the conclusive effect of the judgment of the former 
 arbitral court, we submit this branch of our case to this tribunal. 
 
 We come now to the proposition that the Villapuente deed is the 
 foundation deed of this fund. It is such in an historical sense only, 
 not in a technical sense. 
 
 Let it be kept in mind that from the expulsion of the Jesuits down 
 to the decree of October 24, 1842, all of the estates embraced in the 
 Villapuente and de Rada deed were uninterruptedly devoted to the pur- 
 poses to which the grantors in that deed designed them to be devoted; 
 so that the main intent of the deed was adhered to. 
 
 One clause only had been abandoned. 
 
 There was no exercise by the Jesuits of the power given to them in 
 the instrument and exercisable by them in a given contingency. 
 
 Let me read the clause. 
 
 It is provided in the deed, Transcript, page 106, that: 
 
 And in case that the reverend Society of Jesus, voluntarily or by compi^sion. 
 should abandon said missions of the Californias or (which God forbid) the natives 
 ot that country should rebel and apostatize from our holy faith, or in any other such 
 contingency, then, and in that case, it is left to the. discretion of the reverend father 
 provincial of the Society of Jesus in this New Spain, for the time being, to apply the 
 prohts of said estates, their products and improvements, to other missions in the 
 undiscovered portions of this North America. " *" 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 561 
 
 The clause authorizes properties previously dedicated to the missions 
 of California to be diverted elsewhere, in a contingency which involved 
 the continued existence of the reverend father provincial of the Society 
 of Jesus "in this New Spain." In other words, the compulsory retire- 
 ment upon which that officer of the Society of Jesus "in this New 
 Spain " was to exercise these functions, did not contemplate a retire- 
 ment brought about by the entire suppression of the order and the con- 
 sequent destruction of all its ecclesiastical functions. I say, then, that 
 if you stop to dwell upon the single word "compulsion" it is true that 
 the contingency did happen, for you may say that Jesuits did abandon 
 the missions by compulsion, but they did not abandon them by the com- 
 pulsion contemplated by the makers of this instrument, who assumed 
 the abandonment of the missions and the existence of the society as a 
 coexistent fact. From 1773, however, the reverend father provincial 
 of "this New Spain" could not exist, because the order was banished 
 from all the Spanish dominions, nor could he exist in any quarter of 
 the globe, because the order itself had been suppressed. 
 
 The first point 1 make, therefore, with respect to the above-quoted 
 clause is that the contingency mentioned in it never happened, either 
 within the spirit or the letter of the deed. It is the function and office 
 of all courts and tribunals charged with ascertaining the true meaning 
 and intent of an instrument to attempt to place themselves in the posi- 
 tion of the donors. 
 
 If we place ourselves in the position occupied by the grantors of the 
 Villapuente deed at the time of its execution, we will surely see that 
 they contemplated the abandonment of the missions by the Jesuits 
 under such circumstances only as would involve the continued exist- 
 ence of the order in New Spain, and its continued existence as a reli- 
 gious order of the Roman Catholic Church. The circumstances, as 
 they actually transpired, involved the banishment of the Society of 
 Jesus from Spanish dominions by royal decree and the suppression of 
 the order by Papal bull. It is evident, therefore, that the emergency, 
 as it was contemplated, did not occur. 
 
 Before I pass to my second point, I call particular attention to the 
 circumstance that under the deed the Jesuits were only authorized to 
 divert funds which had been already dedicated to the missions of the 
 Californias. The fund had already been given to the missions. The 
 power conferred upon the Jesuits was to recall the gift. This is evi- 
 dent from the words of the deed: " To have and to hold to said mis- 
 sions." I put particular stress upon these words for the reason that 
 they show that the gift was already executed to the missions of Cali- 
 fornia. Whether the transfer operated as a technical grant or con- 
 veyance is not important. Disregarding technicalities it is evident 
 that the Villapuente and de Rada donation was made to the missions 
 of the Californias, and was only to be defeated by the exercise of a 
 privilege given to a particular Jesuit and exercisable only in a given 
 contingency— a contingency which, I have already argued, never 
 occurred within the letter or spirit of the instrument. 
 
 Let us assume, however, that the contingency did happen; assume 
 that the circumstances were such as the Marquis of Villapuente con- 
 templated; then the person at whose discretion the funds of the missions 
 in California could be diverted to other fields « as clearly designated 
 to be the "reverend father provincial of the Society of Jesus in New 
 Spain." But such a person as the " reverend father provincial of New 
 
 S. Doc. 28 36 
 
562 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 Spain" did not exist. He could not exist in Spain by reason of royal 
 decree; he could not exist in any quarter of the world, because he and 
 his order had been suppressed by papal bull, and his title, powers, and 
 office had all ceased to exist. To sum up: The first point 1 have made 
 is that the contingency never happened; secondly, if the contingency 
 did happen, the power could not have been exercised because condi- 
 tions had made the exercise of it impossible. 
 
 My third point is that if the contingency did happen, and if the 
 power could have been exercised, the Jesuits have waived the right 
 to exercise it by a long, unbroken, and unequivocal course of conduct. 
 The very doctrine of prescription, which obtains in the civil and the 
 common law, has been sustained in the jurisprudence of some nations 
 by the fiction, which is allowed to prevail even contrary to the fact, of 
 the existence of a lost deed. A man who has been in the unbroken pos- 
 session of property for a long time is entitled in aid of his title to have 
 it presumed that the last man to whom the title regularly descended 
 had executed a grant to the one in possession. 
 
 My fourth point is that the power to divert the fund was personal 
 to the Jesuits; that it was intended to be exercised by a specified reli- 
 gious .and monastic officer; that it was intended to be exercised by a 
 person who by reason of his religious office had obtained the confidence 
 in an unusual degree of the Marquis of Villapuente. If there ever was 
 in the eighteenth century a religious devotee, I venture to say that he 
 was the Marquis of Villapuente. You will find in this record, com- 
 mencing at the top of page 109, a biographical sketch of his career. 
 You will there find that the dominant motive by which his life seemed 
 to be actuated was a religious one. This likewise breathes in every 
 line of his deed. When he conveyed these properties he relied on the 
 honest}' of the grantees and provided that the Jesuits should never be 
 called on to account to any court or tribunal, ecclesiastical or lay, for 
 the due administration of these trusts. He evinced beyond perad- 
 venture that his donation or grant to them, with a power to divert 
 that estate, was personal in character, and when they, by reason of 
 papal suppression, were unable to exercise it, the result was that the 
 property already donated to the missions of California, or for the 
 enjoyment of the missions of the Californias, could not, like the right 
 which we have in the common law to reenter for breach of condition, 
 be ever exercised. The gift made by the Villapuente deed did not, in 
 the first instance, require the intervention of the Jesuits. It was a 
 gift to the missions in the first instance, with the right in the mission- 
 aries to the exercise of a power, not for the aggrandizement of the 
 Jesuits, not for their benefit and behalf at all, but it was a right to be 
 exercised by them according to their discretion. 
 
 These considerations, I fear, involve too technical a point of view 
 for such a case in such a tribunal. The history of this fund was 
 made by three-quarters of a century's treatment of it by two govern- 
 ments, and we rely on that treatment, culminating in the engagement 
 in 1812. It is not necessary that our case, as we understand it, be 
 dealt with in purely technical fashion. All of these considerations, 
 however, lead us to see the case in its true light, and, seeing it, we are 
 able to clearly understand what justice demands. 
 
 I have now dealt with four propositions in relation to the clause of 
 the deed whereby the Jesuits were authorized to divert the fund to 
 other missions. The fifth is that if the contingency happened, if the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 563 
 
 power did survive but could not be exercised by the Jesuits, and if it 
 did devolve upon the Spanish crown, the power to appoint to other 
 missions was never exercised. On the contrary, one of the earliest 
 royal decrees recognized and confirmed the devotion of these proper- 
 ties to the Californias; and, as I have taken occasion to repeat three 
 or four times, in all the official decrees and legislative acts of these 
 two Governments from shortly following the expulsion of the Jesuits 
 down to 1848, the official title of these properties was the " Pious Fund 
 of the Californias." 
 
 Mr. Asser. I very well understand your first, second, fourth, and 
 fifth proposals concerning this point; but as to the third, I would be 
 very glad to have some further information. What is your meaning 
 concerning the third point? 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. I say that they waived the right. 
 
 Mr. Assek. By what means? 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. By a long, unbroken, and unequivocal refusal to 
 claim. The Jesuits were restoredin 1814 by Pius VII. They have been 
 an order in the church since that time. They received of the former 
 award, as proved by the deposition filed to-day, in response to a 
 demand by Mexico, under an apportionment by the Holy See, to be 
 devoted to the propagation of religion in the Californias — one-half of 
 $40,000— that is, $20,000. 
 
 The Jesuits knew that they had this power of appointment. Their 
 attorney received the deed from the grantors (Tr., 108). Since their 
 restoration as a religious order in the church they have never put for- 
 ward any claim to the Pious Fund. More than that: It is not neces- 
 sary to prove that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists the world 
 over is a papal church. The Holy See is the head and front of it. He 
 is the legislative, the judicial, and the executive departments of the 
 church. All the orders of the church are in subordination to him. 
 These properties had passed to the control of other orders and of other 
 officers of the church under permission, necessarily, of the Holy See. 
 When the Pope appointed Francisco Garcia Diego first bishop of Cal- 
 ifornia, he did it in response to the solicitation of the Mexican Gov- 
 ernment. The Government then tendered the bishop the Pious Fund, 
 which the Jesuits had formerly controlled. To this disposition of it 
 the Jesuits are deemed to have consented, not only because they offered 
 not one word of objection, but also because they were bound by the 
 constitution of the church to .which they belong to yield obedience to 
 the head of that church, their ecclesiastical superior, the bishop of 
 Rome. 
 
 (La seance est levee et le Tribunal s'ajourne a lundi le 22 septembre 
 a 10 heures du matin.) 
 
 CINQUIEME SEANCE. 
 
 Lundi 22 septemlre 1902 {matin). 
 
 Le tribunal s'est r^uni a 10 heures, tous les arbitres etant presents. 
 
 M. le President. Je donne la parole au secretaire- general pour 
 lire le protocole des seances preceMentes. 
 
 M. le Secretaire-General (donne lecture du protocole des seances 
 des 15 et 17 septembre 1902). 
 
 M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis d'Ame- 
 rique. 
 
564 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 M. Beeknaert. Je demande la parole pour une observation d'im- 
 portance tres secondaire, mais sur laquelle nous serons je pense d'ac- 
 cord. C'est que le dossier depose par les Etats-Unis est en realite un 
 dossier commun, ainsi que cela avait ete convenu -X Washington; ce sont 
 done des pieces communes, reunies par l'une des parties, mais pour le 
 compte des deux. II semblait que quelques mots de ce que M. le Sec- 
 retaire-General a lu tout-a-1'heure auraient pu comporter a cet egard 
 quelques doutes, et c'est la raison de mon observation. 
 
 M. lb President. On prendra acte de cette declaration. La parole 
 est a M. Ralston. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I perhaps did not catch entirely all that Mr. Beer- 
 naert said. 
 
 The President (explains what Mr. Beernaert said). 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Assuredly, assuredly. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, in the 
 considerations which I had the honor to submit for your consideration 
 on Wednesday last, I had concluded the discussion of three propositions. 
 
 1. "The Pious Fund of the Calif ornias" had an unbroken and gen- 
 erally recognized existence from 1697 down to the cession of Upper 
 California to the United States of America by Mexico in the treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo of February 2, 1848. 
 
 2. At no time during its existence, beginning with 1697 and con- 
 tinuing to February 2, 1848, was " The Pious Fund of the Calif ornias" 
 considered to be other than a trust fund. Its character as such was 
 continuously and repeatedly recognized, first by Spain and thereafter 
 by Mexico. 
 
 3. The trust purpose of "The Pious Fund of the Calif ornias" was 
 throughout its existence the conversion of the natives of the two Cali- 
 fornias, Upper and Lower, and the establishment, maintenance, and 
 extension of the Catholic Church, its religion and worship, in that 
 country. This purpose Mexico consistently recognized. 
 
 In addition to having concluded the consideration of these three 
 propositions, I was engaged when the tribunal rose for its adjournment 
 on Wednesday last with a consideration of the connection and relation 
 which the Society of Jesus bore to the fund from and after the expul- 
 sion and suppression of the society, a proposition which 1 have since 
 that adjournment formulated and which I desire to express as follows: 
 
 4. The Society of Jesus has had no estate in the properties of the 
 Pious Fund since 1773; nor has it had', since that time, any interest 
 therein such as would in any manner interfere with the legal or moral 
 right of the United States of America to demand from Mexico the 
 award which is here sought. 
 
 I undertook, in the course of the considerations which I had the 
 honor to submit to you, to establish in connection with this proposi- 
 tion the following: 
 
 (a) The contingency mentioned in the above-quoted clause of the 
 Villapuente deed never occurred within either the letter or the spirit 
 of that conveyance. 
 
 (i) The power granted to the "reverend father provincial of the 
 Society of Jesus in this new Spain" to divert the income of the estates 
 to missions in other parts of the world was ineffective from the ban- 
 ishment and suppression of the Jesuits (1767 and 1773), for want of 
 the religious person designated to exercise the power. From 1773 
 
PIOUS J'tJND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 565 
 
 there was no father provincial in New Spain, nor elsewhere, and no 
 Jesuit nor Jesuit mission in all the world. 
 
 (c) The Society of Jesus renounced the right by failing ever to put 
 forward a claim for its enjoyment. 
 
 (d) The power was religious in its nature and personal to the Jesuits. 
 And 1 had reached and had under discussion at the moment the 
 
 tribunal rose the fifth point, which is this: 
 
 (e) Even if the contingency contemplated by the deed did occur, and 
 even if the power to divert was not personal to the Society of Jesus, 
 but did survive to and devolve upon the Spanish Crown, then we 
 answer that the power to divert these funds from the missions of the 
 Californias to missions in other parts of the world was never exercised 
 by Spain. On the contrary, the dedication of the properties as a fund 
 for the maintenance of the missions in the Californias was repeatedly 
 confirmed by Spain, and all power to divert them to other parts of the 
 world was waived and abandoned. Indeed, the earliest royal decrees 
 of Spain following the banishment of the Jesuits recognized and 
 affirmed the dedication of the properties to the support of the missions 
 of the Californias. 
 
 The very division of the missions between the Franciscans and 
 Dominicans, to which, when I had occasion heretofore to refer to it I 
 begged you to impress upon your attention, for the reason that I 
 intended thereafter to make the point at which 1 have now arrived. 
 That point is that the vex-j 7 division of the missions between the Fran- 
 ciscans and the Dominicans, with the consent and approval and by the 
 direction of the Spanish Crown, and the entire treatment of the prob- 
 lem of the missions in Upper and Lower California by Spain, was 
 based upon the idea that the Pious Fund oelonged to the missions of 
 the Californias. If this fund had not been treated by Spain as a fund 
 for the support of the missions of the Californias, Upper and Lower, 
 those missions of necessity would have had to be abandoned. 
 
 It would have been impossible without the dedication of these funds 
 to the missions of California for the Franciscans or the Dominicans 
 to have carried on that work. The very agreement of Spain for a 
 division of the missions between the Franciscans and the Dominicans 
 was, under these circumstances, a reaffirmation by that country of the 
 dedication of these properties to the missions of the Californias. 
 
 I pass to the sixth point, which is this: 
 
 (f) The Villapuente deed, in which this power is reserved to the 
 Jesuits, constituted only a portion of the Pious Fund, and by the 
 course of history and with the concurrence and by the direction of 
 two Governments, Spain and Mexico, the Villapuente and De Rada 
 properties were merged in the other properties of the fund, and for 
 three-quarters of a century (from 1768 to i842) all of these properties 
 were treated as constituting " The Pious Fund of the Californias," a 
 fund devoted, as its name implies, to pious uses, to be achieved in the 
 Californias. 
 
 I pass now to the seventh point, which I had occasion in a faint way 
 to foreshadow to the tribunal on Wednesday last. It is this: 
 
 (g) The court will remember that the religious orders of the Roman 
 Catholic Church are not purely self -existent bodies. They are each 
 of them attached to the See of Rome in a particular manner, and that 
 See is for each of them the ultimate superior. The acts of the Holy 
 See in respect of the functions of any particular order have not only 
 
566 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 the general authority recognized in the See of Rome by all Catholics, 
 but they have also a particular authority, and may, for the considera- 
 tions which I shall hereafter advance to you, be regarded as the acts 
 of the order itself. 
 
 The whole history of the religious orders, including that of the 
 Society of Jesus, will show no exception to the rule that they all 
 regard this particular authority of the Holy See, and submissive con- 
 currence in its commands, as a necessary condition of their very exist- 
 ence. And we need not stop to dwell upon that longer than a moment, 
 because as they exist by virtue of permission issued from the Holy 
 See, concurrent submission to its authority is a condition, a funda- 
 mental condition, to the existence of religious orders within the pale of 
 the Roman Catholic Church. It conclusively follows from this uni- 
 versally admitted principle that whatever the Holy See directs or per- 
 mits in the case of a religious order may be presumed to be an act of 
 that order itself; nor could a better example of this principle be 
 adduced than the submission of the Jesuits themselves to the papal 
 bull of 1773 by which that order was suppressed. 
 
 Coming now to apply those principles stated in the abstract to our 
 case in the concrete, we say that the Franciscans and Dominicans 
 could not have taken over the administration of the missions of the 
 Californias without the consent of the Holy See — a consent to which 
 the Jesuits (not yet suppressed when the missions were taken over) 
 must be deemed, from the principle enunciated above, to have been a 
 party. The Holy See permitted the Franciscans and Dominicans to 
 take over the missions of the Californias. What the Holy See per- 
 mitted to be done from the very fundamental notion of the attachment 
 of the religious orders to the Holy See, that act of the Holy See must 
 carry with it the concurrence of the Jesuits. 
 
 The same idea is true of every subsequent act authorized or per- 
 mitted by the Holy See in connection with the administration of the 
 missions and the application of the Pious Fund of the Californias to 
 their use. It will also be evident that as the archbishop and the 
 bishop of California were permitted to present the claim which they 
 made before the former arbitral court the validity of that claim was 
 implicitly conceded and agreed to by the Society of Jesus. Another 
 evidence of this concurrence is the acceptance by the Society of Jesus 
 of the sum of $20,000 under the apportionment by the Holy See on 
 March 4, 1877, of the recovery in the former arbitral court. 
 
 The present claim, the one before this tribunal, made by the United 
 States of America on behalf of the archbishop and the bishop of Cali- 
 fornia (these latter necessarily acting with the leave of the Holy See), 
 will be conclusively presumed to have been made with the active and 
 passive concurrence of the Society of Jesus. And it will be further- 
 more presumed as a part of this suggestion that any act of that society 
 necessary to perfect the claim here urged has been duly had and taken 
 in due season by said society. 
 
 In other words, it will be presumed under the circumstances that if 
 any act could be done by the Jesuits to make effectual the claim that 
 act has been duly performed in due season bv that society. This is no 
 novel principle of jurisprudence to put forward in a judicial tribunal, 
 because it bears a close analogy to the presumption of a modern lost 
 grant indulged in the law of England in support of a title by occu- 
 pancy. J 
 
PIOITS FUND 03? THE CALIFORNIAS. 567 
 
 1 desire to briefly refer to Herbert's Law of Prescription, an essay- 
 to which was awarded the York prize in the University of Cambridge 
 in 1890. 
 
 I shall read a few short extracts, commencing on page 12 and ending 
 on page 20. 
 
 It appears that in order to sustain a title by prescription according 
 to the English law, in the early history of that law, it was necessary 
 for the claimant of title to show occupancy during the period of legal 
 memory fixed in English jurisprudence as running back to the time 
 of Richard the First, or 1189. It came in the evolution of the English 
 law that this necessity was satisfied by proof of twenty years' occu- 
 pancy, from which it would be presumed, in the absence of other tes- 
 timony, that the occupancy had dated back to this twilight of time 
 represented by the year 1189. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Is not this rather a too technical point for us ? 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. We would not have considered it necessary to 
 argue this point but for a question addressed by Sir Edward Fry to 
 Senator Stewart during the course of his argument. 
 
 Sir Edward Frt. I only throw it out to you as a too technical point 
 for this court. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. I think it is very technical; and as I have hereto- 
 fore had occasion to say, I do not think the case can be in any manner 
 affected by these considerations. I determined to submit them, how- 
 ever, on account of the question put by Sir Edward Fry to Senator 
 Stewart. I will pass on 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. I do not wish to stop you. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. I do not care to go on. I am very glad that you 
 made the suggestion. I thank you for it. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney (continuing). I will state now two additional 
 grounds and then pass on. They are these: 
 
 (A) The Franciscans and Dominicans, and after them Bishop Diego, 
 his successors in title and interest, have acquired, prescriptively, the 
 right of the Jesuits, with the consent, seasonabty made, of both Spain 
 and Mexico. 
 
 And, lastly — 
 
 (i) The title, if any, and whatever its character, was abandoned by 
 the Jesuits; whether compulsorily or not is unimportant. And aban- 
 donment is one of the methods by which title may be lost. 
 
 I therefore pass to my fifth proposition in the case, which is: 
 
 5. The question whether either Spain or Mexico might have diverted 
 the fund to other missions is not involved in this case, and is therefore 
 purely academic. Were such a position maintained, it could be con- 
 clusively answered by the fact that neither Spain nor Mexico ever 
 did so divert the fund and neither of them ever claimed the right to 
 do so. 
 
 In connection with this point I beg to invite your attention to an 
 argument made before the former tribunal, printed at pages 75-76 of 
 ithe Transcript. 
 
 It reads: 
 
 By the act of 1842 the Mexican Government had taken to itself private property 
 contributed to the church for a special purpose, and bound itself to make good by 
 paying a certain annual interest. Can there be a doubt that the church in California 
 was then entitled to receive from the Government this annual payment, to be applied 
 to the purpose for which the fund was originally created? We find nothing to indi- 
 
568 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 cate at this time any intent to repudiate its obligation, by any direct act, or by the 
 adoption of any such arguments as are now urged to this end. 
 
 On the contrary, the Government acknowledged its indebtedness in the most formal 
 and solemn manner, in the very act by which it placed in its treasury the proceeds 
 of this property. The obligation thus assumed by Mexico towards a portion of its 
 citizens was as perfect and binding upon it as if the same had been contracted by an 
 individual. Nor is the obligation at all impaired by its own default in making pay- 
 ment, nor by the fact that, owing to its sovereign character, there were no means to 
 enforce payment by judicial process. No suits can be maintained in the courts of 
 the country against the United States, and yet its public debt constitutes an obliga- 
 tion as binding upon it as if judgment and execution could be invoked to enforce it. 
 
 I now invite your attention to the reply, by Mr. Doyle, at page 47 
 of the Transcript, Paragraph VI. It is this: 
 
 In view of the clear recognition by Mexico in the decree of October, 1842, of a 
 debt equal to the proceeds and value of the property taken into the treasury, and of 
 the promise to pay interest thereon at six per cent, I have deemed it unnecessary to 
 notice many points in the argument of Don Manuel Aspiros, based on matters long 
 antecedent to that date — such as the alleged incapacity of the Society of Jesus to 
 acquire property; the suggestion that their estates were confiscated on their expulsion 
 from the Spanish dominions, and that the Pious Fund came to the monarch's hands 
 as a temporality; that the validity of the constitution of the Pious Fund required 
 the sanction of the Pope; that portions of the fund, derived from bequests destined 
 by the donors to missions in general, were not necessarily applicable to California 
 missions in particular, and, hence, were improperly incorporated into the Pious 
 Fund of California; questions whether the church of California could have com- 
 plained if the the funds destined for the propagation of the gospel here had been 
 (while the sovereignty of Mexico yet extended over the country) diverted to mis- 
 sions in other parts of the Republic; whether, if the Pious Fund had remained 
 invested in real estate down to the time of the treaty of Queretaro, it could have 
 been successfully claimed by the church of California, which, by that treaty, lost its 
 status of Mexican citizenship, and the like — because, as it seems to me, none of these 
 questions can affect the decision of this claim. It is not disputed that the Jesuits 
 did, in fact, receive these donations in trust for the pious purposes designed by the 
 founders, and neither the binding force of the trust nor their right and duty to 
 administer it was ever questioned by Spain or Mexico. The legality of the additions 
 made to it were also unquestioned at the time, and have since remained so, and it is 
 not denied that they were, in fact, made. The acquiescence of the Government, and of 
 all others interested, for a long series of years, entitles as to a presumption, juris et dejure, 
 that all these things were rightly done and legal, as no doubt they were. 
 
 And that is what we say to you to-day that the acquiescence of the 
 Government and of others interested for a long series of years entitles 
 us to the presumption that these things were rightly done and legally, 
 just as the foundation to much of the territory the world over has 
 been upon unquestioned occupancy during a long series of years — 
 sometimes not longer than seventy-five years and oftentimes less. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. The treaty of Queretaro? 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. It is the. treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The 
 ratifications took place at Queretaro. The treaty was signed at 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. I thought so. 
 
 I continue with Mr. Doyle's argument: 
 
 Mr. McEnerney: 
 
 Nor is it disputed that the Crown received the funds on the expulsion of the Jesuits, 
 and assumed to succeed to the same title, rights, and duties as had previously devolved 
 0I l en ?' ■ admlm ? te n r ed the trust thereunder down to the epoch of independence, 
 when Mexico succeeded in like manner to Spain, and continued to administer in the 
 same way down to the year 1836. 
 
 Neither power, during this long period of over an hundred years, raised any of these 
 questions, and I submit with entire confidence that it is too late to entertain them 
 here and now. 
 
 So the question, whether either Spain or Mexico might have diverted the fund to 
 other missions, is conclusively answered by the fact that they never did so, and never 
 claimed the right to do so. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 569 
 
 We therefore submit that neither Mexico nor Spain ever claimed the 
 right to divert or attempted the diversion of the Pious Fund. It is 
 hence unnecessary for us to debate the purely academic point as to 
 whether either Government ever possessed the right suggested. 
 
 This carries me to the sixth question with which I propose to deal, 
 and that is: 
 
 6. That the rights of the beneficiaries of the Pious Fund of the Cal- 
 ifornias which are asserted here arise out of the promise made by 
 Mexico on October 24, 184-2, and the duty of Mexico to those benefi- 
 ciaries as a trustee of the fund. 
 
 When Mexico made her decree of October 24, 1842, she promised to 
 pay 6 per cent upon the capital of the Pious Fund for the uses and 
 purposes to which the fund had been dedicated by the donors. This 
 engagement was no mere gratuity. There was not only a sufficient, 
 but an ample consideration for the promise. She incorporated the 
 entire Pious Fund into her national treasury. The least she could 
 do in honor was to promise to pay interest upon the fund. Mexico not 
 only agreed to pay the interest, but she agreed to pay it to the reli- 
 gious objects specified and intended by the donors of the fund, which, 
 as we have already pointed out, were the conversion of the natives of 
 the CalifOrnias, Upper and Lower, and the establishment, mainte- 
 nance, and extension of the Catholic Church, its religion and worship, 
 in that country. 
 
 At the time she made the engagement Mexico sustained the rela- 
 tion of a trustee to the beneficiaries and to the fund. This, as we 
 have pointed out, is conceded in her answer to our memorial. Her 
 promise, therefore, is to be read in the light of her duty as trustee. 
 The promise which Mexico made was to pay an annuity in perpetuity. 
 Her promise was also to pay it to certain religious purposes to be 
 accomplished in Upper California and certain religious purposes to be 
 accomplished in Lower California. Upon the cession of Upper 
 California to the United States by Mexico, for a consideration of 
 $18,250,000, the obligation to pay the equitable portion due for applica- 
 tion to the religious purposes to be accomplished in Upper California 
 was not canceled. It survived for the benefit and behoof of the inhab- 
 itants and citizens of the ceded territory, whose American citizenship, 
 as it was to be thenceforth, entitled them to demand performance 
 through the interposition of the United States. It is this demand 
 which they made with success under the convention of 1868, and 
 which they are now endeavouring to make with the same success before 
 this court. 
 
 The seventh point is that: 
 
 7. All of the events preceding October 24, 1842, are in the nature of 
 matters of inducement, as that term is used in English and American 
 jurisprudence. The obligation of October 24, 1842, is to be read in 
 the light of these events, in order that it may be properly interpreted. 
 But Mexico's obligation arises out of its legislative decree of October 
 24, 1842, and its precedent trusteeship. 
 
 In the law of pleading, as it is established in American and English 
 jurisprudence, we have what are known as "matters of inducement." 
 These are matters appropriately to be stated in a pleading, in order 
 that the court to which the pleading is submitted may the more intel- 
 ligently appreciate the force of the particular transaction out of which 
 arises the cause of action or the matter of defence. In this case the 
 
570 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 cause of action upon which our claim is made is the engagement in 
 the light of the historical circumstances which preceded it. These 
 circumstances enable us to appreciate the exact legal and moral obliga- 
 tion which Mexico assumed by the act of October 24, 1842, whereby 
 she incorporated all the property of the Pious Fund into the Mexican 
 treasury, and agreed to pay 6 per cent thereon annually and in 
 perpetuity. 
 
 The next point to which I desire to call the attention of the tribunal 
 is that — 
 
 8. It was the duty of Mexico during the period when it managed 
 the "Pious Fund of the Californias" prior to the appointment of the 
 bishop of the Californias to pay over the income thereof to the mis- 
 sionaries in charge of the missions, in furtherance of the purpose of 
 the donors. 
 
 I support this proposition with the argument that as the missionaries 
 alone were in the possession of the spiritual faculties having relation 
 to the missions, as the spiritual faculties of the missions were their 
 very life and very existence, as they had no other, and as that spiritual 
 life, its foundation, and support were the objects which appealed to 
 the donors, it follows as a consequence that the only persons who, from 
 the very necessity of the case and the very circumstances of the mis- 
 sions, could administer these funds to the pious uses specified by the 
 donors were the missionaries themselves. Hence out of the very 
 necessity of the case they were entitled to receive the funds, and as it 
 was intended by the donors to make their gifts effectual, it must be 
 conclusively presumed that thej 1, intended the funds to go to those 
 persons who alone were capable of administering them for the pur- 
 poses which the donors had in mind. 
 
 The next proposition is that — 
 
 9. This duty was solemnly recognized by Mexico and was never 
 repudiated. 
 
 It was solemnly recognized by Mexico in 1832, when she provided 
 in the act of May 25th for the leasing of the rural properties belonging 
 to the Pious Fund. Mark the emphasis which I place upon the word 
 "belonging" to the Pious Fund. I so emphasize the word because it 
 is stated in the act of May 25, 1832, that these properties "belong to 
 the Pious Fund." And it is provided that the moneys shall be paid 
 into the treasury "to be solely and exclusively destined for the mis- 
 sions of the Californias. " 
 
 And, again, there is the provision that the board shall " name to the 
 Government the amounts which may be remitted to each one of the 
 Californias, in accordance with their respective expenses and available 
 funds." 
 
 There is no other provision of any kind in that act of 1832 which 
 contemplates the disbursement of any of these moneys except to these 
 Californian missions. 
 
 I say, therefore, as it is provided that these moneys shall be remitted 
 to the missions, and as it is said in the act that the monevs are "solely 
 and exclusively destined " for these missions, and as it is also said therein 
 that the properties belong to the Pious Fund of the Californias, that we 
 have made good, so far as the act of 1832 is concerned, the proposition 
 which we now have under consideration— namely, that the duty of 
 remitting to the missionaries prior to the appointment of the bishopric 
 was recognized by Mexico. 
 
PIOCS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 571 
 
 Then, again, its duty to remit to the bishops was recognized by the 
 act of September 19, 1836 — the act in relation to the creation of a 
 bishopric — by which Mexico solicited the Holy See to create a bishopric 
 in the Californias and pledged for its support six thousand dollars per 
 annum. In this act it is provided that all of the properties of the Pious 
 Fund should be passed to the possession of the bishop for administration 
 in conformity to the will of the donors or similar objects. 
 
 Again, after the passage of the act of February 8, 1842, which 
 affirms the trust character of the properties, General Santa Anna, 
 President of the Mexican Republic, appointed Don Gabriel Valencia, 
 chief of staff, to be the general administrator of the funds. This you 
 will find stated at page 505 of the Transcript. 
 
 In a letter from the minister of justice to Don Pedro Ramirez, dated 
 February 21, 1812, it is stated that General Gabriel Valencia is 
 appointed general administrator of said goods upon the same terms 
 and with the same powers as were conferred upon the board under 
 the act of May 25, 1832. (Transcript, p. 505.) 
 
 And what were those powers '( They were to conserve the proper- 
 ties and to remit to the missions of the Californias under the act, 
 which said that the funds were solely and exclusively destined therefor. 
 
 In further recognition of Mexico's duty to remit to the missions is 
 the order of the President of the Mexican Republic of April 3, 1844, 
 to which 1 had the honor to call your attention on Wednesday, in 
 which the custom-house of Guaj'mas is directed to pay 18,000 to the 
 bishop of the Californias on account of the income from the Pious 
 Fund, which had been incorporated into the national treasury. 
 
 My next proposition is that: 
 
 10. From the consecration of Francisco Garcia Diego as first bishop 
 of the Californias, Upper and Lower, which occurred October 4th, 
 1840, the proper persons to receive the income or interest upon the 
 Pious Fund have been the bishop of the Californias and his successors 
 in title and interest. 
 
 As I have heretofore had occasion to call to your attention, Bishop 
 Diego was appointed April 27, 1840. He was consecrated (as you will 
 find by turning to page 91 of the Transcript) on October 4, 1840. He 
 died April 30, 1846. His successor, Joseph Sadoc Alemany, was 
 appointed May 1, 1850; consecrated June 30, 1850, and arrived in 
 California in 1850. (See Transcript, pages 182, 183, and 12.) 
 
 From the death of Bishop Diego until the appointment of Bishop 
 Alemany the bishopric was administered by the vicar-general, Father 
 Rubio (whose deposition was submitted in the former arbitral court 
 and is shown in this transcript), who exercised that post with the facul- 
 ties of a bishop. 
 
 We have pointed out to you that from the very necessity of the case, 
 prior to the appointment of the bishop, it was necessary to forward 
 the funds for application to the pious uses for which they were designed 
 directly to the missionaries. After the appointment of the bishop it 
 was necessary in the nature of things, as he was in exclusive charge of 
 the spiritualities and temporalities of the church, that he should apply 
 them. It was, from the very nature and constitution of the Roman 
 Catholic Church, its maintenance and extension, impossible for it to be 
 applied by any other persons. 
 
 Upon this point I desire to call to the attention of the tribunal the 
 argument made by Mr. Doyle (commencing at the top of page 86 of 
 
572 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 the Transcript, point II, and continuing to the foot of page 93, wjc end 
 of point III) in which he discusses this question. 
 From this discussion I shall make a short extract: 
 
 This brings us to the consideration of the next question suggested by the counsel 
 for Mexico, viz: Whether the bishops of the Church of California are the proper per- 
 sons to demand, before the commission, the performance of this duty. This I think 
 presents no serious difficulty. The church is a mystical body; it consists of the 
 bishops and clergy and the body of the laity under their government and in com- 
 munion with the See of Rome. As a body it is deemed a corporation in all countries 
 having an established religion. Throughout the United States the absolute sever- 
 ance of church and state has led to the corollary of ignoring the corporate existence 
 of any particular denomination as such, because the state having no official commu- 
 nication with it can not take notice of its doctrines, discipline, or organization. But 
 statutes in all the States have, I believe, without exception, provided for the forma- 
 tion of religious corporations, representing the body of believers, usually in such 
 form as each particular denomination may desire . . . 
 
 Mr. Doyle continues at the top of page 87: 
 
 In view of these considerations the bishops of the church (even if unincorporated) 
 would be the proper persons, on behalf of their respective flocks, to demand before 
 an international tribunal, like the present, fulfillment by Mexico of the duty it 
 assumed by the decree of 1842. 
 
 Since that argument was made, and since the former award was 
 made, a considerable body of jurisprudence has grown up in America 
 relating to controversies about church property. In the absence of a 
 corporate capacity the property is treated as owned by a number of 
 persons in communion for particular purposes, like any unincorporated 
 association for literary, benevolent, or scientific purposes. That is the 
 status of all religious sects in the United States which are unincorpo- 
 rated, at least so far as their properties are concerned. 
 
 The argument which we now have under consideration, that the 
 bishop was the proper person to demand performance here, is a rule 
 settled in the jurisprudence of the United States in relation to land 
 grants by Mexico to these missionary uses immediately preceding the 
 cession of Upper California to the United States. 
 
 Shortly after the cession of California to the United States and its 
 admission into the American Union, the Congress of the United States 
 passed an act to settle private land titles in the State of California. 
 This act, which was passed in 1851 , provided a commission to ascertain 
 whether grants of land which it was claimed had been made by Mexico 
 were valid. If valid they were to be given force and recognition by 
 a patent issued by the United States. This act of 1851 provided for 
 the creation of a board of land commissioners, to which every person 
 having or claiming to have a title derived from Mexico was required 
 to present his claim. Upon the adjudication of the commission, either 
 for or against the grant, the case passed by appeal to the United States 
 district court and thence, if need be, to the United States Supreme 
 Court. Under that act the bishop of the Californias, Joseph Sadoc 
 Alemany, presented to the board of land commissioners a claim for 
 all of the properties of the church which had been granted to religious 
 persons or which had been dedicated without any formal conveyance 
 to missionary or other religious uses. The question arose in that case 
 whether the bishop was the proper person to come forward on behalf 
 of the undefined communion known as the Roman Catholic Church in 
 California to claim patents and whether he appropriately represented 
 the church. Our courts decided against their own Government, because 
 if these grants were not valid the property claimed under them remained 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 573 
 
 a part of the public domain of the United States. Our courts, I say, 
 held that those were effectual grants to be carried out by the United 
 States under its obligation to treat as valid and effective grants previ- 
 ously made by the Government of Mexico, and furthermore decided 
 in accordance with the contention which Mr. Doyle made before the 
 former arbitral court, and which he indeed made before the land com- 
 mission upon behalf of the bishop, that the bishop appropriately 
 represented the church, the clergy, and the laity — both those actually 
 and those potentially within the fold — and was entitled to receive the 
 patents for church lands. 
 
 It is that principle established by the courts of the United States that 
 we invoke for application here. 
 
 At page 564 Mr. Doyle says, third line: 
 
 When the territory of Upper California was ceded by Mexico to the United States 
 it was held by the judges, in a suit between the Government and the church, that 
 the latter had become, the owner of these properties so appropriated by dedication 
 of the Government. 
 
 Please keep in mind that some of these grants were affirmed, not on . 
 the ground that tl i Government had made a written instrument by 
 which it conveyed the property to the church, but for that it recog- 
 nized the use by the church for religious purposes. It had dedicated 
 the property by its express consent, or by a course of conduct amount- 
 ing to acquiescence, just as a man suffers a right of way to grow up by 
 usage if he permits the public to travel over his domain from a time 
 out of mind. 
 
 I now return to the extract which I was reading from Mr. Doyle's 
 brief at page 564 of the Transcript. 
 
 He says: 
 
 And this doctrine received the sanction of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, in the case of Beard vs. Federy, 3 Wall., 479 (492) . The United States only 
 asks in this case the same recognition of the rights of the church to property, 
 expressly dedicated ad pios usus, by individuals which their judiciary enforced 
 against themselves in a case of dedication of portions of the public domain, in respect 
 to which they had succeeded to all the right of Mexico implied in the vice-regal 
 license under examination. 
 
 This point is also dealt with, commencing with the words "Another 
 precedent occurred," etc., on page 89 of the Transcript, and continuing 
 to the words "why not also the interest," on page 92. At page 89 
 will be found extracts from the decision of the United States land com- 
 mission upon the application of the Roman Catholic bishop of Monte- 
 rey for a patent to the properties claimed by the church. In this case 
 all of the questions with which we are now concerned are dealt with, 
 and it was there decided that the bishop was the proper person to 
 receive the patent. 
 
 On this same point I desire to refer the tribunal to paragraph 5 of 
 one of Mr. Doyle's briefs, page 471. I shall not read it. 
 
 There is another precedent upon which we rely — one established by 
 Mexico in a treaty with Spain, made in 1844. Of that precedent it is 
 said at page 92: 
 
 In this connection, and in order to present the whole argument together, I take 
 occasion to repeat in gxtenso the reference to the precedent (quoted in our memorial) 
 of the missionary fund of the Philippine Islands. In its general character and the 
 objects to which it was devoted it was analogous to the Pious Fund of the Cali- 
 fornias. Its income had been, down to the severance of Mexico from the Spanish 
 dominion, periodically remitted to the ecclesiastical authorities in those islands. 
 Shortly after the declaration of Mexican independence the properties of this fund 
 
574 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 were seized and embargoed by the Mexican Government, and further remittances of 
 their proceeds forbidden. This embargo was afterwards raised; but two haciendas 
 belonging to the fund had been appropriated by Mexico, so that their value, with 
 indemnity for past rents, remained due to the Philippine missions; and this was 
 made the subject of diplomatic representations by Spain to Mexico after the recogni- 
 tion of her independence by the former power. These negotiations resulted in the 
 convention of November 7th, 1844, whereby the Republic of Mexico bound itself to 
 pay to the president of the Philippine missions the sum of $115,000, the agreed value of 
 the property, and $30,000 of indemnity, in satisfaction of said claim. The total of 
 $145,000 was to draw interest at six per cent per annum until extinguished, from the 
 particular revenues which were specifically pledged for the purpose. 
 
 That same incident is dealt with in the first memorial, at page 14, 
 and again in Paragraph XII, page 474, of the transcript. 
 
 We therefore conclude that from the time of the appointment of the 
 bishop until the cession of California to the United States it was the 
 duty of Mexico to remit these moneys for administration to the bishop. 
 
 We support this contention with two precedents, one derived from 
 the jurisprudence of America in a controversy between the church, 
 claiming title derived from Mexico, on the one hand, and the United 
 States on the other; the other a precedent established by Mexico in a 
 convention with Spain having relation to the Philippine missions. 
 
 I desire to call to the attention of the tribunal that the matters which 
 were the subject of this treat} r by Mexico arise out of the Arguelles 
 benefaction, which is the subject of Payno's report, at pages 23 and 24. 
 Three-eighths of the estate belonged to the Philippines missions and 
 three-eighths to the California missions. The law for the Philippine 
 missions in that case must be the law for the California missions in 
 this case, and as Mexico accounted to Spain for the income properly 
 appertaining to the Philippine missions we say that it is likewise her 
 duty to account to the United States for the income appertaining to 
 the missions of Upper California. 
 
 The duty in each case depends upon precisely the same facts. 
 
 11. My next proposition is that whatever the rights of the American 
 church were before the cession of the territory, they remained after- 
 wards. In support of that proposition, although the circumstances 
 are slightly variant, I desire to quote to you a decision referred to on 
 
 gage 586 of the transcript. It is a decision of the United States 
 upreme Court, written by one of the most distinguished judges who 
 ever sat upon the American bench, Mr. Justice Joseph Story, and 
 concurred in by the most distinguished judge America has produced, 
 Chief Justice John Marshall. 
 These were the facts: 
 
 While Virginia was a colony of Great Britain and the Episcopal Church was the 
 established religion, certain glebe lands came into possession of the church. Virginia, 
 after the Revolution had established its independence, undertook to pass an act 
 authorizing the overseers of the poor of each parish to sell these glebe lands and 
 appropriate the proceeds to the use of the poor. 
 
 In commenting on this, the Supreme Court of the United States 
 said: 
 
 _ Be however the general authority of the legislature as to the subject of religion as 
 it may, it will require other arguments to establish the position that at the Eevolu- 
 tion all the public property acquired by the Episcopal churches, under the sanction 
 of the laws, became the property of the State. Had the property thus acquired been 
 originally granted by the State or the King there might have been some color (and 
 it would have been but a color) for such an extraordinary pretension. But the prop- 
 erty was m fact and in law, generally purchased by the parishoners or acquired by 
 the benefactions of pious donors. The title thereto was indefeasibly vested in the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIFORNIA8. 575 
 
 churches, or rather in their legal agents. It was not in the power of the Crown to 
 seize or assume it, nor of the Parliament itself to destroy the grants, unless by the 
 exercise of a power the most arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust, and endured only 
 because it could not be resisted. It was not forfeited, for the churches had commit- 
 ted no offence. The dissolution of the regal Government no more destroyed -the 
 right to possess or enjoy this property than it did the right of any other corporation 
 or individual to his or its own property. The dissolution of the form of government 
 did not involve in it a dissolution of civil rights, or an abolition of the. common law 
 under which the inheritances of every man in the State were held. The State itself 
 succeeded only to the rights of the Crown, and, we may add, with many a flower of 
 prerogative struck from its hands. It has been asserted as a principle of the common 
 law that the division of an empire creates no forfeiture of previously vested rights of 
 property. Kelly vs. Harrison, 2 John C, 29; Jackson vs. Lunn, 3 tfohn C, 109; 
 Calvin's case, 7 Co., 27. And this principle is equally consonant with the common 
 sense of mankind and the maxims" of eternal justice. 
 
 This principle was recognized by the United States in its treatment 
 of the municipal corporations, known as pueblos, existing by virtue of 
 Mexican law. They were recognized as existing bodies until they were 
 reorganized under municipal laws enacted by California as one of the 
 States of the American Union. 
 
 12. We now pass to the proposition that the amount of the Pious 
 Fund, and the properties of which it consisted on October 24, 1842, as 
 fixed by the former arbitral court were definitely established by the 
 proofs presented to that court. If the case is not controlled by the 
 principle of res judicata, we claim that the total as fixed by the former 
 arbitral court should be increased by $ 381, 518. 15. 
 
 The amount of the Pious Fund before the former arbitral court was 
 ascertained and fixed by the aid of the inventory and appraisement of 
 those properties, prepared by Pedro Ramirez upon the demand of the 
 Mexican Government, and which accompanied the surrender of the fund 
 to General Gabriel Valencia, appointed, as I before shown to the tribu- 
 nal, on February 21, 1842. The inventory is to be found in English, 
 commencing on page 512 and continuing down to 518. 
 
 It is styled: 
 
 Detailed statement of the condition in which I received as attorney of the Most 
 Illustrious Lord Don Fray Francisco Garcia Diego, bishop of Californias, the proper- 
 ties which constitute the Pious Fund of his missions, and of their condition at this 
 date, as noted in my official letter of the 28th of February last. 
 
 The inventory is also set forth in the record in Spanish, transcript 
 488 to 493 and 169 to 175. 
 
 If the members of the tribunal will turn to the opinion of the 
 American commissioner, which was affirmed or approved by the 
 umpire, they will find at page 525 that Mr. Wadsworth said: 
 
 I take the report of Pedro Pamirez of February 28, 1842, upon the condition of the 
 fund made to Ygnacio de Cubas, Exhibit A to the deposition of Jose Maria de Eomo, 
 as a sufficiently accurate and satisfactory account. 
 
 Ygnacio de Cubas was secretary to General Valencia in the adminis- 
 tration of the Pious Fund (Tr. , 510). 
 
 If this case is not controlled by the former decision, then we ask to 
 add the following items to the capital of the Pious Fund as fixed by 
 the former arbitral court: 
 
 The Cienega del Pastor, which was sold November 29, 1842, by 
 Mexico for $213,750.00. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. $213,750.00. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. $213,750.00. 
 
 The deed by which this sale was made is to be found in the replica- 
 
576 PIOUS FOND OF THE OAL1FORNIAS. 
 
 tion, page 47. Other estates were also conveyed by the same instru- 
 ment, but it is shown in a brief here, filed by Messrs. Doyle and Doyle, 
 and can not be disputed, that the price of the Cienega del Pastor was 
 $213. 750.00. This estate was not calculated as a part of the capital in 
 the former arbitration for the reason that it appeared by the report of 
 Pedro Ramirez that the property was under attachment to secure a 
 lien of $168,000, and there was nothing in the record to show that 
 Mexico had ever sold it or that she ever derived a dollar from it. 
 Under a demand for discovery Mexico has produced the conve} r ance in 
 the replication at page 47, by which it does appear that Mexico did, 
 one month" and seven days after the decree of October 24, 1842, sell 
 this property for 1213,750.00. 
 
 Our second item is $3,000.00, which is for personal property belong- 
 ing to the Pious Fund, sold with the Cienega del Pastor, as will be 
 found by an examination of the same deed. 
 
 The third item is $7,000.00. That is a debt due from the Mexican 
 Government to the Pious Fund, which the former arbitral court rejected 
 because of a mistaken understanding, as we believe, of the report of 
 Mr. Ramirez in connection with it. The money was advanced by the 
 fund at the request of the Mexican Government to a third person. 
 The third person to secure the money delivered to the administrator 
 of the Pious Fund an obligation, promissory in character, as collateral. 
 Ramirez styled the collateral as a bad debt. The American Commis- 
 sioner in making up his report assumed that the original obligation 
 was the bad debt; hence the mistake. 
 
 The fourth item is $22,763.15, moneys borrowed from the Pious 
 Fund by Mexico, 
 
 Sir Edward Fey. The amount please? 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. $22,763.15, moneys borrowed from the Pious 
 Fund by Mexico for colonization purposes, for the particulars of which 
 see Ramirez- Valencia correspondence, in English at page 500, Spanish 
 pages 478-479 and 160. 
 
 The fifth item is $30,000.00. A payment by Mr. Ramirez, shown in 
 his correspondence at page 500, of $30,000 on account of a loan of 
 $60,000 to the Mexican Government, secured by a mortgage of the 
 Pious Fund. 
 
 The sixth item and the last is $105,004.89. It appears by Payno's 
 report, transcript, pages 23 and 24, that there was paid into the gen- 
 eral treasury for the account of the Pious Fund of Californias from 
 the Arguelles estate $306,901.64. 
 
 Mr. Asser. Is it not $316,000? 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. No; the last item, $10,000 to the foundling asylum 
 in Manila or the children of Carro, should be deducted, leaving the 
 sum of $306,901.64. Of this sum, presumably for the want of knowl- 
 edge, Mr. Ramirez claimed for the Pious Fund in his inventory the 
 sum of $201,896.75 only. The difference between these two sums, 
 which we now claim, is $105,004.89. You will find Mr. Ramirez's 
 figures at pages 517 and 526; 517 Mr. Ramirez's and 526 the American 
 Commissioner's. The difference between these sums is $105,004.89. 
 The total of the foregoing items is $381,518.15. 
 
 Mr. Sir Edward Fry. $381,518.15? 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. $381,518.15. 
 
 13. The next proposition which I desire to advance for the consid- 
 eration of the members of this tribunal is that it is well established 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIF0EN1AS. 577 
 
 that in the disposition of causes a litigant is to be judged by the 
 proof which it is within his power to produce, compared with that 
 which he in fact produces. It is a supplementary principle in the 
 decision of causes that the presumption is that proof withheld would 
 be adverse to the party withholding it if it were produced. We 
 invoke these principles to draw the conclusion that as Mexico has full 
 possession of all of the books, papers, vouchers, and accounts with 
 respect to the Pious Fund, she can establish to the smallest fractional 
 account of her currency what was received, and it should be therefore 
 presumed that if all of the accounts with respect to the Pious Fund 
 were produced by Mexico they would show a larger liability than we 
 have been able to prove. It will be kept in mind that by two sections 
 of the act of May 25, 1832, sections 11 and 12, books of account of 
 the Pious Fund were required to be kept; also that General Valencia 
 was appointed general administrator of the Pious Fund in 1842 with 
 the same powers and, of course, with the same duties as had the board 
 (junta) under the law of 1832; so that these two administrations, pro- 
 vided for by law, were by the law of their appointment required to 
 keep accounts of the Pious Fund. It must be presumed that the 
 accounts were kept, for it is a presumption existing in all jurispru- 
 dence that every public officer does his duty. 
 
 14. I come now, perhaps rather tardily, to what we conceive to be 
 the controlling question in this case, and that is the first question 
 propounded in the protocol for decision by this tribunal, namely, 
 whether this controversy is, by virtue of the former award, operating 
 as res judicata, foreclosed from consideration upon its merits. 
 
 In considering this question I propose to briefly advance four prop- 
 ositions, leaving their extension and amplification for other counsel, 
 particularly for the learned agent of the United States, who has given 
 this question the careful, diligent, and learned investigation which its 
 importance and far-reaching effect demand. 
 
 The four propositions which I propose to advance in connection 
 with the question are: 
 
 1. The principle of res judicata does apply to international arbi- 
 trations. 
 
 2. The former arbitral court had jurisdiction to make the award 
 which it did make. 
 
 3. The force of the principle, of res judicata extends to all of the 
 matters which are necessarily included within the condemnatory part 
 of a judgment; in other words, that a judgment of any tribunal the 
 world over includes not only the thing spoken, but all things organ- 
 ically a part of it. 
 
 4. That all matters necessary to an award here in favor of the United 
 States, except the one question of nonpayment since February 1, 1869, 
 were determined, and necessarily determined, in and were organically 
 a part of the former award. 
 
 Before proceeding to show that the principle of res judicata does 
 apply to international arbitration, it is appropriate that 1 should men- 
 tion to you that it is frequently stated by the law writers that the 
 principle of res judicata is a fundamental concept of every jural society. 
 
 If the principle is a fundamental concept of every jural society, it 
 must necessarily apply to matters international. 
 
 We need not be long detained, however, in arguing that the prin- 
 ciple does apply to international arbitration, because Mexico has 
 S. Doc. 28—37 
 
578 PIOTTS FUND OF THE OALrFORNIAS. 
 
 declared in unmistakable terms and conceded that the principle does 
 apply to international arbitrations. 
 
 In his letter addressed to Mr. Powell Clayton, American minister to 
 Mexico, under date of November 28th, 1900, Mr. Mariscal, minister 
 of foreign affairs of Mexico, concedes that the principle of res judi- 
 cata does apply to the awards of international arbitrations. The 
 particular part of the letter which I propose to quote presently will be 
 found in the middle of page 31. 
 
 Mr. Mariscal, while admitting the existence of res judicata generally, 
 contends, however, that it should not be applied in the present case, for 
 two reasons: 
 
 1. The former award was not pronounced within the limits of the 
 jurisdiction of the arbitral court created under the convention of July 
 4,1868. 
 
 2. Res judicata is limited in its application to the condemnatory 
 portions of judgments, and does not embrace the premises upon which 
 such portions are based. 
 
 I now quote from the Diplomatic Correspondence, page 31. This is 
 Mr. Mariscal's letter. And, although the members of this Tribunal 
 have read it, it will bear repetition: 
 
 That, says Mr. Mariscal, res judicata pro veritate accipitur is a principle admitted in 
 all legislation and belonging to the Roman law, certainly no one will deny. Nor is 
 it denied that a tribunal or judge established by international arbitration gives to its 
 decisions "pronounced within the limits of its jurisdiction" (in the language of the 
 authority cited by Mr. McCreery) the force of res judicata; but to give in practice 
 the same force, as that directly expressed in the decision to close the litigation, to 
 the considerations or premises not precisely expressed as points decided by the judge, 
 but simply referred to by him in the bases of his decision, or assumed as antecedents 
 necessary for the party in interest, who interprets the decision, is a very different 
 thing, and can not be considered in the same way. 
 
 It will be seen, as I have contended, that Mr. Mariscal concedes that 
 res judicata does apply to international awards. It furthermore appears 
 that the only objections which Mr. Mariscal can interpose to the appli- 
 cation of that principle here are two: 
 
 1. That the former decision was in excess of the jurisdiction of the 
 former arbitral tribunal; and 
 
 2. That the function and force of res judicata do not extend beyond 
 the bare condemnatory portion of the judgment. 
 
 This last proposition we meet by showing, as we hope to be able to 
 show beyond peradventure, that res judicata not only extends to the 
 condemnatory part of the judgment, but to all matters" necessarily a 
 part of it; to those matters without the decision of which the conclu- 
 sion reached could never have been attained. We then apply the prin- 
 ciple here and claim that there is no question involved in the present 
 case and necessary to a decision in favor of the United States which 
 could have been decided against our present contention by the former* 
 arbitral court without having defeated us in that court. 
 
 It is important, in considering the admission of Mexico, to briefly 
 refer to the diplomatic correspondence which preceded Mr. Mariscal's 
 letter. _ The letter practically closed the discussion upon the subject 
 ot res judicata. It was followed by a suggestion on the part of the 
 (jovernment of the United States, cheerfully and promptly agreed to 
 by Mexico, to submit the questions as they are stated and framed in 
 the protocol to the decision of an impartial tribunal. 
 
 The first letter in which this question of res judicata is suggested is 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 579 
 
 at page 6 of the Diplomatic Correspondence — a letter from Mr. Clay- 
 ton, minister of the United States to Mexico, addressed to Mr. Mariscal, 
 minister of foreign affairs, under date of September 1, 1897, five years 
 to a day before the initial meeting of this tribunal. 
 After mentioning the claim, Mr. Clayton says: 
 
 I need only refer to the findings of the American and Mexican joint commission 
 under the convention of July 4, 1868, which established the following propositions: 
 
 1. That the Roman Catholic Church of Upper California is a corporation of citizens 
 of the United States. 
 
 2. The obligation of the Mexican Government to pay to the bishops of California 
 and their successors the interest on the proceeds of the property belonging to the 
 fund, same being held in trust by the Mexican treasury for the purpose of carrying 
 out the wish of the founders of the fund. 
 
 3. That the claimants are the direct successors of the bishops of California, and 
 should, therefore, receive a fair share of the interest upon the proceeds of the fund. 
 
 4. That the archbishop and bishops of that church are the proper parties to demand 
 and receive it. 
 
 5. That the case is one in which all inhabitants of the State of California, and even 
 the whole population of the United States, are interested, and is, therefore, a proper 
 one for the diplomatic intervention of the United States Government. 
 
 These propositions being, as it were, "res judicata," and the Mexican Government 
 having paid no interest upon the fund since the payments made under the award of 
 the Joint Commission, I respectfully call your excellency's attention to that fact, 
 and request that I may be informed of the purposes of the Mexican Government in 
 relation to this claim. 
 
 The United States addressed a number of diplomatic communications 
 to Mexico in connection with this claim from 1891 to 1897. No answer 
 was made to any of them until Mr. Clayton wrote the above-quoted 
 letter to Mr. Mariscal. To this Mr. Mariscal replied, page 5 of the 
 Diplomatic Correspondence, in which he said: 
 
 Therefore, claims arising or filed against either of the contracting Governments 
 after the 1st of February, 1869, were not the object of said convention; neither could 
 they therefore, nor in a general way could the questions which, not treating directly 
 upon injuries indemnifiable in money, refer to points of fact or of right such as those 
 set forth in the note which I answer, and which your excellency considers as decided in 
 the decision pronounced by the arbitrator on the 11th of November, 1875, be a matter 
 for the arbitration provided in said convention. 
 
 Meaning thereby to argue that the former award by its own force 
 and virtue did not compel the Mexican Government to make the pay- 
 ment claimed. 
 
 Mr. Mariscal, continuing, said: 
 
 Said decision condemned the Mexican Republic to pay to the Catholic Church of 
 Upper California a determined sum of money which amounted to the interest calcu- 
 lated on one-half of the so-called Pious Fund of the Californias, corresponding to the 
 twenty-one years included between the dates of the signature and exchange of ratifi- 
 cations of the said convention. 
 
 In other words, from February 2, 1848, the date of the signature 
 of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to February 1, 1869, the date of 
 the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty of 1868, was precisely 
 twenty-one years. 
 
 Mr. Mariscal then says: 
 
 From what has been stated it follows that the debt imposed upon the Mexican 
 Republic by the arbitral decision of November 11, 1875, or the res judicata, as your 
 excellency designates it, was extinguished. 
 
 Again, on the same page, he says: 
 
 If it is now alleged that the reasons on which said decision was founded justify an 
 analogous claim, though subsequent to- the one decided by it, such argument lacks 
 the force attributed to it. It is well understood that only the conclusion of a sen- 
 
580 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 tence or decision passes into authority of res ad judicata. The considerations that 
 served it as premises are subject to controversy in the future, are perfectly impugnable, 
 and therefore do not constitute the legal truth. 
 
 And further: 
 
 The Mexican Government will demonstrate fully the falsity and injustice of the 
 foundations of the decision pronounced in favor of said church. 
 
 I lay particular emphasis and stress on the word "foundations," 
 because Mr. Mariscal is of the opinion that res judicata does not apply 
 to the foundations of a judgment, while we claim that it does apply. 
 We insist that the foundations of a judgment are organically part of it. 
 
 This reply by Mr. Mariscal was the subject of a rejoinder forwarded 
 to the Secretary of State by Mr. Doyle, which is to be found in the 
 Diplomatic Correspondence. 
 
 I read one brief paragraph from his letter, page 13, where he says: 
 
 These suggestions of Senor Mariscal proceed upon a misapprehension of the scope 
 claimed for the doctrine of res adjudicate invoked by Mr. Powell Clayton in his com- 
 munication to which the Mexican secretary replies. That doctrine, briefly expressed 
 in the civil-law maxim, "Res adjudicata pro veritate accipitur," has been declared by 
 eminent jurists to be a necessary concept of every jural society, and is accepted as 
 axiomatic in every system of law which has ever prevailed in any civilized society. 
 It has been so often invoked, defined, sustained, and commented upon by the highest 
 judicial tribunals of England and America, and expressed in the language of the 
 most eminent jurists of the world, that it would be presumptuous in me to state it in 
 language of my own. 
 
 And again (third line from the bottom of page 14) : 
 
 The principle of res adjudicata renders the adjudication in question conclusive 
 evidence in any future contest between the same parties (or between parties deriv- 
 ing under them), not only of the ultimate conclusion of indebtedness existing at that 
 time, but of each of the constituent facts from which that conclusion resulted. In 
 fact it is apparent on the least reflection that such is the necessary logical result of 
 its conclusiveness on the question of indebtedness. For indebtedness is not a pri- 
 mary fact, but is necessarily the result of other and antecedent facts. A man is 
 indebted for money borrowed. Why? Only because he borrowed the money. The 
 tribunal which adjudges him indebted must, of necessity, determine the cause of 
 such indebtedness, i. e., the act of borrowing and the amount borrowed; so that 
 what decides the indebtedness, which is the consequence, necessarily determines 
 also the fact of borrowing, and the amount of the loan which constitute the cause. 
 
 Mr. Doyle then proceeds, and I shall not trouble the tribunal to read 
 it, commencing at the foot of page 15 and continuing to the top of 
 page 17 to quote a number of well-known American law writers deal- 
 ing with this question. He concludes at the top of page 17 with the 
 quotation which I referred some time since, from Mr. Black, who says, 
 speaking of res adjudicata: 
 
 It is not too much to say that this maxim is a fundamental concept in the organization of 
 every jural society. 
 
 On December 4, 1899, in a letter addressed by Mr. Hay, Secretarv 
 of State of the United States, to Mr. Clayton (pages 46-47 of the Dip- 
 lomatic Correspondence) the principle of res judicata is enforced in 
 language no less clear and vigorous. On June 7th, 1900, Mr. Hay for- 
 warded to Mr. Clayton an authority or statement from Merignhac, 
 which was laid before Mr. Mariscal (page 11) by Mr. McCreery. 
 Merignhac said that "The sentence, duly given within the limits of 
 the convention, decides the question between the parties in a defini- 
 tive manner." It is this authority to which Mr. Mariscal referred in 
 saying, "Nor is it denied that a tribunal or judge established by inter-, 
 national arbitration gives to its decisions, ' pronounced within the lim- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFORNIAS. 581 
 
 its of its jurisdiction' (in the language of the authority cited by 
 Mr. McCreery), the force of res judicata.'" 
 
 We therefore start with the proposition that it is conceded by 
 Mexico that the principle of res judicata does apply to the awards and 
 judgments of international courts. Indeed, it seems to be so assumed 
 in the protocol, which, as Sir Edward Fry has said, constitutes the 
 code for this court. 
 
 Let me read a short extract from the protocol, which will also show 
 some of matters which Mexico concedes were decided by the former 
 arbitral court: 
 
 Whereas, under and by virtue of the provisions of a convention entered into 
 between the high contracting parties above named, of date July 4, 1868, and subse- 
 quent conventions supplementary thereto, there was submitted to the mixed com- 
 mission, provided for by said convention, a certain claim advanced by and on behalf 
 of the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church of California against the Republic of 
 Mexico for an annual interest upon a certain fund known as "The Pious Fund of 
 the Calif ornias," which interest was said to have accrued between February 2, 1848, 
 the date of the signature of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and February 1, 1869, 
 the date of the exchange of the ratifications of said convention above referred to; and 
 
 Whereas said mixed commission, after considering said claim, the same being des- 
 ignated as No. 493 upon its docket, and entitled Thaddeus Amat, Roman Catholic 
 bishop of Montery, a corporation sole, and Joseph S. Alemany, Roman Catholic 
 bishop of San Francisco, a corporation sole, against the Republic of Mexico, adjudged 
 the same adversely to the Republic of Mexico and in favor of said claimants, and 
 made an award thereon of nine hundred and "four thousand seven hundred and 
 99/100 (904,700.99) dollars; the same, as expressed in the findings of said court, 
 being for twenty-one years' interest of the annual amount of forty-three thousand 
 and eighty and 99/100 (43,080.99) dollars upon seven hundred and eighteen thousand 
 and sixteen and 50/100 (718,016.50) dollars, said award being in Mexican gold dollars, 
 and the said amount of nine hundred and four thousand seven hundred and 99/100 
 (904,700.99) dollars having been fully paid and discharged in accordance with the 
 terms of said convention. 
 
 Sir Edward Fey. Those figures are not quite correct. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. No. In the petition for revision, filed by Sefior 
 Avila, he pointed out that there had been a mistake in addition so that 
 the fund was erroneously calculated to be one thousand dollars more 
 than in truth it was. Twenty-one years' interest at 6 per cent on a 
 thousand dollars is $1,260; half of that would be $630, so that the sum 
 instead of $904,700, should have been $904,700 less $630, which is 
 $904,070. Sir Edward Thornton corrected the award accordingly 
 (Tr., 650). 
 
 I continue with the reading of the protocol: 
 
 Whereas the United States of America on behalf of said Roman Catholic bishops, 
 above named, and their successors in title and interest have since such award 
 claimed from Mexico further instalments of said interest, and have insisted that the 
 said claim was conclusively established, and its amount fixed as against Mexico and 
 in favor of said original claimants and their successors in title an< 1 interest under the said 
 first-mentioned convention of 1868 by force of the said award as res judicata; and have 
 further contended that apart from such former award their claim against Mexico was 
 just, both of which propositionsare controverted and denied by the Republic of Mexico, 
 and the high contracting parties hereto, animated by a strong desire that the dispute 
 to arising may be amicably, satisfactorily, and justly settled, have agreed to submit 
 said controversy to the determination of arbitrators, who shall, unless otherwise 
 herein expressed, be controlled by the provisions of the international convention 
 for the pacific settlement of international disputes, commonly known as The Hague 
 Convention, and which arbitration shall have power to determine — 
 
 1. If said claim, as a consequence of the former decision, is within the governing 
 principle of res judicata; and, 
 
 2. If not, whether the same be just. 
 
 And to render such judgment or award as may be meet and proper under all the 
 circumstances of the case. 
 
582 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Having now called to your attention that it is conceded by Mexico 
 that the principle of res adjudicate/, does apply to international arbitra- 
 tions, 1 desire briefly to call to your attention the law and the history 
 of the principle of res adjudicata as we understand them. 
 
 To this end I desire to read a few quotations from Chand on Res 
 Judicata, a work which has considerable circulation in America — one 
 written by a British India judge. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. I did not catch the name. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. Hukm Chand. Mr. Chand died a short time ago, 
 after having written some other legal works. 
 
 The work is dedicated to the Right Honorable Baron Herschell, lord 
 high chancellor of England. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet (continuing). On page 1 of this work it is said: 
 
 The doctrine of res adjudicatais of universal application, and in fact (quoting again 
 the language which I have repeated so often) a fundamental concept in the organi- 
 zation of every jural society. Justice requires that every cause should be once fairly 
 tried, and public tranquillity demands that, having been tried once, all litigation about 
 that cause should be concluded forever between those parties. 
 
 The maintenance (quoting Judge Campbell, one of the early judges of the United 
 States Supreme Court and a man of great distinction and learning) of public order, 
 the repose of society, and the quiet of families require that what has been definitely 
 determined by competent tribunals shall be received as irrefragable legal truth. If 
 it were not for the conclusive effect of all such determinations there would be no end 
 of litigation and no security for any person, the rights of parties would be involved 
 in endless confusion, and great injustice often done under cover of law, while the 
 courts, stripped of their most efficient powers, would become little more than advi- 
 sory bodies, and thus the most important function of government, that of ascertaining 
 and enforcing rights, would go unfulfilled. 
 
 On page 2 the author saj^s: 
 
 The term "res adjudicata" is derived from the Roman law, and in its most obvious 
 and general meaning it signified at Rome, as it signifies in England and in America, 
 that a matter in dispute had been considered and settled by a competent court of 
 justice. A judgment of the court among the Romans always operated as an nova- 
 tion of the original cause of action which was deemed to merge in it. . . . This 
 effect did not attach, however, to the judgments of the praetor's court, which were 
 regarded as foreign judgments, but allowed to be pleaded by way of confession and 
 avoidance. 
 
 And it is said (p. 2), speaking of the rule according to Roman law: 
 
 The conclusiveness of the judgment extended to every point necessarily decided. 
 
 The author also says (page 2) : 
 
 These maxims having stood the test of centuries, still retain their original place in the 
 jurisprudence of every civilized country of to-day. 
 
 It being established that res adjudicata does apply to the awards of 
 international courts, the next question to be considered is whether the 
 award of the arbitral court created under the convention of July 4, 
 1868, was within the limits of its jurisdiction. You will recall that it 
 is urged by Mr. Mariscal that the award of the former arbitral court 
 was not within the jurisdiction of that court. He therefore invokes 
 in italics the limitation upon the doctrine, contained in the authority- 
 cited by Mr. McCreery, that the former award had not the force of 
 res adjudicata unless the award was within the jurisdiction of the 
 court which made it, the idea being that, if the court has no jurisdic- 
 tion, its judgment is void and has not the force of res adjudicata nor 
 any force whatever. It will be, therefore, necessary to 'consider the 
 propositions advanced by Mr. Mariscal that the former arbitral court 
 acted beyond its jurisdiction. 
 
PIOTJS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 588 
 
 We claim that the court had jurisdiction upon five different grounds. 
 Our first ground is' that the court decided that it had jurisdiction, and 
 its decision that it had jurisdiction being an inherent function, is con- 
 clusive before all courts in all places. What is jurisdiction? It is the 
 power to hear and determine a cause. The possession of jurisdiction 
 does not involve, of necessity, its rightful exercise. Jurisdiction 
 involves the power to commit error, because when you assert that a 
 court has jurisdiction, you necessarily assert that it has the power in 
 the exercise of that jurisdiction to correctly or incorrectly interpret 
 the law, to correctly or incorrectly understand, appraise, and weight 
 •the facts. It has come to be axiomatic that the first thing that a court 
 decides, that the fundamental decision of every court in every country, 
 in every place, in every case, is that it has jurisdiction, because, when 
 a court sits to hear a case, it necessarily affirms that it has the power 
 to hear it, and when it determines it, it necessarily determines that it 
 has the power to adjudge the case. 
 
 There is, therefore, necessarily involved in the hearing and deter- 
 mination of every case a judicial determination (usually implied) by 
 the court that it has power to hear and determine the cause. 
 
 (A midi la seance est suspendue jusqu'a 2 heures.) 
 
 SIXIEME STANCE. 
 
 W septembre 190% (apres-midi). 
 
 La seance est ouverte a 2 h. 20 sous la presidence de M. Matzen. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est a l'agent des Etats-Unis de l'Ame"- 
 rique du Nord. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I want to say just one word in reply to the observa- 
 tion of Mr. Beernaertof this morning, a word which perhaps is entirely 
 unnecessarj', but as an observation of the same general tenor has been 
 several times submitted, it seems to me that our ground should be 
 made absolutely and entirely clear. 
 
 The protocol under which we are acting provides that — 
 
 all pleadings, testimony, proofs, arguments of counsel, and findings or awards of 
 commissioners or umpire filed before or arrived at by the mixed commission above 
 referred to, are to be placed in evidence before the court hereinbefore provided for, 
 together with all correspondence between the two countries relating to the subject- 
 matter involved in this arbitration, originals or copies thereof, duly certified by the 
 departments of state of the high contracting parties being presented to said new 
 tribunal. 
 
 The record of the old case, what we term in English the record, 
 and which is termed on the continent "dossier," happened to be entirely 
 in the possession of the Department of State of the United States, 
 and for that reason, and for that reason alone, and not because there 
 was any special understanding between the parties, the United States 
 printed that dossier, that record, and it is before you. The United 
 States also had printed a complete copy of the diplomatic correspond- 
 ence between the parties, contained in the same volume; but I desire 
 to state, and to make entirely clear, that that was not printed because 
 any special duty so to do rested on the United States more than upon 
 Mexico, for, as is stated, "originals or copies thereof, duly certified by 
 the departments of state of the high contracting parties, being pre- 
 sented to said new tribunal," it therefore became equally the duty of 
 Mexico to present certified copies of that diplomatic correspondence. 
 
584 PlOtfS FUND OF THE CALIFORNlAS. 
 
 The United States chose to perform that duty, and Mexico did not, 
 but that has not involved any hardship or inconvenience to the court, 
 one copy having been presented. Perhaps what I am saying is 
 entirely unnecessary, but I want to make clear the situation of the 
 United States. I think there has been a confusion between us in the 
 application of the word " dossier." When we have said that it was 
 our duty to present it, we have referred to the "dossier" of the old 
 case, and it was our duty to present that, because it rested entirely 
 within our control. The special duty rested on us to present that, 
 but so far as what you may term the "dossier" of the present case is 
 concerned, it is our clear and manifest understanding that each party,- 
 Mexico as well as the United States, shall present to this court such 
 documents and such pleadings, allegations, as it may see fit, and as it 
 may think incumbent upon it to present or advantageous to present. 
 I want to make this absolutely and entirely clear to my friends upon 
 the other side, so that they may not think that we regard any duty 
 resting upon us which in fact does not rest upon us under the protocol. 
 We have stood ready to perform our whole duty under the protocol. 
 We hold ourselves ready still to do it, but we do not wish our willing- 
 ness to be made the foundation of any claim of right. 
 
 M. le President. L'agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains a la parole. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. Je crois que l'incident qui vient d'etre provoque" 
 par M. l'agent des Etats-Unis n'a qu'une importance tout-a-fait secon- 
 dare, parceque nous pouvons dire que l'incident est vide une fois que 
 la reclamation des Etats-Unis et la reponse du Gouvernement Mexicain 
 avec les pieces a l'appui ont ete presentes a la Cour. Cependant, 
 comme il y a, plus ou moins cache, une espece de reproche contre la 
 conduite du Gouvernement Mexicain dans cette affaire, je dois appeler 
 l'attention de la Cour sur un point qui me parait tout-a-fait bien etabli 
 par le protocole du 22 mai dernier. D'apres ce protocole, article 7: 
 
 Dans les 30 jours suivant le d6p6t du memorial a l'ambassade mexicaine, l'agent ou 
 l'avocat de la R6publique du Mexique d^posera an D^partement d'Etat de la Repub- 
 lique des Etats-Unis de la m6me fagon et avec la m6me reference un memorial de 
 son opposition a ladite reclamation. 
 
 D'accord avec cet article, mon Gouvernement, dans le d&ai fixe" par 
 le protocole a depose au Departement d'Etat des Etats-Unis la reponse 
 de la Eepublique Mexicaine. 11 a depose cette response, et il l'a accom- 
 pagnee d'un livre imprime' qui se trouve a, la disposition de la Cour. 
 
 Quand nous nous sommes apercus que la reponse du Gouvernement 
 mexicain n'avait pas ete" envoyee par le Department d'Etat des Etats- 
 Unis, nous avons eu de tres justes motifs pour nous etonner, d'autant 
 plus que cette reponse n'ayant pas 6te remise le livre imprime se 
 trouyait cependant dans les mains de l'agent americain et etait pre"- 
 sente devant la cour, sans prendre soin de faire remarquer que cette 
 piece appartenait a la reponse du Gouvernement mexicain, et que si 
 l'annexe etait presente le memorial, qui contient la reponse de mon 
 Gouvernement, devait aussi etre present. 
 
 Peut-etre n'avons-nous pas bien compris les termes du protocole, mais 
 nous pouvons citer a l'appui de la conduite du Gouvernement Mexicain 
 le texte sur lequel je viens d'appeler l'attention de la cour. Nous 
 avions entendu et compris que toutes les pieces presentees a. la cour 
 formaient le dossier commun, et c'est justement la remarque que 
 M. Beernaert, notre conseil, a eu l'occasion de faire devant la cour 
 
PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIA3. 585 
 
 dans l'audience d'aujourd'hui, c'est-a-dire que ce dossier ne peut pas 
 etre consider*} comme appartenant exclusivement aux Etats-Unis, mais 
 qu'il contient les pieces et documents que le Mexique a l'honneur de 
 presenter a la cour, avec sa reponse et les annexes presenters avec cette 
 reponse. 
 
 Je crois que l'incident, comme je le disais tout a l'heure, n'a aucune 
 importance et qu'il peut etre considere entierement vide; mais je me 
 suis considere" comme oblige de justifier devant cette Cour la conduite 
 de mon Gouvernement, invoquant le texte si precis et si clair de Par- 
 ticle dont lecture vient d'etre faite. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, just to add 
 one word. I quite agree with the honorable agent for Mexico that 
 the matter is of entirely secondary importance, and I would not have 
 thought of troubling you with the slightest reference to it to-day had 
 it not been on several different occasions made the subject of apparent 
 complaint against the United States. For that reason and for that 
 reason alone I mention it, not because it is of any importance. I 
 should be very sorry, however, if any words which I have said should 
 be construed in any manner as a reproach on the Mexican Govern- 
 ment, for anything of that kind is as far removed from my thought as 
 can possibly be. I assume that the agent of Mexico performs his 
 duty and his whole duty according to his understanding of the require- 
 ments of the case. I trespass upon your time for a moment more. 
 The protocol does not, in our opinion, require that Mexico should 
 have served upon us the written document to which allusion has been 
 made, the Pleito de Rada. It was so served before I left Washington, 
 although the protocol only provided that it be deposited with the Mex- 
 ican embassy, and that we have an opportunity to examine it; but 
 having been delivered to us, we have felt it our duty to bring it here 
 at the earliest possible moment, and to safeguard ourselves to deposit 
 it with the secretary-general of this court. It is entirely open to both 
 parties; everything that we have placed before the court is open to 
 the court and to our friends on the other side. 
 
 M. le President. La premiere question c'est que tous les documents 
 sont a la disposition des deux parties; l'autre question est sans impor- 
 tance; nous donnerons seulement acte au protocole des declarations de 
 MM. les agents. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. Puisque nous sommes en train de faire des rec- 
 tifications, je me permettrai d'appeler, un peu tardivement, l'attention 
 de la Cour sur un point qui peut avoir une certaine importance. Je 
 dois commencer par avouer que j'aurais du faire cette observation 
 avant, mais il est toujours temps de reparer une erreur, et je me hate 
 de faire la rectification suivante: Dans les proces-verbaux qui ont 6t6 
 lus a l'audience de ce matin on a fait constater que j'avais l'honneur 
 de comparaitre devant la Cour en qualite de ministre plenipotentiaire 
 et d'envoye" extraordinaire de la Republique mexicaine aupres de la 
 Cour des Pays-Bas. Le fait n'est pas tout-a-fait exact: bien que j'ai 
 recu de mon Gouvernement ma nomination de ministre plenipotentiaire 
 je ne suis pas encore accredite; par consequent en ce moment je ne 
 comparais devant la Cour qu'en ma qualite d'agent du Gouvernement 
 mexicain et non en quality d'envoye" extraordinaire de la Republique 
 du Mexique que je n'ai pas encore parce que je n'ai pas eu l'occasion 
 de presenter mes lettres de creance. La remarque a son importance, 
 
586 PlOtfS FUND OP THE oALIFORNtAS. 
 
 parce qu'une fois mon caractere diplomatique 6tabli et mes lettres de 
 cr^ance remises, je ne pourrai pas continuer la representation de mon 
 gouvernement comme agent de la Republique mexicaine. 
 
 Je prie la Cour de faire constater dans le proces-verbal cette recti- 
 fication parce que j'y tiens absolument comme ayant une importance 
 speciale. 
 
 M. de Martens. Mais, Monsieur Pardo, vous avez signe" le proces- 
 verbal. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. On y fait plusieurs fois mention de ma qualite 
 de ministre pl^nipotentiaire et d'envoye extraordinaire et on m'at- 
 tribue un appointement que je n'ai pas encore devant la Cour. 
 
 M. de Martens. Alors, vous d^sirez que ce soit supprimel 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. Absolument. 
 
 M. le President. Maintenant l'incident est clos, et le conseil des 
 Etats-Unis de l'Am^rique du Nord a la parole. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: 
 
 At the hour when the tribunal rose this forenoon I was addressing 
 myself to the first of the five grounds upon which we claim that the 
 arbitral court of 1868 had jurisdiction to make the award that it did 
 make in favor of the archbishop and the bishop of California against 
 the Republic of Mexico. You will recall that the argument in sup- 
 port of this proposition was that the former arbitral court did decide 
 and had inherent power to decide that it had jurisdiction of the par- 
 ticular case. The decision of a court that it has jurisdiction of a cause 
 is often not final. It is often not final in the sense that its decision 
 that it does possess jurisdiction is open to review in a higher court. 
 This can not be true of an international court, because in the very 
 nature of things, there is no tribunal to which the decision of an 
 international court holding that it has jurisdiction of a particular case 
 can be appealed. This proposition is reasoned out to completion and 
 sustained by ample precedent in the statement and brief of the United 
 States, written by the learned agent of the United States. I shall not 
 stop to dwell upon the argument which he makes, nor refer to the 
 authorities with which he sustains his proposition. There is, however, 
 one precedent to which 1 desire to call the attention of the tribunal, 
 not to be found in the brief of the learned agent of the United States. 
 It is to be found in 2 Moore's International Arbitrations, page 1242. 
 It refers to the convention between the United States and Mexico 
 created under the treaty of 1839. 
 
 Sir Edward Fkt. What volume? 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. 2 Moore's International Arbitrations, page 1242. 
 
 From 1821 down to this time there have been five treaties between 
 Mexico and the United States. Four of them were ratified; one not 
 ratified; these were the treaties of April 11, 1839, January 30, 1843, 
 Novembei 20, 1843 (not concluded), February 2, 1848, July 4, 1868, 
 and May 22, 1902. A history of all these treaties and the proceedings 
 under them will be found in Mr. Moore's work on International Arbi- 
 trations (pp. 1209-1286). 
 
 During the session of the joint commission created by the treaty of 
 1839 claims were presented against Mexico for damages which were 
 said to have been sustained on account of the seizure of an American 
 schooner called the "Topaz." This seizure had been made the subject 
 of diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Mexico for 
 the settlement of some claims asserted by the United States as a sov- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 587 
 
 ereign. The Mexican commissioners thereupon applied to Daniel 
 Webster, then the Secretary of State of the United States, to know 
 whether these diplomatic negotiations excluded from consideration 
 by the mixed commission claims presented by individuals for damages 
 claimed on account of the seizure of the " Topaz." 
 
 The following is an extract from Mr. Webster's reply addressed to 
 the Mexican commissioners: 
 
 The Mixed Commission under the convention with that Republic has always been 
 considered by this Government essentially a judicial tribunal with independent 
 attributes and powers in regard to its peculiar functions. Its right and duty, there- 
 fore, like those of other judicial bodies, are to determine upon the nature and extent 
 of its own jurisdiction as well as to consider and decide upon the merits of the claims 
 which might be laid before it. 
 
 And in connection with other claims before that same commission, 
 Mr. Webster said, as is reported by Mr. Moore in the same volume 
 and on the same page: 
 
 That body is in effect a judicial body, and it belongs to its members alone to 
 determine the rights of claimants under the convention. 
 
 With the citation of this precedent, I pass to the second ground 
 upon which we support the affirmation by us that the arbitral court of 
 1868 had jurisdiction to make the award which it did make. 
 
 I invite the attention of the tribunal to Article III of the treaty of 
 1868, at page 32 of the appendix. 
 
 It is there provided that: 
 
 It shall be competent for the commissioners conjointly, or for the umpire, if they 
 differ, to decide in each case whether any claim has or has not been duly made, 
 preferred, and laid before them, either wholly or to any, and what, extent, accord- 
 ing to the true intent and meaning of this convention. 
 
 In other words, it was the duty of the commission, and it was given 
 power by the agreement of the contracting parties, Mexico and the 
 United States, to decide whether any claim came properly within the 
 true intent and meaning of this convention. 
 
 The question of jurisdiction raised by Mr. Mariscal is whether the 
 claim upon which the former award was made came within the true 
 intent and meaning of the convention of July 4, 1868. 
 
 It is therefore a point which his Government expressly stipulated 
 that court should decide. 
 
 Our third point is that Mexico, after our claim had been presented 
 and while it was under consideration by the Mixed Commission, ex- 
 tended the life of the commission, extended the time within which it 
 should do its work, and in one instance revived the commission after 
 it had expired by limitation. The convention which revived the com- 
 mission after it had expired by limitation is to be found at page 38 of 
 the appendix. 
 
 The preceding treaty expired on the 31st of January, 1873, while the 
 treaty at page 38 was not ratified until March, 1873, and not exchanged 
 nor proclaimed until July, 1873. So that after this claim had been pre- 
 sented to the arbitral court for its determination and after the power 
 of that arbitral court had lapsed, because the time within which the 
 decision had to be rendered and within which the court might live had 
 expired, Mexico covenanted and agreed to revive that same arbitral 
 court. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. I have not heard the exact date of the presentation 
 of the memorial. 
 
588 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIPOENIAS. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. You will find it on the first page of the docket 
 entries, at page 3 of the Transcript. It is December 31, 1870. You 
 will notice, and I might call to your attention in passing, the first 
 three items of the docket entries. The arbitral court of 1868 was 
 required to meet within eight months after the exchange of ratifica- 
 tions. Its time for meeting expired July 31, 1869. On that day 
 there was one commissioner present, who continued the session until 
 the 10th of August, 1869, when, the other commissioner being present, 
 the court was organized (2 Moore, 1296-1297). 
 
 By reference to the first item of the docket entries, page 3, it will 
 be seen that on August 13, 1869 (three days after the organization of 
 the arbitral court), the Department of State of the United States 
 referred the claim of the archbishop and bishop of California to the 
 arbitral court, (Tr., p. 3). On that day, to wit, August 13, 1869, 
 there was no other claim pending before the Department of State 
 except the claim of date July 20, 1859, (Tr., 5-8). Subsequently, 
 to wit, on March 31, 1870, a statement was filed (Tr., 3). This 
 statement is to be found in the record (pp. 8-9). The original memo- 
 rial was filed December 31, 1870. The memorial is in the Transcript 
 (pp. 9-15). April 24, 1871, a motion to dismiss the claim and a 
 brief in support of that motion were filed by Mr. Gushing. To this 
 motion and brief a reply on behalf of the United States was filed 
 March 1, 1872 (Tr., 3). All of these steps had been taken prior to 
 the expiration of the life of the arbitral court, which expired on Janu- 
 ary 31, 1873, under the treaty to be found at page 35 of the appen- 
 dix. By ratifying the treaty, to be found at page 38, Mexico revived 
 the arbitral court. We insist that in so doing she revived it for the 
 decision of all undecided cases. By implication she covenanted that 
 the commission had power to decide the cases. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Some of them. 
 
 Mr. McEnernet. We submit that she covenanted that the arbitral 
 court had power to decide all of the cases. If Mexico did not intend 
 to agree that the arbitral court had power to decide all of the cases, she 
 should have specified those which she claimed the commission had no 
 power to decide. Of course, we do not claim that Mexico covenanted 
 that the commission could rightfully decide all or any of the cases 
 against her. But we do insist that by reviving the arbitral court, and 
 failing to withdraw, or except from its consideration, any of the cases 
 then before the court, she necessarily agreed that it had power to hew 
 and determine all of them. 
 
 The fourth point upon which we predicate the jurisdiction of the 
 arbitral court of 1868 will require a short statement. 
 
 We rely upon the proposition that the jurisdiction of an arbitral 
 court is created by the agreement of parties. The maxim that consent 
 can not give jurisdiction has no application to a tribunal which is cre- 
 ated and whose jurisdiction is defined by agreement or consent of the 
 parties litigant. 
 
 It is a, universally recognized principle of jurisprudence that ratifi- 
 cation is equivalent to precedent authorization. What Mexico could 
 have agreed to do in advance she could have ratified after it had been 
 done. If Mexico had power to confer jurisdiction upon the commis- 
 sion of 1868, she had power to ratify the exercise of jurisdiction by 
 the commission. Her ratification might have been expressed in words 
 or it might have been implied from a course of conduct. Her course 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 589 
 
 of conduct might have created against her what is known in English 
 and American jurisprudence as an estoppel in pais, or some bar of 
 that general nature. By such an estoppel she would be prevented 
 from asserting that the court had no jurisdiction. 
 
 We assert that it is not open to Mexico to claim that that tribunal 
 did not have jurisdiction. Mexico made no objection to the jurisdic- 
 tion of the arbitral court formed under the convention of July 4, 1868, 
 until the writing of Mr. Mariscal's. letter on the 28th of November, 
 1900, forty -two years after the convention of 1868, and ten years after 
 she had made the last payment under the former award. His letter is 
 at page 27 of the Diplomatic Correspondence. During the pendency 
 of the cause before the former arbitral court it was not intimated by 
 Mexico that she claimed or would claim that the former commission 
 had no power to decide the case. 
 
 Mr. Cushing's motion to dismiss the claim "because the injuries 
 complained of were done before February, 1848, and this commission 
 has no jurisdiction of the claim" (Tr., 68), implied that the commission 
 had the power to hear and determine the question whether the inju- 
 ries complained of were within the true intent and meaning of the 
 convention of July 4, 1868. The very submission of the motion to the 
 commission implied the power and duty of the commission to decide it. 
 
 The objection was not to the jurisdiction of the court to decide upon 
 the claim, although it was stated in that form, but it was a claim by 
 Mexico that the demand of the archbishop and the bishop of California 
 were not within the provisions of the convention. The motion of 
 Mr. Cushing was therefore not an attack upon the jurisdiction of the 
 court. On the other hand, it was an affirmation of its jurisdiction to 
 decide whether the particular claim here involved came within the 
 intent and meaning of the convention of July 4, 1868. 
 
 After it had been decided there was an exchange of diplomatic 
 representation between the two Governments, but the jurisdiction of 
 the arbitral court was not called into question. On the contrary, as 
 I shall presently show you, the jurisdiction was affirmed by Mexico. 
 
 I now refer to the Diplomatic Correspondence, commencing at page 
 77 and concluding on page 83. 
 
 The commission under the convention of 1868 and the conventions 
 supplementary thereto expired by limitation on November 20, 1876. 
 On the next day, November 21, 1876, Mr. Avila, counsel for Mexico, 
 addressed a letter to Mr. Mariscal, then envoy extraordinary and 
 minister plenipotentiary to Washington, in which he called his atten- 
 tion to three matters: First, the Weil and La Abra Mining Company's 
 claim; second, the Pious Fund; and third, cases where the umpire 
 had made allowances, subject to proof that the claimants enjoyed 
 American citizenship. 
 
 Following is what Mr. Avila said (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 
 77): 
 
 In the case No. 493, of Thaddeus Amat and Others vs. Mexico, the claim pre- 
 sented to the United States Government on the 20th of July, 1859, and to this com- 
 mission during the term fixed for the presentation of claims in the convention of 
 July 4,' 1868, was to the effect that the "Pious Fund" and the interest accrued 
 thereon should be delivered to claimants; and though ±he final award in the case 
 only refers to interest accrued in a fixed period, said claim should be considered as 
 finally settled in toto, and any other fresh claim in regard to the capital of said fund 
 or its interest, accrued or to accrue, as forever inadmissible. 
 
 In letter No. 2 (Diplomatic Correspondence, p. 78) Mr. Mariscal 
 
590 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNTAS. 
 
 forwards Mr. A Vila's letter to Mr. Hamilton Fish, the Secretary of 
 State of the United States, who replied under date of December 4, 
 1876. In his letter he says that by the second article of the treaty of 
 1868 Mexico had agreed to consider the matters adjudged by the com- 
 mission as final and conclusive, etc. 
 Mr. Fish then added: 
 
 I must decline, however, to entertain the consideration of any question which may 
 contemplate any violation of, or departure from, the provisions of the convention as 
 to the final and binding nature of the awards, or to pass upon, or by silence to be 
 considered as acquiescing in, any attempt to determine the effect of any particular 
 award. 
 
 To this Mr. Mariscal replied four days later, and said: 
 
 In his second statement (that relating to the Pious Fund) Sr. Avila intended only 
 to express his Government's opinion as to the impossibility of claiming at any future 
 time the capital of the Pious Fund, the accrued interest on which is now going to be 
 paid in conformity with the award. He endeavors to avoid, if possible, a future 
 claim from the interested parties, through the United States Government, but does 
 not pretend to put in doubt the present award. 
 
 In other words, Mr. Mariscal not only does not dispute the validity 
 of that award, but when the Secretary of State of the United States 
 declares to him that he (the Secretary) will not undertake to determine 
 in a diplomatic way what the effect of that award may be, nor will he 
 permit Mr. Mariscal by his (the Secretary's) silence or acquiescence 
 to put a construction upon it, Mr. Mariscal, thereupon and upon 
 behalf of Mexico, promptly answers that he only seeks to interpret 
 the award, hut does not pretend to put in doubt its validity (foot of page 
 80). Mr. Mariscal forwarded the correspondence to the foreign office 
 in Mexico. Hence we have the statement of the minister of foreign 
 affairs of Mexico, at the foot of page 81, under date of May 1, 1877, 
 five or six months afterwards, in which he says: 
 
 In regard to the case of the archbishops and bishops of California, the Mexican 
 Government, far from putting in doubt the final effect of the awards, has decired in the 
 second of said statements that, in conformity to article 5 of the convention, the 
 whole claim presented to the commission must be considered and dealt with as 
 finally arranged. 
 
 In other words, Mexico contended that the award was valid. She 
 insisted that the award foreclosed all claims for subsequent instalments. 
 By this insistence she claimed the benefit of that award; claimed that 
 it was valid. When Mr. Avila wrote his letter he attempted to fore- 
 stall all further claim. He realized the effect of the decision, for he 
 said in section 156 of his argument in support of a petition for revision 
 (Transcript, foot of page 640) : 
 
 If the decision rendered is sustained, the claimants will probably pretend to give 
 it a permanent effect, alleging that by it they have been declared a right to receive a 
 determined sum annually. 
 
 We do insist that the decision is entitled to a permanent effect, and 
 that by it we have been declared a right to receive a determined sum 
 annually. 
 
 Mr. Avila realized that we would certainly make this claim, and that 
 is the reason why he sought to interpret, through the medium of 
 diplomacy, an award or judgment, the validity of which, with all his 
 learning and familiarity with the case, he never dreamed of calling 
 into question. 
 
 I shall pass the question of the jurisdiction of the former arbitral 
 court with the following brief observations: Mexico had the power 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 591 
 
 to confer jurisdiction; she had the power to ratify the exercise of it. 
 It would not be consistent with the dignity of a nation nor the obliga- 
 tion of a litigant to accept an opportunity of success without its 
 accompanying opportunity of defeat. Mexico never challenged the 
 jurisdiction of the court which she created by her own solemn act and 
 before which she went for judgment, a judgment by which we would 
 have been bound had we lost; a judgment by which Mexico is bound, she 
 having lost. It is a fundamental rule of the jurisprudence with which 
 I am familiar, and it must be a fundamental principle in all jurispru- 
 dence that res judicata and estoppels generally are mutual. Where 
 they bind one of the litigants they bind the other. 
 
 Defeat upon the merits before the arbitral court of 1868 would have 
 concluded us for all time from asserting the validity of our claim. 
 Hence it must likewise conclude Mexico for all time, as she lost and 
 we prevailed. 
 
 In this connection permit me to just read two or three lines from 
 Chand on Res Judicata, page 46: 
 
 The general rule of law maybe briefly stated to be that where a recurring liability 
 is the subject of a claim, a previous judgment dismissing the suit upon findings 
 which fall short of going to the very root of the title upou which the claim rests, . 
 can not operate as res judicata; but if such previous judgment does negative the title itself, 
 the plaintiff can not reagitate the same question of title by suing to obtain relief for a subse- 
 quent item of the obligation. 
 
 If we had been defeated before the arbitral court of 1868 upon the 
 ground that our case lacked merit, we would have been foreclosed and 
 properly and rightfully foreclosed forever. If it should be decided that 
 we have no claim, that this decision is not controlled by the former 
 award operating as res judicata and is not just, would it be in accord- 
 ance with the jurisprudence which pertains to all the countries of the 
 world for us next year, the year after, and the third year to request 
 our Government to intervene with Mexico for the payment of annual 
 interest commencing with October 24, 1903, upon the ground that those 
 installments had not been the subject of consideration by this tribunal? 
 That is the question to be decided here. 
 
 The fifth point upon which we affirm the jurisdiction of the tribunal 
 of 1868 is that as an open question the convention of July 4, 1868, 
 had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case of the Pious Fund. 
 What was the claim made before the former tribunal? It was that 
 on the 24th day of October, 1848, and on the same day in each of 
 twenty years thereafter, making twenty-one in all, there had accrued 
 to American citizens claims against Mexico. It was for the settle- 
 ment of just such claims that the tribunal of 1868 was created and 
 organized. 
 
 The treaties use the word "injuries "originating within the twenty- 
 one years. Of course it was the function of the commission to decide 
 what an injury was. The tribunal will find on pages 93-99 of the 
 transcript an argument by Mr. Doyle which, it seems to me, fore- 
 closes reply. The argument is that an "injury" within the meaning 
 of the law is the withholding of a right by one person from another. 
 
 It is true that the convention of July 4, 1868, contained the follow- 
 ing clause (Appendix, p. 32) : 
 
 It is agreed that no claim arising out of a transaction of a date prior to the 2d of 
 February, 1848, shall be admissible under this convention. ( Appendix, 32. ) 
 
 But in the supplementary convention of February 8, 1872, the United 
 
592 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 States and Mexico gave this clause a binding interpretation. It is 
 recited in the supplementary convention that the convention of 1868 
 was " for the settlement of outstanding claims that have originated 
 since the signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on the 2d of 
 February 1848." (Appendix, 36.) 
 
 This is the true construction of the convention of 1868, and it is the 
 one which was adopted by Sir Edward Thornton in this case, and also 
 in the case of Belden vs. Mexico, likewise decided by him. (Tr., 588.) 
 
 The former arbitral tribunal had power to interpret the convention 
 of 1868. If it had no such power, it would follow that the moment 
 there was a suggestion made that a particular claim was not within the 
 convention, that moment the arbitral court would cease to entertain 
 the claim; for if the court had no power to decide that the claim came 
 within the convention, it had no power to decide that it did not come 
 within the convention. But, as we have above shown, it was expressly 
 agreed between Mexico and the United States that the umpire had 
 power to decide in each case whether any claim "has or has not been 
 duly made, preferred, and laid before them, either wholly or to any, and 
 what extent, according to the true intent and meaning of this conven- 
 tion." (Appendix, 32.) 
 
 I submit that upon all five of these grounds the arbitral court had 
 jurisdiction to make the award which it did make. In the considera- 
 tion of this question of jurisdiction 1 beg you, Mr. President and hon- 
 orable arbitrators, to keep in mind that jurisdiction is the power to 
 hear and determine a cause. . Jurisdiction does not depend upon its 
 rightful exercise. Jurisdiction does not depend upon the correctness 
 of the decision. If it were otherwise, nobody would ever know whether 
 a tribunal had or did not have jurisdiction. It would then be said: 
 The tribunal had jurisdiction if it correctly decided the case, but it did 
 not have jurisdiction if it incorrectly decided the case. 
 
 I come now to the proposition, the third in our case so far as res 
 judicata is concerned, that — 
 
 15. It is a settled rule of English and American jurisprudence that 
 the principle of res judicata applies not only to the thing directly 
 adjudged, but also to all matters necessarily involved therein, i. e., in 
 the thing directly adjudged. 
 
 The agent of the United States has devoted much learning and 
 research to establishing the proposition that this same rule obtains in 
 all European countries. I shall argue this question but briefly, leav- 
 ing the exposition of the doctrine to him. I shall argue the rule as it 
 exists in English and American jurisprudence and I shall attempt to 
 show that it has its foundation in a wise philosophy which must underlie 
 all systems of jurisprudence and which must exist among all the peoples 
 of the earth. 
 
 I leave to be discussed by the learned agent for the United States 
 authorities to be found at pages 48-49 of Chand, which deal with cases 
 involving installments and recurring liabilities like those involved here. 
 
 I desire to call to your attention the decision in Outram vs. More- 
 wood 3 T. E., 346, by Lord Ellenborough, when Chief Justice of Eng- 
 land, and cited by Chand, page 4. 
 
 Lord Ellenborough said: 
 
 _ A recovery in any one suit upon issue joined on matter of title is equally conclu- 
 sive upon the sut ject-matter of such title; and a finding upon title in trespass not only 
 operates as a bar to the future recovery of damages for a trespass founded on the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 593 
 
 same injury, but also operates by way of estoppel to any action for an injury to the 
 same supposed right of possession .... And it is not the recovery, but the matter 
 alleged by the party, and upon which the recovery proceeds," which creates the 
 estoppel. The recovery of itself in an action of trespass is only a bar to the future 
 recovery of damages for the same injury ; but the estoppel precludes parties and privies 
 from contending to the contrary of that point or matter of fact which, having been 
 once distinctly put in issue by them, or by those to whom they are privy in estate 
 or law has been, on such issue joined, solemnly found against them. 
 
 Chand says (page 40, section 28): 
 
 A matter in issue in a suit is also distinct from the subject-matter, and the object 
 of the suit, as well as from the relief that may be asked for in it, and the cause of 
 action on which it may be based; and the rule of res judicata requiring the identity 
 of the matter in issue will apply even when the subject-matter, the object, the relief, 
 and the cause of action are different. There is a general unanimity as to the matter 
 in issue being altogether independent of the internal character of the subject-matter 
 of the suit. 
 
 Let me illustrate with a case within my own experience. Several 
 years ago a very rich man died in San Francisco. A woman claimed 
 to be his widow. She filed a petition in the court of administration, in 
 which she asked that she be allowed five thousand dollars per month 
 for her support. The children of the deceased filed an answer, in 
 which they denied that she was the widow of the deceased or had ever 
 been married to him. The trial of that case occupied forty-five days. 
 There was no question in the case but the question of whether the 
 relation of husband and wife had ever existed between, the parties. 
 When the case came to be decided the judge entered an order in which 
 he denied her application. The order (or judgment) read: "It is 
 hereby ordered that the petition of (naming her) be, and the same is 
 hereby, denied." The condemnatory part of the judgment was simply 
 a denial of the petition. The only thing litigated in the case was the 
 question whether she was the wife of the deceased or not. This issue 
 was necessarily included in the judgment, because if she had been the 
 wife she was entitled to the money; if she had not been she was not 
 entitled to it. So that the judgment organically included the question 
 of whether she was his wife or not. Subsequently, upon a petition to 
 the probate court for the distribution of the estate, the woman came 
 forward again. She said: " I am the widow. My former petition was 
 for a widow's allowance; now it is for an undivided interest in the 
 estate." 
 
 The court held that res judicata applied and in effect said: 
 
 The decision denying to you a widow's allowance was predicated upon the finding 
 of fact that you were not the widow of the deceased, and as that finding was necessa- 
 rily involved in the decision denying you any money for support during the admin- 
 istration of the estate, you stand foreclosed from asserting your widowhood in any 
 litigation between you and the children of the deceased, whatever form the litigation 
 may take. 
 
 It is that principle which we seek to establish as the law of res judi- 
 cata applicable to this controversy. 
 
 It is said by a continental writer cited by Chand, which will be 
 referred to by the agent of the United States — indeed it is obvious — 
 that res judicata would have no function — it certainly would have 
 no function in America, where it constitutes a very large body of the 
 jurisprudence — if it were limited to the condemnatory part only. All 
 or nearly all the litigation to which res judicata is applicable involves 
 cases where it is invoked to bar litigation about matters which form 
 S. Doc. 28 38 
 
594 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 the fundamental bases of the condemnatory part of a previously pro- 
 nounced judgment. 
 The next point to which I pass is that — 
 
 16. Of the facts necessary to an award in favor of the United States 
 the only one which is not res judicata under the judgment of the former 
 arbital court is that of nonpayment of the annual interest since Feb- 
 ruary 1, 1869. This fact is conceded by the protocol. The whole case 
 is therefore controlled by the principle of res judicata. 
 
 The validity of this proposition requires the consideration of but 
 one question, which is a very simple one. What question here urged • 
 to defeat a recovery would not have defeated the recovery in the former 
 arbital court? Not one. Kead the opinion of the umpire, also that of 
 the American commissioners. The umpire's was necessarily brief for 
 the reason that he had hundreds of cases under consideration within 
 the year previous to the expiration of the commission. But take and 
 read either of those opinions and then ask yourselves what fact neces- 
 sary to an award here was not necessary to an award there? What 
 question can be litigated here which could not have been litigated 
 there? What question — save the question of the statute of limita- 
 tions—urged here would not have defeated an award there had Sir 
 Edward Thornton and the arbital court, under the act of 1868, taken 
 the view then advanced and now advanced by Mexico ? Some ques- 
 tions of fact and some questions of law were involved there as well as 
 here. That tribunal, like this tribunal, was a judicial body. So Mr. 
 Webster said and so all the publicists have said when dealing with this 
 subject. 
 
 What question then decided by that tribunal against Mexico can 
 now be decided in its favor without involving a decision that the con- 
 clusion reached by the former arbital court was incorrect either in 
 point of law or point of fact? That is the test. If there is no propo- 
 sition now necessary to our case which was not necessary to the former 
 award, then there is no question not concluded by the principle of res 
 judicata. 
 
 The seventeenth point — and I merely state it — is that — 
 
 17. The objections urged by Mexico against the decision of the 
 former arbital court do not, as she maintains, impeach the jurisdiction 
 of that tribunal, but rather attack the justice of the decision upon the 
 merits. 
 
 Mexico's entire argument, when analyzed, is to the effect that the 
 former arbital court misdecided the case. I have already had occasion 
 to say that the jurisdiction of a tribunal does not depend upon the 
 rightful exercise of that jurisdiction. 
 
 18. I now pass to the point advanced in the answer of Mexico, which 
 is that this claim is barred by the statute of limitations. 
 
 Under the treaty of 1868, and under certain supplements to that 
 treaty, it was provided that the Government which was debtor at the 
 close of the commission should pay to the Government which was 
 creditor a named sum of money on the 31st of January, 1877, and pay 
 the balance in equal installments of not less than $300,000 each year 
 thereafter. Mexico made her first payment on the day it became due, 
 which was January 31, 1877. Her last payment was made on January 
 21, 1890. ^ Forty days after that date, on March 1, 1890, Senator Wil- 
 liam M. Stewart, counsel for the bishops of California, addressed to 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 595 
 
 the Department of State a request for its intervention with Mexico 
 for the payment of the later installments. A reference to this letter 
 will be found at the foot of page 23 of the Diplomatic Correspondence 
 in the Transcript. The date of this letter was March 1, 1890, forty 
 days to a day after Mexico had made her last payment under the for- 
 mer award. On August 3, 1891 (page 23, Diplomatic Correspondence), 
 the matter of these installments became the subject of diplomatic rep- 
 resentation by the United States to Mexico, and was the subject of 
 diplomatic negotiations to May 22, 1902. I call your attention to the 
 fact to show that there has been no delay upon the part of the persons 
 in interest in the assertion of this claim. Within forty days after the 
 last payment under the old award they requested the intervention of 
 their Government, and within eighteen months after that last payment 
 the Government of the United States had moved in the matter. 
 
 New Mexico, among other defences, claims that the demand is 
 barred by section 1103 of her Civil Code and by an act passed by her 
 in 1894, three years after this claim had become the subject of diplo- 
 matic representation by the one government to the other. 
 
 Our answers to this claim, based upon the statute of limitations, are 
 these: 
 
 1. Such a plea is not allowable under the protocol of May 22, 1902. 
 By that convention two questions have been submitted for decision. 
 
 (a) Is the claim, as a consequence of the former decision, within the 
 governing principle of res judicata? and 
 
 (b) If not, is the same just? 
 
 A claim barred by limitation is as much a just claim as one not so 
 barred. 
 
 2. A statute of limitations is a law of the forum. In this case what- 
 ever the statute of limitations may be in Mexico, it is a law for Mexican 
 tribunals alone, and not for international courts. 
 
 3. We submit that it ought not to be and that it is not allowable 
 under the law of nations for a sovereign, while the claim of a citizen 
 of another sovereign is the subject of diplomatic negotiation between 
 the powers, to pass a law of limitation and thereby bar or attempt to 
 bar the claim. This claim became the subject of diplomatic negotia- 
 tion on August 17, 1891 (Tr. , Diplomatic Correspondence, 8). 
 
 And yet, Mexico avers in her answer that the claim became barred 
 by a statute of limitations enacted by her September 6, 1894. (Repli- 
 cation, 30.) 
 
 4. There is no statute of limitations in international law except such 
 as may be agreed to exist for a particular case by provision in a con- 
 vention between two or more powers. 
 
 Of course, in this connection I draw the distinction, which is drawn 
 by all the text writers, between prescription which is a method of 
 acquiring title to land or other properties, by occupation, and a for- 
 mal enactment which bars the remedy but does not destroy the right. 
 
 5. The statutes of limitations of Mexico have no extra-territorial 
 effect and cannot destroy the claim of non-resident creditors. 
 
 6. If Mexico had desired to avail herself of the plea of her statute 
 of limitations, she should have declined to arbitrate or (failing that) 
 she should have insisted upon a provision in the protocol whereby she 
 could have obtained the decision and judgement of the court upon the 
 question whether this claim was effectively barred in an international 
 
596 • PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 tribunal by a law peculiar to Mexico, territorially limited, and enacted 
 to control proceedings and remedies in her own domestic courts. She 
 failed to take either of these steps. 
 
 7. According to the law of Mexico the claim is not barred. 
 
 19. I have now arrived at the last subdivision of the argument as I 
 planned to make it to you, Mr. President and honorable arbitrators. 
 I shall not undertake to consider this head in any great detail, although 
 I have prepared it in considerable detail and shall furnish it for the 
 consideration of the tribunal. It is that the defences attempted to be 
 set up by Mexico in her answer are not sufficient to defeat the award 
 claimed by the United States. I consider these defences one after 
 another in my brief, now nearly prepared. I need not consider them 
 all orally. I shall therefore pass to the last point which Mexico makes 
 in her answer, and that is with respect to the point which constitutes 
 the volume called "Pleito de Rada." 
 
 I think that we shall be able to make the nature and history of the 
 litigation very clear to this tribunal. Mexico, in the seventh paragraph 
 of her answer, declares that no doubt the counsel for the United States 
 will be very much surprised to know that the title to the estates con- 
 veyed to the Pious Fund by the Villapuente and De Rada deed had 
 been defeated in litigation and therefore lost to the fund. If the title 
 had been defeated by litigation, it would not make any difference to 
 our case, because we are here claiming under a sale made by Mexico. 
 
 The Villapuente and De Rada property, moreover, was in the pos- 
 session of the bishop of the Calif ornias in 1842. Possession is proof of 
 title, which will not be overcome by an interlocutory and unexecuted * 
 judgment of 90 years before. Mexico claims that the title was inval- 
 idated in 1749, ninety-three years before the time when the bishop 
 was in the peaceful possession of the property and surrendered it to 
 Mexico. What we rely upon here is the sale of that property by Mex- 
 ico. Whether she sold a good title or a bad title is unimportant. She 
 is answerable in either event for the price. 
 
 I shall presently show to you, however, that the construction which 
 the learned counsel upon the other side put upon this litigation is not 
 sustained in any degree. 
 
 What were the facts ? 
 
 The Marquis de Rada died in 1713 v one hundred and thirty years 
 before the act of October 24, 1842. 
 
 His widow, the Marquesa de Rada, claimed his entire estate in the 
 probate court. She based her claim upon her dowry and her rights as 
 tutor of two sons by a former husband; also on certain other indebted- 
 nesses due from the marquis to her. She claimed that the marquis 
 owed to her more than the value of the entire estate. The estate was ' 
 appraised. Upon the petition of the marquesa and upon proof that 
 the estate was insufficient to pay her debt, and upon a comparison of 
 the debt and the value of the estate, the whole estate was awarded'to 
 the marquesa. This occurred in the year of her husband's death, 1713. 
 In 1718 the heirs of the Marquis de Rada instituted litigation and made 
 two charges— concealment of goods and undervaluation. They insisted 
 that the marquis had had other property which had been hidden, and 
 that the appraisers have undervalued the property which had been 
 exhibited. They charged that it was not true that the estate was insuffi- 
 cient to pay the debt and averred that it was more than sufficient so to 
 do. They insisted that the result of the concealment of goods and of 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 597 
 
 the undervaluation by the appraisement was that the Marquesa de Rada 
 had obtained the entire estate of her husband, when the estate was not 
 only sufficient to pay her debt, but sufficient to leave an excess to the 
 heirs. They, the heirs, therefore prayed that the appaisement should 
 be set aside and the case reheard. They (these heirs) were defeated in 
 all of the courts to which they appealed until the case came before the . 
 royal and supreme council of the Indies at Madrid, where, in 1749, the 
 inventories were set aside, and the cause was remitted to the court of 
 first instance to hear and determine the rights of the parties. It is 
 down to this date that this bound volume called the " Pleito de Rada," 
 produced by Mexico, brings the history of the litigation. 
 
 If you will look at the Transcript from pages 518 to 523 you will see 
 a statement made by Pedro Ramirez for the opinion of counsel upon 
 this subject of the litigation. Mr. Ramirez' statement continues the 
 history of the litigation to the year 1842. It appears therein that on 
 January 31, 1829, the Pious Fund was condemned to pay $158,175.00 
 to the heirs of the Marquis de Rada. The old decree of the court of 
 last resort, you will keep in mind, was made in 1749, and the last 
 decree in 1829, eighty years afterwards. One will naturally inquire, 
 how did it happen that this litigation culminated in a decree that the 
 heirs of the Marquis de Rada should receive from the Pious Fund of 
 the Californias $158,175.00. The inquiry is easily answered. The mar- 
 quesa had transferred her estates to the Pious Fund of the Californias. 
 The Pious Fund of the Californias was thereafter successor in title 
 and interest of the Marquesa de Rada. The court evidently found 
 that the estate of the marquis exceeded the debts due to the marquesa 
 by $158,175.00. The court therefore necessarily confirmed the title of 
 the marquesa already transferred to the Pious Fund, subject to a lien 
 of $158,175.00. 
 
 This is not the last we hear of that $158,175.00. Whether that 
 judgment was ever paid or discharged, or whether it was upon appeal 
 or in any other litigation, or before the court which rendered it, or 
 otherwise set aside or annulled, we have no means of ascertaining. 
 
 In 1842 an execution was levied upon the Cienega del Pastor, the 
 estate of which I spoke this morning, and which we claim should be 
 added to the capital of the Pious Fund, if the cause is not controlled 
 by res judicata, to satisfy the judgment for $158,175. 
 
 These were the proofs made before the former arbitral court. 
 What happened? The American commissioner said, at page 526, that 
 the Cienaga del Pastor belonged to the Pious Fund, but that he found 
 that it was subject to an attachment for $158,175, issued in the litiga- 
 tion already detailed, and as there was no evidence to show that Mex- 
 ico ever sold the property, or obtained anything for the property, he 
 refused to allow the Cienaga del Pastor to be calculated as a part of 
 the capital of the Pious Fund. The necessary evidence has been now 
 produced by us to show that Mexico did sell this property for $213,750, 
 and unless she can show that she paid the judgment of $158,175 we 
 are entitled to have the price added to the capital, unless the case is 
 boncluded by res judicata. 
 
 We submit that instead of defeating the benefaction by the Pleito de 
 Rada, we find that Mexico defeated us out of the allowance of $213,750 
 on the last arbitration tot satisfy the only claim that the heirs of the 
 Marquis de Rada had upon the benefaction conferred of the Marquesa 
 de Rada and the Marquis de Villapuente upon the Pious Fund. 
 
598 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 I am about to bring this much protracted argument to a close. 
 
 In doing so, I desire to express my deep appreciation, Mr. President 
 and honorable arbitrators, for the patience and attention which you 
 have granted to me. 
 
 It must be very gratifying to the high contracting parties by which 
 the present tribunal was constituted that after many years of dispute 
 the contention between them is soon to be closed forever. 
 
 But it is not alone to the two leading Republics of the New World, 
 who have brought a controversy involving New World questions to 
 the Old World for decision — I say it is not to these two Republics 
 alone that the present arbitration is of great interest and moment. 
 
 It should be, and no doubt it is, highly gratifying to the powers 
 signatory to the convention which created the Permanent Court of 
 Arbitration at The Hague that the first case is to be submitted for 
 decision to jurists chosen by the high contracting parties from the most 
 distinguished in all Europe, with the single eye to a decision which, 
 from the character and great learning of those who make it, should 
 command and would receive universal acceptance. 
 
 For the high purpose with which these two high contracting parties 
 were thus animated, they deserve the respect and commendation of all 
 civilized society. 
 
 It is not alone on account of the large amount involved, nor for the 
 reason that it is to settle a dispute between two conspicuous nations of 
 the world that this case is of universal interest and transcendent 
 importance; but it is important in a far greater degree, because 
 it is intimately connected with a movement of recent times to put the 
 intercourse amongst nations on a high and permanent plane, consistent 
 with the objects of good government, which are the peace of the world 
 and the welfare of human society. 
 
 This tribunal has in its keeping in no small measure the future of 
 that great movement. 
 
 And in submitting our case, whatever may be, its results, we feel 
 certain that the tribunal will enter upon its consideration and decision 
 with the learning, rectitude of purpose, and sense of responsibility 
 which are befitting its greatness and importance. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I submit to the desire of the court either to proceed 
 this afternoon or to defer until to-morrow morning. 
 
 M. le President. Vous pouvez proceder, s'il vous plait. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: In the 
 proper and orderly presentation of the case brought before you, it has 
 seemed fit on behalf of the United States that there should first be pre- 
 sented and dwelt upon with thorough emphasis and elaborate discussion 
 the various facts which led up to the former decision, and I think I 
 may congratulate myself personally upon the fact that the various ele- 
 ments which entered into the judgment before reached have received 
 ample and elaborate discussion before you. I believe it has been made 
 manifest from the argument which has so far proceeded that there was 
 a Pious Fund of the Calif ornias; that it was a fund of vast extent, a 
 well-known fund; that its proper administrators were the Catholio 
 Church through its various agents; that Mexico, having had control of 
 that fund, and having herself voluntarily assumed a certain relation- 
 ship to it, by virtue of these several facts entered into a distinct obli- 
 gation to a certain branch of the Catholic Church — and that was to pay 
 the interest of the fund to its representatives. All these facts, I say, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 599 
 
 I believe have been thoroughly demonstrated. They were demon- 
 strated before the former court. All of the considerations which have 
 been discussed here to-day and up to this time, in the course of the 
 argument, were considered by the former court — the incidental ques- 
 tions of church and state, the obligations the state might put itself 
 under to render certain services or to pav certain moneys to a particu- 
 lar religious body, all were amply considered. 
 
 While, therefore, we have believed on behalf of the United States 
 that there should be the fullest, the most complete exposition of all of 
 these preceding facts, at the same time it has strongly been borne in 
 upon us that the substantial, that the real question upon which this 
 case must turn would be whether the decision of the prior arbitral 
 court created that state of affairs to which we in English give the name 
 res judicata — borrowing the term from the Latin — and which on the 
 continent is better known in civil jurisprudence under the name of 
 chose jugee. We have believed that the facts to which I have adverted 
 brought about in themselves when embodied in a judgment that con- 
 dition or force which constituted chose jugee and would govern this 
 case, and we primarily rely upon this position. 
 
 Chose jugee is said to rest — giving a free interpretation to the Latin 
 maxims — upon two things, first, that the interest of the public requires 
 that an end should be put to suits; and second, that no one should be 
 twice vexed for the same cause, and we invoke this principle on behalf 
 of the complainant here. 
 
 The question first offering itself for the consideration of this tribunal 
 is to a degree a novel one, and that is whether there should be given 
 to the utterances of an arbitral court all of the weight which we attrib- 
 ute to courts in general. And that is the first proposition to which I 
 desire to address myself. 
 
 We shall insist that an arbitral court is a court of high dignity; that 
 in favor of its jurisdiction all necessary intendments are to be indulged; 
 that its awards are to receive as full execution as would be granted to 
 the awards of any other court. 
 
 I say in international jurisprudence the question may, I believe, be 
 regarded as a novel one. I am not able to cite this tribunal to any 
 case where it has been distinctly stated that the judgments of arbitral 
 courts as between nations are to be given the same sanctity as will be 
 accorded to the judgments of the most ordinary courts passing upon 
 the most trivial disputes between man and man. And I count it — if I 
 may be permitted so to say — I count it a matter of extreme good for- 
 tune, a matter of the gravest importance to public interest, to interna- 
 tional interest, that the first case presented before this tribunal should 
 involve a question of such widespread importance and dignity, deeply 
 involved as it is in the successful conduct of arbitrations for the entire 
 future. 
 
 For, as it seems to us, if the judgments of arbitral courts are not to 
 be given at least as high sanctity as is now accorded to a judgment of 
 the most inferior courts, then may we not expect that such courts will 
 be resorted to in the future. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney in his very thorough and very learned address has 
 
 Eointed out to you the fact that the Mexican minister of foreign affairs 
 imself admitted that the judgments of arbitral courts were entitled to 
 the benefit of the plea, or exception as it is termed in the language of 
 Europe as a rule, and that the plea of res judicata is as to them to be 
 
600 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA8. 
 
 accorded as great dignity and has as much force as pertains to those of 
 any other nature. 
 
 But the language used on behalf of Mexico has not always been 
 uniform. 
 
 In order that its change of position may be most clearly understood, 
 I refer to the Mexican answer contained in the exhibits attached to the 
 replication, in which the quotation is made from the letter of Secre- 
 tary Bayard. It is said on page 26: a 
 
 Decisions of international commissions . ... are not regarded as authoritative, 
 except in the particular case decided. . . . They do not in any way bind the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, except in those cases in which they were rendered. 
 
 At the foot of page 26 I have given the entire language contained 
 upon this particular point in the letter of Mr. Bayard, and I quote it 
 for a moment: 
 
 But, aside from this criticism, I must be allowed to remind you that decisions of 
 international commisions are not to be regarded as establishing principles of inter- 
 national law. Such decisions are moulded by the nature and the terms of the treaty 
 of arbitration, which often assume certain rules in themselves deviations from inter- 
 national law, for the government of the commission. Even when there are no such 
 limitations, decisions of commissioners have not heretofore been regarded as author- 
 itative, except in the particular case decided. I am compelled, therefore, to exclude 
 from consideration the rulings to which you refer, not merely because they do not 
 sustain the position for which they are cited, but because, even if they could'be con- 
 strued as having that effect, they do not in any way bind the Government of the 
 United States, except in those cases in which they were rendered. 
 
 It seems proper at this time, and in connection with the citation 
 from Secretary Bayard's communication, to make a certain explana- 
 tion. There is known in the English and American law the doctrine 
 of stanre decisis — a doctrine which, I believe, perhaps does not exist 
 under continental jurisprudence. That is to say, our courts consider 
 themselves bound by the decisions of law had in prior cases. The rule 
 is not one uniform at all in its operations. If the court to-day believes 
 that the prior enunciations of law have been erroneous, the court will 
 often diverge from them; but it is held many times that it is even bet- 
 ter to adhere to an erroneous view of law, which has been accepted by 
 the general public and acted upon, than to depart from it and establish 
 a new line of decision. 
 
 It is conceded under English and American practice that when 
 decisions with relation to the law are given, the general public will be 
 so controlled by them in their relations of property that to depart 
 from them would involve hardship. That may not be conceded with 
 regard to the doctrine of res judicata, nor is there the slightest connec- 
 tion between the two. 
 
 Bes judicata refers to litigation had between the same parties and 
 having relation to the same general matter. Then the doctrine of res 
 judicata compels adherence to the finding of fact, or of law in connec- 
 tion with the fact, once found by the court. The doctrine of stare 
 decisis, which is really the doctrine upheld by Senor Mariscal, applies 
 and refers to general enunciations of law, and does not ever affect sub- 
 sequent proceedings between the same parties and having relation to 
 the same subject-matter. And when we come, in the light of this 
 explanation, to examine the paragraph cited from Secretary Bayard, 
 we find that there was an attempt made on the part of the Spanish 
 Government to invoke in its favor a decision had in a certain case 
 which had existed between the United States and England. The facts in 
 
 a Page 26, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 601 
 
 the two cases were somewhat different, the parties were entirely dif- 
 ferent. And so, while Senor Muruaga might have seen fit to appeal 
 to the decision between the United States and England as tending to 
 establish a certain principle of law, certainly Senor Mariscal could not 
 appeal to the expression of Secretary Bayard as referring to res judi- 
 cata. It was a matter had between other parties, the subject-matter 
 somewhat varying. We are not compelled to discuss the question as 
 to whether Secretary Bayard was correct or was not correct in saying 
 that certain enunciations of law would not be considered as binding in 
 subsequent international relations. 
 
 Now I mention this matter particularly and at this point because 
 the same error, the same confusion, continues to exist in Sr. Mariscal's 
 mind, and is illustrated in the correspondence between the two Gov- 
 ernments, and is also illustrated by the example to which 1 have just 
 called attention, to be found in his answer; so much so that Sr. Maris- 
 cal, states that it does not appear that arbitral decisions have the 
 force of res judicata. 
 
 But what is the rule of res judicata as it prevails in English and 
 American jurisprudence ? I quote from my own brief, which is before 
 this tribunal, and reading from page 20 a — 
 
 The English and American rule is summed up in the first edition of the American and 
 English Encyclopaedia of Law, title "Res Judicata," volume 21, page 128, as follows: 
 
 When a matter has once properly passed to final judgment without fraud or col- 
 lusion in a court of competent or concurrent jurisdiction, it has become res judicata, 
 and the same matter between the same parties can not be reopened or subsequently 
 considered. 
 
 And we find to similar effect, article 1351 of the French civil code, 
 which I think has been subsequently followed throughout the coun- 
 tries of Europe: 
 
 L'autorite' de la chose jug6e n'a lieu qu'a l'egard de ce qui a fait Pobjet du juge- 
 ment. II faut que la chose demandee soit la m£me, que la demande soit entre les 
 memes parties et formed par elles et contre elles en la meme quality. 
 
 The declaration of law which I have already indicated is entirely 
 applicable to English and American jurisprudence. The first point, 
 then, which will arise when we come to consider particularly the 
 American and English definition is whether the matter which was- 
 formerly adjudicated upon passed to judgment in a court of competent 
 or concurrent jurisdiction. In other words, was the former tribunal 
 competent to pass upon the matters presented to it? Its jurisdiction 
 was fixed by the treaty of 1868. That its judgments were intended to 
 be final and conclusive is, I think, a matter of important consideration 
 at this moment, and we find that the President of the United States 
 of America (I read from Appendix, page 32 *) and the President of the 
 Mexican Eepublic 
 
 hereby solemnly and sincerely engage to consider the decision of the commissioners 
 conjointly or of the umpire, as the case may be, as absolutely final and conclusive 
 upon each claim decided upon by them or him, respectively, and to give full effect 
 to such decisions without any objection, evasion, or delay whatsoever. 
 
 And again, from the last part of the second paragraph of Article III 
 on the same page: c 
 
 It shall be competent for the commissioners conjointly, or for the umpire if they 
 differ, to decide in each case whether any claim has or has not been duly made, pre- 
 ferred, and laid before them, either wholly or to any and what extent, according to 
 the true intent and meaning of this convention. 
 
 "Page 212, this volume. 6 Page 141, this volume. "Page 142, this volume. 
 
602 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 In other words, they were given the entire jurisdiction to pass upon 
 the matters brought before them. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Would you allow me to interrupt you at this 
 moment ? In Article II it is agreed that no claim arising out of a transac- 
 tion of a date prior to the 2nd of February, 1848, shall be admissible under 
 this convention. Did not your claim arise out of the decree of 1842? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. That is a question which was very greatly discussed 
 before the former tribunal, and the answer to it, I take it, is this: It 
 is true there was a transaction had before 1842 which fixed the relation 
 of the parties, but the transaction upon which the suit was brought 
 was the subsequent taking of the interest by Mexico — the taking of 
 the money after the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of 1848. 
 That is to say, the groundwork, if you trace it back, is to be found 
 long prior to 1848, but the transaction in relation to which suit was 
 brought was the taking of the money. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney calls my attention to this, which occurs on page 35." 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Page 35 of what? 
 
 Mr. Ealston. 35 of the appendix. 
 
 Whereas a convention was concluded on the 4th day of July, 1868, between the 
 United States of America and the United States of Mexico, for the settlement of out- 
 standing claims that have originated since the signing of the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo on the 2nd of February, 1848, by a mixed commission limited to endure for 
 two years and six months from the day of the first meeting of the commissioners, etc. 
 
 In the same sense that this case might be said to arise out of a trans- 
 action prior to the 2nd of February, 1848, referring to, let us say, the 
 Republic of Mexico, it might be said to have arisen out of the prior 
 action of Spain with relation to the same affairs, or out of any act 
 which went toward constituting or creating the Pious Fund. 
 
 I am discussing at the present moment the question of the jurisdic- 
 tion of this tribunal. Mr. McEnerney has referred in his argument 
 to the fact that the jurisdiction of the tribunal to pass upon the ques- 
 tion just mentioned, as well as upon all the other questions which 
 might be raised before the court, was confessed by Mexico. In the 
 first part of my brief, and beginning on page 6,* I have tried to arrange 
 the dates in such manner that the attitude of Mexico at particular times 
 and the condition of this particular case would appear together. It 
 will be borne in mind that there were some four extensions of the 
 original convention of 1868. At the time of the first extension a mo- 
 tion to dismiss had been filed by Mr. Cushing, which raised absolutely 
 the right of the tribunal to proceed, and raised particularly the ques- 
 tion just mentioned. I have cited in my brief, on page 4," the motion 
 to dismiss of Mr. Cushing. It is found on page 67 of the Transcript. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. What was the date of that motion? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. The date of that motion was April 24, 1871. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. It is not given on page 67, is it? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. 1 think so. It is given in the docket entries on page 3. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. April 24, 1871? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes, sir; April 24, 1871; motion to dismiss filed by 
 Mr. Cushing, and I will read it, as it is a matter of some importance. 
 He moved to dismiss: 
 
 1. Because the act of incorporation of the petitioners as corporation sole did not 
 authorize them to claim property beyond the limits of the State of California. 
 
 2. Because the petitioners show no legal interest in or title to the Pious Fund in 
 controversy. 
 
 a Page 145, this volume. & Page 201, this volume. e Page 200, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 603 
 
 3. Because the petitioners had a legal remedy in the Mexican courts which they 
 were bound to pursue and exhaust before coming here. 
 
 4. Because the injuries complained of were done before February, 1848, and this 
 commission has no jurisdiction of the claim. 
 
 The very question of jurisdiction was raised and was before the 
 tribunal at the time the decision was reached. Knowing that fact as 
 Mexico did; knowing that the tribunal's jurisdiction was challenged, — 
 for it was done by herself — she proceded to conclude the extension. 
 The convention providing for the extension of the time within which 
 the joint commission should settle claims was signed between the two 
 countries April 19, 1871. That was five days before the motion, and 
 the ratifications — for the convention had, of course, no validity 
 whatsoever until the exchange of ratifications — the ratifications were 
 exchanged February 8, 1872. Note the further fact in this connection 
 that the exchange of ratifications occurred eight days after the original 
 convention had expired by limitation. 
 
 Sir Edward Fet. The ratifications of December, 1871? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I do do not think I can have made any mistake. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. The proclamation was February, 1872. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. That is the one signed April 19th. 
 
 Mr. McEnerney. At the top of page 38 is the treaty which was 
 ratified after the other had expired. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Aocording to your book, it was ratified Decem- 
 ber, 1871. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. If I may ask the court to turn to page 35, it was signed 
 April 19. Ratified means to say, ratified by the Senate of the United 
 States, but a treaty does not become effective on ratification by the 
 Senate of the United States. That has simply reference to the action 
 of, the United States, not the action of Mexico, but the joint action 
 which gave life to the whole convention, and before which it had no 
 life whatsoever, took place, as stated, on February 8, 1872, and was 
 therefore, eight days after the original tribunal had ceased to have any 
 powers whatsoever, and while yet this motion was pending before it, 
 Mexico, by the exchange of ratifications, for she was bound by noth- 
 ing until the ratifications were exchanged, gave new life and new force 
 to the commission, with all the pending questions before it. 
 
 Let us go a step further. A second convention is provided for. 
 The convention to which reference has just been made extends the 
 powers of the commission to January 31, 1873, as will appear stated 
 on page 6. Now, on January 31, 1873, the date of the expiration of 
 the second convention, to which reference has been made, the motion 
 to dismiss, filed by Mr. Gushing, was still pending and undetermined, 
 although, on March 1, 1872, a reply thereto had been filed on behalf 
 of the claimants at that time. Now then, with that motion then pend- 
 ing for more than a year previously — eighteen months previously — on 
 November 27, 1872, a further convention is concluded, exlending the 
 joint commission not exceeding two years, etc. 
 
 We have, therefore, a second act by Mexico again referring, for 
 that is the practical effect of it, to the old commission the determina- 
 tion of this very motion to dismiss. Now the point becomes of some 
 importance. (1 may perhaps be pardoned for a moment for digressing 
 from what I intended as the order of my remarks.) The point becomes 
 of some importance when we bear in mind the unquestioned rule with 
 regard to arbitral tribunals that the party submitting the question has 
 
604 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 the right to withdraw that question from the jurisdiction of the trib- 
 unal before which he has placed it. It was in the power of Mexico, 
 notwithstanding even the first submission, if you will — it was in the 
 power of Mexico to say, "we will agree to extend the functions of this 
 commission, but we will withdraw from it the consideration of the 
 Pious Fund case because we do not believe it comes within the purview 
 of its powers." Mexico never said that. I think the language of all 
 the text writers with regard to arbitration (I have summed up many 
 of them in the brief before you) is in substance that before the arbitral 
 action be taken one party or the other may withdraw from the arbi- 
 tration, and in the very withdrawal cancel jurisdiction. No such step 
 was taken by Mexico. Now, reading from the brief, page 6: a 
 
 On November 27, 1872, a further convention was concluded, reviving and extend- 
 ing the duration of the joint commission for a period not exceeding two years from 
 the day on which the functions of the commission would have terminated according 
 to the convention of April 19, 1871. In other words, the commission wag extended 
 until January 31, 1875. Ratifications of this convention were exchanged July 17, 1873, 
 nearly six months after the commission had expired by virtue of the convention of 
 April 19, 1871, and it was proclaimed July 24, 1873. 
 
 We have, therefore, this condition of affairs that not once, but twice, 
 Mexico agreed, even after the functions of the commission had expired, 
 to extend its powers and complete all the work there was before it — 
 to decide the pending case, for the extension meant nothing else. There 
 was, therefore, one period of eight days, a second period of six months, 
 during which the convention was functus officio. 
 
 At the time of this second extension, reading from the brief, page 6: a 
 
 At the time of the expiration of the functions of the commission by the convention 
 signed April 27, 1872, and ratified July 17, 1873, to wit, on January 31, 1875, final argu- 
 ment for the claimants and an exhibit attached thereto had been offered by the agent 
 of the United States (January 25, 1875). 
 
 The original motion submitted by Mexico to dismiss the cause yet 
 remained pending and undetermined. 
 
 Again we find that by the further convention, concluded November 
 20, 1874, ratifications of which were exchanged January 28, 1875, and 
 proclamation issued January 25, 1875, the functions of the commission 
 were extended to January 31, 1876. And at this time when this exten- 
 sion went into effect the Pious Fund case was still pending and unde- 
 termined, the difference of opinion being announced on May 19, 1875. 
 Here we note something of a change of condition. There had been 
 the disagreement between the two arbitrators resulting in sending the 
 case to the umpire, and while that new condition of affairs existed 
 Mexico agreed to a new convention allowing the umpire to determine 
 the very question upon which the arbitrators had differed, and the 
 award of the umpire was made November 11, 1875, about ten months 
 after the exchange of ratifications, and but for that exchange of ratifi- 
 cations there would have been no final judgment in this case, for the 
 arbitrators had disagreed and the case rested undetermined. So 
 that 1 say, step by step, not once but twice, three times, four times 
 over, Mexico has confessed the jurisdiction of the former tribunal over 
 this very subject-matter, and we insist that it does not lie in the mouth 
 of Mexico, to use the legal expression, now to say, after her repeated 
 submissions of this cause to the former arbitration, that there was want 
 of jurisdiction, or that this claim originated before 1848, or that the 
 facts were other than were found by the umpire, nor can she present 
 
 o Page 201, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 605 
 
 any defense which finds its foundation in any fact prior to the date of 
 the rendition of the judgment by the umpire. 
 
 M. de Martens. May I ask you, Mr. Ralston, could Mexico stop 
 the submission of the umpire ? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes, sir. 
 
 M. de Martens. How could she do it? She was obliged to put it 
 before the umpire. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. No, if you will pardon me. She may well have been 
 obliged to submit the first question before the umpire, yes; but she 
 was not obliged to continue the case before the umpire after the 
 first convention had expired by its terms. She could have said, yes, 
 we will agree to a new convention, but we do not think that the arbi- 
 trators have control over this particular case; we do not think that 
 this particular case comes within the purview of the original conven- 
 tion, and therefore we will decline to allow the Mixed Commission to 
 take further cognizance of it. That in brief is our position. 
 
 M. de Martens. But I think Mexico was obliged to accept the 
 jurisdiction of the umpire in the whole case, do you not think so? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Precisely. I think so absolutely, because I think the 
 umpire had the absolute right to determine his jurisdiction and to 
 determine all questions which might be raised before him in connec- 
 tion with this matter. I think the court had a right to determine all 
 questions of jurisdiction, precisely as I think this court has the express 
 right to determine any questions before it. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. It has the express power. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes; the express right is given under Article XLVIII 
 of this convention. Nevertheless, the court would have the right with- 
 out it, and 1 will have to submit yet some observations upon that point. 
 
 I stated a moment ago that in our belief, and it is our position, that 
 an arbitral body has a right to determine its competency under the 
 compromis. That power is particularly given this court by article 48. 
 
 This part of our contention, and one of the first principles that we 
 would lay down, is that an arbitral court possesses inherent power to 
 pass upon its own jurisdiction, and we believe that the former court, 
 the court of thirty years ago, possessed the power to pass upon its own 
 jurisdiction. Ordinarily, as we know, in the due course of law, appel- 
 late courts are provided which have the power of review over the 
 actions of lower courts. In this case (that arising under the convention 
 of 1868) no such power exists — no such power of review exists. It 
 must have rested then with the court itself, for who else was to pass upon 
 the question of jurisdiction? Not the parties, surely. For if the par- 
 ties themselves were to exercise the power of review-of the judgments 
 of arbitral courts upon questions of jurisdiction, it would result simply 
 in setting at naught the arbitration. Not a superior court, for there 
 was none. Not a later court, because, except by a convention of the 
 parties, the later arbitral court can only have the express powers given 
 it under the protocol. If such power be given under the protocol 
 expressly, well and good, but certainly not otherwise; and that power 
 has not been given here. 
 
 In discussing, therefore, this particular subject, I say in my brief:" 
 
 We have adverted to the principle that power must rest somewhere to determine 
 the jurisdiction of an arbitral court, and in the case under consideration, this power 
 not having been reserved for any other authority, must, as we believe, be considered 
 to rest in the court itself. 
 
 a Page 213, this volume. 
 
606 PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 The analogy existing between international and private arbitrations is such that 
 we are justified in believing that if private arbitrators possess the power to deter- 
 mine their own jurisdiction and to interpret the instrument creating them, for 
 stronger reasons must the same power be regarded as resting in international arbitral 
 courts, bodies of infinitely greater dignity and importance, and from whose actions 
 consequences may flow of vastly more importance to the welfare of mankind. 
 
 I am reading now from the top of page 23 a of the Statement and 
 Brief on Behalf of the United States. The first reference, as you will 
 note, is to Repertoire Gen6rale Alphabetique du Droit Francais: 
 
 Tout tribunal a le droit et la devoir de statuer sur sa propre competence. 
 
 "Civil law judges," as we find, "have many times passed upon the 
 powers of arbitral courts in this respect, and have held: Que les arbi- 
 tres peuvent connaitre de leur competence bien qu'ils n'y soient pas 
 expressement autorises par le compromis," which is precisely our 
 contention. Even thougn no express authorization be given in the 
 compromis itself, nevertheless the arbitrators must pass upon that 
 question — must have that power. 
 
 Oe n'est pas la juger hors des termes du compromis: le droit de juger de leur 
 propre competence est la consequence naturelle du caractere de juges dont ils sont 
 investis par les parties. 
 
 From this flow the natural consequences expressed under the same 
 title in paragraph 60: 
 
 Lorsque le tribunal se declare competent il doit n6cessairement statuer sur la cause 
 qui lui est soumise a peine de d6ni de justice. 
 
 The rule so laid down by the civil law authorities is the rule fol- 
 lowed also by common law courts. I read for the moment just a single 
 citation from volume 2 of the American and English Encyclopaedia of 
 Law. I have had bound together from that work the single title, 
 "Arbitration and award," which is at the service of the tribunal. I 
 read from page 795 : 
 
 Where the parties agree to submit certain legal questions to the decision of an 
 arbitrator, and one of the parties subsequently sued the other, and the subject mat- 
 ter of such suit was the same as that upon which the arbitrator's decision was ren- 
 dered, it was held that the award was the law which governed the case. 
 
 Again: 
 
 An award under a common law arbitration is not required to be made a judgment 
 of any court. It is binding between the parties until set aside — 
 
 which could not be true except it be that the arbitral court has power 
 to pass upon its own jurisdiction. 
 
 Now the question as to the right of a mixed commission or inter- 
 national board of arbitrators to pass upon its own powers has several 
 times been under active consideration. The earliest example in 
 American practice is discussed in Moore's International Arbitrations, 
 and relates to the commission formed under Article VII of the treaty 
 between the United States and Great Britain of November 19, 1874. 
 (I am reading still from page 23 of the brief. 6 ) "In that case the " 
 British commissioners attempted by withdrawal to deny the power of 
 the court to determine its own jurisdiction, but the British Govern- 
 ment refused to sustain them in their position." 
 
 We have quoted somewhat at length from the opinion of Mr. Gore, 
 one of the American commissioners: 
 
 A power to decide whether a claim referred to this board is within its jurisdiction 
 appears to me inherent in its very constitution, and indispensably necessary to the 
 discharge of any of its duries. 
 
 a Page 213, this volume. 6 Page 214, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA8. 607 
 
 To decide on the justice of the claim it is absolutely necessary to decide whether it 
 is a case described in the article. It is the first quality to be sought for in the 
 examination. To say that power is given to decide on the justice of the claim, and 
 according to all the merits of the case, and yet no power to decide or examine if the 
 claim has any justice, any merit even sufficient to be the subject of consideration, is 
 to offer in terms a substance, in truth a phantom. 
 
 To my mind there can be no greater absurdity than to conceive that these two 
 nations appointed commissioners with power to examine and decide claims, prescribe 
 the rules by which they were to examine them, authorize them for this purpose to 
 receive books, papers, testimony, examine persons on oath, award sums of money, 
 and solemnly pledge their faith to each other that the award should be final and 
 conclusive both as to the justice of the claim and to the amount of the sum to be 
 paid, and yet give them no power to decide whether there is any claim in question. 
 
 It is a contradiction in terms to say that a measure adopted shall terminate all 
 differences, and yet that the very measure presupposes a new negotiation on what 
 are the differences. 
 
 The objection that the board is incompetent to decide whether these cases, or any 
 of them, are within the description submitted arrests and stops all proceeding and, 
 in fact, renders the article null and illusive. 
 
 To say that the board has authority to decide that a cause is not within its juris- 
 diction, and yet no authority to decide that a case is within its jurisdiction, appears 
 to be a contradiction too glaring to be persisted in. That the commissioners have a 
 right to decide in favor of one party only — in favor of the party complained against, 
 but not in favor of the complainant — can not be true. 
 
 Mr. Pinkney, the other American commissioner, followed, express- 
 ing substantially the same view. And our own idea with regard to 
 the position taken by the American commissioners receives more than 
 ample confirmation in the fact that when this question, the very ques- 
 tion arising in this case, was referred, as it was, to Lord Chancellor 
 Loughborough, of England, he said: 
 
 The doubt respecting the authority of the commissioners to settle their own juris- 
 diction was absurd; and they must necessarily decide upon a case's being within or 
 without their competency. 
 
 We have, therefore, a position taken by the American commission- 
 ers in favor of the tribunal passing finally upon its own jurisdiction, 
 the British representatives withdrawing, the question being referred 
 by them to Lord Loughborough, or by the English State Depart- 
 ment to Lord Loughborough, and his decision confirming the posi- 
 tion taken by the American commissioners. And to that position we 
 adhere, and we say with Lord Loughborough that a doubt respecting 
 the authority of the commissioners to settle their own jurisdiction 
 would be absurd. They must have that right. And that is the first, 
 the primary question, for discussion when we consider whether the 
 case coming before this tribunal be res judicata or not. Had the for- 
 mer tribunal a right to pass upon its own jurisdiction ? Did it pass 
 upon that jurisdiction? According to Lord Loughborough these 
 questions, both questions, must be decided in the affirmative. The 
 former tribunal had the right to pass upon its jurisdiction. It did 
 pass upon it and it passed upon its jurisdiction, sustaining it. 
 
 I have referred to one or two other cases, which happen to be 
 American ones, one between the United States and Venezuela, in 
 which questions were raised as to whether the court should or should 
 not take jurisdiction of a given claim, and in the particular instance 
 the court declared themselves competent. If they had declared them- 
 selves incompetent surely they would have been within the exercise of 
 their powers. The converse of the question ought to be and must be 
 true that they were within their powers when they declared themselves 
 competent. 
 
608 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 I take the liberty of reading, because I think it is important in an 
 historical sense as bearing upon article 48 to which reference has been 
 made, an extract from the Chronique des Faits Internationaux, Revue 
 Generale de Droit International, contained on page 25 a of the brief: 
 
 L'arbitrage tend a devenir de plus en plus le droit commun international pour la 
 solution judiciaire desconflits entre les Etats; si cela est, ne faut-il pas, dans le doute, 
 se prononcer pour tout ce qui peut en favoriser l'extension? 
 
 Les arbitres doivent done etre seuls juges de leur competence. Oette doctrine est 
 conforine a la nature des choses: 1' affirmation de ses pouvoirs est un attribut naturel 
 de toute autorite. La regie que le juge de Paction est aussi le juge de 1' exception est 
 universellement admise dans les rapports de droit civil; pourquoi en serait-il dif- 
 feremment dans l'ordre international? 
 
 Telle est au surplus l'opinion de la plupart des ecrivains du droit des gens; et 
 l'lnstitutde droit international, reunion des jurisconsultes les plus considerables du 
 monde entier, a donne a cette these l'appui de son autorite; le 28 aotlt 1875, dans sa 
 session de la Haye, il a en effet declare, a 1' unanimity, que les arbitres doivent pro- 
 noncer sur les exceptions tirees de 1' in competence du tribunal arbitral. Dans le cas 
 ou le doute sur la competence depend de 1' interpretation d'une clause du compromis, 
 les parties sont censees avoir donne aux arbitres la faculte de trancher la question, 
 sauf clause contraire. (Art. 14, sees. 2, 4. ) 
 
 M. de Martens. I think, Mr. Ralston, all this question was raised 
 by the case of the Alabama arbitrations. That provoked all that the 
 writers upon the subject of jurisdiction have written since the raising 
 of the question in 1873. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes. The question arose before the arbitral tribunal 
 as to whether the United States had the right to press the claim for 
 indirect damages, and that particular question was never in form sub- 
 mitted to the Geneva tribunal, but nevertheless the judges came 
 together and they expressed their opinion upon that, not upon the 
 question of jurisdiction exactly, but they said that they did not think 
 they could permit indirect damages to be allowed. 
 
 Now, the question is interesting, and 1 have discussed it somewhat 
 in the brief from this point of view. England, at that time, said in 
 effect, that if that question were pressed she would withdraw or per- 
 haps insist upon a new convention. Certainly she would withdraw. 
 She would not allow that question to be passed upon. 
 
 In such reading as I have been able to give to the various writers 
 upon the subject of international law there is but one who has denied 
 the right of England to withdraw from that tribunal under such cir- 
 cumstances had she seen fit to do so. That is our suggestion with 
 regard to the position of Mexico when these different new conventions 
 were signed, or even without the signing of any new convention, that 
 if she had chosen absolutely to withdraw the case she might have 
 done it. 
 
 Sir Edward Frt. Withdraw from the case. She could not with- 
 draw the case. What you mean is they might have retired and left 
 the tribunal to go on if they chose. 
 
 _ Mr. Ralston. Yes, sir. And I think that that is the view of prac- 
 tically all the writers with whom I have any acquaintance on interna- 
 tional law, with a single exception, and he goes further in the position 
 which I take than I think it is necessary tor us to go, for he denies 
 the right of England even to withdraw. For he says that she, having 
 entered into the arbitration— having once entered into it was bound 
 by 3uch interpretation as the tribunal saw fit to give to the convention 
 itself. In other words, that she submitted absolutely to the jurisdic- 
 tion of the court in the same sense that a private party submits to the 
 
 a Page 215, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 609 
 
 jurisdiction of a court and she had not the right to withdraw under 
 any circumstances. It is M. Rolin-Jaequemyns who takes that view, 
 but I think he is a solitary exception upon the point. 
 
 All that we insist upon in that regard is what we believe to be the 
 universal language of writers of international law, and that is that 
 there must have been a withdrawal to avoid a decision upon the sub- 
 ject of jurisdiction, and there being no withdrawal there was a full 
 and absolute submission to the right of the arbitrators and ultimately 
 the umpire to pass upon this very question of jurisdiction or of 
 competence. 
 
 Now, the opinion of M. Calvo upon the right of interpreting the 
 compromis, is quoted (page 25 ffl of the brief): 
 
 lis ont le droit d' interpreter le compromis, pr£alable intervemi entre les parties, et 
 par consequent de prononcer sur leur propre competence. 
 
 But without foregoing the point to which I desire particularly to 
 call the attention of the court, we have next the unanimous declaration 
 of the session of The Hague, of what the gentlemen there assembled 
 conceived to be an absolute principle of international law at that time — 
 in 1875. That is, that the arbitrators themselves should pronounce 
 upon the pleas or the exceptions relating to the incompetency of the 
 arbitral tribunal. I think we may regard that expression of opinion 
 as the immediate forerunner of the expression which is now embodied 
 in The Hague Peace Convention under which we are operating. 
 
 And going back even the year previously, we find M. Goldschmidt 
 discussing the matter in 1874 (cited on page 26 a of the brief) : 
 
 Le danger d'un exces de competence ne Justine point une immixtion prejudicielle 
 du tribunal officiel. Dans 1' arbitrage international il y a cette raison de plus, qu'une 
 procedure judiciaire preiiminaire est impossible. 
 
 Without troubling you by reading at length, we next have the 
 authority of M. Pradier-Fodere\ He finds that, in principle, arbitra- 
 tors are judges of their competence; that have the right to interpret 
 the compromis. 
 
 And the author continues: 
 
 Les arbitres doivent done etre consideres comme juges de leur competence avec le 
 consentement tacite des parties, dans le silence du compromis et en l'absence de 
 toute clause ulterieure; de plus, ce consentement tacite produit sons effet autant que 
 les parties donnent suite a l'arbitrage sans manifester une volonte contraire. 
 
 Now, upon that principle we absolutely rely. We have the tacit 
 consent of Mexico that the court should determine its own jurisdic- 
 tion. We may say that we have the absolute or express consent of 
 Mexico that the jurisdiction should be so determined, because we have 
 her repeated extensions of powers to that tribunal even after it has 
 ceased to have any power in itself '. It has then been reinvoked and 
 brought into new being. 
 
 I have believed it fair and just to the court that I should cite and I 
 have cited in the course of this brief, the only authorities which might 
 be conceived — the only authorities that I at least have been able to find 
 after a very considerable research — which might be conceived to be in 
 derogation of the powers which wecontend belong to allarbitral courts — 
 the court of 1870 by virtue of which we claim and this court — one and 
 the other equally. The only two authorities which I have been able to 
 find which present to the slightest degree any different view are M. 
 Rivier and M. Bonfils. I have cited alread y a number of authorities 
 
 a Page 215, this volume. 
 S. Doc. 28 39 
 
610 ' PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 to the other side. I am justified in relying upon the unanimous opin- 
 ion of the jurisconsults who were present here at The Hague in 1875. 
 I am justified, as I shall endeavor to show in regarding the declaration 
 contained in The Hague Convention as a declaration of antecedent law 
 and not the making of any new rule of action whatsoever in this 
 respect. 
 
 M. Rivier regards a collection of arbitrators as merely an assemblage 
 of mandataries and not a court — a position which I can hardly conceive 
 capable of favorable analysis. 
 
 But, nevertheless, M. Rivier although he takes that position, joined 
 with the other gentlemen named at the foot of page 26 a in the brief in 
 reporting what 1 have jus,t now read, which I believe to be absolutely 
 law and of great force in this particular case. 
 
 M. Rivier says, at least, the committee says, M. Rivier being part 
 of it: 
 
 Les exceptions tirees de 1' incapacity des arbitres, doivent etre opposes avant toute 
 autre. Dans le silence des parties toute contestation ulterieure est excluse, sauf les 
 cas d'incapacite posterieurement survenus. Les arbitres doivent prononcer sur les 
 exceptions tirees de 1' incompetence du tribunal arbitral, sauf le recours dont il est 
 question 4 Part. 24, 2me. al., et conformement aux dispositions du compromis. 
 Aucune voie de recours ne sera ouverte contre des jugements preliminaires sur la 
 competence, si ce n'est cumulativement avec le recours contre le "jugement arbitral 
 definitif. 
 
 No tribunal of review whatsoever was provided for the old commis- 
 sion. He continues, or the committee continues: 
 
 Dans le cas ou le doute sur la competence depend de 1' interpretation d'une clause 
 du compromis, les parties sont censees avoir donne aux arbitres la f aculte de trancher 
 la question, sauf clause contraire. 
 
 exactly agreeing with the declaration at The Hague, in fact forming 
 part of the declaration of 1875. 
 
 Now we think we may, upon that particular proposition, quote M. 
 Rivier against M. Rivier. And when we find M. Rivier in committee 
 in accord with the great weight of authority, we may be justified in 
 believing that that time at least he has been right. 
 
 I said there was one other author whose expressions tended to deny 
 the right of the arbitrators to pass upon their own jurisdiction — M. 
 Bonfils. 
 
 (La stance est lev6e a 5 heures et le tribunal s'ajourne au lendemain a 
 10 heures.) 
 
 SEPTIEME SEANCE. 
 
 S3 septemhre, 1902 {matin). 
 
 La stance est ouverte §, 10i heures du matin; tous les arbitres e"tant 
 presents. 
 
 M. le President. Je donne la parole au secr6taire-ge"n6ral pour 
 lire une decision du tribunal. 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Voici cette decision: 
 
 Afin de garantir la marche reguliere et continuelle des debats, le tribunal decide 
 ce qui suit: 
 
 1°. Les seances du tribunal auront lieu tous les jours de 10 heures £ midi, et de 2 h. 
 i a 5 heures jusqu'a la fin des debats. 
 
 2°. Toute proposition ou demande des parties en litige concernant la marche de la 
 procedure arbitrate ou 1' interpretation des regies etablies devra etre formuiee par 
 6crit. 
 
 «Page 216, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 611 
 
 M. le President. Cette decision sera communique'e aux parties 
 immediatement. La parole est a l'agent des Etats-Unis d'Amerique 
 pour continuer son discours. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Before ' continuing my remarks upon the subject- 
 matter of the dispute, I desire to present to the Court, if it be not 
 in opposition to the last clause read, a telegram from M. le Chevalier 
 Descamps, in which he says: 
 
 Reine morte. Pourrai plaider lundi. Priez mes confreres de me reserver la 
 replique. Descamps. 
 
 1 desire to say with reference to this that our arrangements are such 
 that it will not be possible to reserve for M. Descamps, as he requests, 
 the final reply on the part of the United States. That particular duty 
 falls to the Solicitor of the State Department of the United States. We 
 are, however, very greatly disappointed that M. Descamps can pot be 
 here this morning. We had confidently counted upon his presence 
 and his assistance. Under the unfortunate circumstances, for which 
 we should not ourselves desire to suffer, nor should we desire, if it 
 may be, that M. Descamps should lose the opportunity of presenting 
 the considerations which most strongly appeal to him in the case — 
 under the unfortunate circumstances I beg to present to the court an 
 application, if it be not in opposition to the rule already announced, 
 an oral application for the privilege to be granted M. Descamps to 
 speak at some subsequent time — say, as he suggests, Monday — but not 
 to interfere with the final reply on behalf of the United States which 
 remains to Mr. Penfield. 1 appeal simply to the good graces of the 
 court in the matter, without in any degree presenting it, of course, as 
 a matter of right in view of the rules already adopted by the court. 
 Nevertheless it is something which we would highly appreciate, and I 
 am sure would be appreciated by M. Descamps. 
 
 M. le President. Nous avons a, d61ib6rer sur la question de savoir 
 si nous pourrions ajourner les stances, mais nous sommes arrives au 
 re*sultat qu'il faut continuer les ddbats. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je demande la parole. 
 
 M. le President. M. Beernaert a la parole. 
 
 M. Beernaert. J'ai l'honneur d'annoncer a la Cour que je la saisirai 
 d'une demande analogue a celle de M. Descamps, mais dans une beau- 
 coup moindre mesure. La Cour sait quelle est la position politique 
 que j'ai occupe et que dans une certaine mesure j'occupe encore. Quel- 
 que soit mon desir de tenir compte de l'intention qu'a exprim^e la Cour 
 de terminer promptement les debats — je n'ai pu en donner une meilleure 
 preuve qu'en m'excusant au Congres de Hambourg — il est cependant 
 impossible que je n'assiste pas aux funerailles de la Peine. Je bornerai 
 done la demande e"crite dont je vais avoir l'honneur de saisir le Tribunal 
 aux stances de jeudi et de vendredi. Dans cette hypothese, il me sem- 
 ble que nous pourrions avoir promptement fini. Mr. Ralston a annonce" 
 l'intention de terminer aujourd'hui, si je ne me trompe 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Je le pense. 
 
 M. Beernaert. II finirait done aujourd'hui, et il resterait la stance 
 de demain — mercredi — pour entendre M. Descamps, s'il prend part a 
 la premiere plaidoirie. Si M. Descamps ne prend pas part a la 
 premiere plaidoirie et se reserve la replique, M. Delacroix prendrait 
 la seance de demain, nous reprendrions samedi, et je ne pense pas que 
 pour ce qui nous concerne il nous faille plus de deux seances, e'est-st- 
 dire celle de mercredi si M. Descamps ne parle pas et celle de samedi. 
 
612 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Dans l'autre cas, il nous suffirait des audiences de samedi et de lundi. 
 La Cour voit que nous sommes extr^mement preoccupes de tenir 
 compte de ses convenances que nous comprenons, ujais j'espere qu'elle 
 voudra bien aussi tenir compte de la situation dans laquelle nous nous 
 trouvons par suite d'un evenement aussi malheureux que possible et 
 assurement imprevu. J'aurai l'honneur de la saisir de ma demande 
 ecrite. 
 
 Je dois ajouter, messieurs, que je ne suis pas seul dans ces condi- 
 tions: Son Excellence M. Pardo, la Cour le sait, est accredite aupres 
 de la Cour de Belgique comme il l'est aupres de la Cour de Hollande; 
 il doit done n^cessairement lui aussi — il est invite" officiellement k la 
 ceremonie — quitter La Haye; nous partirons ensemble aussi tard que 
 possible, e'est-a-dire demain mercredi soir. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: 
 
 Recognizing the unhappy circumstances of the case, we should cer- 
 tainly not think*of opposing the proposition of Mr. Beernaert; that is, 
 that the court adjourn on Thursday and Friday, which would enable 
 Mr. Beernaert and Mr. Pardo to attend the funeral of the Queen. 
 Unfortunately I have not been able to see M. Descamps since last 
 Tuesday, and I can not speak of his engagements other than may be 
 indicated by the telegram which I have before me. It is not, of course, 
 my desire in any degree to disarrange the order of speeches already 
 laid down by the court. In his telegram, as read, he asks leave, if pos- 
 sible, to address the court on Monday — " Pourrai plaider lundi" — and 
 it is that request that I desire to submit. I assume from the contents 
 of the telegram that it would not be possible for him to be here 
 to-morrow. If he could be here then, I should personally much pre- 
 fer that he proceed at that time. I submit, therefore, the question to 
 the consideration of the court as to whether he may speak, even out of 
 order, arriving on Monday. 
 
 M. le President. M. Descamps ne peut done plaider demain? 
 
 M. de Martens. Si vous avez la bonte, Mr. Ralston, de prevenir M. 
 Descamps que le tribunal a decide de sieger continuellement, peut- 
 Stre alors prendra-t-il des arrangements afin de pouvoir, s'il le faut 
 absolument pour lui, assister a" l'enterrement de Sa Majesty la Reine de 
 Belgique, et, comme la distance entre Bruxelles et La Haye est seule- 
 ment de 3 heures, je crois que pendant une journee il pourrait parfaite- 
 ment faire ce voyage a Bruxelles et revenir. II me parait qu'une 
 demande cate"gorique devotre part le mettra tout-il-fait en e"tat de s'ar- 
 ranger afin d'etre ici s'il est possible demain. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I will then have a telegram sent, with the permission 
 of the court, addressed to M. Descamps, urging him by all means to 
 appear here to-morrow, and that despatch will go immediately. I can 
 not anticipate the exact length of my own argument, but I do not antici- 
 pate it will take all of to-day, so there mav be a hiatus perhaps between 
 the end of my speech and the coming of M. Descamps. 
 • Mr. Ralston. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: 
 
 I desire to sum up for a moment, in opening this morning, some of 
 the positions to which the attention of the court was invited on yester- 
 day. 
 
 _ After the preliminary observations and a discussion of the founda- 
 tion of the claim we considered the jurisdiction of the mixed commis- 
 sion as fixed by the convention of 1868, and as admitted by Mexico 
 because of her repeated extensions of the function of the original 
 
PIOUS FTTffD OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 613 
 
 mixed jcommission without any objection to the consideration by it of 
 the question of the right of the United States to maintain this action 
 in the face of the provisions of the original convention of 1868. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Did you not go over this yesterday ? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes, sir. This is only, if your honor please, by way 
 of inducement. I desire, however, to call the attention of the court to 
 the further consideration which was not discussed in this connection 
 yesterday, but which is found in the original project of M. Gold- 
 schmidt, referred to on page 30 a of my brief. It will be seen that that 
 writer considered that it was the duty of the party objecting to the 
 competency of the court to raise that objection at the first opportune 
 moment. And the particular language used by him, to which I invite 
 your attention, is this: 
 
 Si l'exception d' incompetence n'est pas opposee au premier moment opportun ou 
 si l'exception opposee en temps utile ayant etl repoussee par le tribunal arbitral, les 
 parties passent outre sans faire de reserves, toute contestation ulterieure de la compe- 
 tence est exclue. 
 
 I call the attention of this tribunal to the fact that the parties did 
 pass beyond the question of competency without making any reserva- 
 tion of any rights of discussion of it in any future time. 
 
 The same view we also find, noted on the brief at the same page, was 
 entertained by M. Rolin- Jacquemyns and also by M. Calvo in his work 
 in the following language: 
 
 La partie que souleve ainsi devant les arbitres une exception d' incompetence a le 
 droit d'y ajouter des reserves formelles de nullity totale ou partielle de la sentence a 
 intervener pour le cas ou l'exception serait rejetee par les arbitres. A deiaut de pre- 
 senter de pareilles reserves, la partie que souleve l'exception est censee avoir accepts 
 d'avance la decision arbitrate comme definitive et sans appel. 
 
 Repeating what, I say, we find here that the parties passed beyond 
 the question without the formal reserves in the case of the exception 
 being rejected by the arbitrators. Without reading it in extenso, we 
 also find the language of M. Pradier-Fod^re to the same intent, quoted 
 on page 31 a . 
 
 So that from our point of view the question of jurisdiction and the 
 question of the right of the former tribunal to pass absolutely and 
 finally upon its jurisdiction are settled because of the making of fur- 
 ther conventions and because of the absence of any reserves noted by 
 Mexico in connection with the decision of the question. 
 
 The point at which discussion ceased yesterday had reference to the 
 differences of opinion entertained by M. Rivier on two several occa- 
 sions, and I made the statement that I was able to find but two who 
 entertained the idea that the arbitral court was not, in fact, a true court, 
 M. Rivier and M. Bonfils. 
 
 I call your attention to the language of M. Bonfils, on page 27* of the 
 brief, in which he is quoted as saying, among other things: 
 
 Les arbitres ne peuvent pas statuer eux-m&nes sur leurs pouvoirs et determiner les 
 limites de leur competence. Bluntschli pensait autrement; mais son opinion est 
 erronee. Un mandataire ne saurait fixer lui-meme la portee et l'etendue de son 
 mandat. Si des doutes se produisent, les arbitres doivent en r6ferer a leurs mandats 
 et leur demander 1' extension de leurs pouvoirs et une fixation plus nette et plus pre- 
 cise de l'objet du compris. 
 
 Now the two theories, therefore, with regard to the arbitral courts 
 are, on the one hand, that they constitute true courts, with all the pow- 
 ers and with all the attributes of courts. They have power or faculty 
 of passing upon the instrument which creates them or determining 
 
 a Page 219, this volume. b Page 216, this volume. 
 
614 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOEttlAS. 
 
 their own powers as any other court of last resort would do. The 
 other view is that they are simply a collection of agents who, in the 
 case of any doubt being raised, must refer the question for solution to 
 their mandants. As between the two views, it seems to me there 
 should be little doubt as to the correct one. And I find even that 
 such is the opinion, apparently, of the editor of the work of M. 
 Bonfils, who says that article 48 of the Hague Convention, " a consacre" 
 l'opinion de Bluntschli," that the arbitrators could determine their own 
 powers and pass absolutely upon the question of competency. 
 
 I have cited in the brief, commencing on page 28 a , references to a 
 number of writers on the subject of international law covering this 
 particular question. We have an eminent English authority in the 
 person of Mr. Hall, who finds in accordance with the ideas we present 
 that: "The arbitrating person or body forms a true tribunal, author- 
 ized to render a decision obligatory upon the parties with reference to 
 the issues before it. It settles its own procedure when none has been 
 prescribed by the preliminary treaty; and when composed of several 
 persons it determines by a majority of voices." 
 
 And the opinion of M. Calvo is also to the point: 
 
 Les arbitres, une fois nomm^s, forment, bien qu'ils ne tiennent leurs pouvoirs que 
 des parties, un corps independent, un veritable tribunal judiciaire. lis ont le droit 
 d' interpreter le compromis pr6alable intervenu entre les parties et par consequent de 
 prononcer sur leur propre competence. 
 
 I have quoted in the brief, as it has happened, M. Descamps. I need 
 hardly explain to this tribunal that at the time this brief was pre- 
 pared in America it was as far from my thoughts as well could have 
 been that M. Descamps would appear in this case or have any possible 
 connection with it. The brief was printed in the Government Print- 
 ing Office in Washington six weeks or two months ago, so that when 
 I quote the opinion of M. Descamps it will be well understood it is 
 not the opinion of the advocate, but M. Descamps, when speaking as 
 a jurist before an eminent collection of jurists and with reference to 
 the action of such a collection of publicists. So we find his language: 
 
 V arbitrage n'est pas une tentative de conciliation. L'arbitre est juge et statue 
 comme tel. 
 
 Before all, the language so far quoted, is, as we see from further 
 inspection, in exact line with the language of the civil law quoted in 
 the brief. And upon the question of "Arbitrage," we find in Vol. IV, 
 Repertoire G^ne'rale de Jurisprudence: 
 
 Le droit de juger leur propre competence est la consequence naturelle du caractere 
 de juges dont ils sont investis par les parties. 
 
 We find them spoken of, therefore, by the best authority of which 
 I have any knowledge under the civil law; the best collection, at least 
 of authors of which I have any knowledge, as judges. 
 
 II est vrai que les arbitres ne sont pas rev6tus de fonctions publiques et que leurs 
 pouvoirs n'ont d'autre source que la volonte des parties. Mais il faut rernarquer que 
 le legislateur ne considere pas les arbitres comme de simples mandataires; 
 
 differing absolutely, as will be noted, from the language of MM. 
 Rivier and Bonfils in the passages quoted from them. It continues: 
 
 Leur sentence a par elle-meme autorite de chose jugee; de plus, elle ne peut pas 
 etre revisee, quant au fond, par le juge qui est charge d'y apposer son ordonnance 
 d'exequatur. O'est done que les arbitres ne sont pas seulenient des mandataires, 
 
 a Page 217, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIF0RNIA8. 615 
 
 mais aussi des juges; et par consequent, leur sentence doit avoir la m6me force pro- 
 bante que les jugements. 
 
 And according to our view that probative force which attaches to 
 the judgments is conclusive in its nature. It determines all the issues, 
 as we shall come to see, properly placed before the court. 
 
 As fortifying the view which we have desired to present, it has seemed 
 well to us to call the attention of this honorable tribunal to the general 
 rule of interpretation applicable to the "compromis" and applying 
 with absolute force to the body before which we have the honor of 
 appearing, and which in our judgment applied with equal strength and 
 force to the proceedings of the commission of 1868. 
 
 We find that this has been discussed in the following manner. I 
 read from my brief, on page 29 a : 
 
 Some of the writers upon international law have laid down a rule for the inter- 
 pretation of the compromis, which rule seems to us in accord with common sense 
 and with the necessities of the situation, and presents to us the point of view from 
 which former Mixed Commission may properly have regarded the instrument they 
 were called upon to construe. 
 
 Dans tous les cas ou le tribunal arbitral entretient des doutes sur l'£tendue du com- 
 promis, il doit l'interpr^ter dans son sens le plus large. 
 
 In other words, it ought to interpret it in the sense confirmatory 
 of its own powers. It ought not to give a narrow, restricted inter- 
 pretation to the instrument under which it acts. 
 
 And we have the further consideration suggested by M. Rolin- 
 Jacquemyns (page 29 ° of the brief) : 
 
 La question de competence ne doit pas 6tre resolue par une stricte interpretation du 
 compromis, mais qu'il faut dans le doute la trancher affirmativement. 
 
 Now, if it be granted in an argumentative way that there was a 
 question of doubt raised on behalf of Mexico before the former tri- 
 bunal, then it became the duty of the former Mixed Commission to 
 interpret the instrument before it in the largest sense and not to give 
 it a strict interpretation. But if we were to say, on the one hand, that 
 it was the duty of the former Mixed Commission to interpret its powers 
 broadly and largely for the purpose of carrying out all the ends sought 
 to be obtained by the two countries, and if we were, on the other hand, 
 to say that nevertheless that interpretation so reached were to be 
 regarded as a nugatory thing, we would place ourselves, as we submit, 
 in an entirely incompetent and entirely contradictory position. We 
 can not say in the one instance ? "give this instrument a large inter- 
 pretation," and in the other, "if you give it the large interpretation 
 we will disregard what you do." So that we claim for the action and 
 the interpretation of the former Mixed Commission all the effects which 
 naturally flow from the decision of any court whatsoever being com- 
 petent to pass upon its own powers as this was. 
 
 I have inserted at this point, as having a tendency to support the 
 argument now presented, reference to the decision of the Court of 
 Appeals of England, cited in 62 Law Journal (page 29 a of the brief), 
 Gueret v. Andoury, wherein it was held that where parties to a con- 
 tract have referred to arbitrators the question of its construction, their 
 award is conclusive evidence as to the construction in a subsequent action 
 brought for other breaches of the same contract. And if that rule 
 may prevail, as it undoubtedly does, in disputes which exist between 
 private individuals and where the arbitrator is not invested with any 
 
 "Page 218, this volume. 
 
616 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 powers proceeding from the consent of governments in themselves 
 sovereign, surely the same rule must apply with added, with multi- 
 plied, force in the case of tribunals solemnly sitting to judge questions ' 
 which have arisen between nations. _ 
 
 The next question to which I desire to invite the attention of this 
 tribunal is: Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to arbitral decisions? 
 
 It would seem to us in fact, without any extensive argument, that 
 an affirmative answer must follow from the considerations which have 
 already been adduced. But we have not felt at liberty to present this 
 case to this honorable tribunal upon any assumptions, either of fact or 
 of law, and we are fortunately able to sustain the position we take by 
 a plentitude of citation, both from the civil law and from the com- 
 mon law. 
 
 I shall therefore trouble you with references sustaining our position, 
 which will occupy me for a few moments, reading largely from my 
 brief. We find the civil-law rule as follows, as stated in the Reper- 
 toire Generale de Jurisprudence, Volume IV (page 31° of the brief): 
 
 Les sentences arbitrales acquierent autorite de chose jugee comme lea autres juge- 
 ments, des quelles sont devenues inattaquables par 1' expiration de d&ais etablies. 
 
 And again , under another title, in the same work (page 32 ° of the brief): 
 
 Les sentences arbitrales sont de veritables jugements; elles sont done investies de 
 l'autorite' de la chose jugee. 
 
 As indicated, the consequence necessarily flows from the existence of 
 the precedent condition that they are true courts. 
 
 I am fortunately again able to say that on a proposition of this 
 importance in the discussion of a question of this magnitude the com- 
 mon law of England and America is at one with the civil law of the 
 continent of Europe. And the declaration of the rule of common law, 
 cited in my brief, page 32,° is that — 
 
 An award of arbitrators with jurisdiction can not be collaterally impeached for 
 errors or irregularities in the proceedings. 
 
 And again: 
 
 Whenever any person is given authority to hear and determine any question, such 
 determination is in effect a judgment having all the properties of a judgment pro- 
 nounced in a legally created court of limited jurisdiction. 
 
 I desire for a moment to fortify the situation already given by 
 another reference, which is not in my brief, and which I should be 
 obliged if the court would kindly note, to the American and English 
 Encyclopaedia of Law, on "Arbitration and award," page 795, wherein 
 it is said that, "Even when erroneous, the award, if fairly made, is 
 binding." 
 
 I do not know, but I may fairly presume, that it will be the conten- 
 tion of Mexico that the former award was erroneous; that the court 
 failed to properly appreciate some of the suggestions or implications 
 of evidence from the standpoint of view of Mexico. 
 
 But if we could grant that — and on behalf of the United States we 
 deny it — if we could grant that the award being fairly made is bind- 
 ing, and it is a pleasure to be able to say that the fairness of the 
 former award has never been in the slightest degree attacked. We 
 stand here with no suggestion of unfairness of treatment, with no 
 suggestion of evidence wrongly presented before the court, with no 
 suggestion of fraudulent conduct on the part of anybody, and under 
 
 a Page 220, this volume. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 617 
 
 such circumstances, the award being fairly made, we claim it as 
 binding. 
 
 And again I read from the Encyclopaedia of Law (p. 794), not, 
 however, cited in the brief: 
 
 The rule is that an award is a final judgment, both at law and in equity, in regard 
 to all the matters within the scope of the submission disposed of by it as between 
 the parties thereto, binding on them for all time, unless it is expressly provided that 
 it shall have binding force and effect for a limited time only. 
 
 Following further the discussion contained in the brief (p. 32:) a 
 
 The weight of authority in the United States leans toward making absolute the 
 certain and simple rule that the award of arbitrators, when made in good faith, is 
 final, and that it can not be questioned or set aside for a mistake, either of law or of 
 fact. 
 
 1 read next from one of the most celebrated of American jurists, one 
 whose name in the United States is national, whose words are always 
 quoted with respect, and who presided over the highest court of the 
 State of Massachusetts for a long term of years, and did much toward 
 settling the jurisprudence of that State as well as of the United States, 
 Mr. Chief Justice Shaw. Speaking of the weight to be given to the 
 finding of arbitrators, Justice Shaw said: 
 
 It is within the principle of res judicata. It is the final judgment for that case and 
 between these parties. It would be as contrary to principle for a court of law or 
 equity to rejudge the same question as for an inferior court to rejudge the decision of 
 a superior, or for one court to overrule the judgment of another, where the law has 
 not given an appellate jurisdiction or a revising power acting directly upon the 
 judgment alleged to be erroneous. 
 
 And again there are many American and English citations, contained 
 on page 805 of the Encyclopaedia of Law, to which I have referred, to 
 the effect that "where an award is admissible in evidence, it is con- 
 clusive between the parties." And that is the language also of the 
 most excellent English writer cited on several occasions by Mr. 
 McEnerney in his very able exposition of this case on yesterday: 
 
 A decision in a former suit in accordance with an award of the arbitrators, to whom 
 the matter should have been referred, would be res judicata; such an award having, 
 as observed by Mr. Justice Bell, in Lloyd v. Barr, the same legal effect as the verdict 
 of a jury and judgment thereon under an issue strictly made up. Mr. Herman, 
 speaking of the law of the American courts, says that a judgment on an award is to 
 all intents exactly of the same force as a judgment on a verdict. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. From what book are you quoting? 
 
 Mr. Kalston. Page 125 of Chand on the Law of Res Judicata, re- 
 ferred to yesterday by Mr. McEnerney in his able presentation of the 
 case. 
 
 The next question in the regular development of the argument which 
 I have laid out for myself is: Does the docrineof res judicata apply 
 to international arbitral decisions ? 
 
 We may refer, as incidentally bearing upon the argument, to article 
 18 of the Hague Convention, which to our mind is rather a declaration 
 of principle than merely an exposition of law intended to apply solely 
 to future arbitrations. For that article says (page 33 * of the brief) : 
 
 La convention d' arbitrage implique 1' engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi si 
 la sentence arbitrale. 
 
 M. df. Martens. We have this already before us, I think. 
 Sir Edward Frt. I believe we have all read your brief. 
 (Some discussion among the arbitrators). 
 
 "Page 220, this volume. 6 Page 221, this volume. 
 
618 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 M. de Martens. Yes; we have. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. If you have, that will shorten materially my argument. 
 
 I have further discussed this matter in my brief and need not spend 
 any particular time now over the subject as to when arbitral awards 
 may be attacked. I have sought to refer to the authorities which were 
 available to me upon that subject. 
 
 Sir Edward Fkt. I am not aware of any attack being made. Mex- 
 ico has not attacked the award. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes; if I may be pardoned, there is an intimation, 
 a strong intimation, in the answer of Mexico that she intends to attack 
 this arbitral award. She attacks it when she says that it has no force, 
 that she is entitled to go back of it, and that she is entitled to ask at 
 your hands a review of all the facts leading up to the former adjudica- 
 tion. That, as it seems to us, is a very direct attack upon the arbitral 
 award of the Mixed Commission of thirty years ago, and it is for that 
 reason that I have spent as much time and labor as I have in discussing 
 that question. We have to consider the question as to whether the 
 former arbitral award was or was not conclusive of the facts of the case. 
 
 I say that Mexico has attacked it. Of necessity she has done so, as 
 will appear from the careful consideration of her answer attached to 
 the replication, for if she admits the jurisdiction of the court, which, 
 in mjr mind, she does not do by her answer — if she admits the juris- 
 diction of the court — then the only question which remains, as it would 
 seem to me, for consideration by this tribunal is whether the conse r 
 quences which we claim flow from the former adjudication; and that 
 is the question to which I desire to address myself. 
 
 It is the contention of Mexico that, even granting the jurisdiction 
 of the former tribunal, granting that it had the power to adjudicate 
 all that it then adjudicated, nevertheless that adjudication is not bind- 
 ing for future time as to the amount justly due by her on later instal- 
 ments to the bishop of California, represented here by the United 
 States. Her contentions, therefore, are two-fold: First, that the 
 former adjudication had no binding character whatsoever upon this 
 court; and, secondly, that whatever weight might be given to it, the 
 consequence which we claim from it as fixing the annual amount of 
 interest to be paid by Mexico does not flow. 
 
 It is contended on behalf of Mexico in the letter of Sr. Mariscal, 
 the secretary for foreign affairs, contained in the diplomatic corre- 
 spondence, that there is but one part of the judgment which is to be 
 considered as decisory in its character, and that we must reject all the 
 considerations leading up to that one single point of final determina- 
 tion. In his letter he contends to the effect that only the ' ' dispositif" 
 or decisory part of the judgment has the force of res judicata. We 
 prepared and submitted to the State Department an answer to that 
 contention on behalf of Mexico, the answer so submitted commencing 
 on page 51 of the diplomatic correspondence. On page 54 the effect 
 of the citation from Laurent is discussed. 
 
 Mr. Laurent had been quoted as follows: 
 
 ^ T *l e creditor sues his debtor for interest of the principal sum, the judge condemns 
 the debtor to pay. Is there res judicata in respect to the principal? It is supposed 
 that the decisory part of the decision fixed the amount of the principal, and it has 
 been decided that a decision in these terms does not give the force of res judicata with 
 respect to the principal itself.— Citing Dalloz, Chose Jugde. 
 
 Beneath is to be found the exact citation from Dalloz to which 
 
PI0TT8 FUND OF THE OALIFORNIA8. 619 
 
 M. Laurent refers, and, as we argued then, we think on examination 
 it proves to be without force to sustain the contention urged, and, fur- 
 thermore, as noted below, we find on the very same page of Laurent 
 a discussion of the principle which states it in terms which would be 
 applicable to the present case: 
 
 Un jugement accorde a une personne des aliments en quality d' enfant. A-t-il 
 l'autorite de chose jugee sur la question de filiation? Si la question a 6t6 d^battue 
 entre les parties, 1' affirmative n'est point douteuse. 
 
 The questions which were discussed before the former tribunal, as 
 this tribunal is aware, were the existence of the fund, which was a fact 
 found; the purposes for which that fund was intended, which was 
 found; the obligation of Mexico to pay the California bishops their 
 due proportion of the income of that fund, which was found; the 
 amount so payable, which was fixed, and including in that the rate per 
 cent per year. All of these were fixed, and in addition, the number 
 of years for which there had been default, and, summing up these 
 various elements, the conclusion was reached that some forty-three 
 thousand dollars per year was the quantity which should be paid to the 
 Roman Catholic bishops. The contention of Mexico is, if I correctly 
 apprehend it, that the former adjudication, if res judicata at all, was 
 conclusive merely as to the decisory part, and that decisory part was 
 nothing more than the direction to pay some $904,000, but was not 
 conclusive as to the various elements without which that decisory part 
 could not have existed. Our contention in answer to that is two-fold 
 in character; the first is, that in point of fact the adjudication as to 
 the annual interest does form part of the decisory portion of this 
 judgment, for we find in the opinion of the umpire, given on page 609, 
 the direct statement that — 
 
 The annual amount of interest, therefore, which should fall to the share of the 
 Boman Catholic Church of Upper California is 143,080.99, and the aggregate sum for 
 twenty-one years will be $904,700.79. 
 
 These are not the last words, of course, of the opinion, but they are 
 as much the decisory part as they could possibly be. They sum up 
 his opinion in a few words, although the concluding lines are: 
 
 The umpire consequently awards that there be paid by the Mexican Government, 
 on account of the above-mentioned claim, the sum of nine hundred and four thousand 
 seven hundred Mexican gold dollars and seventy-nine cents ($904,700.79) without 
 interest. 
 
 Our first contention, therefore, is that the award itself has included 
 that very thing in its decisory part, and under that contention may be 
 embraced the further one that it is stipulated by the protocol under 
 which this court is convened, that that very fact was found by the 
 arbitrators, for it will be found, reading from page 48 a of the Appendix, 
 and referring to the protocol under which we are acting. 
 
 M. de Martens. Which page? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Page 48. 
 
 Whereas said mixed commission, after considering said claim, the same being 
 designated as No. 493 upon its docket, and entitled Thaddeus Amat, Roman Cath- 
 olic bishop of Monterey, a corporation sole, and Joseph S. Alemany, Roman Catholic 
 bishop of San Francisco, a corporation sole, against the Republic of Mexico, adjudged 
 the same adversely to the Republic of Mexico and in favor of said claimants, and 
 made an award thereon of nine hundred and four thousand seven hundred and 99/100 
 (904,700.99) dollars; the same, as expressed in the findings of said court, being for 
 twenty-one years' interest of the annual amount of forty-three thousand and eighty 
 and 99/100 (43,080.99) dollars upon seven hundred and eighteen thousand and six- 
 's Page 158, this volume. 
 
620 PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIFORNIA9. 
 
 teen and 50/100 (718,016.50) dollars, said award being in Mexican gold dollars, and 
 the said amount of nine hundred and four thousand seven hundred and 99/100 
 (904,700.99) dollars having been fully paid and discharged in accordance with the 
 terms of said convention, etc. 
 
 So that, I think, we are justified in saying that the matter in point 
 of fact is beyond discussion by the very terms of the protocol; but 
 inasmuch as in the answer of Mexico this point is renewed on her 
 behalf, we find ourselves compelled to continue the discussion beyond 
 the point to which it has so far been carried. As this honorable tri- 
 bunal is familiar with the brief placed before you, I need only state 
 that the common law and the civil law authorities therein contained 
 reach the position that whatever was of necessity implied or flowed as 
 a necessary consequence from the finding of the judgment is to be 
 considered as an integral part of it, and not to be divorced from it, 
 and such has been the language in effect of many French and English 
 courts cited in the brief, and such is the language as cited also from 
 Chand and given by him on pages 48 and 49, not cited in the brief, 
 with illustrations there given. I take a moment to read these cita- 
 tions, as they are not contained in the brief, and I commence on page 
 47 as giving examples of the rule: 
 
 In Gardner v. Buckbee, also, the suit was on a promissory note. The defendant 
 alleged that that note with another was given for the price of a shop which was sold 
 fraudulently by plaintiff. The plaintiff replied that the issue as to the sale being' 
 fraudulent had been decided against the defendant in a former suit on the other 
 note, and that decision was held to be res judicata. In Van Dolsen v. A bendroth and 
 Cleveland v. Oreviston, a decision for the plaintiff for the amount of the interest 
 claimed in respect of a bond was held to be res judicata in a suit for the amount of 
 the bond, as to the plea of the bond being invalid for fraud, on the ground that that 
 plea ought to have been raised in the former suit. Mr. Herman, citing a number of 
 other cases, says: " In an action on a promissory note where the defence was fraud 
 and the judgment was rendered for the defendant, the verdict was held in another 
 action on another ground, growing out of the same transaction, conclusive evidence 
 of the fraud. * * * On the same principle in an action of assumpsit for goods 
 sold and delivered, a verdict against the vendee on the ground that the same was 
 fraudulent as against the vendor's creditors is conclusive of fraud in the subsequent 
 action between the same parties for other goods which were not included in the first 
 action." 
 
 Then there are a large number of citations of similar effect, with 
 which I shall not trouble the court at the present time, simply making 
 the reference. 
 
 In the discussion of this general subject, contained in the answer of 
 Mexico, reference has been made to Griolet as an authority upon the 
 subject of res judicata, to the discussion of Savigny, which is quite 
 notable in the history of jurisprudence, and to Pantoja upon certain 
 incidental points. I may say that unfortunately 1 think every refer- 
 ence contained in the answer of Mexico has been erroneous. 1 should 
 make one single exception-^the reference to the letter of Secretary 
 Bayard. We have, with exceeding great difficulty, verified all of them 
 and given the correct pages in the notes, except the reference to Pan- 
 toja. That we are entirely unable to verify. We can not find any 
 corresponding pages. I call the attention of the agent of Mexico to 
 that at this time, with the request that he will kindly furnish us with 
 the correct reference to Pantoja. The others, as I have stated, we 
 have found with a great deal of labor. 
 
 The first_ authority discussed by Mexico to the proposition that the 
 legal principle of res judicata applies exclusively to the decision or to 
 the decisory part of the judgment, and that the reasons are not 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 621 
 
 embraced in it, is that of Savigny. That is not the doctrine of 
 Savigny, although that inference might perhaps be drawn from the 
 manner in which the printer has presented the answer of Mexico. 
 Savigny refers to it as a doctrine entertained by various ancient 
 authors, a large number of authors, as he says, but it is not his doc- 
 trine, and he so expressly states. But the discussion by Savigny of 
 the general underlying principle is one which I am sure the court must 
 have found extremely interesting, for his discussion is referred to 
 very generally, I suppose, by European writers, and his conclusion 
 might be briefly expressed as that the force of res judicata, or chose 
 jugee, applies to what he terms the objective parts of the judgment; 
 that is, the things which must be found by the court in order to reach 
 a given conclusion, as, for instance, applying it to this case, the amount 
 of annual interest which had to be found before fixing the sum total 
 for twenty-one years, but does not apply to what he terms the sub- 
 jective reasons or the reasons which bring the mind of the court to 
 conclude that particular things essential in the formation of a judg- 
 ment are existent; for instance, the force of res judicata, under the 
 doctrine of Savigny, would apply to the fact found that $43,000 per 
 year was due by Mexico to the Roman Catholic bishops of California, 
 but would not apply to the particular reasons which induced the mind 
 of the court to reach that conclusion, and the particular things con- 
 cluded, the things which enter into, which form the integral and 
 inseparable part of the judgment, form part of the res judicata. Thus 
 he says: 
 
 Les motifs (meaning in this sense, as my contention is, as explained by him; that 
 is to say, the objective motifs) font partie integrante du jugement, et l'autorite de la 
 chose jugee a pour limites le contenu du jugement y compris ses motifs. 
 
 He further comments: 
 
 Ce principe important, conforme a la mission du juge, a ete formellement reconnu 
 par le droit romain et applique dans tout son extension. 
 
 So that we may cite with absolute reliance, so far as our position is 
 concerned, Savigny, an author of the very highest repute. It is true 
 that Griolet, an author, we may say fairly and justly of very much 
 less celebrity, has been cited on behalf of Mexico as differing from 
 Savigny, and his particular language in the way of difference has 
 been quoted in the answer of Mexico, but, as will appear by reference 
 to the Replication on behalf of the United States, even Griolet quali- 
 fies his own language of criticism of Savigny, and so qualifies it as to 
 make that criticism, in our judgment, meaningless, for we find, quot- 
 ing from the foot of page 5 of the Replication, 01 referring to the dis- 
 tinctions made by Savigny between objective and subjective motifs, 
 that Griolet says: 
 
 Oette theorie est exacte dans saplus grande partie, parce qu'on voit que M. Savigny 
 considere comme motifs objectifs de la sentence les rapports de droit en vertu des- 
 quels la condamnation est demandee, et les rapports de droit que le defendeur oppose 
 au demandeur, pour neutraliser en quelque sorte l'effet des rapports de droit qu'on 
 invoque contre lui, et 6viter ou amoindrir la condamnation. 
 
 And we follow our citation from Griolet, with illustrative cases given 
 by him, tending to sustain the very doctrine for which we contend here 
 to-day, and showing, as appears by the extracts on page 6, and which 
 I will not trouble you by reading, that when he comes to apply his own 
 theory of law, he exactly accords in application with Savigny, and 
 agrees with the contention now advanced by us. 
 
 o Page 59, this volume. 
 
622 PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 I desire now, and in connection with the discussion of this question 
 at this point, to refer the court to some statements of principle to be 
 found in another treatise upon this subject, the treatise of M. Lacombe, 
 " De l'autorite" de la chose jugee." I shall read from paragraph 68, on 
 page 67, as illustrative of his belief in the absolute necessity for what 
 I may term a substantial following of the doctrine of Savigny, although, 
 as I shall note, he makes some minor criticisms which have no effect or 
 force, so far as this case is concerned, in view of the summing up of 
 his doctrine to be given hereafter. He says: _ 
 
 Je dois dire tout d'abord que l'autorite de la chose jugee restreinte au dispositif 
 seul ne donnerait nullement satisfaction aux necessites sociales qui l'ontfait instituer, 
 que les auteurs et les tribunaux qui ont proclame en principe cette restriction 
 n'auraient jamais pu l'appliquer rigoureusement & la pratique, et qu'ils ont du, tout 
 en la maintenant en theorie, y apporter dans 1' application des derogations sous le 
 nombre et 1' importance desquelles elle disparait presque completement. 
 
 I think the remark just made has a very direct bearing upon the 
 course taken by M. Griolet in this work upon the same subject — that 
 is, as laying down the principle that the force of chose jugee attaches 
 only to the dispositif of the judgment, immediately proceeding as he 
 does to give a succession of cases cited in the replication of the United 
 States which show absolutely that the formal application of such a 
 rule to a state of facts at all similar to that presented before this hon- 
 orable tribunal is absolutely impossible. He does not apply the rule 
 laid down by him when the necessity arises. 
 
 The writer from whom I am now quoting, M. Lacombe, on page 68 
 indicates the way, however, which has been resorted to by such writers 
 as M. Griolet to avoid the effect of the rule which he has undertaken 
 to maintain, and in the note this writer says: 
 
 Nous devons du reste ajouter immldiatement que la jurisprudence applique la 
 faculty d' interpretation du dispositif par les motifs d'une mamgre tres large, ce qui 
 arrive a restreindre dans une forte proportion les inconvenients de la doctrine que 
 nous combattons, 
 
 in other words, to get rid of their own doctrine by interpretation so 
 as to enable courts to arrive at a reasonable result. 
 
 Another contention, I read from page 74, paragraph 74: 
 
 74. O'est done dans l'ensemble du jugement sans egard it sa division en diverses 
 parties qu'il faut puiser tous les renseignements qui feront connaitre si l'exception 
 est ou non applicable. 
 
 The summing up in a few words of this particular author of his 
 theory is contained in a note at the foot of page 79, as follows: 
 
 L'autorite de la chose jugee couvre non-seulement la solution proprement dite 
 donnee par le juge, mais encore tous les rapports de droit qui sont lies a cette solu- 
 tion par le rapport de principe a consequence, et peu importe, quant a ce, que 
 I opinion du juge a leur egard se trouve exprimee dans le dispositif du jugement ou 
 dans ses motifs. 
 
 We have therefore the opinion of the continental text writers sus- 
 taining the position taken by the United States that the elements which 
 of necessity enter into the judgment form part of the chose jugee. We 
 have the opinion of the French courts, innumerable opinions, almost, 
 cited in the brief to precisely the same effect. We have the opinion 
 of Savigny indicating the same, and I am happy to be able to add, as 
 I have in a note on page 7 8 of the replication, that the courts of the 
 Netherlands entertain precisely the same view, and we see in the brief 
 it is the same as that of the courts of the United States and of Eng- 
 
 8 This volume, page 60. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF TEE CALIFORNIAS. 623 
 
 land. In fact, when it comes to a careful analysis of the situation, the 
 objection which is raised by Mexico on this behalf seems absolutely to 
 disappear, for if it were otherwise, when would there be an end to liti- 
 gation? Suppose the position taken by Mexico were correct; suppose 
 that it might be said that the disposittf of the judgment is the only 
 thing to be looked at, and in that dispositif you must only look at the 
 one fact that the defendant has been compelled to pay a certain sum 
 without having the liberty of analysing that statement into its respec- 
 tive and necessary parts, the parts which come together to form the 
 whole; let us therefore imagine for a moment the position in which 
 Mexico might be placed. It calls for the exercise of imagination, as 
 I think must be conceded. We obtained, let us say, under the former 
 arbitral convention, an award against Mexico for $904,000. Accord- 
 ing to Mexico's contention, nothing is settled by the dispositif except 
 that single fact. Well and good. The United States on a subsequent 
 occasion, or the bishops under whatever form of pleading may be 
 appropriate under the circumstances, bring a suit for one of the instal- 
 ments embraced in that twenty-one years. If the doctrine of Mexico 
 be correct, why might they not do it ? Mexico might say, You obtained 
 an award against us once for $904,000, and the reply of the United 
 States, assuming Mexico's position, would be, Yes, we received an 
 award of $904,000, but you can not plead that award, because the court 
 has no right to analyse its parts and, see what years that particular 
 award covered. Therefore, accepting the very position of Mexico, she 
 would be unable to plead that prior judgment as against a subsequent 
 demand covering part of the same period made by the United States, 
 unless the second tribunal possessed the right to inspect the whole 
 record and to determine from that whole record whether the particu- 
 lar question was in point of fact presented to, discussed by, and passed 
 upon by the preceding court; so that it seems to us that the contention 
 of Mexico, if it be once carefully examined, can be reduced to what 
 logically we might term an absurdity, and that I say, of course, with 
 every respect for my friends on the other side. 
 
 While I do not care to trouble this tribunal with reading of matters 
 already submitted to it in printed form, I may be pardoned for again 
 inviting your attention particularly to the decisions of the Netherlands, 
 which seem to us to be in exact accord with right reason upon this point, 
 and we find a case before the Netherlands high court of justice in which 
 it was advised by the procureur-g6n6ral that every decision of the judge 
 which by reason of the contentions of the parties he might and has 
 given with regard to their rights, is included in the subject-matter of 
 his judgment, no matter in what particular part thereof the decision 
 might be found. 
 
 And again, in the discussion by Dr. Opzoomer: 
 
 Whatever has once passed through all the forms of a suit and is legally decided by 
 the judge must never afterwards be subject to any doubt. 
 
 And further discussing, he says: 
 
 From what has been here discussed, it appears that as the legal bases are actually 
 fundamental parts of the judgment of the judge, they should be entirely independent 
 of the place in which they appear in such a judgment. Whether they are found in the 
 so-called dispositif, or whether they be anywhere else, is a matter of perfect indiffer- 
 ence. They become authority not because of the place ya which they appear, but 
 because of the inseparable connection in which they stand to the immediate decision. 
 Those who tear the legal basis from the decision follow the abstract method of treat- 
 
624 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 ment, which in the nature of things regards as divided that which our reasoning 
 power divides. 
 
 And so there are other decisions quoted, and these decision^ are given 
 a practical application by the courts in this country, as well as, I should 
 say, by the courts of England, France, and America, and by the courts 
 of Germany, if we assume as authoritative the opinion of Savigny. 
 
 There is one point to which I want to invite your attention for just 
 a moment, a point which I think was not mentioned in the prior argu- 
 ments, and to which brief reference might be made, and that is the 
 legal position occupied by the bishop of California at the time of the 
 cession of Upper California to the United States. Our contention is 
 that the bishopric was at that time a corporation, and such also is the 
 language of the Mexican representative on the occasion of the former 
 hearing, for he says in the Transcript, page 395, paragraph 126: 
 
 The merely canonical, creation of the Church of California may have given it a 
 standing in the Universal Church as a religious body, but it would not have been 
 sufficient to entitle it to the recognition of the sovereign of the country, hence the 
 said church was created by virtue of a decree of the Mexican Congress. This, which 
 occurred in a nation officially Catholic, is the same as is established by the laws of 
 the United States to entitle a corporation to be acknowledged by public law, as has 
 been repeatedly decided, in accordance with the public law of all nations. 
 
 The point is a minor one, but before concluding I wanted to call 
 your attention to it as illustrating that at the time of the cession of 
 Upper California the Roman Catholic bishop of California was a cor- 
 poration, was entitled to hold as such, and to all the rights as such, 
 and when Upper California passed into the control of the United States, 
 then, as matter of public international law, his corporate capacity, 
 which had been fixed under the Mexican law, still adhered to him. It 
 is true there was and is no established church in the United States, 
 but churches are in the United States recognized as corporate bodies. 
 Probably the laws of every State provide for their actual incorpora- 
 tion, so that they may sue and they may receive devises of property, 
 and they may make conveyances and accept gifts as may a private 
 individual. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. I suppose you will show the succession of the 
 present bishops to the bishops in 1875 ? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. That is in evidence. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. That is not before us. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. 1 beg your pardon, it is already filed— filed but not 
 printed. It was filed with the secretary -general, I think, before the 
 meeting of the court, but we did not have it printed, and we have 
 not laid great stress upon the fact, for the reason that officially, at 
 least, the United States of America is the plaintiff here, and we have 
 assumed that it may be presumed to be the party plaintiff, suing on 
 behalf of all persons who may be interested, and that it would be 
 charged, in the event of a judgment in its favor, with the duty of dis- 
 tributing the funds to whoever might be interested without there exist- 
 ing any necessity from the point of fact for a formal presentation of 
 these persons before this court. We proceed upon that theory, at 
 least we entertain that theory rather than proceed upon it. We enter- 
 tain that theory, because it was, for instance, the theory entertained 
 at the time of the Geneva award. It will be recalled that there a large 
 sum of money was awarded against England because of certain injuries 
 found to have been inflicted on American citizens. The question as to 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE AXIFOKNIAS. 625 
 
 what particular American citizens were injured, or the proof of injury 
 in certain instances, was not brought to the attention of that tribunal, 
 but it was apparently, if I remember correctly, conceded that that was 
 a question between the United States and its citizens rather than one 
 which would be considered by the arbitral court. I make these sug- 
 gestions as to our own view concerning the principle controlling the 
 case, notwithstanding the fact that we have tiled proofs of succession. 
 We have not, therefore, for the reasons indicated, laid any great stress 
 upon them. 
 
 Above and beyond all the matters which we have submitted, or at 
 any rate which have been submitted by me, rests the fact, the sub- 
 stantial fact to our minds, of the innate justice of the claim, and 
 without undertaking to refer even to all the details of evidence which 
 have been presented here, and well presented, by Senator Stewart and 
 Mr. McEnerney, I simply want to take the liberty of calling your 
 attention to this single thing: That there was a Pious Fund of large 
 amount; that the bishops were in the enjoyment of that property; that 
 it was devoted to certain ecclesiastical uses and was intended so to be 
 devoted by the various donors, who had contributed to it for the period 
 of substantially one hundred and fifty years; and that, without warn- 
 ing, and without reason, save it may nave existed in the revolutionary 
 or warlike necessities of the moment so far as Mexico was concerned, 
 that fund was laid hands upon and was turned to a purpose far from 
 that to which it had been intended, devoted to entirely other ends, and 
 remains — so far as we are aware, except for the amount paid pursuant 
 to the award of 1875 — remains to this day devoted to entirely other 
 purposes, setting at defiance the will of the donors and, as we contend, 
 setting at defiance the natural and intrinsic justice of the case. And 
 we may, for the'moment, brush aside all the considerations of res judi- 
 cata, which are considerations of substantial moment and substantial 
 justice in themselves, and look to this one solitary fact — the people and 
 religious institutions to which this fund was devoted primarily have 
 been deprived of it. And we stand here, on behalf of the Government 
 of the United States, which may not be assumed to be ecclesiastically 
 in any particular sympathy with one church rather than another — we 
 stand here, as I say, on behalf of these institutions, and on behalf of 
 the Government of the United States, asking this court to rectify what 
 we believe to be a great wrong to American citizens entitled to Ameri- 
 can aid and to American intervention. 
 
 And we assume that this fact of substantial right may not be lost 
 sight of, as we can not believe it will be lost sight of, in any of your 
 deliberations concerning this question, and that you will note, and as 
 I am sure you will take pleasure in noting, that while, on the one hand, 
 you can sustain the adjudication of the former Mixed Commission and 
 jthereby give renewed dignity and solemnity to the adjudications of 
 every commission and every arbitral court yet to come for hundreds 
 of years — while that rests in your hands, that great, magnificent power 
 I might almost say rests in your hands, at the same time, it will be 
 possible for you to exercise it and exercise it in the fullest without in 
 any degree derogating from those principles of natural right and 
 intrinsic justice to which it is always our pleasure to appeal. 
 
 My attention is called to the fact that before closing I ought not to 
 neglect to say that this claim was promptly presented to the attention 
 
 S. Doc. 28 40 
 
626 PIOUS- FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 of the Government of Mexico after the severance of Mexico from the 
 United States. You, Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, will 
 have found reference in the decision of the umpire to the fact that the 
 archbishop had stated that he had in 1852 presented this claim to the 
 attention of the Government of Mexico and that it had been refused, 
 but that the arbitrator did not desire that such presentation should be 
 considered as inaugurating a right to claim interest upon interest from 
 the date of such presentation, particularly because there was no written 
 evidence of the fact. While offering to the court at the present time 
 very little evidence that may be considered as strictly new, we have 
 filed with the secretary -general, but it has not yet been printed, the 
 deposition of "Mr. Doyle, and attached to that we have the original let- 
 ter written by the Mexican officials in answer to the demand made by 
 the archbishop at that time — 1852 — so that which rested merely in word 
 of mouth in 1875, and upon which for that reason the umpire was 
 unwilling to base any portion of his award, has now been fully proven, 
 and adds, if such a thing might be necessary, additional force to the 
 award given by the umpire in 1875. 
 
 At the same time it justifies me in calling attention to one further 
 feature of the award of 1875, and that is the liberality displayed by the 
 umpire toward Mexico. He rejected the payment of interest upon inter- 
 est at that time because of the want of this particular proof that we 
 adduce to-day, and he accepted as fair, under all the circumstances of 
 the case, an equal division between Upper and Lower California — a 
 division which to-day would not be, as we shall submit further in 
 evidence (the particular evidence will be before the court before the 
 week terminates), which would not be in any degree fair, for while in 
 Lower California there are, so far as any evidence before the court 
 tends to show, not to exceed two thousand Indians if division among 
 Indians be the basis of division, in the State of California there are 
 ■fifteen thousand, and in the territory which we regard as forming part 
 of Upper California under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo there are 
 sixty-eight thousand. So that, if we are to assume the number of 
 Indians in the first instance to be the basis we should have as seven to 
 one, and if we assume the other method of division as two to sixty- 
 eight. 
 
 Mr. Assee. Is this all of this territory? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes; it is all of this territory, except that as we 
 understand Spanish claims extended far enough to include Oregon, 
 "Washington, Idaho, and part of Montana and Wyoming. 
 
 That whole vast territory known under the name of Upper Cali- 
 fornia under Mexico included California, Nevada, Utah, part of Colo- 
 rado, Wyoming, and New Mexico, and all of Arizona. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Were they known as California at the date of the 
 severance? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes, sir; at the date of the treaty of Guadalupe" 
 Hidalgo, 1848. 
 
 -Sir Edward Fry. The Territory of Washington surely was part of 
 the United States before 1848? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes, sir; the State of Washington, as it is now going 
 up to Puget Sound and to the British possessions (showing the map). 
 1 will give you a fair illustration of the size of these countries by com- 
 paring this State of Nevada, which is only about half in area of the 
 size of California, by comparing this State of Nevada with Holland. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 627 
 
 This single State is eight times as large as Holland, and the State of 
 California is about fifteen times as large as Holland. There are 
 180,000 square miles, roughly, in the State of California and over 
 90,000 in the State of Nevada. 
 
 So we submit that when we ask the court to rest whatever conclu- 
 sions it may reach primarily upon this question of res judicata, we 
 are asking something which is really in the interest of Mexico; but at 
 the same time that we ask that, we are asking,' as we believe, the 
 affirmation of a principle of the highest possible importance in all 
 international discussions. 
 
 Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, I thank you for your 
 attention. 
 
 M. le President. Le tribunal se retire pour deliberer et la seance 
 est suspendue jusqu'a 2 h. \. 
 
 (La seance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures.) 
 
 HUITIEME STANCE. 
 
 S3 septerribre 1902 {apres-midi). 
 
 La seance est ouverte a 2 h. "45 sous la presidence de M. Matzen. 
 
 M. le President. M. le Representant des Etats-Unis de l'Amerique 
 du Nord a la parole. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. In conformity with the order of court this morning, 
 I desire to present for the consideration of this tribunal the following 
 written application on behalf of M. Descamps, premising the same by 
 saying that immediately upon the opening of the morning session a 
 telegram was sent to M. Descamps, and no response has yet been 
 received: 
 
 The agent of the United States has the honor respectfully to state to this honorahle 
 tribunal that he has been handed a telegram from M. Descamps, by which he is 
 informed that that gentleman desires to address the court Monday; that he (the 
 agent) had expected to be followed to-day by M. Descamps, but in view of the obliga- 
 tions placed upon that gentleman because of the regretted death of the Queen of 
 Belgium, he has been unable to be present. The agent, therefore, has the honor to 
 ask this tribunal that permission may be granted to M. Descamps to address the 
 court on next Monday, giving, if desired, full opportunity to the agent and counsel 
 of Mexico to reply to the arguments advanced by him before the r^plique on the part 
 of the United States, which last argument will be offered by Mr. Penfield, the solicitor 
 of the Department of State of the United States. 
 
 M. le President. Le Tribunal delibeYera sur la demande qui vient 
 d'etre faite. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Est-ce que la question qui vient d'etre pos6e ne doit 
 pas §tre re*solue avant de me donner la parole, Monsieur le President? 
 
 M. le President. Non, le Tribunal se retirera pour deliberer sur 
 cette question. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je me permets cependant de faire remarquer que 
 la question pos6e par M. Ralston est en quelque sorte prealable; vous 
 avez decide" qu'une fois la premiere plaidoirie finie et notre tour com- 
 mence, il n'y aurait plus place que pour les re"pliques qu'elles devraient 
 6tre confines a une seul orateur; par consequent, si M. Delacroix 
 prend la parole, le demande de M. Ralston pourrait devoir §tre 
 considered comme implicitement rejete"e. Je crois devoir en faire 
 l'observation. 
 
 M. le President. Le Tribunal a decide" que la demande de l'agent 
 des Etats-Unis de l'Amerique du Nord ne peut pas etre admise. 
 
628 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 PLAIDOIRIB DE M. DELACROIX. 
 
 Messieurs: Vous avez entendu plusieurs beaux discours en faveur 
 des Etats-Unis du Nord, et s'il fallait en juger par la multiplicite des 
 brochures qui vous ont ete' distributes il faut avouer que la cause du 
 Mexique semblerait compromise. Cependant, nous ne le croyons pas, 
 et je puis dire des a present a, la Cour que nous serons beaucoup plus 
 courts, beaucoup moins longs que nos honorables contradicteurs, 
 parce que nous croyons que notre these se defend en quelque sorte 
 d'elle-me'me. 
 
 II nous parait impossible que les eminents jurisconsultes qui com- 
 posent le tribunal arbitral n'aient pas apercu le vice de l'argumentation 
 de nos honorables contradicteurs. Ces Messieurs vous ont etabli — et 
 ils l'ont fait avec succes, avec f ondement — que la volonte primitive des 
 donateurs du Fonds Pieux de Californie n'est pas aujourd'hui realisee 
 par le Gouvernement mexicain. Nous sommes d'accord, et non seule- 
 ment nous sommes d'accord mais nous renforcerons encore si possible 
 la these qui vous a ete presentee par les Etats-Unis d'Am^rique sur ce 
 point. En effet, les donateurs primitifs ont eu en vue de faire une 
 donation aux Jesuites; c'etait si bien leur preoccupation de faire une 
 donation aux Jesuites, de vouloir que les Jesuites seuls et exclusive- 
 ment puissent disposer de ces fonds, que dans notamment le testament 
 de M. le Marques de Villapuente il est dit que ni les autorit^s seculieres 
 ni les autorites religieuses, en un mot ni le clerge ni l'autorite laique, 
 ne pourront intervenir. 
 
 Done, puisque telle a ete la volonte des donateurs de f avoriser exacte 
 ment les Jesuites, il est clair, et, nous devons l'avouer, que la volonte 
 des donateurs sur ce point n'est pas realised aujourd'hui, puisqu'il n'y 
 a plus de Jesuites ou qu'il semble qu'il n'y en ait plus. 
 
 Les donateurs ont voulu appliquer le Fonds Pieux aux Missions. 
 Les Missions, que je definirai tout-a-1'heure, e'est une ceuvre de con- 
 quSte spirituelle et temporelle, si vous voulez, l'un et l'autre; mais, 
 comme le disent tous les auteurs dont je parlerai, e'est une ceuvre de 
 reduction: on veut subjuguer la Californie au point de vue politique 
 et au point de vue religieux: e'est une ceuvre de reduction religieuse 
 en m§me temps qu'une ceuvre de reduction politique. Cela est si vrai 
 qu'il n'y a plus de Missions qu'il ne pourrait plus y en avoir sur le 
 sol de la Libre Amerique; pas plus aux Etats-Unis d'Amerique, ou la 
 liberie de conscience est aujourd'hui complete et entiere qu'au Mexique 
 d'aujourd'hui il ne serait possible d'etablir encore de ces ceuvres de 
 reduction ou de conqucste religieuse pas plus que de conqu^te politique. 
 
 Done, il n'y a plus de Missions, et a ce second point de vue la 
 volonte primitive des donateurs, n'est pas respecte"e. 
 
 Enfin, messieurs, les donateurs ont eu surtout en vue de f avoriser 
 une des populations les plus deheritees dela terre, les Indiens, les sau- 
 vages, ces gens qui se trouvaient encore dans la tenebres du paganisms. 
 VoiB ceux qui avaient appele la preoccupation des donateurs, et je 
 puis bien le dire, heureusement pour la Californie, il n'y en a plus 
 . . . ou phitdt je m'expliquerai sur ce point. 
 
 _ A ce troisieme point de vue encore, la volonte des donateurs primi- 
 tifs ne peut pas 6tre realisee. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, si sur cette premisse nous sommes d'accord avec 
 nos honorables contradicteurs, ou nous ne sommes plus d'accord e'est 
 sur la conclusion qu'ils en tirent, ou plutSt sur la seconde premiss^, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OAUFOBNIAS. 629 
 
 lorsqu'ils disent: Les Jesuites c'est nous, les Missions c'est nous, les 
 Indiens c'est nous. La nous ne sommes plus d'accord, et vous aperce- 
 vez aisement que le titre, la preuve a juridique de cette allegation fait 
 defaut. 
 
 ' Mais, messieurs, vous serez aussi certainement 6te" frappes de ce 
 qu'il semble que l'histoire traditionnelle despeuples condamnela recla- 
 mation d'aujourd'hui; vous aurez 6te frappes des consequences de la 
 decision qui serait rendue conformement a la demande, puisque vous 
 devez en quelque sorte par votre sentence reViser l'Histoire. 
 
 Si nous relisons l'histoire du 18e siecle, nous voyons que toute la 
 seconde periode de ce siecle s'est trouvee agit^e par ce fait mondial de 
 la suppression des Jesuites; les intrigues, les demarches, les luttes de 
 tout genre, ont eu lieu autour de cette question: Les Jesuites doivent- 
 ils §tre maintenus, ou doivent-ils &tre expulses? 
 
 Louis XV en France et son premier ministre Choiseul, se sont pre- 
 occupes de cette question des Jesuites: ils redoutaient les Jesuites qui 
 semblaient devenir une puissance trop grande dans I'Etat. Charles 
 III, en Espagne, sujet fidele de l'Eglise, ayant les meilleurs rapports 
 avec le Pape, s'en preoccupe %alement, et en arrive a decider, lui 
 aussi, la suppression des Jesuites. 
 
 11 suffit, messieurs, d'ouvrir l'histoire de cette 6poque pour voir k 
 quelles querelles, a quels pamphlets, a quelles discussions de tout 
 genre cette lutte entre les amis et les adversaires des Jesuites a donne 
 lieu. 
 
 Lorsque les souverains catholiques, l'un avant, l'autre apres, ont 
 supprime* les Jesuites, ils ont d'abord rencontre" dans la Papaute^c'est- 
 a-dire dans le pape Clement XIII, un adversaire qui aurait voulu 
 defendre les J6suites; mais Clement XIV lui a succede, a fini pencher 
 du c6te delinus adversaires et les a supprimes. 
 
 C'est un fait que cette suppression des Jesuites. Nous savons 
 qu'une des raisons qui ont determine leur suppression 6tait leurs ri- 
 chesses considerables; et voila que dans tous ces Etats nous voyons les 
 richesses des Jesuites passer non pas entre les mains de l'Eglise, entre 
 les mains des archev^ques et des evSques de l'e"poque, et sans protesta- 
 tion aucune, nous constatue ce fait que chez tous ces souverains, sans 
 protestation aucune je le repete, meme du Pape, les biens des Jesuites 
 passent entre les mains des souverains. 
 
 II y a eu, messieurs, en dehors de ce fait, dans l'Histoire, chez tous 
 les peuples il y a eu des suppressions d'ordres religieux ou bien 
 d'ordres a, la fois militaires et religieux, comme l'Ordre des Templiers, 
 l'Ordre Teutonique, etc., et toujours c'est le Gouvernement, c'est le 
 souverain qui s'est substitue" a eux, qui s'est approprie" leurs biens. 
 
 Et il s'agirait aujourd'hui de m^connaitre l'Historie il s'agirait alors 
 que pendant des siecles, cela a 6te admis, avec le consentement de 
 l'Eglise ou sans protestation de sa part au point de vue des biens — comme 
 nous l'etablirons plus tard — il s'agirait de reviser cette jurisprudence 
 traditionnelle de l'Histoire. 
 
 II n'est pas de pays ou la decision que vous rendriez dans le sens qui 
 est sollicite de l'autre c6te de la barre n'eut un retentissement! Per- 
 mettez-moi de vous citer un exemple sur iequel j'appelle les medita- 
 tions de mes honorables contradicteurs. 11 y avait en France,_ en 
 Alsace-Lorraine, des biens eccMsiastiques, il y avait des Jesuites, il y 
 avait des communautes religieuses; lorsque sont intervenus, le de"cret 
 de Louis XV de 1773 dont je vous dirai un mot plus tard, puis la loi 
 
630 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIA8. 
 
 du 2 novembre 1789 que je vous citerai egalement, lorsque ces evene- 
 ments se sont produits, presque dans les memes termes les Gouverne- 
 ments se sont appvoprie ces biens, mais toujours en s'appropriant ces 
 biens les Gouvernements disaient qu'ils tiendraient compte des volon- 
 t^s des fondateurs, qu'ils appliqueraient les biens au service du culte, 
 a l'entretien des ministres du culte et au soulagement des pauvres. II 
 en a 6te ainsi en 1763 et en 1789; depuis lors 1' Alsace et la Lorraine 
 ont et6 l'objet d'u-ne conquete analogue a celle de la Calif ornie par les 
 Etats-Unis; il y a eu un traite qui etait analogue au traite de Guada- 
 lupe-Hidalgo; eh bien, messieurs, si l'analogie entre ces deux cas est 
 complete — et je ne demande pas mieux que d'insister sur cette com- 
 paraison — serait-il possible aujourd'hui, comme un echo de la sentence 
 que vous rendriez, que la Frusse ou que les eveques d'Alsace-Lorraine 
 vinssent dire: il y avait autrefois des biens de communautes religieuses, 
 ces biens ontete donnes dans une pense"e pieuse, ils appartenaient done 
 a l'Eglise, nous sommes les successeurs de l'Eglise, par consequent 
 nous demandons que ces biens nous soient attribu6s. 
 
 A notre sens — e'est un exemple que j'ai muri — il nous semble que 
 l'analogie est complete, et qu'etant donn^es les idees que nous constatons 
 apres plus d'un siecle que ces ^venements se sont passes, il est impos- 
 sible que l'on puisse dire lorsque l'on voit de telles consequences, que 
 le raisonnement de la partie adverse ne doive pas avoir un vice que 
 nous chercherons a degager. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, il y a encoi'e un sentiment qui a du vous choquer 
 lorsque vous avez examine' la reclamation de la partie adverse, avant 
 m§me d'aborder son c6te juridique. Vous vous etes dit que cette 
 donation considerable qui avait forme le Fonds Pieux de Californie 
 6manait de Mexicains. Elle emanait de personnages qui ont occupes 
 au Mexique une situation importante. On nous dit aujourd'hui que 
 e'etaient des Chretiens, que e'etaient des gens pieux je le crois: sans 
 aucun doute la preoccupation religieuse devait determiner dans une 
 large mesure le sacrifice qu'ils faisaient; ce qu'ils voulaient, e'etaitsans 
 aucun doute faire de ces Indiens 6gar6s dans les abimes du paganisme 
 des soldats de Dieu, e'est incontestable. Mais, qui oserait dire que 
 ces personnages n'etaient pas en meme temps des patriotes? Qui 
 oserait dire que ces Mexicains n'avient pas la preoccupation de faire 
 de ces Indiens barbares des sujets du Koi ? 
 
 J'entendais un de mes honorables contradicteurs dire a une pr6- 
 cedente audience que e'etait la volonte de ces donateurs qu'il fallait 
 rechercher, et il en deduisait que ce fonds devait §tre donn6 aux 
 Etats-Unis, e'est-a-dire que le Mexique devait Stre condamn^ a payer 
 un tribut perpetuel pour un service public Stranger, pour un budget 
 des cultes de l'etranger, rente perp^tuelle, service perpetuel, exonera- 
 tion perpetuelle: II aurait done fallu que ces fonds aillent aux mains 
 des etrangers e'est-a-dire d'une autre race qui n'est plus la race espag- 
 nole: Et l'on pourrait dire que ce serait la la volonte des donateurs? 
 . . . Nous ne le croyons pas, et vous vous le serez dit deja. 
 
 II y a enfin, messieurs, un autre fait qui vous aura frappe"s. La 
 Californie a fait l'objet d'un partage en 1848: la moitie\ la Haute 
 Californie, a 6te attribute aux Etats-Unis, la Basse Californie est 
 reste"e au Mexique. II y a encore un evSque mexicain; il ne me sera 
 pas difficile de vous demontrer qu'au point de vue des lois mexicaines 
 une reclamation qui serait produits en justice par 1'evSque de la Basse 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 631 
 
 Calif ornie serait non recevable et ne pourrait etre accueillie en aucune 
 maniere. 
 
 Alors, ne vous Stes-vous pas dit: Voila un fonds qui appartiendrait 
 en copropri6t6, a titre d'indivision, d'une part & un mexicain, d'autre 
 part a un Stranger, et on nous demande de dire que l'Etat est le 
 aebiteur de l'etranger, alors qui le mexicain ne peut rien r^clamer a 
 l'Etat, que l'Etat n'est pas son debiteur. 
 
 Examinons done de plus pres: 
 
 Une premiere question que vous vous serez posee est celle-ci: une 
 Cour d'arbitrage est institute: Quel est le droit qu'il faut appliquer? 
 quelle est la loi qui nous regit? 
 
 A ce point de vue, messieurs il ne faut pas de confusion. Quelles 
 sont les parties que vous avez devant vous? Sont-se les Etats-Unis 
 qui sont demandeurs? Non, les Etats-Unis ne sont pas demandeurs: 
 les Etats-Unis sont au proces pour appuyer une reclamation d'un ou 
 de plusieurs de leurs sirjets, c. a. d. a titre de bons offices. 
 
 On a dit que les Etats-Unis etaient au proces pour represe"nter les 
 e"veques de Calif ornie. Si le mot " representer " devait §tre employe" 
 dans son sens juridique il serait eVidemment inexact: les Etate-Unis 
 ne reclament rien pour eux-m^mes. 
 
 Je regrette, messeurs, au point de vue de la facility de ma t&che et 
 de la brievete" du debat, que ce ne soient pas les Etats-Unis qui soient 
 au banc des demandeurs, parce que s'il en eStait ainsi nous aurions bien 
 vite fini; nous dirions: II y a un traite entre nous, le traits de Guada- 
 lupe Hidalgo; aux termes de ce traite les Etats-Unis ont reconnu que 
 nous ne leur devions plus rien; e'est d'ailleurs de l'essence d'un traite" 
 ae mettre fin atoutes revendications ou reclamations reciproques: aux 
 termes de ce traite" de 1848 non-seulement les Etats-Unis reconnaissent 
 qu'ils n'ont aucune creance comme Gouvernement vis-a-vis du Mexique, 
 mais ils paient aux Etats-Unis mexicains 15 millions de dollars. J'aurai 
 l'occasion, lorsque j'en viendrai a l'examen du traite" de Guadalupe- 
 Hidalgo, de vous montrer quelle a e"te" la pens^e des plenipotentiaries 
 qui l'ont discute; pour le moment je me borne a rappeler qu'aux 
 termes de ce traite" les Etats-Unis d'Amerique paient 15 millions de 
 dollars aux Etats-Unis mexicains a raison de l'enlevement d'une partie 
 de leur territoire et notamment de la Californie. Nous pouvons done 
 affirmer que les Etats-Unis n'avient pas d'autre creance et ne s'en 
 reservaient aucune puisqu'ils l'auraient deduite de la somme a payer. 
 
 Je ne dois pas insister puisque les Etats-Unis ne sont pas deman- 
 deurs; pas plus aujourd'hui que lorsqu'ils ont comparu devant la Com- 
 mission Mixte en 1869 ou 1870. Et, s'il fallait une demonstration sur 
 ce point je me permettrais de vous signaler la premiere lettre qui a 
 engage ce debat: celle du 17 aout 1891 inser^e dans le livre rouge 
 a l'endroit ou se trouve la Correspondance diplomatique (page 8), 
 lettre addressee par M. Ryan a M. Mariscal; dans cette lettre le Min- 
 istre des Etats-Unis a Mexico e"crit au Ministre des affaires e"trangeres: 
 
 Monsieur le Ministre: J'ai des instructions formelles pour attirer l'attention de 
 Votre Excellence sur les relations l^gales du Gouvernement Mexicain a l'6gard du 
 Fonds Pieux de Californie, etc. . . Parmi les reclamations presentees contre le 
 Gouvernement du Mexique devant cette commission il y en avait une de Parchev^que 
 et des eV^ques de l'Eglise catholique romaine de la Haute Californie intitulee, etc. 
 
 Plus loin, dans la lettre, il est dit que e'est aux eVeques et a l'arche- 
 vSque de cette Eglise qu'il appartient de re"clamer et de recevoir — ce 
 
632 PIOUS FUND OF THE OAXIFORNIAS. 
 
 sont les Etats-Unis qui le disent — le cas est de ceux ou peut s'exercer 
 l'intervention diplomatique. 
 
 Intervention diplomatique. II arrive en effet constamment qu'un 
 Gouvernement, s'inte"ressant au sort de l'un de ses sujets qui a une 
 reclamation vis-a-vis d'un autre Gouvernement, s'interpose: c'est l'in- 
 terposition diplomatique. 
 
 Plus loin on ajoute: 
 
 L'archev6que de San Francisco et l'ev£que de Monterey, agissant au nom de ladite 
 eglise, representent maintenant au Department d'Etat de Washington qu'il ne leur 
 a rien e'tii pay6 en sus du revenu ... ses bons offices en leur faveur afin que l'atten- 
 tion de Votre Excellence soit attired, etc. 
 
 Ce que l'on demande ce sont de " bons offices," c'est une intervention 
 diplomatique, pas autre chose. 
 
 Je m'excuse, messiers, d'avoir insiste" un moment sur ce point, car 
 je pense que cela n'est pas contredit. Ce n'est pas un conflit entre 
 deux Etats, c'est un conflit entre des citoyens d'une part et d'autre 
 part un Gouvernement. II en resulte qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un arbitrage 
 international, un arbitrage international fait supposer necessairement 
 un conflit entre deux Etats, deux Gouvernements souverains. 
 
 La question est importante, parce que s'il s'agissait d'un conflit entre 
 deux Etats quelle est la loi qu'il f audrait appliquer ? II n'y a pas de 
 loi, ce ne peut pas etre la loi d'un pays plut6t que la loi de l'autre, ce 
 ne pourrait etre en tout cas que la loi commune des deux pays c'est-a- 
 dire un disposition qui serait commune aux deux legislations, et, pour 
 le reste, ce serait dans le fonds commun des notions juridiques de 
 l'humanite que les arbitres devraient chercher les elements devant regir 
 et guider leur decision. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, il ne s'agit pas de cela; il s'agit d'un conflit qui 
 normalement aurait du 6tre resolu par les tribunaux, par les institu- 
 tions judiciares qui existent au Mexique pour rfooudre ces cas. 
 
 Cependant, sans que nous en fassions un reproche a nos honorables 
 contradicteurs on a estime" que comme il s'agissait ici non seulement 
 d'une question importante mais d'une question qui soulevait des prin- 
 cipes d'ordres divers ou meme peut-etre la question nationale ou patri- 
 otique aurait pu jouer un certain r61e, on a estime" qu'il etait preferable 
 d'avoir des arbitres internationaux au lieu de soumettre le cas aux 
 juges mexicains qui en e"taient les juges naturels, et voila pourquoi 
 vous cour international, vous avez pris la place des tribunaux mexi- 
 cains; vous §stes substitute a, eux, vous jugez a leur lieu et place; par 
 consequent vous jugerez en adoptant les regies et les principes qui 
 auraient du r£gir ces tribunaux s'ils avaient juge\ 
 
 La question qui nous occupe, n'est pas d'ailleurs une question de droit 
 public; il peut y avoir, au cours de ce d£bat, des questions d'ordre 
 public accessoires quidoiventetreapprecieesetr^solues par vous, mais 
 le fond du litige n'est pas de droit public; il ne s'agit pas d'actes sou- 
 verains en conflit, non, il s'agit d'un droit civil, et par consequent ce 
 sont les regies du droit international prive" qui doivent nous regir. 
 
 Droit prive*, droit d'un citoyen ... On dit: Etranger, j'ai un droit 
 priv^ contre l'Etat mexicain, je le revendique et je l'exerce. L'Etat 
 mexicain repond: Quel est votre titre? Voila le proces. 
 
 Done, droit prive* et droit civil. Droit civil, droit positif; quel 
 droit civil et quel droit positif? Droit positif mexicain parce que les 
 lois mexicaines continuent k regir le Fonds Pie. 
 
 Les demandeurs ont admis que ce Fonds Pieux continuaita rester et 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIFOKKIA8. 633 
 
 devait perpetuellement rester entre les mains du Gouvernement mexi- 
 cain. J'aurai a vous expliquer la geneise ou l'origine de la reclamation 
 actuelle et pourquoi elle a 6t6 presentee sous cette forme, ce sera un 
 autre point de ma plaidoirie, mais pour le moment je signale simple- 
 ment au Tribunal arbitral que les EvSques Americains acceptent que 
 ce Fonds Pieux de Calif or nie reste entre les mains du Gouvernement 
 mexicain, que c'est lui qui continue a le regir, mais bien entendu, 
 disent-ils,il en doit un int^ret integral a 6 pour cent par an en or. 
 
 C'est done la lbi mexicaine qui, a ce point de vue encore, va continuer 
 a regir ce Fonds. 
 
 D'ailleurs, il s'agit d'une reclamation qui aurait du etre pr6sent6e 
 devant le Tribunal mexicain; a ce titre, je le disais, c'est la loi mexi- 
 caine qui doit regir le debat. Du reste c'est le Mexique qui etait 
 de"biteur et les actes sur lesquels on va s'appuyer sont des actes mexi- 
 cains: done, a tous egards c'est la loi mexicaine qui doit etre appliqu^e. 
 
 Messieurs, le fait que je vous signale est important, lorsque j'aurai 
 a faire l'expose" des diverses lois qui vont avoir a, regir le litige, la 
 question sera vite resolue. Aussi mes honorables contradicteurs s'en 
 defendent-ils .... sans le dire. lis nous disent: Mais non, ce qu'il 
 faut voir ce n'est pas la loi, c'est si la reclamation est juste ou si elle 
 n'est pas juste. 
 
 On invoque alors le compromis du 22 moi 1902 reproduit dans le 
 volume que vous connaissez (page 49) et on dit: Le Tribunal arbitral 
 est charge* de r£soudre deux questions: la premiere y-a-t-il "res 
 judicata?" et la seconde: la reclamation est-elle juste? Est-ce juste, 
 ou non, dit-on, et vous serez peut-^tre surpris de la deduction que la 
 justice exclut le droit: 
 
 Sans doute, messieurs, le juge rend la justice, mais il la rend con- 
 formement au droit, et assur&nent c'est la premiere fois que j'ai 
 entendu induire de ces mots "est-ce que la reclamation est juste?" 
 cette consequence que le juge aurait a faire abstraction du droit. 
 
 La justice de la case. . . . Qu'entendez-vous par justice? Vous 
 avez dit: "equite\" . . . Ah! 6quite, c'est deja, autre chose; equite, 
 c'est un mot dangereux, parce qu'il ne faut pas que les Cours 
 d'arbitrage jugent avec arbitraire, il faut qu'elles aient des regies, et 
 ces regies c'est le droit. 
 
 Comment serait-il possible de dire que les deux parties ont voulu 
 donner a Messieurs les arbitres le droit, le pouvoir ou le mandat de 
 s'affranchir du droit? Comment le Gouvernement mexicain aurait-il 
 pu m§me sans 1'intervention de sa legislation mettre sa signature au 
 bas d'un compromis dans lequel il aurait £te dit que les arbitres auront 
 a faire abstraction du droit mexicain ? C'eut ete impossible. 
 
 Non, messieurs, et d'ailleurs c'est un terrain ou la fantaisie est trop 
 grande pour que mes honorables contradicteurs puissent s'y aventurer 
 avec surete Lorsqu'on quitte le droit il n'y a plus de surety. C'est 
 presque un axiome, mais permettez-moi d'en faire l'application a la 
 cause. 
 
 Vous dites: Faisons abstraction des lois, faisons abstraction du droit, 
 ne regardons qee requite*. 
 
 Et le second de mes contradicteurs vous disait: l'equite, c'est la 
 rolonte des donateurs! 
 
 L'Equite, mais alors ou serait le droit des Jesuites ? II existe encore 
 des J&uites, car si un bref de Clement XIV les a supprimes en 1773, 
 Pie VII les a retablis, et il y a a ce sujet une bulle de 1801 et une 
 
634 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 autre bulle de 1814, qui sont tr&s int<5ressantes toutes deux. Si on 
 considere la volonte les donateurs, ce devrait done Stre aux J6suites a 
 revendiquer le Fonds Pieux! Eh bien, ils ne sont pas la. 
 
 II y avait une autre id6e qui me venait: L'4quit6 absolue, ne serait-ce 
 peut-etre pas que les h^ritiers des donateurs primitifs pussent reven- 
 diquer ce qui vient de leurs auteurs? En effet, si les donateurs, le 
 marquis de Villapuente, la Marquise de la Torres de Rada ou d'autres, 
 ont fait le sacrifice de se jdepouiller de fortunes considerables aux 
 depens des leurs pour enrichir ce fonds, ils ont voulu que ce fut aux 
 Jesuites que ces biens allassent, e'etait a leur profit qu'ils en faisaient 
 le sacrifice, pour les Missions Indiennes; eh bien, s'il n'y a plus de 
 Jesuites, d'Indiens, de Missions, les heritiers de ces donateurs ne 
 pourraient-ils en 6quite venir dire: Le Fonds n'ayant plus d'objet il 
 doit nous revenir? . . . Est-ce la l'6quit<S? Mais, ce sont 1st des 
 digressions et je m'en excuse, car vous avez a juger d'apres le droit. 
 
 Nous avons devant nous des juges. Des juges? Ce matin, mon hon- 
 orable, contradicteur, M. Ralston, vous citait l'opinion d'un de nos 
 eminents collegues que nous regrettons de ne pas voir ici, M. le Chev- 
 alier Descamps, disant: "L'arbitre juge et statue commetel" (page 
 28 de l'ouvrage) ; et il citait encore l'opinion de M. Lambermont, qui 
 e"crivait: " Arbitre et non m^diateur, je n'avais qu'a dire le droit." 
 
 Messieurs, lorsque l'on veut que l'arbitre ne soit pas un juge il faut 
 le dire; il est alors amiable compositeur, et assur^ment ce n'est pas la 
 ce que l'on a voulu dire quand on vous a confie" le soin de decider si la 
 reclamation est juste I 
 
 Des lors, aux demandeurs qui se presentent devant vous et qui 
 reclament 1'attribution de certaines sommes d'argent, nous avons tout 
 d'abord a demander d'etablir le f on dement juridique de leur reclama- 
 tion: vous etes demandeurs, a vous a prouver et a justifier de votre 
 titre. 
 
 Mais d'abord, messieurs, je demande a la Cour la permission de lui 
 faire un court expose des faits; non pas que j'aie 1'intention de vous 
 rappeler des faits que vons connaissez mieux que' moi et qui vous ont 
 6te longuement exposes; non, je ne veux pas faire perdre son temps a 
 la Cour; mais je pense qu'il est indispensable que nous caracterisions 
 chacun des faits au point de vue juridique pour que la Cour puisse 
 imm^diatement apprecier ce qui nous divise. 
 
 En effet, si nous sommes d'accord sur la materiality des faits dans 
 leur ensemble, nous differons d'appreciation au point de vue du carac- 
 tere juridique de chacun d'eux, et de la des differences essentielles que 
 je dois signaler. 
 
 Le Roi d'Espagne eut de bonne heure l'attention attire"e sur la Cali- 
 fornie. Vous savez que e'est en 1534 que Cortez en avait fait la de*cou- 
 verte et y avait plante le drapeau espagnol. Seulement, ce n'etait 
 guere qu'une conqugte nominale. L'Espagne avait proclam^ sa souv- 
 eraintete^en Calif ornie comme dans toutes les parties du Nouveau 
 Monde ou ses navigateurs avaient mis les premiers les pieds; mais il 
 fallait autre chose. Et ici l'attention du souverain e^ait d'autant plus 
 appeMe que la Californie avait pour lui une importance considerable; 
 ses cotes inhabitees et desertes devenaient un repaire de corsaires et la 
 navigation s'y trouvait exposee, notamment vers les Philippines; le 
 Roi d'Espagne se preoccupait done de cr6er la des etablissements, 
 d'assurer les cotes, d'avoir des ports, et ses preoccupations se traduisi- 
 rent par de nombreuses expeditions. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 635 
 
 Et voila qui va nous servir a caracteriser les Missions. C'est le 
 Roi qui veut la conquete, c'est le Roi qui envoie des expeditions. Ce 
 sont des expeditions militaires et couteuses; leur but est une conquete 
 politique. 
 
 Mais toutes ces expeditions echouent, ce sont des tehees successifs; 
 cela se comprend: les soldats passaient, les expeditions ne s'implanta- 
 ient pas dans le pays et leur influence etait 4ph6mere. 
 
 La derniere de ces expeditions eut le 29 decembre 1579 et couta 
 225,400 dollars, nouveau capital inutilement englouti. 
 
 Alors arrive l'heure de l'intervention des jesuites. On les avait vus 
 r^ussir au Paraguay, au Perou, au Bresil, et l'on se dit: lis reussiront 
 peut-gtre la ou les militaires ont echoue; et le Roi proposa aux Jesu- 
 ites de faire la conquete de la Californie en son nom et a ses frais. 
 
 Les Jesuites prirent le conseil de leur Provincial et refuserent; on 
 leur demandait d'etre les agents directs du Roi, ils devaient etre payes 
 par lui, et il aurait paye aussi la force arm^e dont le concours etait 
 n^cessaire, les officiers notamment auraient ete a la solde du Roi et les 
 abus qui avaient determine lichee des expeditions pr^c^dentes se ser- 
 aient in^vitablement renouveMs. 
 
 Telle etait l'opinion des Jesuites; ils ne voulaient rien tenter que si 
 on leur donnait une autorite" absolue, meme quant au choix des 
 officiers. 
 
 Pretention grave, messieurs, et devant laquelle le Roi hesita; mais 
 les representations des Peres Jesuites Salvatierra et Quirno l'empor- 
 terent, et un decret du 5 fevrier 1597 (reproduit a, la page 401 du livre 
 rouge) confia aux jesuites la mission de faire la conquete spirituelle et 
 temporelle de la Californie. 
 
 Conquete spirituelle et temporelle. Spirituelle, c'est incontestable: 
 ce sont des Jesuites, et par consequent ce sont avant tout des soldats 
 de Dieu. Mais conquete temporelle aussi, car il s'agit du Roi et c'est 
 lui qu'ils doivent representer. Le Roi intervientpour leur permettre 
 de partir et de s'etablir dans ce pays qui est le sien; le Roi intervient 
 pour leur donner le pouvoir exorbitant de diriger l'administration 
 militaire de la Californie, meme qaint a, la nomination des officiers; ce 
 sont eux qui les choisiront, qui les payeront, qui les revoqueront ail 
 besoin, meme on leur donne un droit de conscription militaire, une 
 loterie militaire. Mais en m6me temps le Roi leur dit: Vous irez en 
 mon nom, vous planterez mon drapeau, c'est l'etendard d'Espagne qui 
 doit flotter au-dessus de l'etablissement des Missions. 
 
 J'oubliais un point essentiel: Le Roi leur donne meme le pouvoir 
 d'administrer la justice. Ah! la justice! cette grande institution, ou 
 l'homme juge ses semblables, se substituant en quelque sorte a, Dieu! 
 mission divine aussi, celle- la. Eh bien, le Roi qui detient ce pouvoir 
 auguste comme monarque de droit divin, va le confier aux jesuites; 
 et d'apres la partie finale du decret du 5 fevrieT 1597 c'est eux qui 
 desormais jugeront et puniront. 
 
 Voila, messieurs, dans quelles conditions partent les jesuites. 
 
 Mais il fallait le nerf de la guerre, il fallait de l'argent. L'inten- 
 tion du Roi avait ete de faire face aux frais, mais les Jesuites avaient 
 repousse cette combinaison. Us comptaient sur les fonds qu'ils pour- 
 raient recueillir, sur la generosite des fideles. 
 
 Mais ici encore il fallait l'intervention du Roi; lui seul pouvait leur 
 permettre de recueillir des aumdnes; ce pouvoir, le Roi le leur donne, 
 et c'est encore par le decret du 5 fevrier 1597; l'autorisation du Roi 
 est done encore ici la base des Missions et leur condition d'existence. 
 
636 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Et ici pas la moindre intervention de l'Eglise. Je d^montrerai tout- 
 a-1'heure qu'elle n'est pas intervenue a la suppression des Missions; 
 mais voici qu'a leur naissance, dans leur acte de bapteme, si je puis 
 m'exprimer ainsi, on ne voit pas non plus d'autre parrain que le Roi. 
 
 Les Je'suites vont done en Calif ornie comme delegue"s du Roi, com me 
 agents du Roi, et e'est comme tels, en vertu de ce pouvoir que le Roi 
 personnifie mais qu'il leur delegue, qu'ils vont en Californie pour en 
 t'aire la conquete temporelle et spirituelle . . . Temporelle et 
 . spirituelle; a cette 6poque, le Roi n'en faisait pas d'autres; il tient son 
 pouvoir de Dieu, il ne connait qu'une religion, et par consequent rien 
 de plus naturel que de faire des chretiens en meme temps que des 
 sujets. 
 
 Les Je'suites n'avaient pas attendu le de"cret du 5 fevrier 1597 pour 
 recueillir des aum6nes. Ces sommes, ils les ont employees de suite 
 naturellement, et en capital. Mais elles se trouv^rent absolument 
 insuffisantes. D6ja, en 1700; nous voyons le Pere Salvatierra, le pre- 
 mier Jesuite parti pour la Californie, qui avait refuse" toute allocation 
 de subsides, oblige apres trois ans d'adresser une requite au Roi pour 
 en solliciter. Alors Philippe V, par deux d^crets successifs, aloua sur 
 sa cassette personnelle une somme annuelle d'abord de 6,000, puis de 
 12,000 dollars pour les fonds des Missions de Californie. 
 
 En Californie, comme dans tous leurs autres e"tablissements du Nou- 
 veau Monde, les J&uites r^ussirent, ils forcerent l'admiration, et la 
 charite chretienne, la g^nerosite chretienne qui se montre partout inter- 
 vint largement. Les Missions s'organiserent et se multiplierent. 
 
 Qu'etait-ce qu'une Mission? Deja je l'ai definie tout-a-1'heure au 
 point de vue juridique: e'etait une ceuvre religieuse et politique, mais 
 politique surtout. One Mission se composait d'un e"tablissement ou se 
 trouvait le Pere ou les Peres J^suites qui le dirigeaient, et le "presidio," 
 ou en langue moderne la caserne, avec la force militaire, le capitaine et 
 ses soldats, egalement subordonnes aux Peres comme nous le disions 
 tout-a-1'heure; puis, plus loin, le " pueblo," ou le village, ou se trouva- 
 ient les Indiens employes aux travaux agricoles et qui etaient en meme 
 temps les neophytes et les nouveaux sujets du Roi, qu'au besoin l'on 
 vetait et nourrissait. Le tout etait sous la direction, sous la tutelle des 
 Peres. 
 
 Les Missions etaient done une oeuvre de conquete, un e'tablissement 
 gouyernemental. Et ou se trouvaient les missions d'alors? En Cali- 
 fornie, et a cette epoque on croyait commun^ment que e'e'tait une ile, 
 ainsi qu'on peut le voir dans l'ouvrage du Pere Venegas, qui est cer- 
 tainement un des auteurs les plus consider^s au point de vue des ques- 
 tions qui nous occupent et qui date de 1757. 
 
 Cependant a cette epoque, d6ja d'autres mieux 6clair6s y voyaient 
 une presqu'ile. Pour tous la Californie se terminait a l'extremite" du 
 golfe, e'est a dire en-dessous des limites de la Basse Californie actuelle. 
 
 Au cours de ma plaidoirie, messieurs, j'aurai l'honneur de donner 
 lecture d'un d^cret du Roi que rapporte le Pere Venegas, et vous y 
 verrez ce qu'on pensait alors des Missions et de la Californie; en un 
 mot, vous aurez Pimpression du temps. Mais, si vous me donnez 
 credit jusqu'a tout a Pheure, je continue mon expose^ me bornant a 
 exposer qu'a cette epoque la Californie n'^tait que la Basse Californie 
 d'aujourd'hui, et a constater que les Jfeuites n'ont jamais etabli de 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 637 
 
 Missions que dans ces limites; c'est la un point important qui n'est 
 pas conteste. 
 
 Au cours de ce d£bat, nous aurons & examiner les difftsrents actes de 
 donation qui ont servi a la constitution du Fonds Pieux, et nous 
 aurons vite fini, car je vous an nonce qu'il n'y en a que deux. 
 
 On parle de la volonte des donateurs; mais elle doit §tre constatee 
 dans des actes; or, nous ne possedons que l'acte relatif a la donation 
 d'ailleurs considerable du Marquis de Villapuente et du la Marquise 
 de la Torres del Rada de 1735, puis il y a la succession Argue les dont 
 j'aurai a, vous parler; il n'y a pas d'autr.e acte. Nos honorables adver- 
 saires veulent le prendre comme actetype — cela facilitera peut-etre 
 leur these, mais nous verrons tout k l'heure ce qu'il en faut admettre. 
 
 Je vais prendre cet acte. Le Marquis de Villapuente y donne aux 
 Jesuites des biens considerables, plus de 400,000 piastres. Ce docu- 
 ment est tres inteVessant au point de vue du proces, il est reproduit a la 
 page 452 du livre; il donne aux Jesuites les droits les plus absolus et 
 il les leur donne, sans reserve, pour toujours, sans possibility d'inter- 
 vention ou de contr61e, soit pour l'autorite - religieuse, soit pour l'au- 
 torite' temporelle. 
 
 Les donateurs se depouillent en vue des Missions de Californie, — 
 mais les circonstances peuvent changer; ou la conversion des Indiens 
 sera complete, ce qui rendrait l'oeuvre inutile, ou quelque revolte peut 
 rendre la situation des Jesuites impossible. Dans ce cas, ils pourront 
 
 I)orter leur ceuvre ailleurs, non seulement en Amerique, mais dans 
 'Universo Mundo. Les biens sont a leur discretion, les donateurs ont 
 en eux pleine confiance, ils feront ce qu'ils voudront, c'est h, Dieu seul 
 qu'ils pourraient avoir a rendre compte. 
 
 Mais semblable confiance est toute personnelle, et les Je*suites seuls 
 ont et& investis de ce pouvoir discr^tionnaire. 
 
 Or, jamais avant leur expulsion ils n'ont depasse les limites de la 
 Basse Californie et toutes les Missions se trouvaient dans le territoire 
 qui est encore aujourd'hui Mexicain. Ainsi l'eventualite' preVue par 
 les donateurs ne s'est point re"alis6e, elle n'aurait pu l'etre que par la 
 volonte des Jesuites, et nous en conclurons qu'elle ne peut plus etre 
 entrevue. 
 
 Telle est done la donation Villapuente, l'acte-type d'apres les demand- 
 eurs: To us pouvoirs sont donnes aux Jesuites. 
 
 Au point de vue du droit a qui pourrait bien §tre la propriety des 
 choses donn^es? 
 
 II y a un pouvoir qui etait en dehors de la volonte" du Marquis de 
 Villapuente, le pouvoir du Roi, ce quel'on appelleen droit modernele 
 domaine eminent du souverain. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un 6tablissement de 
 mainmorte, d'une personnalite civile, d'une fiction legale, d'une entite 
 juridique qui n'a d'existence que par la volonte du souverain, celuiqui 
 a donne la vie s'est toujours r&serve" de modifier ses conditions d'exist- 
 ence, ou m§me de supprimer celle-ci, en faisant rentrer dans son 
 domaine ce qu'il avait permis d'affecter a un objet special. C'est la 
 une qualification modern e, mais la notion a existe dans tous les ages: 
 Nous, aurons l'occasion de vous citer un decret de Charles Quint, de 
 1520, ou, souverain d'Espagne comme des Pays-Bas, se pr^occupant de 
 la mainmorte il disait que les personnes morales ne pourraient acquerir 
 qu'avec son consentement. C'est cette notion juridique, que vous con- 
 cevez mieux que moi, messieurs, et d'apres laquelle, du moment ou il 
 
638 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 s'agit non d'un etre en chair et en os, mais d'un etre qui n'a d'existence 
 que parce que le Roi l'a voulu, celui-ci reste maitre de la reprendre. 
 Je reprends mon expose". Les Missions continuent k etre prosperes 
 
 * * * trop prosperes; la prosperite amene toujours des ombrages 
 
 * * * et les Jesuites ont un succes tel qu'il inquiete les Gouverne- 
 ments. C'est la periode a laquelle je faisais allusion il y a quelques 
 instants, c'est la periode oii les souverains qui avaient favorise les 
 J&uites, qui leur avaient donne" le moyen de devenir puissants et pros- 
 peres, s'emeuvent * * * du moins les souverains catholiques, car, 
 phenomene curieux, ce sont les souverains protestants, c'est Catherine 
 II, c'est Frederic de Prusse, qui donnent asile aux Jesuites quand ils 
 sont chasses par des Gouvernements catholiques. 
 
 En 1763, Louis XV prend l'initiative; le 27 fevrier 1867, Charles III 
 expulse les Jesuites de tout son empire Ce document tres important est 
 reproduit a la page 410 du volume rouge. On y voit le Roi d'Espagne 
 proclamer deux choses: Le bannissement des Jesuites, et la prise de 
 possession de leurs biens temporels. Dans l'intitule" de ce document, 
 lorsque le Roi lui-meme le resume, il dit: 
 
 Decret royal du 27 fevrier 1767 comprenant; 1" le banniasement des membres de la 
 Society de Jesus; 2° la prise de possession de leurs biens temporels. 
 
 Le Roi chasse done les Jesuites, et emploie vis-a-vis d'eux les mesures 
 les plus rigoureuses; non seulement il les bannit mais il ne veut plus 
 qu'il y en ait un sur son territoire, il edicte les peines les plus severes 
 contre les gouverneurs qui les tolereraient encore; il veut que tous 
 spient mis dans un navire et transported dans les Etats Romains. 
 
 Alors le pape Clement XIII proteste. II 6crit k Charles III, son 
 fidele enfant, son Roi bienaime, il lui dit que le plus grand chagrin de 
 son pontifieat serait la suppression des Jesuites, que jamais il n'avait 
 cru que le Roi d'Espagne aurait fait un acte pareil, et il le supplie dans 
 les termes les plus touchants de revenir sur sa decision. II fait allu- 
 sion au decret royal du 27 fevrier 1767 que Charles III lui avait envoye; 
 il y a vu que Charles III, qui va prendre possession des biens tempo- 
 rels des Jesuites, a decide de donner a chaque J6suite une pension ali- 
 mentaire de 100 piastres par an, et il dit au Roi: Je ne recevrai pas 
 les Jesuites que vous annoncez devoir m'exp6dier, je ne les recevrai 
 pas parce qu'une fois dans mes Etats il faudrait les nourrir; vous dites 
 bien dans votre decret que vous leur donnerez une pension de 100 
 piastres par an, mais qui me garantit que vous la paierez? 
 
 Je ne prends dans ce livre que ce que je viens de vous citer. 
 
 M. Assek. Quel est le titre de l'ouvrage? 
 
 M. Delacroix. " Histoire du Pontifieat de Clement XIV, page 82." 
 
 M. de Martens. Quel en est l'auteur? 
 
 M. Delacroix. Je ne l'ai pas; c'est un auteur de l'epoque. 
 
 II est done intervenu un decret qui a revolutionnG le monde; qu 
 disait-il done? v 
 
 Qu'il soit pris possession de tous les biens temporels appartenant a l'ordre dans 
 mes possessions. 
 
 Et plus loin, paragraphe 5: 
 
 De plus, je declare que la prise de possession des biens temporels appartenant il 
 1 ordre comprend leurs proprietes— litteralement reelles et personnelles\ e'est-a-dire 
 foncieres et mobilieres— ainsi que les revenus ecclesiastiques qui leur appartiennent 
 6galement dans le royaume, mais sans prejudice aux charges qui peuvent leur avoir 
 ete imposees par les donateurs, etc. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 639 
 
 Voila done un decret d'appropriation ou de confiscation . . . J'aurai 
 l'honneur tout-a-1'heure de demontrer a la Cour et a mes honorables 
 contradicteurs que le mot m'est indifferent; que ce soit l'usage d'un 
 droit pr6existant, que le Roi en s'appropriant les biens des J6suites ait 
 fait ce qu'il avait le droit de faire de par les lois existantes, de par les 
 principes existants, ou bien qu'il ait fait ce qu'il n'avaitpas rigoureuse- 
 ment le droit de faire, e'est-a-dire qu'au lieu d'etre une appropriation 
 ce soit une confiscation, dans les deux cas e'est un acte souverain et par 
 consequent unacte qui impose le respect ici. C'est un acte souverain, et 
 il ne peut appartenir ni a la Cour arbitrale ni a mes honorables contra- 
 dicteurs de discuter un acte souverain, ou de le discuter utilement bien 
 entendu, parce que, comme il s'agit d'un conflit de droit positif, ainsi 
 que je l'ai indique' en comuiencant, ce sont des lois qui nous regissent 
 tous, que nous pouvons interpreter, que nous pouvons discuter, dont 
 nous pouvons demander l'application, mais dont nous ne pouvons pas 
 demander la revision. 
 
 Si je me suis permis, messieurs, d'evoquer la lecture que j'ai faite 
 dans ce document de l'Histoire du pontificat de Clement XIV, si je 
 me suis oublie" a, faire cette digression et a vous parler de cette lettre 
 du pape suppliant le Roi de revenir sur sa decision, c'est parse que j'y 
 vois que le pape qui suppliait ne songeait pas a crifciquer cette partie 
 du decret qui avait pour objet l'appropriation ou la confiscation des 
 biens: il estimait que e'etait un acte souverain qui donnait si peu 
 naissance a, une creance civile permettant un debat devant les tribu- 
 naux civils et donnant naissance a un droit prive, qu'il n'etait meme 
 pas sur que le Roi paierait les 100 piastres par an de pension a chaque 
 Jesuite et qu'il se disait: comment pourrais-je l'y contraindre? 
 
 N'est-ce pas encore la la reconnaissance qu'il ne s'agit pas de droits 
 civils, mais d'un acte souverain ne devant recevoir d'autre execution 
 que celle que le Roi voudra bien lui donner ? 
 
 En 1768, l'annee suivante, le decret royal recut son execution au 
 Mexique. Les supplications du pape n'ont pas arrete le Roi souverain. 
 Charles III va ordonner que sa decision soit mise a execution au Mexi- 
 que, que les J^suites soient expulses de Calif ornie et il va confisquer 
 leurs biens: c'est l'application du principe qu'il a proclame le IT fevrier 
 1767. 
 
 J'ai signale tout-a-1'heure que l'Eglise n'etait pas intervenue a la 
 naissance du Fonds Pieux; voici que ce Fonds Pieux qui 6tait entre les 
 mains des Je"suites va passer en d'autres mains; est-ce que l'Eglise va 
 intervenir? Pas davantage; pourquoi? Parce que l'Eglise n'a jamais 
 considere ce fonds comme bien ecclesiastique, par la raison que ce qui 
 caract^rise meme en droit canon le bien ecclesiastique c'est Interven- 
 tion de l'Eglise ou de ses repr^sentants pour en permettre la constitu- 
 tion, c'est la conservation pour l'Eglise du droit de demander compte 
 et- l'exercise de ce droit. Ici, messieurs, ni a la naissance ni a la fin 
 l'Eglise n'intervient, et vous allez voir qu'en 1773, par un document 
 nouveau, e'est-a-dire par la bulle du Pape Clement XIV qui se trouve 
 reproduite page 332, texte espagnol, livre rouge, ce pape va supprimer 
 les Je"suites et ne va pas faire allusion a cette confiscation. 
 
 II va faire allusion au decret du Roi Charles III, il va ratifier cette 
 decision; il va dire que c'est a la demande des princes Chretiens qu'il 
 agit. 
 
 Notez que nous sommes en 1773; c'est depuis 1763 que Louis XV a 
 expulse" les J^suites en confisquant leurs biens comme ]e vous le dirai, 
 
640 pious fund op the oalifornias. 
 
 c'est depuis 1767 que Charles III a confisque" leurs biens; le pape con- 
 nait les decrets; qu'est-ce qu'il va faire? II a vu que cesdecrets pro- 
 clament la confiscation par le Roi, l'appropriation des biens par lui; 
 est-ce qu'il va protester? Non, messieurs: il va ratifier, et cette bulle 
 va etre publiee en Californie en vertu d'une cedule royale qui en auto- 
 rise la publication. 
 
 De telle sorte, messieurs, que l'Eglise representee par ses autoritds 
 les plus 6minentes va admettre la th&se critique*e aujourd'hui, va 
 admettre qu'il ne s'agit pas de biens eccl^siastiques mais qu'il s'agit de 
 biens que le Roi a le droit de s'approprier, elle va ratifier cet acte sou- 
 verain au lieu d'en demander la revision et de protester, et il faudra 
 attendre plus d'un siecle, il faudra attendre que votre Cour supreme 
 soit constitute ou que la Commission mixte soit constitute pour que 
 ces droits et ces principes soient mis en question! 
 
 Sir Edward Fey. II n'y a pas la date de la bulle dans le livre rouge. 
 
 M. Delacroix. C'est a la page 332, elle est en espagnol. 
 
 M. Ralston. Ce n'est pas traduit en anglais; il y a un sommaire ou 
 la piece est indiquee. 
 
 M. Delacroix. C'est un document que nous ferons traduire. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Cela n'est pas ne"cessaire. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Je pense qu'il pourrait etre interessant pour le 
 Tribunal et c'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai demande moi-m§me la tra- 
 duction que je donne a la Cour, je pense qu'il sera utile qu'elle l'ait 
 6galement. 
 
 Voila done, messieurs, que le pape Clement XIV supprime sans 
 protestation les Je"suites, et c'est pour constater cette absence de pro- 
 testation que le document est interessant. 
 
 Mais, me dira-t-on, il reste dans ce decret de Charles III une indi- 
 cation que vous omettez: Charles III, lorsqu'il confisque les biens, 
 lorsqu'il seles approprie, a soin d'ajouter que c'est sans prejudice aux 
 charges qui peuvent avoir ete imposes par les donateurs et aux moy- 
 ens d'existence des Jesuites, et ces charges, le Roi les a assumes. 
 
 Certainement. II y avait, pour le Roi avant meme qu'il n'eut enonce 
 cette volonte, une obligation morale; il y avait, si je puis employer 
 cette expression, qui, lorsqu'il s'agit d'un Etat n'est cependant pas tou- 
 jours en situation, une obligation de conscience de la part du souverain 
 qui confisquait les biens, de dire; je dois leur donner une destination 
 conforme a la volonte de ceux qui ont constitue" le Fonds Pieux. 
 C'6tait une obligation morale ou de conscience preexistante, et le Roi 
 catholique, le roi de droit divin, le roi qui a le plus grand interest a ce 
 que le nombre des sujets catholiques augmenteil va avoir soin de dire: 
 Je respecterai cette obligation morale, je respecterai la volonte" des 
 fondateurs, je m'en charge. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, dans l'histoire, lorsqu'un souverain confisque des 
 biens, c'est une ajoute qu'il fait toujours: C'est ainsi que j'ai eu la 
 curiosite" de rechercher la loi du 2 novembre 1789 par laquelle la Revo- 
 lution Francaise a nationalise" tous les biens eccl6siastiques. En les 
 confisquantelle a eu soin de dire (jeprends le texte mSme de la loi): 
 
 Tous les biens ecctesiastiques sont a la disposition de la nation, a la charge de 
 pour voir de mamere convenable aux frais du culte, a l'entretien de ses ministres et 
 au soulagement des pauvres. 
 
 En bien, je vous le demande, est-ce qu'avec ce billet-la on pourrait 
 s adresser a, un Tribunal et demander que l'Etat soit condamne" a, payer 
 les ministres du culte, k soulager les pauvres et k entre-tenir les eglises? 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 641 
 
 Evidemment non; pourquoi? Parce que ce n'est pas un contrat, parce 
 que ce n'est pas un acte donnant naissance a un droit civil: c'est une 
 loi, c'est un acte souverain, c'est un acte due pouvoir J%islatif, c'est 
 un acte qui va donnor naissance a des obligations pour les sujets mais 
 non pas a des droits civils a leur profit. Par consequent, si dans le 
 d6cret de Charles III il y a l'expression d'une volonte royale, c'est une 
 intention, c'est la volonte souveraine qu'il fait connaitre, mais il 
 depend de lui de la re*aliser, c'est un acte souverain dont il est par con- 
 sequent souverain juge tant au point de vue de sa promulgation que 
 de son execution. 
 
 Voila, messieurs, le caract&re juridique de ce d^cret. Ce que le~ 
 Roi fait la c'est l'enonce d'une intention, d'une volonte respectable qui 
 correspondait a, une obligation morale comme elle correspondait a, un 
 interet bien compris. II devait souhaiter que les Missions de Califor- 
 nie fussent maintenues; c'est si vrai que lorsque 50 ans plus tard le 
 Gouvernement meconnaitra ses obligations morales, la Californie ne 
 sera pas loin de lui e"chapper: l'ev^nement Fa prouve. 
 
 Je continue. En 1769, l'administration due Fonds Pieux fut confiee 
 par le Roi a des commissaires lai'ques. C'etait une necessite. Le Roi 
 confisque les biens des Jesuites, il faut bien qu'il les fasse administrer; 
 il va les faire administrer par des commissiares royaux, et il va Con- 
 ner le produit de ce Fonds aux Franciscains, c'est-a-dire qu'il va 
 decider quels sont ceux qu'il va choisir pour e'tre ses delegufe et pour 
 accomplir l'ceuvre primitive des missions, c'est-a-dire la conquete spir- 
 ituelle et temporelle de la Californie. II va s'adresser aux Francis- 
 cains; les Franciscains vont s'y installer en 1769. Le Roi leur dit 
 qu'il leur donnera 400 piastres par tete, c'est-a-dire que chaque pere 
 Franciscain recevra pour son entretien et celui de sa mission 400 
 piastres; puis il lui donnera, quand il le trouvera bon, un supplement 
 de 1,000 piastres pour les distributions qui seront faites en vetements, 
 nourriture, etc. , aux habitants des missions. 
 
 En 1772, les Dominicains ont, eux aussi, voulu s'installer en Cali- 
 fornie, ils trouvaient que c'etait une ceuvre qui m^ritait leur attention; 
 ils prenaient aussi en consideration les Emoluments royaux qui etaient 
 attaches a, la tache; c'est ainsi que les Dominicains vinrent — si je puis 
 me servir d'une expression dont je m'excuse — faire une concurrence 
 pour la bonne cause aux Franciscains en Californie. 
 
 Alors on a decide" de faire un partage. Qui est-ce qui va faire le 
 partage? C'est le Roi, c'est le Gouvernement; le Gouvernement va 
 dire: les Franciscains iront dans le Nord et les Dominicains dans le 
 Sud; c'est-§,-dire qu'aux Dominicains on va confier les Missions de la 
 Basse Californie, et aux Franciscains celles qu'ils voudront constituer 
 dans la Haute Californie. Ce partage fut realise par un decret du 
 30avrill772. 
 
 Je dois ici ouvrir une parenthSse pour exposer un autre fait assez 
 caracteVistique qui a eu son denouement en 1783. II s'agit d'un proces 
 auquel avait donne lieu la succession Arguelles. Je vous ai dit que 
 le Fonds Pie avait ete constitue par des donations diverses, notamment 
 par la donation considerable du marquis de Villapuente, et aussi par 
 une donation de la Dona Josepha de Arguelles. Cette personne fort 
 de*sireuse d'avantager les Jesuites 6tait cfecidee a leur donner tout ce 
 qu'elle avait. Elle avait dispose" que les Je\suites auraient un quart de 
 sa fortune pour leurs colleges, leurs pensionnats, leurs etablissements 
 
 S. Doc. 28 41 
 
642 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 construction, et que les trois autres quarts, done le reste de sa fortune, 
 seraient donnas aux Jesuites moitie pour les Missions de Californie et 
 moitie pour les Missions des Philippines. Seulement, messieurs, il se fait 
 que ce proces traine beaucoup: if n'y avait pas encore la procedure des 
 Tribunaux internationaux d'arbitrage et les proces de ce temps-la, 
 comme certains proces de nos jours, duraient longtemps; de telle facon 
 que le proces n'etait pas fini lorsque les Jesuites ont ete expulses. Le 
 proces a continue et les heritiers ont dit: Puisque notre auteur a 
 donne aux Jesuites et que ceux-ci n'existent plus, qu'ils ont ete chasses 
 par le Roi, que leur Ordre a ete supprime par le pape, eh bien, le tes- 
 tament est nul et par consequent la fortune est pour nous. 
 
 Alors, messieurs, la Cour des Intestats, eD suite d'une decision du 
 Conseil royal des Indes, a decide par une sentence reproduite a, la page 
 456 du volume rouge, du 4 juin 1783, ceci; elle a dit: en ce qui con- 
 cerne le quart de la fortune, qui avait e*te* le"gue aux Jesuites en vue de 
 leurs colleges, la disposition n'est pas valable, ce quart sera pour la 
 famille, parce que les colleges des Jesuites n'existent plus, parce que 
 dans tous les cas il n'y a plus de personnalite capable de recevoir; 
 cette donation est nulle, et par consequent e'est l'h^ritier 16gal, e'est-a- 
 dire le plus proche parent, dit la sentence, qui va recevoir ce quart. 
 II est a remarquer que nul ne songe a revendiquer pour l'Eglise ce legs 
 fait au profit des Jesuites expulses et devenu exclu. Quant aux trois 
 autres quarts — ceci est interessant parce que cela va peut-etre faire la 
 chose jugee — le Conseil des Indes va decider que ces trois quarts qui 
 avaient ete donnes depar la volonte de la donatrice aux Je"suites, vont 
 Stre mis " a, la disposition de Sa Majeste, a, laquelle la succession appar- 
 tenait originellement." — je lis les propres termes de la sentence. 
 
 Voici done qu'a une 6poque ou l'on pouvait apprecier mieux qu'au- 
 jourd'hui quelle avait ete la vonlonte des donateurs, notamment par 
 les circonstances ambiantes, on decide — et e'est le Conseil royal des 
 Indes qui decide ap res une longue procedure — quecesbiens qui avaient 
 ete destines aux Missions de Californie et des Philippines seraient a la 
 disposition de Sa Majeste, a laquelle la succession appartenait origi- 
 nellement. 
 
 Et qui plus est: 
 
 II est finalement ordonne\ dit Parrot, que la copie en double dea deliberations, 
 e'est-a-dire de la procedure, soit soumise a Sa Majesty afin qu'Elle puisse signiflerson 
 souvekain plaisir quant a la direction, subsistence et securite" des fonds voues a 
 l'oeuvre des missions pieuses. 
 
 Voici done que le 4 juin 1783 la question qui s'agite aujourd'hui 
 devant vous etait jugee; il 6tait juge que les biens destines aux Mis- 
 sions, deyaient apres la disparition des Missions et des Jesuites etre a 
 la disposition du Roi pour qu'il en use suivant son souverain plaisir. 
 
 Je continue. Nous arrivons ainsi a, la fin du 18" siecle et au com- 
 mencement du 19 e . Nous avons termine l'etude de la penode de pros- 
 perite et de grandeur des missions, de leur periode de succes, de la 
 penode pendant laquelle le Roi peut dire qu'en Californie son peuple 
 lui est attache. Mais alors va commencer une periode troublee; e'est 
 le moment ou le Mexique estime qu'il peut se passer de l'intervention 
 de la m^tropole. A ce moment commencent des ferments de trouble, 
 des ferments d'agitation dans le Mexique. De la les preoccupations 
 du Roi, non pas seulement au sujet du Mexique et de la Californie, mais 
 de toute cette contre"e; constamment il est oblige" d'envoyer des expe- 
 ditions militaires pour maintenir en respect ses sujets en re" volte. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORKIAS. 643 
 
 Cela coute de Pargent, et d6ja alors il semble que les menses des Fran- 
 ciscains n'etaient plus r^gulierement payees. Nous voyons dans les 
 ouvrages de l'epoque que l'on se plaint, que les Franciscains en arrivent 
 bientot a devoir abandonner certaines missions. Les concours qu'ils 
 demandent ne leur sont plus donnes, et nous arrivons ainsi, messieurs, 
 a la p^riode de Pind6pendance mexicaine, qui date de 1827. C'est 
 l'epoque ou le Mexique va se substituer au Roi d'Espagne. 
 
 II y avait la, un fonds constitue" par des mexicains, compose" de Hens 
 mexicains; ce fonds va passer au nouvel Etat, c'est-a-dire a, l'Etat 
 nouvellement constitue, a l'Etat inde^pendant du Mexique, qui va se 
 substituer au Roi d'Espagne. 
 
 Immediatement l'Etat mexicain va avoir, lui aussi, a prendre des 
 mesures pour l'administration de ce Fonds. Est-ce qu'il va dire: ce sont 
 des biens d'Eglise, je vais les remettre a i'Eglise? Non. II va prendre 
 une loi du 25 mai 1832, loiqui est pubileeavec le concours de nos hon- 
 orables contradicteurs dans la petite brochure jaune que vous possedez — 
 c'est la premiere deslois pubises. Dans cetteloi le Gouvernement du 
 Mexique va affirmer sa volonte souveraine comme le Roi d'Espagne 
 l'avait affirmee precedemment. Dans cette loi presque a chaque article, 
 il est question du droit exclusif du Gouvernement; le Gouvernement 
 cree un bureau charge d'administrer les proprietes et compose de trois 
 personnes. 
 
 Mes honorables contradicteurs triomphent parce que parmi ces trois 
 personnes il y a un ecclfeiastique. Mais enfin est-ce parce qu'un admin- 
 istrateur sur trois porte soutane que le Gouvernement perd ses droits ? 
 
 Le Gouvernement affirme son droit dans chaque article. A Particle 
 8 il dit que ce bureau sera compose de trois personnes " nominees par le 
 Gouvernement." A Particle 10 il est dit que c'est au nom du Gouverne- 
 ment que des sommes pourront etre envoyees en Calif ornie. Le bureau 
 est charge" de "proposer au Gouvernement" Penvoi de telle ou telle 
 somme en Californie, mais c'est toujours le Gouvernement qui depose 
 comme c'est a lui de dire dans quelles conditions les biens pourront etre 
 loues, adjuge"s, vendus. Tout cela se fait publiquement, suivant les 
 regies applicables aux biens de l'Etat. 
 
 Ainsi que je vous le disais, il est arrive" au Gouvernement de ne pas 
 toujours se preoccuper suffisamment des Missions. II les a laisse"s 
 pericliter. C'etait un tort; ces Missions ont ete ainsi abandonees; 
 des ferments de discorde se sont developp^s, et au bout de peu de 
 temps la Californie a ete detachee du Mexique en fait avant d'en §tre 
 detachee en droit. 
 
 Done, le roi d'Espagne avait eu tort, et le Mexique a eu tort, mais 
 le roi d'Espagne et le Mexique ont fait ce qu'ils avaient incontestable- 
 ment le droit de faire; s'ils ont mal administre, c'etait leur droit; s'ils 
 ont dans l'exercice de leur pouvoir souverain commis des fautes, je 
 dirai que c'etait leur droit de commettre des fautes. Est-ce que l'Etat 
 agissait la comme Gouvernement ou comme particulier? je vous le 
 demande. Est-ce que la question se pose? Est-ce que c'etait la per- 
 sonne publique qui agissait ou la personne civile de l'Etat? Est-ce que 
 la question a besoin d'une r^ponse? II est bien certain que ce sont la, 
 tous actes souverains; ce sont des lois, des decrets, est-ce que cela ne 
 suffit pas a, re"soudre la question ? Le Roi agissait comme il l'entendait; 
 il agissait mal, il commettait une faute qui etait une faute politique, 
 mais qui ne pouvait donner naissance a une demande de dommages- 
 inte*r§ts. 
 
644 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Lorsque le Gouvernement administrait mal la Californie, envoyait 
 trop peu de fonds, s'en pre"occupait trop peu, lorsqu'il avait toute sa 
 preoccupation attiree d'un autre c6te et affectait toutes_ les ressources 
 dont il pouvait disposer a an autre point de son territoire — il pouvait 
 avoir tort — mais est-ce que, si je puis employer cette expression, 
 Particle 1382 pouvait &tre invoque, et peut-il etre question de dom- 
 mages-interets ? Non, en droit, juridiquement, ce n'esi pas serieusement 
 discutable. 
 
 Mais, le 18 aout 1833 et le 16 avril 1834, le Gouvernement mexican 
 a pris des arretes de secularisation. II avait installe luimeme les 
 Fransciscains en Californie, et voici qu'il prend des arretes par lesquels 
 il secularise, il supprime les Franciscains; il leur permet de subsister, 
 mais comme cures interimaires, c'est-a-dire que ce ne sont plus religieux 
 qui seront la, non, ce seront des cures, le Gouvernement ne connait plus 
 de religieux. C'est ce qui resulte des deux decrets que je viens de citer. 
 
 Alors, messieurs, il y eut une tres mauvaise organisation, parce qu'il 
 n'y avait plus de chef, plus de direction, il n'y avait plus d'unite" de 
 vues. C'etait une faute politique dont le Gouvernment n'a pas tard<5 
 ase rendre compte, et aussitot nous voyons poindre l'intervention politi- 
 que des Etats-Unis dans la Californie; comme tou jours — c'est l'histoire 
 de tous les peuples — quand il y a un territoire trouble, bouleverse", un 
 voisin plus puissant intervient et protite de son intervention pour faire 
 ceuvre de conquete. C'est ce qu'ont fait les Etats-Unis. 
 
 Alors le Gouvernement mexican comprit sa faute etvoulut creer un 
 chef. Ce chef, il le choisit parmi les anciens missionnaires, parmi les 
 anciens Franciscains, c'est Don Garcia Diego; il le designe comme 
 eveque: puisque les Franciscains etaient devenus cures, leur chef 
 devait e"tre un eveque. 
 
 C'est ainsi que le Gouvernement en est arrive le 19 septembre 1836 
 a prendre un arrete par lequel il prepara la creation d'un evSche; il 
 sollicita l'intervention du pape pour la constitution de cet ev^che; et 
 nous voyons dans le susdit decret preparatoire que l'on va decider de 
 confier a cet eveque nouveau l'ad ministration du Fonds Pie, du fonds 
 des Missions, et cette mesure sera justihee par la necessite de la defense 
 dela Californie centre les Etats-Unis. 
 
 Telle est la raison du decret du 19 septembre 1836. Ce decret, vous le 
 connai.ssez, on en a sufEsamment parle, mais nous y reviendrons lorsque 
 nous examinerons le titre des demandeurs. 
 
 L'article 6 est interessant parce qu'il decide que les biens du Fonds 
 Pieux seront mis a la disposition de nouvel eveque pour gtre admin- 
 istres et appliques & certains objets — nous reviendrons sur ces mots, 
 je les indique maintenant parce que je fais l'expos6: 
 
 Ces biens seront mis a la disposition pour 6tre administres. 
 
 J'anticipe peut-etre, mais je me souviens que dans les de"crets de la 
 Kevolution Francaise, lorsque le Gouvernement confisqua tous les 
 
 qu il avait prises et dont il ne pouvait guere tier un revenu 
 utile; alors il les a mises "k la disposition des eveques" cela se trouve 
 dans les decrets. Jamais cependant on n'a consid^re" que les eVSques 
 en fussent proprietaires, et la jurisprudence unanime decide que ce sont 
 les villes, les communes, qui sont proprietaires des cath^drales, des 
 eglises, etc. Cependant le m§me mot se trouvait dans le Concordat 
 du 26 Messidor an IX. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE 0AL1FORNIAS. 645 
 
 Voici done, messieurs, que FeVSque va etre nomme* en suite du 
 decret du 19 septembre 1836. Dans l'esprit du Gouvernement, e'est 
 un fonctionnaire a qui l'on va donner un traitement de 6,000 piastres. 
 L'article l er le dit: " II aura un traitement annuel de 6,000 piastres." 
 Puis a. l'article 5 il est dit qu'on lui donnera 3,000 dollars pour payer 
 les frais d'expedition des bulles — et de demenagement je pense — Voila 
 ce qui lui est alloue. 
 
 Plus tard nous aurons a examiner les consequences juridiques que 
 mes honorables contradicteurs deduisent de ce decret. lis vont dire 
 qu'ils puisent dans ce decret un droit de creance, que par ce decret du 
 19 septembre 1836 le Gouvernement mexicain en mettant les biens du 
 Fonds Pie a la disposition de l'eveque pour etre administres, ne sub- 
 stituait pas un nouveau "manager" aux commissions creees par la loi 
 du 23 mai 1832, mais se d^pouillait de ses droits de propriete au profit 
 de I'eV^que. 
 
 Nous re*pondrons plus tard; nous dirons notamment: Vous oubliez 
 que e'est un decret, que e'est une loi, que e'est un acte du pouvoir 
 souverain, et que ce n'est pas un titre de reconnaissance civile, que ce 
 n'est pas un transf ert de propriety. Nous discuterons cela. 
 
 Done, messieurs, le 19 septembre 1836 le Gouvernment confie 
 l'administration des biens du Fonds Pie a, l'eV&que. Mais, il y a prob- 
 ablement dans l'histoire du Mexique ce que nous retrouvons dans 
 l'histoire d'autres peuples, une balance des partis: peut-etre y avait-il 
 lit des conflits entre clericaux et lib<*raux; je ne connais pas assez 
 l'histoire du Mexique pour preciser; mais je sais qu'un decret du 8 
 fevrier 1842 va reprendre a l'eveque l'administration qu'on lui avait 
 confine en 1836. Son pouvoir a etc" ephemere car il n'a ete en realite 
 nomme qu'en 1840, et d6ja au commencement de 1842 le Gouverne- 
 ment lui reprend le pouvoir d'administration qu'il lui avait confie. 
 
 Nous aurons a dire plus tard: Mais quoi! vous pretendez que le 19 
 septembre 1836 le Gouvernement mexicain a transf ere un droit privatif , 
 un droit de propriete, un droit de creance, un droit civil a l'eveque? 
 mais alors, s'il le lui reprend, il doit l'exproprier; si le droit est entre 
 dans le dominium de l'eve'che et est devenu son patrimoine a quelque 
 titre que ce soit, et si on le lui reprend e'est une expropriation, parce 
 que donner et retenir ne vaut. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, le Gouvernement mexicain ne croit pas qu'il en soit 
 ainsi; il reprend tout simplement par un acte du pouvoir souverain du 
 8 feVrier 1842 ce qu'il avait concede par un autre acte du pouvoir sou- 
 verain le 19 septembre 1836. Ce qui est un acte du pouvoir souverain 
 n'est jamais perpetuel; en matiere politique surtout rien n'est eternel; 
 par consequent, une autre administration succtjdant a la prece"dente, on 
 a supprime, on a rapporte, suivant l'expression textuelle, le decret du 
 19 septembre 1836. L'Etat a repris l'administration des biens, il a dit: 
 Je m'en chargerai moi-me'me, j'emploierai mieux moi-meme les fonds 
 au but pour lequel ils 6taient destines, je ferai cela plus directement 
 moi-meme. Alors, par un decret du 24 octobre 1842 le Gouvernement 
 cette fois voulant en finir, a nationalise le bien, il l'a incorpore - au 
 Tresor national et il a dit qu'il en paierait un interet de 6 pet., ou 
 plutot qu'il affecterait un interet de 6 pet. "aux objets de bienfaisance 
 et nationaux" qui avaient dte visfe par les donateurs. 
 
 Nous aurons a, examiner — j'indique la question, je ne laresous pas — 
 si ce decret du 24 octobre 1842, qui est tout specialement invoque 
 par les demandeurs, conferait a quelqu'un un droit civil, si, quand le 
 
646 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Gouvernement disait: "j'affecterai 6 pet.," il y avait quelqu'um qui 
 etait institue" comme ayant droit a ces 6 pet. , si en d'autres termes le 
 Gouvernement, quand il signait ce decret, s'etait enleve un droit pour 
 le donner a, un autre, et nous nous demanderons quel etait cet autre. 
 Ce n'6tait pas 1'eVeque, puisque preVisement ce decret avait pour eftet 
 de lui enlever ce qu'il lui avait donne" en 1836; ce n'6tait pas l'Eglise; 
 ce n'etaient pas les Indiens; nous examinerons cela, et nous dirons 
 qu'il n'y avait pas de creancier constitue" k charge de l'Etat par ce 
 decret de 1842. 
 
 Vous verrez alors que les faits vont se compliquer et ce precipiter 
 jusqu'en 1848. C'est une epoque de fievre, d'agitation au Mexique; 
 cette question des Calif ornies a beaucoup pre'occupe' les Gouvernements, 
 cette succession de de"crets le prouve. Un repre"sentant de PeVSque, 
 Don Ramirez, avait e"te" charge" d'administrer les biens a Mexico. Ces 
 biens etaient situs's a Mexico, PevSque devait aller en Calif ornie, il n'y 
 avait pas alors les facility de communication d'aujourd'hui; de telle 
 sorte que Peveque ne pouvait pas a, la fois administrer les Missions, 
 faire son apostolat, et en meme temps administrer les biens de Mexico; 
 il devait avoir un representant a Mexico: ce f ut Don Ramirez. 
 
 Don Ramirez e"tait devenu a>e; il dtait assists d'un avocafr, Don 
 Miguel; quand ilsvirent que le Gouvernement le8 feVrier 1842 repre- 
 nait k PeVSque l'administration due Fonds Pie, que le 21 octobre 1842 
 il nationalsait le Fonds Pie, l'incorporait au Tresor, Don Ramirez et 
 Don Miguel son couseildirentauGouvernementmexicain: Faites atten- 
 tion, Pceuvre que vous accomplisez est une ceuvre n6f aste parce qu'elle 
 consomme la ruine des missions. 
 
 A cette epoque, messieurs, il faut bien le reconnaitre, les envois de 
 fonds qui Etaient faits aux anciens Franciscans devenaient de plus en 
 plus rares; le Gouvernement, ou plut6t les Gouvernements successifs 
 avaient d'autres preoccupations. En 1845, dans un document impor- 
 tant, l'avocat de I'eVe'que va prendre la parole et va demander compte 
 au Gouvernement de ses actes; il va lui signaler le danger de son atti- 
 tude, de l'abandon des Missions, dans le document memorable qui est 
 reproduit dans le volume rouge a la page 385 (Memoire de M. Aspiroz, 
 N°. 77 et annexe N°. 25) et nous allons voir pour la premiere fois ce que 
 pense PeVSque. II s'agit due de'eret de 1836 qui a donni & 1'eVeque 
 l'administration du Fonds Pie, du decret du 8 fevrier .1842 qui lui a 
 enleve cette administration et du decret de 24 ( ctobre 1842; et leVSque 
 par l'organe de celui qui est attitre" pour parler en son nom va dire 
 ceci: 
 
 Ni le prelat de de Californie ni ses agents de fait n'ont prilendu ni mfane rfak de pri- 
 
 tendre d, la propriety du fonds pour le rfaerend iv&que ou pour la mitre Le 
 
 reverend evSque n'a formula et ne formule aucune pretention semblable. Les biens 
 qu'une loi du regime republique a places entre ses mains lui ont 6t& arraches, il a 
 Sieve" la voix vers le Congres le priant de mesurer la justice de cet acte et ses conse- 
 quences; il a place" devant lui les documents et les contrats qui demontrent et l'origine 
 et la destination du Fonds. Si des lors le Congres decide que le Departement a bien 
 agi et que le Fonds est propria nationale, les devoirs du reverend 6v£que auront£te 
 accomplis. Le representant de l'eveque ne se con sid^rait pas plus comme le pro- 
 prtetaire du Fonds que le depute" ne Test de son departement. 
 
 Nous avons M, messieurs, un t^moignage important, le temoignage 
 de l'eveque ou de sod representant. On lui a arrache* les biens, il va 
 dire ce qu'il pense, il va protester, et il va bien marquer la nuance, il 
 va dire: je proteste parce que c'est une faute politique 6norme, parce 
 
PIOTJS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 647 
 
 que si vous ne vous pr^occupez pas des Missions, je ne reponds pas 
 de la Californie. 
 
 Don Miguel aurait raison: ce fut une faute; mais il le dit respect- 
 ueusement, condamnant d'avance la these qui est presentee ici: le ne 
 
 qu '] 
 
 ation juridique de l'eVSque, son mandant; par consequent, il y a une 
 autorite - incontestable qui s'attache a ce document. 
 
 (La stance est levee a 5 heures et le Tribunal s'ajourne au lendemain 
 a 10 heures du matin.) 
 
 NEUVIEME SEANCE. 
 
 84 septembre 1902 {matin). 
 
 La seance est ouverte & 10 heures du matin, tous les Arbitres e"tant 
 presents. 
 M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis mexicains. 
 
 SUITE DE LA PLAIDOIRIE DE M. DELACKOIX. 
 
 Messieurs: Je continuerai, avec la permission de la Cour, l'expose" 
 que j'ai commence hier. 
 
 La Cour aura remarque" par la revue des f aits que nous avons rapide- 
 ment passee hier, que tant que les J6suites sont restes a la t§te du 
 Fonds Pie ils en ont dispose seuls, et que l'intervention du Roi, du 
 souverain, ne s'est produite que pour les autoriser, les diriger, tout au 
 plus les contrdler. Mais & partir du moment ou l'ordre des Jesuites 
 a &t& aboli, ou les Jesuites ont 6te expulses, alors le Roi, le pouvoir 
 souverain dispose, lui, des biens des Je"suites comme les Jesuites en 
 avaient dispose" ante"rieurement. 
 
 Un autre fait qui ne vous aura certainement pas e"chappe", c'est que 
 tandis que nous voyons constamment cette intervention du Roi d6jii 
 lorsque les Jesuites disposent du Fonds, par un contr61e, une surveil- 
 lance, une intervention, une autorisation, et plus tard par un droit de 
 disposition et d'affectation, l'Eglise d'autre part n'intervient jamais, ni 
 k la naissance de l'ordre des Jesuites en Californie, ni I la suppression, 
 ni a aucun moment par la suite. 
 
 Nous en arrivons ainsi, messieurs 3, la pe"riode qui a son point final 
 en 1844. 
 
 Je dois ici exposer & la Cour la succession des faits relatifs & l'inci- 
 dent appele" affaire des lies Philippines. Vous vous souvenez que dona 
 Josepha Arguelles, qui avait dispose 1 au profit du Fonds Pie a concur- 
 rence d'une somme que l'on chiffre par 800,000 piastres, avait divise" 
 sa fortune en quatre parties; toutes les quatre parties e"taient donne"es 
 aux Jesuites, mais un quart etait destine" a leurs colleges tandis que les 
 trois autres quarts 6taient destines pour moitie" aux Missions des Phil- 
 ippines et pour l'autre moitie" aux Missions de Californie. En 1827, 
 lorsque l'independance du Mexique a e"te proclamee, lorsque le Mexique 
 s'est separe" de l'Espagne, le Gouvernement mexicain a trouve" cet 
 ensemble de biens qui a recu le nom de Fonds Pie, qui avait 6te" con- 
 stitue" par des mexicains et qui se trouvait compose" de biens situe"s au 
 Mexique. Le gouvernement mexicain s'est approprie ces biens, c'est- 
 
648 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOJJNIAS. 
 
 a-dire que de son propre mouvement il s'est substitue au roi d'Espagne 
 dans les droits que celui-ci pouvait avoir sur ces biens. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, si le roi d'Espagne avait laisse faire, il n'avait pas 
 encore ratine cette situation. II s'est produit alors des reclamations 
 de la part des Dominicains charges des Missions des iles Philippines. 
 Ceux-ci faisaient valoir — et il faut bien reconnaitre qu'ils le faisaient 
 valoir a juste titre — que si le roi d'Espagne avait la disposition de 
 l'ensemble du Fonds Pie pour des Missions situe"es dans deux parties 
 de ses Etats, d'une part en Californie, d'autre part aux iles Philippines, 
 si alors la Californie attenant au Mexique etait de"tache*e de l'Espagne, 
 et si on pouvait admettre que le Gouvernement mexicain prit la place 
 du roi d'Espagne dans ses droits sur le fonds en tant qu'ils affectaient 
 les missions de Californie, il ne se concevrait pas que le roi d'Espagne 
 abdiquat ses droits sur ces fonds en ce qui concerne la partie qui 
 affectait les iles Philippines. Le roi d'Espagne avait l'ensemble des 
 droits sur l'ensemble du Fonds Pie, mais il avait en meme temps 
 l'ensemble des Missions a diriger, a entretenir; il pouvait done se con- 
 cevoir que puisque e'etaient des biens mexicains a'un fonds mexicain 
 constitue" par des Mexicains, le nouveau Gouvernement de Mexique 
 se substituat au roi d'Espagne, mais seulement pour autant que ces 
 biens n'eussent pas ete affected aux Missions des Philippines; le roi 
 devait conserver cette partie puisqu'il avait l'integrahte des droits 
 jusque-la. 
 
 C'6taient la, messieurs, il faut bien le dire, des raisons profond6- 
 ment juridiques et profondement justes que faisaient valoir les Mis- 
 sions des Philippines par l'organe du Ministre du roi d'Espagne. Le 
 Gouvernement mexicain le comprit . . . que dis-je? le gouvernement 
 mexicain fut heureux de ce que le roi d'Espagne voulait bien recon- 
 naitre que le gouvernement mexicain se substituait a lui pour cette 
 partie du Fonds Pie qui concernait la Californie, a la simple condition 
 qu'on reconnut au roi d'Espagne la conservation de la partie du Fonds 
 qui etait destined aux iles Philippines. Aussi, messieurs, le gouverne- 
 ment mexicain a-t-il accepte" de faire le traite" du 14 octobre 1836 par 
 lequel il a reconnu au roi d'Espagne le droit sur la partie du Fonds 
 destinee aux iles Philippines. 
 
 Ce n'etait que juste: le roi d'Espagne e"tait maitre du tout, il conser- 
 vait une partie de la charge, il conservait par le fait la propriety, la 
 disposition d'une partie du fonds. Cette raison seule eut du suffire pour 
 que le Gouvernement mexicain s'empressat d'accepter les propositions 
 qui lui 6taient faites par l'Espagne sous la forme d'une revendication. 
 Mais il y etait d'autant plus incite que d'autres considerations d'ordre 
 politique venaient appuyer ces propositions. Le Gouvernement mexi- 
 cain qui s'etait declare" independant depuis 1827 6tait toujours preoc- 
 
 tre suivi de 1'accord relatif a la reconnaissance de son independance. 
 Cela est si vrai, messieurs, qu'a peine le traite" du 14 octobre 1836 
 est-il intervenu au sujet du partage du Fonds Pie que le 28 d^cembre 
 1836, e'est-a-dire deux mois et demi apres, un traite" reconnait l'inde- 
 pendance du Mexique. Vous le voyez, ces deux negotiations e*taient 
 concomitantes et le Gouvernement mexicain avait trop de raisons pour 
 ne pas s'empresser de donner cette satisfaction pecuniaire au Gouverne- 
 ment espagnol. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 649 
 
 Mais, messieurs, si ce traite du 14 octobre 1836 reconnaissait ainsi 
 les droits du Gouvernement espagnol — lequel s'etait decharge des mis- 
 sions aux Philippines sur les missionnaires Dominicains — sur tous les 
 biens qui avaient 6te destines aux missions des Philippines, cette tradi 
 tion des biens ne s'etait pas effectuee d'une maniere definitive, claire 
 et effective des 1836, et c'est ainsi que nous alkms voir que quelques 
 annees apres, Pun des biens qui 6taient destines aux Missions des iles 
 Philippines, qui appartenaient a ces Missions ou au roi d'Espagne pour 
 ces missions, l'un de ces biens avait 6te" vendu. Alors en vertu de la 
 declaration de principe, de la reconnaissance existant dans le traite du 
 14 octobre 1836, le Gouvernement espagnol represents par son min- 
 istre et les Missions dominicaines representees par le pepre Moran, ont 
 reclame" a Mexico en disant: Voila un bien qui Stait destine aux lies 
 Philippines, vous l'avez reconnu, or vous l'avez vendu, c'est un tort — 
 et c'Stait incontestablement un tort. 
 
 Aussi, messieurs, par une convention du 7 novembre 1844 le Gouv- 
 ernement mexicain a consenti a transiger, et il a remis pour les mis- 
 sions des iles Philippines une somme principale de 115,000 piastres et 
 une somme accessoire de 30,000 piastres a titre d'indemnitS, soit en 
 tout 145,000 piastres. C'etait une transaction. 
 
 Tout ce que je dis ici, messieurs, se trouve notamment rapporte" dans 
 le m^moire de M. Azpiroz, page 397 du livre rouge, sous le N°. 136. 
 
 Quelle etait l'importanee des iles Philippines ? Je ne connais pour 
 ma part comme biens du Fonds Pie specialement affectes aux iles Phil- 
 ippines que la moitie des trois quarts de la succession de Madame 
 Arguelles. Cette succession, vous disais-je tout-a-1'heure, devait 
 s'elever a plus de 800,000 piastres, et si je le dis, c'est parce qu'un rap- 
 port du 23 auut 1871, un inventaire de ces biens, amene a cette consta- 
 tatton qui etait faite par le notaire de l'epoque. De telle facon que si 
 un quart appartenait aux Jesuites pour leurs colleges et trois quarts 
 pour leurs missions, il y avait une somme de 600,000 piastres au moins 
 qui devait §tre partagee par les Missions de Californie et par celles des 
 Philippines. C'est sur cette base qu'une transaction est intervenue. 
 
 II y avait, parait-il aussi — mais ici la precision n'est pas possible — 
 d'autres petits biens qui auraient ete donnfe egalement a la fois pour 
 la Californie et pour les iles Philippines et qui auraient 6te compris 
 dans cette transaction dont je parlais il y a un instant. Dans tous les 
 cas ce point n'a d'interSt qu'au point de vue de la chronologie des faits. 
 Mes honorables contradicteurs en ont parle" parce qu'ils y voyaient un 
 argument, ils disaient: Nous sommes, nous, dans la situation des iles 
 Philippines, nous sommes dans la meme situation que les missions 
 dominicaines, et puisque le Gouvernement mexican a reconnu le droit 
 des Missionnaires des iles Philippines, pourquoi ne reconnait-il pas celui 
 des Missionnaires de Californie? 
 
 Je n'ai pas besoin de vous demontrer, messieurs, que 1'analogie dont 
 on fait 6tat n'existe absolument pas. La situation est toute difl'erente, 
 parce que d'abord je pourrais deja, dire: Vous argumentez d'une trans- 
 action, et le caractere essentiel d'une transaction c'est precisement 
 d'^carter la reconnaissance du droit qui pouvait etre discute. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, en dehors meme de cette consideration qui vous 
 aura frappfe, vous vous serez dit assure"ment que la situation n'est pas 
 diff^rente parce que celui avec lequel on transigeait avait tous les droits; 
 il voulait bien en abandonner la plus grande part, on lui en laissait une 
 faible partie pour les Missions dont il conservait la charge. Ce n'est 
 
650 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 pas assurement la situation aujourd'hui des demandeurs, qui, eux, 
 n'auront pas tous les droits puisqu'ils n'ent ont aucun, et qu'ils reven- 
 diquent des droits que certes ils ne possedaient pas autrefois. 
 
 C'etait la, messieurs, le fait qui avait eu sa conclusion par la conven- 
 tion du 7 novembre 1844. Vous vous souvenez qu'a cette 6poque la 
 legislation qui regissait cette question des Missions se trouvait dans 
 les deux d^crets de 1842, des 8 fevrier et 24 octobre. Aux termes 
 de ces de"crets le Gouvernement mexicain avait repris a 1'evSque de 
 Californie l'administration qu'il lui avait confiee due Fonds Pie, il la 
 lui avait reprise en disant qu'il se chargerait lui-me'me des besoins de 
 ses Missions ou qu'il se chargerait lui-me'me des ne'cessite's de la situa- 
 tion en Californie; il avait annonce" 6galement qu'une souime de 6 pet. 
 sur la valeur de ce Fonds serait ainsi affected par lui. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, en 1845 un revirement se produit dans la legis- 
 lation. J'ai tout-a-1'heure argumente de cette circonstance que les 
 formes de gouvernement ne sont pas perp^tuelles, qu'elles ne sont pas 
 6ternelles; assurement le Mexique nous en donne un exemple dans 
 cette periode de l'histoire. Voici done que l'on va revenir en 1845 k 
 la situation que l'on avait creee en principe en 1836, et fait en 1840, 
 et que l'on avait abolie en 1842. 
 
 Le 3 avril 1845 intervient un nouveau de"cret; aux termes de ce 
 decret le gouvernement va rendre a, 1'eVeque l'administration du Fonds 
 Pie, e'est-a-dire l'administration de ce qui reste du Fonds Pie, car, il 
 ne faut pas l'oublier, en 1842 le gouvernement avait decide" la vente 
 des biens, de telle facon qu'il ne pouvait plus disposer en 1845 que de 
 ce qui restait des biens du Fonds Pie. Aussi dit-il qu'il confie a FevSque 
 l'administration de ce qui reste, sans prejudice du droit du Gouverne- 
 ment de disposer en ce qui concerne le surplus. 
 
 Le surplus, qu'etait-ce ? Mais, le surplus, ce n'6tait que les 6 pet. 
 qui restaient encore, dont le Gouvernement avait indique" l'intention 
 d'employer le montant aux besoins des Missions de Californie. C'e*tait 
 la ce qui restait encore. En bien, quant a ce reste-l&, quant a ces 6 
 pet., il annonce que le Congres en disposera comme il l'entendra. 
 
 C'etait done un de"cret d'une importance secondaire ou d'une conse- 
 quence relative puisque ce decret du 3 avril 1845 ne restituait en 
 r^alite a FeVSque que la disposition ou l'administration des biens qui 
 n'etaient pas alienes. 
 
 Ce decret, messieurs, n'eut pas une application bien longue, parce 
 que nous nous rapprochons de la date finale de la conqugte de la Cali- 
 fornie par les Etats-Unis. 
 
 Deja en 1842, les moyens de communication n'e*taut pas rapides 
 comme ils le sont aujourd'hui, on avait cru a un certain moment que 
 les Etats-Unis avaient d&ja pris la Californie; c'e"tait un faux bruit; 
 mais en 1846 ce fut une realite; Monterey fut occupe" par les troupes 
 des Etats-Unis, et par consequent ce fut le fait qui fut consacre" par 
 le droit plus tard; & partir de 1846 la Californie 6tait occup^e par les 
 Etats-Unis, 6tait considered comme une conquete des Etats-Unis. 
 
 Cette situation de fait, cette conquete de la Californie par les Etats- 
 Unis, re"alis6e en 1846, fut consacr6e legalement le 2 fevrier 1848 par 
 le traits de Guadalupe-Hidalgo. 
 
 Ce traits avait ete naturellement Fobjet de discussions preliminaires 
 nombreuses. C'etait un traite" important. D6ja depuis plusieurs 
 annees existaient des ferments de discorde nombreux entre les Etats- 
 Unis et le Mexique; or voici que la conquSt s'6tait produite. . . . J'ai 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 651 
 
 partie venderesse n'a pas la faculte de dispos_ 
 ou de choisir. . . . L'on avait conquis, puis il fallait bien voir a quelles 
 conditions on voulait faire ratifier la conquete, mais la conquete etait 
 faite, le fait brutal, le fait de la force primant le droit e"tait accompli. 
 Mais on fait un traits. 
 
 Ce traits devait prendre in place de bien d'autres conventions inter- 
 national qui avaient 6t6 signers entre les deux pays ou avaient 6te 
 proposees pour regler les conflits entre eux. On avait constate* qu'il 
 existait entre les deux pays une se"rie de conflits pecuniaires qui vena- 
 ient encore aggraver la situation irritante des rapports entre ces deux 
 Etats, et pour y mettre fin l'on d£bat d'abord une indemnity pecuni- 
 aire k payer par les Etats-Unis au Mexique. Le fait de la conquetej 
 le fait du d4tachement du Mexique de toute cette partie de territoire 
 qui 6tait le Nouveau Mexique et qui eomprennait la Californie, 6tait 
 un fait qui s'e'tait produit de la part des Etats-Unis par la conquete et 
 sur lequel ils n'admettaient plus la discussion; ces etats seraient 
 detaches du Mexique pour etre incorpor£s par les Etats-Unis, mais il 
 fallait traiter, ratifier, conclure. On admet la discussion sur une 
 indemnity. 
 
 J'aurai l'honneur dans une autre audience de vous indiquer ce que 
 furent les pr&iniinaires de ce traits, mais des a present je vous dis qu'on 
 avait indique' quelle devait etre la bas de la fixation de cette indemnite. 
 La Californie et les etats detaches du Mexique constituaient une charge 
 pour le Mexique et aussi une source de revenus; c'etait cette considera- 
 tion qui devait etre la base de la discussion. Ainsi, par exemple, le 
 Mexique avait une dette nationale, cette dette nationale avait et^ creee 
 pour les besoins de l'ensemble du territoire, c'etait l'ensemble du terri- 
 toire qui en avait profits, et il allait de soi que si une partie de ce terri- 
 toire etait detachee il fallait que cette dette nationale qui pesait alors 
 sur la partie restante recut un soutien, une contribution de la part du 
 pays qui avait conquis le nouveau territoire. C'e"tait la une notion 
 profonde"ment juste et juridique. II fallait pour determiner le chitfre 
 de cette contribution tenir compte non pas seulement des charges que 
 le Mexique restreint allait supporter seul, alors qu'il pouvait autrefois 
 les repartir sur l'ensemble de son territoire, mais il fallait aussi tenir 
 compte des avantages que pouvait en retirer le Nouveau Mexique, 
 c'est-a-dire les charges dont n etait de"barrasse* et dont il passait la main 
 au nouveau gouvernement conquerant. 
 
 Voila, messieurs, ce qui fit l'objet de la discussion, et ce d6bat amena 
 letraitedu2 feVrier 1848. On fixa une indemnitor 15 millions de 
 dollars. Le gouvernement des Etats-Unis voulait bien dire: finissons- 
 *en, en ce qui concerne ce que peuvent etre les rapports pecuniaires 
 d'Etat a Etat, ces rapports pecuniaires qui peuvent etre la consequence 
 du detachement.d'une partie du territoire du Mexique pour son incor- 
 poration dans le territoire des Etats-Unis, nous allons fixer une somme 
 d4battue, chiffree, 15 millions de dollars, et moyennant cette somme 
 c'est fini, d'Etat a Etat il n'y a plus de rapports pecuniaires, il n'y a 
 
 [)lus de dettes ou de creances parce que ces dettes ou ces cre"ances entre 
 es deux Etats se trouvent liquidises par le paiement de la somme qui 
 constitue la difference entre ce que peuvent etre le doit et l'avoir. 
 
 Voila la premiere stipulation essentielle de ce traite" du 2 fevrier 
 1848: liquidation des droits d'Etat a Etat. 
 
652 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 - Mais, messieurs, les parties voulant aller plus loin encore, voulant 
 faire en sorte qu'il n'y eut plus de sujet de conflit entre les deux Etats, 
 ont dit: nous allons cr6er ici une situation exceptionnelle. 
 
 La situation que j'indiquais tout-a-1'heure etait logique, elle etait 
 normale, elle est dans la plupart des traites; mais voici qu'ici on veut 
 aller plus loin et on dit: II y a des citoyens d'un Etat qui ont des droits 
 individuels civils ou privet, vis-a-vis de l'autre Etat, c'est asussi un 
 sujet de conflit parce que ces citoyens cre"ariciers d'un Etat sollicitent 
 l'intervention diplomatique ou les bons oflices de leur gouvernement 
 vis-a-vis de l'autre Etat; encore une fois, c'est un sujet de discussion, 
 une cause d'acrimonie entre les deux pays. Pour y mettre fin, on 
 decide que le Gouvernement des Etats- Unis donne decharge au gouv- 
 ernement mexicain pour toutes les creances que des citoyens des Etats- 
 Unis peuvent avoir vis-sl-vis de l'Etat Mexicain. 
 
 C'etait une chose anormale, car les Etats-Unis n'avaient pas qualite" 
 pour donner decharge des creances civiles que leurs citoyens pouvaient 
 avoir vis-a-vis des citoyens d'un autre Etat, mais ils acceptent de 
 prendre la place de l'Etat mexicain vis-a-vis d'eux, c'est-a-dire qu'ils 
 disent: Vous allez, vous, Etat mexicain, me pa} r er une somme de, un 
 forfait de 3,250,000 dollars, et moj T ennant cette somme je me charge 
 de payer touts les creances que des citoyens americains peuvent avoir 
 vis-a-vis de vous. 
 
 C'est done une decharge absolue par la substitution d'un de"biteur a 
 Un autre; c'est, si je puis employer cette expression de droit civil, une 
 novation qui est op6r6e, et qui implique une decharge absolue — la 
 decharge se trouve d'ailleurs dans l'article 14 du traite de 1848. 
 
 Voici done que les deux Etats voulant aplanir toutes les difficultes, 
 supprimer tous les sujets de conflit, avaient fait des choses extraordi- 
 naires, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis acceptant de payer les dettes, 
 quelles qu'elles fussent, du Gouvernement mexicaine vis-a-vis des 
 citoj^ens americains. Le Gouvernement americain acceptait cette 
 charge et de par le traite" lui-m§me il etait entendu qu'il aurait institu^ 
 une commission americaine qui aurait ete chargee de juger la valeur 
 des creances produites par les citoyens americains vis-a-vis de l'Etat 
 mexicain, de les apprecier, d'en fixer le chiffre, et le Gouvernement 
 americain les aurait reglees quel qu'en fut Je montant. 
 
 Est-ce que le Mexique, en presence, de cette double decharge, 
 decharge de la part de l'Etat, decharge de la part des citoyens Ameri- 
 cains, pouvait croire encore, en signant ce traite, qu'il conservait une 
 dette vis-a-vis de cet Etat abandonne, detache de son territoire, vis-a-vis 
 de l'Eglise de la Haute Calif ornie? Nous examinerons plus tard ce 
 traits, et nous verrons que s'il y avait des droits appartenant a une 
 collectivite quelconque dans la Haute Californie, c'etait assurement le 
 gouvernement americain, qui prenait le soin de ce nouvel Etat, qui en< 
 prenait la charge, alors qu'il prenait cet Etat sous sa tutelle, qu'il rep- 
 i-esentait cette collectivite de la nation nouvelle, lui„qui assurement 8 
 aurait du faire valoir ses droits lors du traite de Queretaro. 
 
 Messieurs, le Gouvernement mexicain devait §tre d'autant plus ras- 
 sure que dans un premier texte du traite, dans l'article 9 notamment, 
 il avait ete indique que les associations, communautes ecciesiastiques 
 ou autres, les institutions jouissant de la personnalite civile au Mexi- 
 que, auraient continue a en jouir dans le nouvel Etat, mais que le Senat 
 americain n'a pas accepte cette formule. Le Senat americain n'accep- 
 tait pas d'etre lie par une legislation qui n'etait pas la sienne, il n'ac- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 653 
 
 ceptait pas que des citoyens du nouvel Etat de Californie pussent 
 encore se reelamer d'une legislation qui n'etait plus la leur parce 
 qu'elle leur etait devenue £trangere; le Senat americain exigea done 
 que le texte definitif du traite fut celui que vous possedez entre les 
 mains, et tout ce qu'il consentit a dire e'est que chacun aurait le droit 
 d'avoir les croyances, la religion qu'il lui conviendrait, sans que la lib- 
 erty de conscience fut atteinte; mais quant a reconnaitre une person- 
 nalite civile en vertu d'une legislation etrangere, le Governement 
 americain ne le voulut pas. 
 
 Des lors, messieurs, il semble que le Gouvernement mexicain devait 
 etre de par le traite de Queretaro a l'abri de toute esp^ce de preoccu- 
 pation; il devait se dire: je ne puis plus avoir de creanciers qui puis- 
 sent faire valoir de creances, et s'il existait encore un citoyen americain 
 qui put avoir une creance vis-a-vis de moi elle se trouve supprimee 
 par le traite de Queretaro et par la volonte du Gouvernement ameri- 
 cain; e'est done fini. II devait le croire, il l'a cru, et tout le monde 
 l'a cru. 
 
 Je continue. En 1850 un §tre nouveau va apparaitre, l'Eglise 
 americaine, un eveche d'abord, puis un archeveche americain dans la 
 Haute Californie. Cet §tre nouveau va devoir son existence a la legis- 
 tion americaine naturellement. A partir de 1848 le Gouvernement 
 des Etats-Unis agissait comme il l'entendait dans le nouveau territoire 
 conquis, il y appliquait la legislation qu'il lui convenait, il y appliquait 
 ses lois, et e'est en vertu de ses lois qu'il a cree des etres nouveaux, 
 e'est-a-dire de ces fictions legales, de ces entites juridiques qui sont 
 une portion de la nation nouvelle. 
 
 C'est ainsi que l'Eglise americaine de Californie prend naissance en 
 1850. 
 
 A cette epoque le nouveau pr£lat qui etait a la tete de l'Eglise nou- 
 velle de Californie a du necessairement se renseigner sur ses droits, 
 sur 1'etendue de ses droits, parce que pour un prelat ses droits sont en 
 meme temps ses devoirs; il devait done se renseigner. C'est ce qu'il 
 fait. II parait m§me qu'il se serait rendu en 1852 a Mexico et qu'il y 
 aurait formule une reclamation verbale. II le dit, il l'affirme, ce doit 
 done etre exact. Mais, messieurs, e'etait evidemment une de ces 
 reclamations assez extraordinaires en matiere administrative ou les 
 reclamations se font toujours par ecrit et ou les autres n'ont pas de 
 valeur. 
 
 Quoi qu'il en soit, de 1850 a 1859 il n'y a pas de reclamation, et il 
 n'y en aura pas encore jusqu'en 1870. Mais, s'il n'y a pas de reclama- 
 tion de la part des eveques nouveaux de Californie vis-a-vis de l'Etat 
 mexicain depuis 1850 jusqu'en 1870, il peut y avoir de leur part une 
 preoccupation: ils se demandent s'ils n'ont pas des pretentions a faire 
 valoir. 
 
 Je dis qu'ils se le demandent parce qu'ils essaient de presenter une 
 reclamation vis-a-vis des autorites americaines. C'est ainsi qu'il y 
 avait dans la Haute Californie des biens qui ne faisaient pas a propre- 
 ment parler partie du Fonds Pie de Californie, il y avait notamment 
 des terrains qui avaientete" acquis paries missionnaires,lesFranciscains, 
 dans la Haute Californie; les Franciscains ayant 6te supprimes, l'eveque 
 nouveau de la Haute Californie dit: Ces biens acquis par les Francis- 
 cains, c'est moi qui en suis l'heritier. 
 
 II y a eu un proces en Haute Californie, proces americain auquel le 
 Mexique est reste absolument Stranger. Ce proces relate a la page 
 
654 PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIF0KNIA8. 
 
 343 du livre rouge s'est termini en octobre 1856; c'&ait un proces 
 intitule "Nobile versus retman." Je lis seulement la notice de la 
 decision qui se trouve en tete du paragraphe: 
 
 Les missions £tablies en Californie avant son acquisition par les Etate-Unis etaient 
 des etablissements politiques et n'avaient en aucune maniere de relations avec l'Eglise. 
 Le fait que des moines ou des pretres 6taient a la tete de ces institutions ne prouve 
 rien en faveur de la reclamation de l'Eglise au sujet de leur proprieie' universelle. 
 
 Eh bien, qu'est ce que cela veut dire? C'est qu'en 1856 les Etats- 
 Unis d'Amerique represented par leurs institutions nationales avaient 
 juge 1 la pretention de l'Eglise et avaient dit: CommentI vous vous 
 pr^tendez les successeurs des missionnaires, des ap6tres, de ceux qui 
 etaient des conquerants? mais non, c'est une erreur, le fait que des 
 moines ou des pretres Etaient a la tete de ces institutions ne donne pas 
 a ces institutions la nature de proprietes eccl&iastiques, pas plus que 
 quand Richelieu ou Mazarin Etaient a la tete du Gouvernement ce 
 qu'ils touchaient n'acque>ait la valeur de biens ecclesiastiques, c'^taient 
 des agents du roi, des agents du gouvernement. 
 
 Voila, messieurs, un appreciation qui a 6t6 f ormulee par des insti- 
 tutions americaines, et qui condamne naturellement la pretention des 
 demandeurs actuels; c'etait une appreciation de tribunaux. 
 
 Ah! je sais que l'on nous a dit a la pre'ce'dente audience que cepen- 
 dant les archeveques et ev^ques de Californie avaient presents a un 
 bureau institue par la loi americaine l'indication des proprieties qu'ils 
 revendiquaient, qu'ils consideraient comme etant les leurs corame 
 successeurs des missionnaires, et que leurs droits ont ete reconnus. 
 Je n'en disconviens pas; cependant, messieurs, si je donne cette indi- 
 cation de decision c'est parce que vous voyez qu'en Amerique, ou les 
 droits eussent ete, semble-t-fl, sanctionnes en faveur des eveques 
 americains, ce que je dis ici a ere juge par les tribunaux americains. 
 
 Cette circonstance, messieurs, comme d'autres que je vais vous 
 indiquer, devait faire ecarter la pretention des eVSques americains si 
 elle avait 6t& presentee devant une juridiction americaine. Et quelle 
 juridiction americaine? Nous croyons que la juridiction qui 6tait com- 
 petente au premier chef pour juger cette question, c'e'tait la commis- 
 sion americaine a laquelle je faisais allusion il y a quelques instants. 
 Je vous disais que le traits de Guadalupe-Hidalgo avait prevu l'institu- 
 tion d'une commission americaine chargeede juger les conflits entre les 
 citoyens americains et l'Etait mexicain et chargee de les regler moyen- 
 nant une somme forfaitaire. C'eut 6te alors les Etats-Unis qui eussent 
 ete les defendeurs ou les interesses dans ce d6bat. Les eVSques ameri- 
 cains auraient du dire: Nous sommes les successeurs des eVSques mexi- 
 cains, ceux-ci avaient une creance qui a son origine dans le decret de 
 1842 ou dans celui de 1845 ou encore dans celui de 1836, nous avons 
 une creance qui a son origine dans un droit anterieur a 1848 et nous 
 e'tions alors les creanciers de l'Etat mexicain, puisque vous, Etats- 
 Unis, vous vous etes substitues par une novation aux obligations de 
 l'Etat mexicain, vous allez nous regler la creance, et c'est la commis- 
 sion chargee d'en juger qui va en etre saisie. lis ne Pont pas fait. 
 
 Mais nous apprenons qu'en 1859 Phonorable M. Doyle, qui e'tait le 
 conseil des avocats d'alors, pr^senta au secretaire d'Etat des Etats- 
 Unis la reclamation actuelle; cette reclamation fut presentee par M. 
 Doyle a la date du 20 juillet 1859 par une lettre qui est la premiere du 
 livre rouge (page 5 et suivantes). Cette lettre de reclamation e'tait 
 accompagnee d'un memoire assur&nent admirablement concorde dans 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 655 
 
 lequel toute la reclamation avec tous les Elements qui pouvaient en 
 asseoir le f ondement etaient produits. Les Etats-Unis cette f ois etaient 
 juges, ils allaient voir si la pretention des eveques avait une valeur. 
 11 etait temps de reclamer: nous sommes en 1859, le traite est de 1848, 
 si une reclamation est encore fondee de la part de citoyens devenus 
 ameVicains, de la part d'une institution ou d'une collectivity de la Haute 
 Calif ornie, c'est-a-dire de ce territoire detache, les Etats-Unis vont 
 s'empresser de se retourner vis-a-vis du Mexique et de lui dire: Ah: 
 pardon, nous avons fait un traite' en 1848, nous nous sommes donne" 
 une decharge absolue, mais il y a encore quelque chose, il y a la une 
 obligation qui ne peut pas meme etre determinee en chiffres, mais qui 
 va faire l'objet de notre part de negociations; nous avons dans la 
 nouvelle Calif ornie la charge d'un service public qui est le budget des 
 cultes, il y a la par consequent quelque chose; vous avez jadis recu des 
 fonds que vous avez nationalises et dont la destination anteYieure etait 
 precisement l'entretien du culte; nous vous avons paye" 15 millions de 
 dollars, mais vous nous devez encore quelque chose. 
 
 Les Etats-Unis comme gouvernement, je le demontrerai, auraient. 
 eu seuls qualite pour reclamer, ils auraient du immediatement prendre 
 la place des eveques et reclamer en leur nom s'ils avaient un di - oit vis- 
 a-vis du gouvernement mexicain. Mais, messieurs, c'est par le silence 
 qu'on accueille cette reclamation, du moins a notre connaissance nous 
 ne savons pas si une suite quelconque a ete donnee a cette lettre du 20 
 juillet 1859; si j'en juge par les documents qui ont ete fournis, le 
 Gouvernement des Etats-Unis n'aurait pas repondu ou n'aurait donne 
 aucune suite a. la reclamation. Dans tous les cas, ce qu'il y a de certain 
 c'est que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis n'a pas songe pendant plus 
 de dix annees a reclamer quoi que ce soit a, l'Etat mexicain. La recla- 
 mation aurait dii naitre en 1848, elle aurait du apparaitr^ tout au moins 
 en 1850, en 1859 il etait peut-etre deja trop tard; mais comment pouyait- 
 on encore attendre dix ans avant meme qu'une representation diplo- 
 matique quelconque fut faite au Mexique? 
 
 Nous voyons alors que c'est le 30 mars 1870, par une lettre qui se 
 trouve dans le livre rouge a la page 8 qu'un autre avocat des eveques, 
 M. Casserly, adresse au Secretaire des Etats-Unis americains, l'honor- 
 able Hamilton Fish la reclamation qui fut ensuite, je le suppose, par 
 l'intermediaire de la commission mixte presentee au Mexique. Je dis 
 que je le suppose parce que je n'ai pas trouv6 dans le livre la lettre par 
 laquelle le Gouvernement americain se serait adresse au Gouverne- 
 ment mexicain. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. II n'y en a pas eu. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Alors cela explique que je ne I'ai pas trouvee. 
 
 Dans cette lettre du 30 mars 1870 la reclamation etait presentee 
 dans la forme que vous verrez: elle avait pour objet les propri<St& du 
 Fonds et elle avait pour objet la creance integrate, le capital comme 
 les interets. 
 
 Ainsi presentee, la reclamation devait se heurter a une exception 
 d'incompetence de la part de la commission mixte et a une fin de non 
 recevoir que je vais indiquer. 
 
 Je dis a une exception d'incompetence, parce que la commission 
 mixte institute par la convention du 4 juillet 1868 ne pouyait etre 
 saisie que des reclamations qui avaient une origine posterieure au 
 traite de 1848; jamais le Mexique n'aurait appose sa signature au bas 
 d'une convention qui aurait permis de remettre en question une pre- 
 
656 PIOUS FUND OF THE 0ALIFOENIA.S. 
 
 tention ou un droit anterieur a 1848; il aurait dit: Mais pardon, nous 
 avons iini, j'ai une decharge, le traits de 1848 me permet de ne plus 
 6couter de reclamation venant de l'autre c6te de la frontiere et qui 
 aurait son origine dans un fait anterieur a 1848. 
 
 Mais, je le veux bien, il y avait des reclamations d'origine posterieure 
 & 1848, il y avait un enchevetrement dans les relations entre les cito- 
 yens de ces deux Etats, des citoyens americains pretendaient constam- 
 ment avoir des reclamations a, formuler vis-a-vis de l'Etat mexicain; 
 et il faut dire que la separation entre les deux pays, la separation des 
 deux territoires n'avait pas mis fin a ces difficult^. II y a done des 
 faits posterieurs a 1848 qui, pr6tend-on, vont donner des droits a des 
 citoyens americains vis-a-vis du Mexique. Alors on fait une conven- 
 tion par laquelle on charge une commission mixte composee de com- 
 missaires ou de delegues des deux Etats et chargee de juger les 
 difierends de la nature que je viens d'indiquer, e'est-a dire de juger 
 les difierends de citoyens d'un Etats vis-a-vis de l'autre gouvernement 
 et reciproquement, mais pour autent que les reclamations aient tou- 
 jours une origine posterieure au 2 f evrier 1848. 
 
 Done, messieurs, si la reclamation avait ete maintenue telle qu'elle 
 6tait presentee dans la lettre du 30 mars 1870 par M. Casserly, avocat 
 des ev^ques, cette reclamation se serait heurtee a, une exception 
 d'incompetence parce que la commission mixte aurait du dire: Vous 
 demandez le capital, vous demandez les proprietes du Fonds, vous 
 vous fondez sur des decrets anterieurs a 1848, e'est impossible, je ne 
 suis pas competente. 
 
 Elle aurait ajoute: mais, votre reclamation n'est m§me pas recevable 
 
 Earce que ayant une base anterieure au traite de Queretaro, les Etats- 
 fnis- ayant donne decharge au Mexique pour toutes reclamations 
 anterieures a 1848 tant de la part du gouvernement des Etats-Unis que 
 des cito} r ens americains, votre reclamation se heurte a, une exception 
 d'incompetence et a une fin de non recevoir. 
 
 Voila ce qu'aurait dit la commission mixte. 
 
 Aussi, alors, la reclamation ne fut pas definitivement presentee dans 
 ces termes, et les demandeurs d'alors se bornerent a demander les 
 interets annuels; e'e'tait, pensaient-ils — je crois qu'ils se trompaient — 
 le moyen d'ecarter et l'exception d'incompetence et la fin de non 
 recevoir, puisqu'ils disaient: nous demandons les interets echus chaque 
 annee, le droit nait chaque annee, nous n'etions done pas cr^anciers en 
 1848 et nous n'avons pas pu donner decharge d'une creance qui n'existait 
 pas, done nous demandons les interets. Et comme il y avait en 1870 
 21 annees d'interets echus on ne demandait que les 21 annees d'interets. 
 C'est conformement a cette these qu'aujourd'hui on demande 33 annees 
 d'interets, mais on ne demande pas le capital. 
 
 Voila, messieurs, comment la reclamation fut presentee en 1870 a la 
 commission mixte: demande de 21 annees d'interets. 
 
 Alors la commission mixte statue. Vous le savez, chacun des 
 delegues des Etats emet un avis contradictoire. II fallait recourir a 
 un troisieme arbitre: c'est Sir Edward Thornton, ministre plenipoten- 
 tiaire d'Angleterre a Washington, qui est charge de vider le differend; 
 il vide le differend relatif a, ces 21 annees d'interets en faveur des 
 demandeurs. 
 
 Je vais lire immediatement, pour ne plus avoir a y revenir, cette 
 sentence qui ne doit pas, pensons-nous, gtre discut^e ici par la raison 
 que nous croyons que la Cour d'arbitrage actuelle a son independance 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 657 
 
 la plus absolue, qu'elle est saisie d'une question nouvelle et d'elements 
 nouveaux sur lesquels elle aura a, statuer. Mais, messieurs, il m'est 
 imposible en passant de ne pas faire remarquer que l'honorable arbitre 
 de 1875 commencait sa sentence en disant: 
 
 L' arbitre se trouve dans 1' impossibility de discuter les divers arguments qui ontSte' 
 formulas par les deux parties sur la reclamation de Amat, eveque de Monterey et 
 Alemany, archevfique. 
 
 Cet honorable surarbitre dit en commencant: je ne puis pas examiner 
 tous ces arguments. Peut etre n'etait-il pas jurisconsulte, je l'ignore, 
 mais dans tous les cas il n'a pas examine les arguments; mais il va nous 
 dire sur quoi il a fonde sa conviction. 
 
 II s'est dit: le seul point que je doive examiner est celui-ci: est-ce 
 que les donateurs primitifs qui ont constitue le Fonds, qui ont donne 
 des biens en vue d'un but determine, en vue d'une conquete spirituelle 
 et temporelle, en vue d'une oeuvre pieuse et nationale, ont eu plut6t 
 une pens6e politique?^ L'honorable surarbitre a voulu peser les 
 mobiles qui avaient determine" les donations primitives, il a voulu 
 sectionner ces mobiles, et il s'est dit: Est-ce que c' etait une pensee 
 pieuse? Est-ce que c'etaient des chretiens avant d'etre des patriotes, 
 ou etaient-ce des patriotes avant d'etre des chretiens ? 
 
 Eh bien, messieurs, je crois qu'ils e"taient a la fois patriotes et 
 chretiens, que le but qu'ils avaient en vue e"tait une conquete spir- 
 ituelle "et temporelle, que par consequent on ne pouvait pas sectionner 
 ces mobiles, qu'il etait en tout cas difficile de les deviner et de savoir 
 quelle etait la preponderance que les uns devaient avoir sur les autres. 
 
 Nous croyons qu'il y avait d'autres elements qui devaient etre pris 
 en consideration par le Tribunal d'alors comme par le Tribunal d'au- 
 jourd'hui pour determiner sa conviction; ce sont ces elements que nous 
 avons l'honneur de vous soumettre. 
 
 Done, les demandeurs ont eu gain de cause, ils ont obtenu satisfac- 
 tion: une condamnation a 904,000 dollars. 
 
 Le montant de la condamnation a ete regie, et par consequent ceci 
 me permet une rectification en passant. L'un de mes honorables con- 
 tradicteurs disait a la precedente audience que le Mexique acceptait 
 un arbitrage en vue de s'y soumettre s'il lui etait favorable et en vue 
 de s'y sbustraire s'il aboutissait a, un echec. Non, il y avait la un 
 litige relatif a une somme de 904,000 dollars, nous avons ete con- 
 damne*s, nous avons paye, mais nous disons que e'est tout ce qui a ete 
 
 Messieurs, je m'excuse de faire en quelque sorte une incursion dans 
 ce domaine de la chose jugee, je ne vous en parlerai pas car cette 
 partie de la discussion voudra bien etre traitee exclusivement par mon 
 eminent confrere M. Beernaert. 
 
 Lorsque la somme a ete payee il a fallu partager; comment a-t-on 
 partage? Nous le savons aujourd'hui par la communication que nos 
 honorables contradict eurs ont bien voulu nous faire. Dans une petite 
 brochure qui vous a 6te distribute, vous trouvez a la page 5 l'indica- 
 tion du partage qui a 6te" fait sur l'intervention de Sa Saintete le 4 
 mars 1877. On a recouru a, cette haute autorite pontificale pour inter- 
 venir et faire le partage de la somme qui avait fait l'objet de la con- 
 damnation. ISlous voyons alors que la Congregation sur laquelle le 
 Pape s'^tait decharge du soin de l'etude de cette question et de l'indi- 
 cation du partage a effectue ce partage de la maniere que voici. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 42 
 
658 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 II y a d'abord, apres deduction des frais, une somme de 26,000 dol- 
 lars qui est payee a la famille de Aguirre — je ne sais pas pourquoi. 
 II y a ensuite une somme de 24,000 dollars qui est allouee aux Missions 
 de l'Oregon . . . pourquoi de l'Oregon? Puis une somme de 
 40,000 dollars allouee aux peres Franciscains et aux peres de la 
 Societe de Jesus . . . Jadis ils avaient tout, aujourd'hui on leur 
 donne 40,000 dollars. Le reste est divise en sept parties: il y a 1/7 
 qui est donne aux Missions du territoire d'Utah, et les six autres sep- 
 tiemes sont attribues par 1/7 & chacun des eVeches de la Haute 
 Californie. 
 
 Voila, messieurs, une repartition qui a sans doute provoque" chez 
 vous un point d'interrogation : Pourquoi le Fonds Pie de Californie 
 est-il partage entre des Missions d'autres territoires ? C'est un point 
 d'interrogation sur lequel nous reviendrons. 
 
 Done, messieurs, en 1877 le partage fut effectue, la repartition eut 
 lieu, le paiement fut regie. 
 
 Mais, lors de ce paiement est-ce qu'on s'est dit: ah mais! nous 
 sommes en 1877, les 21 annees sont expirees depuis 1870, il y a d6ja 
 six autres annees, il f aut les payer en meme temps ? Non, et on vous 
 dira, messieurs, quel fut le seul mot prononce a ce sujet, ce fut l'ffirma- 
 tion par l'avocat du Mexique que moyennant le reglement des 904,000 
 dollars e'etait fini in toto, que e'etait un reglement final, qu'il n'y avait 
 
 Elus de reclamation a formuler au sujet de ce Fonds Pie. Les Etats- 
 Tnis ont-ils repondu: non, vous nous devez les six annees ^coulees 
 puis le capital et un interet perpetuel? Non. Le Gouvernement 
 americain a dit: je ne veux pas discuter la portee de la decision de la 
 commission mixte et je n'entends pas que l'on mette en discussion cette 
 portee; et le Gouvernement mexicain a dit: nous n'entendons pas 
 discuter la portee de la decision de la commission mixte. 
 
 Messieurs, apres cet echange de vues, jusqu'au 17 aofit 1891 il n'a 
 plus ete formule de reclamation; le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis n'a 
 plus reclame, il n'a pas dit: vous me devez tous les ans 43,000 dollars. 
 II devait dire deja en 1877 lorsqu'il recevait le reglement des 904,000 
 dollars pour 21 annees dont la derniere arrivait a echeance en 1870: . 
 il y a encore 7 annees qui font sept fois 43,000 dollars en plus. II ne 
 le dit pas, et non seulement il ne le dit pas mais il ne va pas r^clamer 
 jusqu'au 17 aout 1891. C'est a cette epoque seulement que la reclama- 
 tion va reparaitre, alors que l'on pretend aujourd'hui qu'il y avait une 
 somme annuelle qui e"tait due en vertu d'un jugement d6finitif et sur 
 lequel il n'y avait plus a revenir. 
 
 J'arrive ainsi, messieurs, a, la fin de cet expose. 
 
 Le 22 mai 1902 un tribunal arbitral a ete constitue pour juger et 
 decider les differents points entre les deux pays et juger ces deux ques- 
 tions, d'abord s'il y avait res judicata quant a la sentence arbitrale 
 quant au droit perpetuel, et en second lieu si la reclamation 6ta.it , 
 fondee. 
 
 Je yais maintenant, beaucoup plus brievement parce que je me suis 
 peut-gtre un peu trop 6tendu sur l'examen des differents faits dont la 
 succession doit appeler votre attention, je vais maintenant examiner 
 les^ fondements de la demande, les demandeurs, leur titre, leur 
 pretention. 
 
 La auestion qui vous est soumise, je vous l'ai deja dit, est intdres- 
 sante a ce point de vue special que la meme question peut apparaitre 
 dans tous les Etats, et specialement dans tous les Etats d'Europe. II 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 659 
 
 n'y a pas un Etat, ni en Angleterre, ni en Allemagne, ni en Espagne, 
 ni en France, ni en Prusse ou a un moment donne on ne s'est pas 
 approprie des biens de personnes civiles, de communautes religieuses, 
 militaires ou autres. Cela s'est fait presque toujours dans les memes 
 termes comme je vous l'ai indique" et comme j'y reviendrai. Aujourd'- 
 hui, la question qui se pose est celle de savoir si ces actes accomplis 
 par les Gouvernements peuvent etre mis en discussion, s'ils peuvent 
 etre revises, s'il appartiendra a un tribunal d'aibitrage de reviser ces 
 actes du pouvoir souverain et par le fait de reviser l'histoire. 
 
 La question est grave a un autre point de vue, parce que, messieurs, 
 telle qu'elleest presentee, il faut bien le dire, elle doit crfer a la charge 
 du Mexique une charge morale beaucoup plus que pecuniaire qui sera 
 toujours penible. Le Mexique n'a pas de budget des cultes chez lui, 
 il estime que les fideles de la religion catholique sont suffisamment 
 genereux pour entretenir leur culte, et le Mexique, qui n'a pas de 
 budget des cultes chez lui, devrait perpetuellement entretenir un 
 budget des cultes a l'etranger! Ce sera toujours une charge morale 
 a laquelle il aura toujours beaucoup de mal a se soumettre, surtout 
 lorsqu'il se souviendra que ce budget etranger qu'il devra alimenter 
 est celui d'un pays conquis! 
 
 La reclamation, quelle est-elle? Avant d' employer un terme juri- 
 dique je verrai ce qu'elle est. Les demandeurs nous disent: Nous 
 avons un droit perpetuel, un droit absolu, un droit irrevocable sur le 
 Fonds Pie. 
 
 Droit perpetuel: c'est leur pretention, il faut qu'annuellement et 
 indefiniment la somme de X dollars leur soit payee. Droit absolu: 
 pas de controle de la part du Mexique, plus de volonte mexicaine inter- 
 venant dans la disposition de ses fonds, plus d'administration de la 
 part du Mexique. Droit absolu, sans conditions, et droit irrevocable 
 puisque, quelles que soient les legislations mexicaines posterieures, 
 d'apres les demandeurs l'obligation doit subsister indefiniment. 
 
 Qu'est-ce que c'est, messieurs, que ces trois attribute que je viens 
 de vous indiquer? Ce sont les attributs de la propriete, ce sont les 
 attributsdes droits civils, de la creance civile, et je puis mesurer quelle 
 en est la consequence. Ainsi, non seulement les demandeurs pretendent 
 pour eux a tous les droits sur les produits du Fonds Pie mais meme 
 ils denient au Mexique un droit quelconque: plus de droit de controle, 
 plus de droit d'administration, plus aucun droit. Done, c'est la pro- 
 priete en leur nom. 
 
 On nous dit: Non, ce n'est pas un droit de proprete, c'est un droit 
 de trust, les Jesuites etaient trustees, le gouvernement 6tait trustee et 
 nous sommes trustees aussi. 
 
 Messieurs, c'est un mot dont on use et dont on abuse peut-etre. Sans 
 doute les eveques sont les trustees de leurs dioceses, les gouvernements 
 sont les trustees de l'Etat, le general ou le provincial des Jesuites eta.it 
 le trustee de sa communaute. Mais si nous laissons les mots de cote— 
 los mots sont parfois si bizarres — et si nous revenons aux notions juri- 
 diques du droit qui est invoque, nous voyons que ce n'est pas le trust 
 qu'est le contrat dont on parle. 
 
 Qu'est-ce que c'est que le trust? C'est un mandat complique d'un 
 depot. Le trust suppose, suivant une expression ancienne, un §tre 
 qui lui doit posseder rintegralite" du droit au profit de qui le trust 
 existe; il faut en un mot un proprietaire, un etre sujet du droit, et un 
 autre qui administre, qui a le mandat, qui a le depot, qui a des droits 
 
660 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 peut-gtre qui doivent etre respects meme par le proprie"taire, par 
 celui qui truste, mais il y a toujours un de ces elements essentiels. 
 
 Un autre element du trust c'est que le trustee doit rendre compte, 
 en droit civil. Par consequent il ne suffit pas de dire: il doit rendre 
 compte a Dieu. Quand nous disons "doit rendre compte" cela veut 
 dire qu'il a une obligation civile de rendre compte, obligation qui peut 
 l'amener devant les tribunaux. 
 
 Eh bien, cela n'existe pas dan la pretention des demandeurs. Les 
 demandeurs disent: nous ne devons pas compte. lis n'indiquent pas 
 quel serait le proprMtaire, quel serait le sujet du droit .... nous 
 examinerons tout-a-1'heure qui il pourrait etre, si c'est la collectivite 
 des Indiens, si c'est l'Eglise catholique; mais si c'est l'Eglise catholique 
 ce n'est plus un trust, c'est elle qui est proprietaire, c'est elle qui 
 demand e! 
 
 Ne confondons pas, n'est-ce pas, les eVeques avec les eVSches. 
 Ceux qui sont demandeurs ce sont les eveches, c'ejst-a-dire l'Eglise 
 catholique constitute en eveches, c'est cette personne morale qui 
 demande pour elle la propriete, elle ne demande pas un trust elle 
 demande un droit absolu. De leur part tous les droits, de l'autre 
 aucun! Voila la demande. 
 
 Alors, nous disons aux demandeurs ce que j'ai dejii indique a la 
 precedente audience: Vous invoquez un droit de propriete ou de 
 creance civile, un droit absolu vis-a-vis de nous, quel est votre titre? 
 justifiez votre demande. 
 
 Ce titre il faut le produire. Nous sommes eti matiere civile, en 
 matiere juridique, il faut produire votre titre. II n'est pas permis de 
 dire: je ne produis pas de titre parce que je me fonde sur l'equite. 
 Non, pas d'arbitraire, pas de fantaisie, montrez le titre! vous nous 
 actionnez devant un Tribunal et devant un Tribunal il ne suffit pas de 
 dire: je vais deviner la pensee des donateurs. Non, le titre! 
 
 En bien, messieurs, ce titre ne peut se trouver que dans les actes de 
 donation primitifs ou bien dans les decrets et lois mexicains de 1836 a 
 1848. Nous examinerons successivement ces deux points, et nous 
 verrons d'abord si les demandeurs produisent un titre, s'ils puisent un 
 titre, un droit dans les actes de donation primitifs. 
 
 Et, puisque nous parlons des actes de donation primitifs, le Tribunal 
 aura immediatement fait cette reflexion: quels sont ils? est-ce qu'on 
 possede les actes de donation primitifs? Vous apercevez immediate- 
 ment la lacune: il n'y a que le testament du Marquis de Villapuente 
 que l'on puisse produire. 
 
 On dit alors: nous le considererons comme l'acte-type. Vous le 
 dites, mais puisque vous allez puiser un droit, vous allez montrer 
 l'existence d'une intention chez le donateur, intention qu'il va peut- 
 etre etre difficile de discerner. II va falloir peser des mobiles, il faudra 
 voir s'ila eu une intention pieuse dominant ses preoccupations politiques 
 ou patriotiques. Eh bien, alors, il faut le titre pour que nous puis- 
 sions peser, et nous ne l'avons que pour le testament du Marquis de 
 Villapuente. 
 
 Nous allons alors, messieurs, la lacune, l'absence du titre qui doit 
 exister au moins pour la plus grande partie de la pretention etant con- 
 statee, nous allons voir ce que Ton trouve duns le testament lui-meme 
 du Marquis de Villapuente que les demandeurs considerent comrae 
 1'acte type. 
 
 Nous voyons, messieurs, que le donateur tient adonner tous ses biens 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 661 
 
 aux Jesuites. Je n'ai plus a revenir sur ce que je vois ai dit a" ce sujet; 
 je vous aimontre' que ceque voulaitle donateur primitif c'etait Faban- 
 don absolu de tout son domaine aux Jesuites et aux Jesuites exclusive- 
 ment, puisqu'il veut interdire au pouvoir seculier et au pouvoir r<%ulier 
 d'intefvenir. II va plus loin que ce qui est son droit et il marque si 
 bien que sa^volonte est d'avantager les Jesuites exclusivement — la Mis- 
 sion des Jesuites, je vais y veiiir— qu'il ajoute, voulant montrer sa 
 pensee finale: lis n'auront de comptes a rendre qu'a Dieu, c'est a dire pas 
 a un humain. 11 n'y a done personne qui puisse veria pr^tendre d'apres 
 l'acte de donation primitif a un droit a c6te de celui des Jesuites sur 
 ses biens, puisque le donateur en tend les donner tous aux Jesuites; il 
 n'en reserve aucun pour qui que ee soit ik cote d'eux. 
 
 Ah! sans doute, messieurs, les donateurs avaient un but, une pre- 
 occupation en donnant aux Jesuites; ils savaient qui etaient les Jesuites, 
 ils savaient que les Jesuites avaient une organisation eh Californie, 
 cette organisation que j'ai caracterisee quand j'ai parle de leurs mis- 
 sions; ils savaient que les Jesuites etaint alles en Californie comme 
 delegu^s et mandataires du Roi, qu'ils etaient les agents du Roi la-bas, 
 
 pays que l'on avait vainement tente de reduire jusque- 
 Ils savaient tout cela, ils savientque ledrapeauqueles Jesuites allaient 
 planter en Californie c'etait le drapeau du Roi d'Espagne, et c'est aux 
 Jesuites qu'ils ont voulu donner. 
 
 On nous dit aujourd'hui: c'est & l'Eglise? Non, ce n'est pas a 
 l'Eglise, c'est aux Jesuites, ils Font precise, c'est a eux seuls qu'ils ont 
 voulu donner et qu'ils ont donne. 
 
 Mais, ajoute-t-on, les Jesuites e'etaient les mandataires de l'Eglise. 
 Non, s'ils etaient nieme mandataires ils etaient les mandataires du Roi; 
 l'Eglise, si elle etait mandante aurait du intervenir lorsqu'ils ont reuni 
 des fonds et sont partis pour leur conquete; nous, nous ne les voyons 
 que comme les mandataires du Roi. 
 
 Mais en tout cas, messieurs, tout cela, ce ne sont que des hypotheses, 
 mais dans l'acte nous ne voyons que les Jesuites, et pas autre chose. 
 
 II y a, messieurs, dans ces testaments une chose qui est curieuse; 
 c'est que dans ces titres les donateurs ont voulu creer une ceuvre 
 tongue, une ceuvre qu'ils ont cru appeMe a une dure"e indefinie. Ils 
 ont par consequent pre vu des eventualites nombreuses: ils ont preVu, 
 comme je le disais a une precedente audience, l'eventualite de l'expul- 
 sion des Jesuites du territoire Californien, l'eventualite de 1'insurrec- 
 tion des indigenes, mais il y a une chose qu'ils n'ont pas prevue, c'est 
 la suppression de l'Ordre des Jesuites. Par consequent, iorsque vous 
 voulez trouver un titre dans les actes de donation vous devez deviner, 
 vous devez f aire une hypothese, une supposition gratuite, puisque c'est 
 la une eventualite que les donateurs n'ont pas pu prevoir, car s'ils l'avai- 
 ent prevue ils l'auraient indiquee dans l'acte. Quand ils prevoient une 
 eventualite ils disent quelle sera leur volonte; mais celle-ci, ils ne Font 
 pas prevue, ils n'ont done pas exprime leur desir pour ce cas; cette 
 eventualite ils ne pouvaient pas meme y penser, la concevoir, ils ne 
 Font done pas prevue. 
 
 II faut done deviner quelle aurait ete la volonte des donateurs pour 
 le cas ou les jesuites auraient ete supprimes. Voulez- vous deviner? 
 Je veux bien, je veux vous suivre meme sur ce terrain. 
 
 Je suppose qu'ils aient eu cette pensee; les jesuites un jour seront 
 
662 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 supprim^s, que deviendront les biens? Ils devaient se dire ce qui e"tait 
 la loi, ils devaient connaitre ce qui etait l'histoire traditionelle et par 
 consequent la legislation traditionelle, ils devaient se dire que puisque 
 les Je"suite,s etaient alles installer la une ceuvre nationale au noni du 
 Eoi si ces Jfouites etaient supprimes c'etait le Koi qui rentrait dans la 
 pleine propriete. 
 
 Je pense, messieurs, qu'ils n'y ont pas pense", mais s'ils y avaient 
 pens£ ils auraient du conclure ainsi. 
 
 On nous dit: c'etaient des biens eccle"siastiques. Ah! non! Des biens 
 ecclesiastiques ? Est-ce que mes honorables contradicteurs feraient 
 cette confusion de croire que l'on doit considerer comme biens de 
 l'Eglise tous les biens qui appartiennent a toutes les communautes 
 religieuses, militaires et autres, du moment ou il y a une certaine 
 pensee pieuse qui les dirige ? C'est impossible, et encore une f ois ici 
 je vous oppose le jugement de l'Histoire. Est-ce que l'English a jamais 
 revendique" les biens des communautes religieuses? Est-ce que dans 
 tous les pays nous n'avons pas vu depuis Philippe le Bel qui suppri- 
 mait les Templiers bien d'autres souverains qui ont supprime l'Ordre 
 teutonique, l'Ordre des Chevaliers de Malte et celui de Notre Dame du 
 Mont-Carmel ? Est-ce que jamais l'Eglise a dit; leurs biens sont a moi '( 
 
 Du reste, messieurs, ]e trouve dans les documents m§mes du process 
 la preuve qu'il n'en est pas ainsi. A la page 181 du livre rouge vous 
 trouverez un document important, c'est la deposition de Sa Grandeur 
 Mgr. Alemany, eveque de San Francisco, et a la page 183, sous le N°. 
 7, vous verrez ce ci: c'est que, " en vertu du decret du Conseil ple"niere 
 de Baltimore . . ." II faut savoir que l'Eglise americaine se trouve 
 sous la tutelle immediate d'un Conseil compose de tous les archev&ques 
 et eVeques des Etats-Unis, et qui forme le Conseil de Baltimore qui 
 est l'interm^diaire entre le Pape et les eveques individuellement. 
 
 En vertu du Decret du Conseil pl<§niere de Baltimore, qui est en vigueur dans tous 
 les Etats-Unis, les propri£tes ecclesiastiques de chaque diocese dans les Etats Unis 
 appartiennent, etc. . . . excepts celles qui peuvent appartenir aux ordres, aux 
 monastSres et aux congregations religieuses. 
 
 Voici done que lorsque l'Eglise va instituer PevSque de San Fran- 
 cisco, lorsqu'elle va lui donner des pouvoirs, et lorsque le Conseil de 
 Baltimore, qui est une autorite" religieuse, va determiner quels sont les 
 pouvoirs de l'eveque il va dire qu'il a le droit de revendiquer tous le*s 
 biens de l'Eglise, mais il va en excepter, entre parentheses, comme une 
 chose qui a a peine besoin d'etre dite, les biens des communautes 
 religieuses et des congregations. Ce qui prouve, messieurs, qu'au- 
 jourd'hui comme de tout temps l'Eglise n'a pas pr^tendu a la propriete* 
 des biens des communautes religieuses. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, je n'ai pas besoin de vous dire cela; dans la pi-ece- 
 dente audience je vous montrais quelle etait l'indication donnee par le 
 conseil de l'eveque, qui disait: "Je ne pretendais pas a la propriete 
 du Fonds." 
 
 Est-ce que d'ailleurs l'on peut concevoir qu'une personne civile, une 
 ceuvre de la loi, une personne morale, une entite juridique qui repre- 
 sente une collectivite, une portion de la nation, qui a cette existence 
 Active derivant du pouvoir souverain venant a disparaltre les biens 
 puissent aller ailleurs qu'a celui qui repi-esente toute la nation. Est-ce 
 que ce n'est pas un principe de droit commun general que les biens 
 sans maitre— et du moment ou l'entite juridique disparaft les biens 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORN1AS. 663 
 
 ' deviennent sans maftre — retournent a la nation et a celui qui la 
 represente, c'est-a-dire au Roi ou au Gouvernement? 
 
 Done, messieurs, ce qui se trouve confirme" ici dans la deposition de 
 l'honorable Mgr. Alemany est une verite de droit commun et de prin- 
 cipe g6n6ral. Ce ne sont pas des biens ecclesiastiques que les biens 
 des Jesuites parce que lorsqu'il s'agit d'un bien de l'Eglise celle-ci y 
 met sa marque. Sa marque, c'est son intervention a la constitution 
 du bien, a la constitution du droit. Quand il s'agit d'un bien de 
 l'Eglise, l'autorite de l'Eglise intervient toujours a l'acquisition, et elle 
 intervient a, la suppression, a l'alienation, a la passation d'un sujet du 
 droit dans un autre. 
 
 Ici, ai-je besoin de vous faire remarquer que jamais elle n'est inter- 
 venue, confirmant par consequent ainsi ce qui etait dans les actes, a 
 savoir que les actes disent " les Jesuites" et non pas " l'Eglise," et par 
 consequent l'excluent expressement? 
 
 Messieurs, lorsque ce testament est fait, lorsque cette donation est 
 cree"e, nous voyons que les Jesuites interviennent par un procurateur, 
 par un mandataire; e'est ainsi que vous verrez a la finale de ce docu- 
 ment interesant que les biens sont acceptes par les b^neficiaires; c'est- 
 a-dire que nous trouvons la une relation de droit civil, un transfert de 
 droits qui suppose toujours deux parties, le donateur et l'accepteur; 
 on ne concoit pas un acte de volonte unilaterale pouvant en general 
 creer un droit synallagmatique, e'est une notion qui est commune. 
 
 Voila done que les donateurs entendent disposer au profit des Jesuites 
 exclusivement; ce sont les mandataires du Roi; en tout cas ce n'est pas 
 l'Eglise. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, nous voyons dans le testament autre chose; on dit 
 que la donation est faite au profit des Missions des Jesuites. Vous 
 avez entendu qu'a une precedente audience on vous disait: C'est pour 
 les Missions, done c'est pour une ceuvre pieuse, done c'est pour l'Eglise. 
 Messieurs, les Missions c'est une chose bien speciale, surtout qu'on les 
 entendait; le missionaire c'est un apotre; le missionnaire n'est pas la 
 meme chose, meme au point de vue de l'Englise, que l'ordinaire, n'est-ce 
 pas? Ce sont des notions aussi differentes que les notions de civil et de 
 militaire alors que tous deux sont des laiques; ce sont des notions bien 
 distinctes. Les Missions etaient une oeuvre que vous connaissez et 
 qui a ete caracterisee: une ceuvre nationale, politique, de conquete, de 
 reduction politique et religieuse; moi, jene separe pas, parce que je pense 
 que la volonte des donateurs a ete de ne pas separer les donataires. 
 Les donateurs ont su ce qu'ils faisaient, ils ont voulu donner pour une 
 oeuvre determinee qui etait une ceuvre de conqete a la fois religieuse 
 et temporelle. Mais cette ceuvre-la n'existe plus, ne peut plus exister, 
 je l'ai deja indique a une precedente audience: est-ce qu'il serait possi- 
 ble de concevoir encore, dans un pays ou la liberte de conscience est 
 proclame'e cornme un axiome, comme etant la base de la Constitution 
 comme en Amerique, des Missions telles que les cbmprenaient les dona- 
 teurs, c'est-a-dire cette ceuvre de reduction religieuse comme de reduc- 
 tion politique? 
 
 Voyez done quelle aurait ete la situation des parties, par exemple en 
 1848;" le Gouvernement mexicain aurait dit: J'ai des fonds qui m'ont 
 ete remis pour les Missions de Californie, vous m'enlevez la Californie, 
 je garde les fonds, mais je vais continuer les Missions. Le Gouverne- 
 ment des Etats-Unis aurait repondu: Comment est-il possible de con- 
 cevoir que vous veniez continuer une ceuvre qui est des siecles passes, 
 
664 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 qui n'est plus concevable avec les ide"es que nons avons dans notre 
 gouvernement moderne ? Et comment le Mexique aurait-il pu songer a 
 continuer ces Missions? Comment meme un gouvernement comme les 
 Etats-Unis, Etat protestant, aurait-il pu continuer ces Missions chez 
 lui? C'est une conception qui n : est plus possible parce que le temps 
 et les circonstances ont change\ 
 
 Mais, messieurs, dans les actes de donation nous trouvons encore que 
 les donateurs ontvoulu avantager les Missions des Jesuites de Calif or- 
 nie. Quelles etaient ces Missions de Jesuites de Calif ornie? Elles se 
 trouvaient dans la p^ninsule, dans cette partie de territoire qui est 
 aujourd'hui appelee la Vieille ou la Basse Californie, mais dans cette 
 partie qui est restee mexicaine; c'est la seulement que les Jesuites ont 
 installe des Missions, et si nous voulons compulser les actes de dona- 
 tion primitifs nous voyons que les donateurs ont eu en vue les Missions 
 des Jesuites, et des Jesuites de Californie, de ce que eux consideraient 
 comme la Californie alors, de ce que les Jesuites consideraient comme 
 la Californie, de ce pays qui e"tait la seule preoccupation des Jesuites 
 d'alors. c'est-a-dire de la Vielle Californie. 
 
 Par consequent, comment les demandeurs pourraient-ils a un titre 
 quelconque trouver dans les documents de l'epoque, dans les actes 
 de donation, un titre en leur faveur? 
 
 Messieurs, je vous demanderai la permission de vous faire une 
 replique de quelques pages, cela me permettra d'abreger ce que j'ai & 
 vous dire, c'est une des seules lectures que je me permettrai de faire, 
 sachant combien les moments de la cour sont pr^cieux. Vous avez a 
 la page 436 du livre rouge un document qui est un document his- 
 torique: c'est un decret du roi du 13 novembre 1734 qui est traduit 
 dans 1'Histoire de la Californie du Pere Venegas, c'est done un docu- 
 ment que les Jesuites eux-m6mes consideraient comme ayant une 
 importance capitale. Si je vous demande la permission de vous lire 
 ce document c'est parce que je veux que vous entendiez une parole qui 
 ne soit plus la mienne mais celle d'un homme de l'epoque, c'est-a-dire 
 du roi, qui va vous parler des missions et qui va vous dire comment 
 on comprenait ces missions alors; vous verrez s'il est encore possible, 
 alors que les donateurs ont dit que e'etait a ces missions-la qu'ils vou- 
 laient faire une donation, de soutenir que ce soit, a l'exclusion du 
 gouvernement, 1'eglise qui aurait ete avantagee. Voici ce document: 
 
 Le Eoi. 
 Don Juan Francisco de Guemes et Horcasita, lieutenant-general de mes armees, Vice- 
 roi, Gouverneur et capitaine general des provinces de la Nouvelle-Espagne, et presi- 
 dent de mon audience royale residant dans la ville de Mexico: On envoya le 13 de 
 novembre 1734, a votre predecesseur dans ces emp'lois, le comte de Fuen-Clara, un 
 ordre concu en ces termes: 
 Le Eoi. 
 
 Comte de Fuen-Clara, mon cousin, chevalier de l'Ordre de la Toison d'Or, gentil- 
 homme de ma chambre, gouverneur et capitaine general de provinces de mon rov- 
 aume de la Nouvelle-Espagne, et president de mon audience royale, residant dans , 
 ma ville de Mexico. L'archeveque vice-roi, votre predecesseur dans ces emplois, 
 m' ayant par une lettre du 23 d'avril, 1735, et par une autre du 10 du meme mois 1737, 
 envoye un detail de ce qui s'est passe dans la revoltedes Indiens des nations appelees 
 Pencues et Guaicura dans la province de Californie, des mesures qu'on a prises et des 
 depenses qu'on a faites pour les soumettre et les faire rentrer dans la tranquillite ou 
 elles se trouvent actuellement, par la bonne conduite du gouverneur de Sinaloa. Ces 
 memoires ont ete presentes a mon conseil des Indes pour en deliberer, ensemble avec 
 Porigme, les progres et l'etat present de la conquete spirituelle et temporelle de ladite 
 province de Californie, et ayant, a la requete du Pere Attamirano de la Societe de 
 Jesus, et agent general pour ses provinces dans les Indes, et particulierement des mis- 
 sions de son Ordre dans la Californie, approuve les mesures qu'on a prises et les 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 665 
 
 dSpenses qu'on a faires pour les rSduire, comme je vous l'ai signify dans ma lettre du 
 2 d'avril de l'annee derniere, on a jugS a propos, en attendant les mSmoires et les 
 instructions relatives a, ces lettres, qu'on attend journellement de la Californie, de 
 dSlibSrer dans mon susdit conseil sur les mesures qu'il convient de prendre pour 
 l'entier accomplissernent de la reduction et de la conquete en question, laquelle a StS 
 tentSe depuis l'annSe 1523, premierement par Don Ferdinand Cortez, Marquis del 
 Valle, premier vice-roi de ces provinces; et depuis, par quelques-uns de ses suc- 
 cesseurs et par divers particuliers en diffSrents temps. Et quoiqn'il en ait coutS 
 de grandes sommes a, mon trSsor royal, (ependant cette entreprise n'a jamais 
 eu d'effet, a cause des malheurs qu'on a SprouvSs et des difficultSs insurmon- 
 tables qu'on a rencontrSes, quoiqu'on fut ports a cette conquete par l'appat flatteur 
 de la peche des perles. Sur le rapport qui m'a encore StS fait de la docilite des natu- 
 rels du pays, et de l'inclination qu'ils ont d'embrasser notre sainte religion, et un 
 genre de vie civilise 1 ainsi que l'ont confirms les missionnaires JSsuites, entr' autres les 
 peres Jean-Marie de Salva-Tierra et Eusebe Francois Kino, dans l'annee 1698, et plus 
 particuliSrement le pere Francois Piccolo dans l'annee 1716; lesquels m'ont represents 
 que par le zele infatigable des religieux de la Society de JSsus, les seuls qui se soient 
 dSvouSs a ce service recommandable, et a l'aide des contributions des fideles, ces mis- 
 sions et ces conversions etaient dSja fort avancees; j'ai fourni de mon tresor royal un 
 subside annuel de 13,000 piastres depuis l'annee 1703, dans la vue principalement de 
 defrayer les dSpenses d'un corps de soldats pour les missions, et payer les officiers et 
 l'Squipage de la barque destinee a transporter les missionnaires de la cote de Cinaloa 
 dans la Californie; sur quoi mon dit Conseil des Indes ayant revu et examine' avec la 
 plus grande diligence et la plus exacte ponctualitS les differents articles relatifs a ce 
 chef, de mSme que les rapports des auditeurs, en presence du susdit pere Pierre- 
 Tgnace Attamirano et autres personnes judicieuses de cet Ordre, et versees dans ces 
 conversions: Oui, le rapport de mon solliciteur sur le tout, on m'a represents dans 
 mon Conseil du 12 de mai de cette annee, qu'il etait de la derniere importance que 
 l'on prit immSdiatement les mesures les plus efficaces pour faire rentrer ladite pro- 
 vince de Californie dans le sein de l'eglise et sous ma domination; que cette entre- 
 prise avantageuse, quoique vigoureusement appuySe du zele catholique de mes 
 glorieux pfSdScesseurs, et par les vicerois de ces provinces, avait si souvent SchouS, 
 qu'on n' etait pas maitre d'une pied de terre dans cette vaste con trSe, etque pour y rSussir 
 plus efficacement, il fallait Stablir pour base fondatnentale de cette conquete la con- 
 version des Indiens a notre sainte religion, en la confiant aux missionnaires Jesuites, 
 qui ont fait de si grands progres parmi eux et parmi toutes les nations infideles dont 
 ils ont pris la conduite dans toute l'Stendue de 1'AmSrique; et en outre fonder dans 
 tous les ports que l'on rencontreroit dans les contrSes voisines, une colonie espagnole 
 avec un fort et une garnison, et dans le centre de chaque province, une ville espagnole 
 pour tenir en bride les Indiens et servir de retraite aux missionnaires en cas de rSvolte. 
 Et comme le transport des families de ce royaume dans ces colonies espagnoles 
 occasionnerait bien des difficultSs et des depenses, independamment du besoin qu'on 
 peut en avoir pour d'autres Stablissements, on a trouvS a propos que ces Emigrations 
 se fissent de la ville de Mexico et des provinces voisines; Sur quoi nous attendons les 
 rapports et les informations que nous avons demandes pour nous determiner la dessus. 
 Le Conseil m'a encore represents que pour rSduire plus promptement les Indiens des 
 Californies, il seroit a propos que les missionnaires Jesuites entrassent dans la province 
 du cotS opposS a celui par lequel y sont entrSs ceux qui s'y trouvent actuellement, 
 c'est-a-dire par la partie du nord ou cette province confine avec le continent; vu qu'on 
 a dScouvert, et qu'on assure que la province de Californie n'est point une ile, comme 
 on le croit communSment, mais une terre ferme, qui confine du c6tS du nord avec 
 celle du Nouveau-Mexique; car au moyen de ces mesures, les peuples qui l'habitent 
 se trouveroient enfermSs ou comme isolSs sans aucun passage ou communication dans 
 les terres des autres sauvages Indiens; au moyen de quoi, les missionnaires s'avan- 
 cant le long de leurs diffSrens dSpartemens vers le centre du pays, on abrSgeroit 
 beaucoup la rSduction totale de la province. Mais pour exScuter ce projet, on croit 
 qu'il est d'une grande consSquence qu'il y ait deux missionnaires dans les missions 
 de tous les dSpartemens d'Indiens qu'on a dSja rSduits, et qu'il est absolument 
 nScessaire de pousser la conquSte dans lee contrSes contigues aux Indiens qu'on n'a 
 pas encore sounds, vu qu'indSpendamment des avantages communs a tous, un des 
 missionnaires venant a passer dans les territoires des infideles pour les convertir, les 
 cantons habitSs ne seroient privSs des instructions nScessaires et auroient toujours 
 chez eux une personne intelligente et en Stat de veiller sur tous les mouvemens qui 
 tendent a, la trabison ou a la rSvolte, ce qu'on auroit toujours a craindre, si ces 
 peuples Stoient abandonnSs a eux-mSmes. 
 
 11 convient encore d'Stablir sur toutes les frontiSres des pays qu'on a rSduits, une 
 garde de soldats tant pour la suretS des missionnaires et des Indiens, que pour escor- 
 
666 PlOtTS FUND OF THE OALIFOBlsriAS. 
 
 ter les missionnaires dans les territoires des infideles, lesquels soient toujours sous la 
 direction des religieux, et n'agissent que par leurs ordres, de peur que par des cha- 
 timens indiscrets ou des courses imprudentes ils n'alarment les Indiens. On espere 
 par cette m£thode de faire de grands progr&s dans les districts ou 1'on a 6tabli des 
 missions. On juge encore a propos pour hater la conqudte de cette province avec le 
 secours des missions, qu'on les t'tende vers le midi, mais dans un sens oppose^ pour 
 qu'elles se rencontrent avec celles du nord; et pour que les mesures susdites puissent 
 aisement se pratiquer dans les missions du mfime ordre 6tablies dans les montagnes 
 des Pimas et dans la province de Sonora, on doublera les missionnaires dans tous les 
 districts convertis qui confinent avec les infideles, en leur donnant la garde sp^cifie'e 
 ci-dessus. Au moyen de quoi les missionnaires etablis dans les montagnes des Pimas 
 continuant ft require les nations des Cacomaricopas et des Yumas, qui confinent 
 avec la rivi&re du nord, qu'on appelle aussi Colorado, pres de l'endroit ou elle se 
 jette dans le golfe de Calif ornie; les Jesuites esperent, suivant les premieres relations 
 qu'ils ont donn^es, de trouver un accueil favorable chez ces nations, et fondant un 
 village des Indiens convertis sur les bords du mSine Colorado, ils pourront ais6ment 
 passer sur 1' autre c6t6 de la Calif ornie, ou aprSs avoir r£duit les Hoabonomas et les 
 Bajiopas, qui sont des peuples tres dociles et trSs traitables, ils pourront y fonder un 
 autre village pour assurer le passage des deux cot6s de la rivi&re, et 6tablir une com- 
 munication avec la terre ferme; s'avancant de la vers le midi, a travers la Californie, 
 jusqu'aux anciennes missions. Quant a la garde que Ton demande pour les Pimas 
 montagnards, on juge que le d£tachement post6 a Terrenate, ou 1' autre qui est a 
 Pitiqui suffiront, vu qu'il parait par le rapport de Don Augustin de Vildosola, gou- 
 verneur de la province de Cinaloa, que tous les deux ne sont point n^cessaires; cepen- 
 dant, pour plus grande surety on pourra faire passer le di^tachement de Pitiqui a 
 Terrenate et envoyer celui-ci aux missions des Pimas montagnards, au moyen de 
 quoi on pourra fournir une garde convenable aux nouvelles et aux anciennes mis- 
 sions de la Californie sans qu'il en coute davantage a mon tr£sor royal. Le meSme 
 conseil m'a encore represents qu'encore que les depenses des missionnaires aient aug- 
 ments, on doit se souvenir que par une cddule de 1702 on donna ordre d'assister les 
 missionnaires de la Californie dans tout ce qui pouvoit contribuer a leur spulagemens 
 et aux progrfis de l'ouvrage qu'ils avoient enterpris; et par un autre de 1723 que les 
 religieux actuellement en place, ou qui passeront dans la suite dans la Californie 
 eussent le meme salaire que ceux de leur ordre, et fussent pay£s reguliSrement et 
 ponctuellement; on ne les a point executes jusqu'ici, et que cependant ces missions 
 n'ont occasionne' aucune defense, et n'ont recu ni appointement ni salaires: les quinze 
 missions qui sont actuellement dans la Californie s'Stant soutenues sans qu'il m'en 
 ait rien coutS, par les libe>alit£s de plusieurs particuliers, obtenues par le zele et les 
 bons offices des religieux de V Ordre. Comme done les moyens qu'on propose sont 
 pen dispendieux, eu egard a l'avantage prodigieux qui doit en rSsulter, il convient 
 que tous ces Ordres ou tels autres qu'approuveront les JSsuites, lesquels connoissent 
 mieux le pays, et desquels j'attends de plus amples informations, soient executes; et 
 que dtis a present mSme on leur fournisse de mon trSsor royal les sommes necessaires 
 pour 1'xScution de cette enterprise, et que Ton augmente le nombre des missionaires 
 Jesuites: 6tant necessaire qu'il y en ait deux dans chaque district conquis qui con- 
 fine avec les Indiens infideles. 
 
 Enfin, pour assurer la subordination, on remettra la paye des soldats aux mission- 
 naires _pour qu'ils la recoivent de leurs mains. Voulant au cas qu'un soldat soit d'un 
 caractere turbulent, ou se conduise mal, que les missionnaires puissent le renvoyer et 
 en prendre un autre a sa place, vu que faute de ces precautions et de quelques autres 
 dont quelques habiles missionnaires m'ont instruit relativernent a ces provinces, les 
 soldats par leur mavaise conduite ont extrSmement retard^ la reduction des Indiens, 
 qu'il est necessaire de tenir dans la crainte et le respect. pour les empScher de trainer 
 aucun complot, les traitant neanmoins avec douceur pour dissiper leurs soupcons et 
 leur m6fiance, leur faire gouter les instructions qu'on leur donne et les civiliser. 
 
 M. de Martens. Est-ce qu'il n'y a pas une erreur? dans le livre 
 rouge il est dit que ce document est de novembre 1734. 
 
 M. Delacroix. C'est le document que je viens de lire. 
 
 M. de Martens. Ce n'est pas possible, car au commencement on 
 parle de 1735. De quelle annee ce document est-il? 
 
 M. Delacroix. Ce document en rappelle un autre; si vous voulez 
 le regarder vous-meme vous verrez qu'au commencement il est indique 
 qu'on se reiere a un document de 1734. 
 
 M. de Martens. Dans le livre rouge, a la page 441, a la fin du doc- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 667 
 
 ument que vous avez lu il est dit qu'il est de 1734, mais dans ce doc- 
 ument m&me on parle de 1735; vous avez corrige en disant 1735? 
 
 M. Delacroix. J'ai corrige" d'apres le livre rouge. II y a en effet 
 une anomalie. Je ve>ifierai et t&cnerai de trouver le nceud de cette 
 6nigme. En tout cas le document est ant^rieur a 1767 puisque c'est la 
 date de la publication du livre. 
 
 M. Beernaert. C'est l'exemplaire de la Bibliotheque royale de 
 Bruxelles, c'est une Edition deja fort ancienne; nous croyons que c'est 
 l'ouvrage du pere Venegas bien qu'il ne soit pas nomme; chose curieuse 
 et meme remarquable, il est dit que ce volume est traduit de l'anglais. 
 En tete du volume il y a une mention fort ancienne, d'une ecriture 
 effaced, qui indique le nom du pere Buriel. 
 
 M. de Savornin-Lohman. Cela peut s'expliquer en prenant la 
 page 443. 
 
 M. de Martens. Alors, il y aurait une faute d'impression. 
 
 M. Doyle. Je crois que la date est 1744. 
 
 M. Beernaert. En tout cas, cela n'aurait pas grande importance. 
 
 (A midi la seance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures.) 
 
 DIXIEME SEANCE. 
 
 &£ septembre 1902 (apres-midi). 
 
 L'audience est ouverte a 2 h i de l'apress-midi sous la pre"sidence de 
 M. Matzen. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est a, l'agent des Etats-Unis de l'Ame- 
 rique du nord. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. With the permission of the counsel for Mexico, I 
 want to make a slight explanation with regard to the territorial limits 
 of California and to present a map to the court. The honorable mem- 
 bers of the court will have noticed in the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
 a reference to the map which accompanied the treaty and which is 
 really made part of it. I telegraphed to Washington for a certified 
 copy of this map and I have it here, it having arrived this noon. I 
 desire to file it with the court and at the same time to invite the atten- 
 tion of the court to it, so that no misunderstanding might arise out of 
 anything that I stated yesterday with regard to the limits of Califor- 
 nia. According to the map which I have before me [Mr. Ralston 
 indicates on the map], the northern limit of the territory ceded by 
 Mexico is the 42d degree, and the 42d degree is carried as the northern 
 limit out into the State of Wyoming. The exact point is a limit diffi- 
 cult to determine. And then, proceeding southward, it follows the 
 line of the Colorado River substantially so far — it goes about here — 
 [indicating on the map] and so on down to the Gulf of California. So 
 that the territory actually obtained from Mexico by the treaty of 
 Guadalupe-Hidalgo was the State of California, Nevada, Utah, Ari- 
 zona, part of New Mexico, and a slight part of Colorado and Wyo- 
 ming — and all of that, according to this map, passes under the name 
 of "Alta California." 
 
 I have also a map which occurs in an official publication of the Gov- 
 erno^snt, and which 1 have just received, which shows the limits of 
 the various acquisitions of territory by the United States; and which 
 I will take the liberty for the moment of handing to the court, with 
 the permission of the agent of Mexico. I am compelled to return this 
 
668 PIOUS FTTNB OF THE OALIFOENTA8. 
 
 volume, so I simply present it for your examination a moment. 
 [Shows the book to Mr. Par do and the court.] 
 
 I will add just one word. At one point in the record — I can not for 
 the moment refer to it — it is stated on behalf of Spain that their dis- 
 coveries went from the southern point of Lower California a distance 
 of seven hundred leagues to the north. Seven hundred leagues carry 
 the discoveries about" to this line [indicating on the map], which would 
 include both Washington and Oregon, both large States; so that we 
 may regard the benefactions from our point of view as covering the 
 whole territory of Washington and Oregon and the country adjacent, 
 although the Alta California described by Mexico and referred to in 
 the map (of the treaty) only includes California, Nevada, Utah, part 
 of Wyoming, part of Colorado and New Mexico, and all of Arizona. 
 
 M. Beernaert. La Cour sait que les delais fixes par le protocole 
 sont tres courts et que nous n'avons eu que peu de temps a consacrer 
 a l'etude de cette affaire. Nous n'avons done pu songer a repondre 
 par un memoire developpe au memoire de la partie adverse; mais nous 
 avons fait imprimer des conclusions qui resument en termes succincts 
 mais complets tous les elements de notre systeme de defense. Je vais 
 avoir a l'instant l'honneur de faire distribuer ces conclusions a la Cour, 
 des exemplaires en ayant ete deja remis a la partie adverse. 
 
 Je me permets, Messieurs, d'ajouter: Tout en sachant le plus grand 
 gre a, la cour de nous avoir mis a meme, Son Excellence M. Pardo et 
 moi, de prendre part demain a Bruxelles aux funeYailles de ma 
 regrettee Reine, je dois faire remarquer que les devoirs qui nous 
 incombent a cette occasion nous rendront extremement penible l'obliga- 
 tion de repartir pour La Haye le jour meme. S'il pouvait entrer 
 dans les convenances de la cour de ne sieger que vendredi apres-midi, 
 M. Pardo et moi lui en serions fort reconnaissants et elle re*pondrait 
 en meme temps au desir manifeste par notre honorable contradicteur, 
 M. le Senateur Descamps. 
 
 M. le President. Par suite de la demande d'ajournement qui 
 vient d'etre faite, apres cette seance le Tribunal s'ajournera a vendredi 
 2h. i. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je remercie vivement la cour, au nom de Son 
 Excellence M. Pardo et au mien. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis mexicains 
 pour la continuation de sa plaidoirie. 
 
 SUITE DE LA PLAIDOIRIE DE M. DELACROIX. 
 
 Messieurs: Au moment ou l'audience a ete lev6e, j'avais eu l'honneur 
 de dormer lecture a la cour d'un document qui, je crois, meVitait son 
 attention, et qui porte la date du 13 novembre 1744. C'est par erreur 
 que nous avions indique" 1734; vous trouverez a la page 196 du volume 
 rouge le texte espagnol de ce document et il porte en effet la date de 
 1744; ainsi que l'a fait fort sagement remarquer l'un des membres du 
 siege. 
 
 Messieurs, nous avons examine ce matin si les demandeurs pouvai- 
 ent puiser un titre a leur pretention dans les actes de donation primi- 
 tifs. Nous avons constate que ces actes donnaient les droits les plus 
 absolus aux^Jesuites de Calif ornie, que ces droits 6taient exclusifs, 
 dans la pensee des donateurs, de toute intervention de l'eglise comme 
 de toute intervention du pouvoir civil. Ces actes avaient 6te" faits en 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFORNIAS. 669 
 
 \*ue d'avantager les missions, oeuvres de conquete, et les missions de 
 Californie. Nous avons dit, documents en main, ce qu'etait la Cali : 
 fornie a, l'<Spoque ou les donations ont ete faites, quel 6tait le pays, quel 
 etait le territoire que ces donateurs pouvaient avoir eu en vue. 
 
 Nous avons ajoute, messieurs — et j'en 6tais arrive a cette question 
 lorsque l'audience a ete leve — que si les donateurs avaient attribueaux 
 beneficiaires de ces donations, c'est-a-dire aux Jesuites, tous les droits, 
 tous les pouvoirs qu'ils pouvaient leur conl'<3rer, si de leur part il n'y 
 avait aucune restriction dans cette attribution de droits, il y en avait 
 une qui derivait de la loi, du pouvoir souverain. 
 
 C'est ici que se place une indication que j'avais fugitivement donnee 
 si la cour: un edit de Charles Quint du 10 novembre 1520; repro- 
 duit dans les Placards de Brabant, l e partie, p. 80 a, 84, et reproduit 
 dans les Placards de Fkndre, 8 8 Partie, p. 10 a 17, disait ceci: 
 
 Chez nous les mainmortes ne pouvaient acquerir a cause de mort et entre vifs, il 
 fallait l'autorisation du prince et des gens de loi. 
 
 C'est-a-dire que deja du temps de Charles Quint, qui 6tait le souve- 
 rain tant des Pays-Bas que d'Espagne, on considerait qu'il y avait a se 
 pr^occuper de l'envahissement de la mainmorte, et que le souverain 
 depart intervenir pour limiter le droit de poss^der de ces personnes 
 civiles, c'est-a-dire de ces entites morales qui ne trouvaient leur exis- 
 tence que dans la loi elle-mfime. 
 
 Cet edit, Messieurs, fut ratine par Marie-Therese le 28 septembre, 
 1753, et c'est a l'occasion de cette ratification par Marie-Therese que 
 nous trouvons la citation que je viens de faire et qui est reproduite 
 dans les placards de Brabant et dans les placards de Flandre aux pages 
 que j'ai indiquees. 
 
 Voici done, Messieurs, que la loi deja depuis le 16 e siecle etait inter- 
 venue, en concurrence en quelque sorte avec les droits des beneficiaires 
 de mainmortes. Ce qui est interessant dans ce debat c'est que si S, 
 cote" du droit du donataire il y a un autre droit qui vient se meler a 
 celui-la, ce n'est pas le droit de l'eglise, c'est le droit du souverain, le 
 droit de celui qui represente la nation, 1'ensemble de la collectivite. 
 
 A ce point de yue il est interessant de signaler ce qui suit: Lorsque 
 la presente question a ete soumise a la commission mixte, l'honorable 
 surarbitre a estime que les biens dont il s'agit devaient etre des biens 
 ecclesiastiques, des biens de l'eglise, uniquement parce que la pensee 
 qui avait dicte ces donations etait une pensee pieuse, c'est-a-dire une 
 pensee dont le but pieux devait predominer sur le but politique. Eh 
 bien, Messieurs, nous croyons qu'il ne suffit pas qu'une donation ait 
 ete faite dans une preoccupation pieuse pour que le bien appartienne 
 a, l'eglise, c'est la a, noti e sens une confusion absolue. En etfet, lorsque 
 nous regardons de pres cet acte de donation de 1735, ne voyons-nous 
 pas que ce qui a determine la donation e'etait sans aucun doute une 
 pensee pieuse, mais que e'etait 6galement une pensee politique? 
 
 Ce n'est pas le mobile que nous devons considerer, c'est le fait, c'est 
 l'objet de la donation. Eh bien, je vous le demande, je suppose qu'on 
 fasse une donation a une personne d^terminee, je dis a telle personne: 
 je vous donne mon bien, je vous donne un domaine qui m'appartient, 
 je vous le donne en propriety absolue, mais je desire que vous 
 Femployiez de telle et telle maniere, je desire que vous y receiviez telle 
 ou telle congregation, telle ou telle personne, que vous entreteniez tels 
 ou tels pauvres,que vous fassiez un etablissement de bienfaisance, que 
 
670 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 vous y recueilliez des vieillards pauvres; je suis guide, en un mot, par 
 une idee de bienfaisance quelconque; je donne a cette personne le 
 pouvoir absolu en ce qui concerne ce bien, sauf que je lui fais une 
 recommandation . 
 
 Dans notre legislation moderne, une telle disposition serait dan- 
 gereuse parce qu'il pourrait se faire que l'on dit que cette donation 
 sera nulle, etant en contrariety avec certaines dispositions legislatives 
 positives; mais, d'une maniere absolue, et laissant de cote cette ques- 
 tion de nullite qui n'int6resse pas le debat actuel, n'est-il pas eVident 
 que eel ui qui serait le beneficiaire de cette donation serait incontestable- 
 ment l'individu lui-meme et non pas l'eglise '( Est-ce qu'il est possible 
 de sanctionner par un arrest que toute donation qui aurait 6te deter- 
 mined par un mobile religieux entrain erait une propriete de l'eglise? 
 Ce n'est pas possible, ce n'est pas juridique. 
 
 Je me permets a ce point de vue d'en revenir a ce qui s'est passe lors 
 de la Revolution Francaise et lors de la secularisation qui s'en est 
 suivie. Je vous parlais du decret du 2-4 novembre 1789 disant: 
 
 L'assemblee Nationale decrete: 
 
 Que tons les biens ecclesiastiques sont a la disposition de la Nation, & la charge de 
 pourvoir d'une maniere convenable aux frais du culte, a l'entretien de ses ministres 
 et au soulagement des pauvres, sous la surveillance et d'apres les instructions , des 
 provinces; que dans les dispositions 0, faire pour subvenir a l'entretien des ministres 
 de la religion il ne pourra etre assure a la dotation d'une cure moins de 200 livres. 
 
 Puis, l'ouvrage que je tiens en ce moment a, la main, le "Repertoire 
 de 1' Administration " dit: 
 
 Le droit que 1' Assemblee Constituante reconnait £t la Nation de disposer des biens 
 ecclesiastiques n'est pas un droit nouveau qu'elle a cree tout expres pour la circon- 
 stance; il preexistait; il est inherent a toute nation comme la souverainete dont il 
 derive; l'Angleterre, 1'Autriche, l'avient exerce avant elle, l'Espagne l'a exerce 
 depuis, et chaque peuple exercera losque la necessity lui en fera un devoir. 
 
 Et plus loin: 
 
 Vainement dirait-on que la nation n'avait pas le droit de supprimer le clerge; la 
 noblesse etle tiers-orde comme corps politiques; ce serait refuser a une nation le droit 
 de se constituer comme elle l'entend, ce serait infeoder les peuples & une forme de 
 gouvernement qui une fois etablie ne pourrait plus etre changee .quels que fussent les 
 changements survenus dans les mceurs, les besoins et les interete de la societe, ce 
 serait saper la principe sur lequel reposent toutesles Constitutions anciennes et mod- 
 ernes. Disons done avec assurance que la nation a le droit de supprimer tout ce qui 
 n'existe que par sa volonte expresse ou tacite, et que le clerge une fois supprime 
 comme corps, les biens ecclesiastiques a sa disposition ne pouvaient plus appartenir 
 qu'a l'Etat. 
 
 II est bien entendu que je ne discute pas ici la legitimite au point de 
 vue politique de telle ou telle mesure, telle par exemple que la sup- 
 pression d'un corps ou d'une communaute religieuse, mais je dis ceoi: 
 e'est que de meme que toutes les institutions gouvernementales sont ■ 
 sujettes a changement parce que les mceurs changent, parce que les 
 besoins, les necessites se modifient, tout ce qui est une institution 
 gouvernementale, quelle qu'elle soit, est appele a, disparaitre et a etre 
 remplace par une autre; ce sont toujours des entites juridiques qui sont 
 des emanations de la nation, qui n'existent que par la volonte de la 
 nation, et par consequent il appartient a celle-ci de les faire dispa- 
 raitre, que ce soit une faute ou non, et chaque fois e'est la nation qui 
 rentre dans le dominium complet dont elle avait abandonne" une part 
 a une main-morte, & une personne civile. 
 
 Eh bien, messieurs, e'est cette eventualite que les donateurs primi- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 671 
 
 tifs n'avaient pas prevue, ou, s'ils l'ont prevue ils l'ont accepts avec 
 toutes ses consequences fatales, c'est-a-dire notammeht avec cette con- 
 sequence que les biens devaient rentrer dans le dominium general. 
 
 Si j'ai insiste sur ce fait, messieurs, c'est qu'au point de vue de ma 
 demonstration j'ai desire etre complet, parce que je ne pense pas que 
 cette question ait dans Le litige une importance essentielle. En effet, 
 les actes de donation primitifs ont cesse d'avoir leur effet, leur vertu 
 juridique, a partir du jour ou le Roi y a substitue des actes nouveaux, 
 c'est-a-dire des actes d'appropriation ou de confiscation. 
 
 J'ai cru devoir vous demontrer ce principe qui est a, la base de toutes 
 les legislations, c'est que les biens sans maitre appartiennent a l'Etat; 
 mais je n'avais pas besoin de faire cette demonstration parce que le 
 fait est la: un acte du souverain a declare qu'il en serait ainsi, et cet 
 acte du souverain, messieurs, vous le connaissez, il se trouve dans le 
 decret de Charles III de 1767 et dans le decret d'execution de 1768. 
 A partir de ce moment, les biens, quels qu'ils fussent, quelle que fut 
 la legitimite de leur possession anterieure, sont entres dans le domaine 
 du Roi, qui represente la nation, parce que le Roi, qui a cette epoque 
 surtout avait tous les droits, a estime que ces biens qui etaient entre 
 les mains des Jesuites devaient rentrer dans son domaine. Des lors, 
 comme je vous le disais, a mon sens les actes de donation primitifs ne 
 pourraient en aucun cas etre invoques par nos honorables contradic- 
 teurs. Ils ne pouvaient pas l'etre, messieurs, et en fait ils ne l'ont pas 
 ete. Cet argument.n'est pas sans importance dans l'espece, car si les 
 demandeui's revendiquent une succession, une heredite, s'ils appuient 
 leur soutenement sur les actes de donation primitifs, a quelle epoque, 
 je vous le demande, devaient-ils faire valoir leur revendication ou leur 
 petition d'heredite? N' est-ce pas au moment ou les Jesuites cessaient 
 d'exister, ou les biens ne pouvaient plus appartenir aux Jesuites? 
 N'etait-ce pas alors que celui dans le domaine de qui les biens devaient 
 rentrer devait immediatemente apparaitre? Est-ce l'Eglise? est-ce le 
 Roi? Si c'est l'Eglise ou si l'Eglise y pretend, elle ne va pas laisser 
 passer ces biens dans le domaine du Roi sans protester. Elle ne pro- 
 teste pas .... " qui ne pro teste pas consent " .... elle 
 acquiesce, elle accepte, c'est a-dire, messieurs, qu'elle ratifie tout ce 
 que j'ai l'honneur de dire ici. 
 
 Ceci est done le jugement de l'Histoire, le jugement de l'Eglise le plus 
 solennel et le plus puissant, parce que, ne l'oublions pas, ce jugement 
 date de plus d'un siecie. 
 
 Et dans quelles conditions cet acquiescement se presente-t-il ? Je ne 
 veux plus y revenir parce que vous connaissez les faits, et la bienveil- 
 lante attention que vous m'avez accorde ne me permet assurement pas 
 de revenir sur ce que j'ai dit. Mais je me permets cependant de vous 
 rappeler combien a notre sens la bulle du pape Clement XIV qui sup- 
 primait l'ordre des Jesuites six annees apres le decret de Charles III,. 
 lequel a amene la confiscation des biens des Jesuites, avait son impor- 
 tance, et combien j'avais raison, me semble-t-il, de vous dire a une 
 precedente audience que si l'Eglise avait une protestation a formuler 
 elle devait la formuler des 1767 et avant 1773, et qu'a partir du moment 
 ou le pape avait sanctionne ce decret plus personne ne pouvait au nom 
 de l'Eglise formuler une revendication quelconque? 
 
 Done, messieurs, a notre sens, la demande a pour objet de reViser 
 un acte souverain, un acte de Charles III, et cette revision, outre qu'elle 
 n'est pas admissible en droit, aurait du amener une protestation a 
 
672 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 l'epoque, cette protestation n'a pas 6te" produite alors, elle est tardive 
 aujourd'hui. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, l'acte de Charles III, qui prend la place de l'acte de 
 donation, comprenait, comme je l'ai dit a, la pre"cedente audience, une 
 reserve. Charles III disait dans son decret de 1767 qu'il prenait les 
 biens ' ' saus prejudice aux charges qui sont imposees par les donateurs " — 
 ce que mon honorable contradicteur traduisait en disant qu'il prenait 
 les biens "cunionere." 
 
 Eh bien, messieurs, la traduction latine ne me parait pas exacte, 
 parce qu'elle implique une id6e de droit civil, et qu'a hotre sens des 
 idees de droit civil ne pouvaient pas prendre place dans un decret de 
 droit public. 
 
 Ce decret de 1767 est incontestablement un acte du pouvoir souve- 
 rain. Le soverain, qui chasse les Jesuites, agit comme souverain, et 
 l'acte qui decide, qui de'crete que les biens appartenant a cette main- 
 morte seront au Eoi est incontestablement aussi un acte du pouvoir 
 souverain. Et voici que dans la these des adversaires, dans cet acte 
 ayant a ce double titre le caractere d'acte souverain se serait glisee 
 une disposition de droit civil? Non, jamais personne ne l'a cru, et 
 certainement le Roi ne l'a pas voulu. 
 
 En effet, messieurs, qu'est-ce qu'une dispostion de droit civil? Elle 
 suppose le transfert d'un droit qui appartenait a, l'Etat dans le chef 
 d'un autre sujetdu droit; elle suppose done la creation d'une creance 
 dans le chef d'un tiers a charge de l'Etat. Quel est ce tiers? et 
 concoit-on d'abord que le Eoi, qui avait alors les pretentions que 1'on 
 sait, qui agissait avec cette toute-puissance qu'il s'attribuait de droit 
 divin, ait admis qu'il se creait un creancier et que quelqu'un aurait pu 
 l'actionner devant les trihunaux d'alors pour lui reclamer l'execution 
 de cet engagement? Ah non! c'6tait une disposition qu'il prenait de 
 droit souverain, e'etait une volonte qu'il exprimait, qui etait destinee 
 dans sa pensee a donner satisfaction a la population; mais il n'entendait 
 pas aliener ou diminuer ses droits. 
 
 D'ailleurs, messieurs, si j'y insiste maintenant, e'est que cette mSme 
 idee va revenir lorsque nous analyserons les decrets du 19e sieele. II 
 ne peut pas se concevoir qu'une creance soit ainsi creee a charge de 
 l'Etat dans la forme que nois connaissons. Une creance ne resultepas 
 d'un decret, d'un acte unilateral du pouvoir souverain; le pouvoir 
 souverain enonce u ne volon te politique. Est-ce que quelqu'un aurait pu 
 venir devant les tribunaux discuter la maniere dont le pouvoir souve- 
 rain exercerait cette intention ou cette volonte? Evidemment non. 
 
 D'ailleurs, quel serait le creancier ainsi creee? Serait-ce l'Eglise 
 catholique? Mais, messieurs, nous ne la voyons pas intervenir; 
 comme je le disais, s'il y a un bien donne a l'Eglise nous devons tou- 
 jours voir apparaitre une autorite ecclesiastique pour l'accepter. II en 
 est si peu ainsi que le Roi, au lendemain du decret va instituer des 
 commissaires royaux pour administrer les biens; puis il les donnera 
 aux Franciscains, ensuite aux Dominicains; il donnera a, l'un ce qu'il 
 a retire a l'autre. Cela se pour rait- il s'il y avait un droit civil? Non. 
 
 J'ai tort d'insister sur des notions aussi elementaires et essentielles 
 du droit. 
 
 Au surplus comment se produit le droit des demandeurs? d'ou pro- 
 cede-t-il? quelle est sa filiation? 
 
 Les demandeurs, aujourd'hui, formuleraient une revendication au 
 pom de l'Eglise en se fondant sur les actes de donation primitifes ou 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 673 
 
 sur le ddcret de Charles JII; ils seraient heritiers a travers le Gouv- 
 ernement mexicain, a travers le Roi d'Espagne, pour remonter jusqu'- 
 aux Jesuites. C'est une succession d'assez longue haleine, et on 
 imagine difficilement que cette periode de plus d'un siecle qui s'est 
 ecoul^e entre le moment ou la donation aurait 6te constitute et le 
 moment oii la revendication s'est produite, n'ait pas laisse une trace, 
 l'affirmation d'un droit au profit de PEglise, que jamais un acte quel- 
 conque n'ait marque son intervention, son droit, sa possession. 
 
 Je crois doncpouvoir conclure sur ce premier point que les deraand- 
 eurs ne peuvent deduire ni de l'acte de donation ni du decret de Charles 
 III aucun titre, aucun appui. Mais j'ajoute— et je termine sur ce 
 point: — Pourquoi serait-ce l'Eglise de Californie qui pourrait r^clamer 
 plutot que l'Eglise universelle? II semble que ce soit l'Eglise univer- 
 selle a certains egards qui revendique, ou qui ait revendique, puisque 
 nous voyons que lors du precedent debat et de la precedente condam- 
 nation c'est le chef de l'Eglise universelle qui a reparti, qui a distribue 
 le montant de la condamnation, et nous voyons que le produit de cette 
 condamnation, a servi a differents pays et non pas seulement a la 
 Californie. 
 
 Alors je me demande: ou est done le titre que l'on veut puiser dans 
 les actes de donation, puisque nous savons que ce que l'on pouvait 
 avoir en vue a cette epoque ce n'etait que la Californie de l'epoque, 
 e'est-a-dire la peninsule, que la veille encore on croyait une ale; ce 
 n'etait done pas la Haute Californie d'aujourd'hui. 
 
 Mais il y a plus. Les donateurs entendaient donner aux missions des 
 Jesuites, et les Missions des Jesuites ont existe mais n'ont existe" que 
 dans la Basse Californie. Sans doute les donateurs disaient que les 
 sacrifices qu'ils faisaient pourraient advantager aussi les Missions 
 d'autres pays si elles etaient fondees par les J&uites, e'est-a-dire que 
 e'etait une faculte l'aissee aux Jesuites de faire servir ces biens a des 
 Missions d'autres pays, mais si les Jesuites n'ont pas use de cette 
 faculte, s'ils ont restreint leurs Missions a la Basse California, on se 
 demande vraiment comment aujourd'hui l'on pourrait trouver un tire 
 dans l'acte de donation de 1735 pour dire que c'^tait la Haute Cali- 
 fornie, un pays ou jamais les Jesuites n'ont cree une Mission, qui pour- 
 rait revendiquer le benefice des donations. 
 
 On a dit aussi, messieurs, que l'Etat, le Roi d'Espagne, aurait occupe" 
 ces fonds en qualite" de trustee. C'est exact dans un sens, mais c'est 
 errone dans un autre sens. II est incontestable que les biens en ques- 
 tion — je parle de la notion juridique du fait — appartiennent a la nation, 
 a l'Etat comme tel, ou a l'Eglise comme telle, que le Roi peut done 
 etre consider^ comme le commissaire, l'administrateur, le trustee 
 comme I'eveque serait l'administrateur ou le trustee; mais on ne peut 
 tenir compte de cette notion de trustee; le Roi comme tel, e'est-a-dire 
 l'Etat espagnol qui etait concentre dans la personne du Roi alors, avait 
 tous les pouvoirs, il avait les pouvoirs les plus absolus; pourquoi? 
 Parce que l'on ne m'indiquera pas quelq'un qui ait un droit privatif ou 
 exclusif du sien. S'il j a une restriction dans ce droit de l'Etat, il 
 faut qu'elle existe au profit de quelqu'un. Quel serait ce quelqu'un? 
 On ne pourrait pas l'indiquer. Par consequent les droits du Roi sont 
 absolus, exclusifs. Et il ne s'agit pas d'un mandat; le Roi mandatire 
 de qui ? De la collectivity des Indiens ? Ce n'est pas un §tre juridique ! 
 
 J'en arrive ainsi, messieures, aux decrets de 1836, 1842 et 1845. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 43 
 
674 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 La situation juridique etait done a cette epoque ce que je viens d'in- 
 diquer; je crois avoir demontre" — et pour le moment je suppose que 
 ma demonstration est complete — qu'en 1836 l'Eglise n'avait aucun droit 
 sur ces biens, que les pouvoirs les plus absolus rfeidaient dans la per- 
 sonne du Eoi ou de l'Etat, et des lors cette demonstration etant 
 faite, ou supposee faite, examinons la portee du premier decret qui 
 est invoque, celui du 19 septembre 1836. Ce decret vous le connais- 
 sez, il a pour objet l'institution eventuelle d'un eVeche". Vous con- 
 naissez les raisons politiques qui avaient determine" cette institution: 
 il y avait la des cures interimaires, les anciens Franciscains, qui n'avai- 
 ent pas de chef, il fallait un eveque, on en avait senti la necessite, car 
 on voyait deja poindre a l'horizon l'intervention de l'etranger. 
 
 On decide done qu'il faudra un eveque, qu'on demand era l'interven- 
 tion du pape. Tout cela se trouve realise en 1840; on alloue acet eve- 
 que un traitement de 6,000 piastres, 3,000 piastres de frais de deplace- 
 ment, etc, et on dit que le produit des proprietes sera administre" et 
 employe par lui suivant les vues des donateurs. 
 
 Qu'est-ce que cela? C'est un decret, n'est pas un contrat synalla- 
 gmatique. 
 
 Eh bien, messieurs, je vous disais que lorsqu'un decret confie a un 
 fonctionnaire un service public — et assurement on considerait en 1836 
 que les Missions de Californie constituaient un service public et un 
 service public du plus haut inter^t puisqu'il etait le moyen d'e"viter 
 l'intervention de l'etranger — il ne lui transfere pas de droits civils. 
 En Belgique, il existe un partie des impots dui est affectee aux villes, 
 aux communes, c'est le Fonds communal; il y a certaines recettes de" 
 l'Etat qui sont affectees aux communes et qui sont distributes entre 
 elles; mais cette appropriation suppose-t-elle un droit civil? Non. 
 Eest-ce que le gouvernement beige ne pourrait pas par une loi nouvelle 
 changer demain ce qui a 6te decide" aujourd'hui? Si aujourd'hui il a 
 convenu que le Fonds communal, que telles recettes du tresor, seraient 
 affected aux communes et distributes entre elles pour leurs besoins — 
 les communes ont cependant bien la personnalite civile — est-ce que 
 c'est une cr^ance de droit civil qu'on leur donne? est-ce qu'elles pour- 
 ront action ner l'Etat en paiement? Mais non! parceque c'est un acte 
 des pouvoirs publics; c'est un decret, ce n'est pas un contrat, c'est un 
 acte unilateral, et que plus est, unilateral du souverain qui decide, 
 qui edicte. 
 
 _ Je suppose, messieurs, par impossible, que le gouvernement de 1836 
 ait eu 1'intention de transferer a l'ev^que de Californie les droits que 
 lui Etat possedait j usque-la, qu'il ait voulu lui donner un droit civil, lui 
 faire un abandon de propriete; je suppose cela; est-ce qu'il n'aurait pas 
 eu soin de faire alors un contrat? Quand l'Etat aliene une de ses pro- 
 prietes au profit d'un particulier il fait un acte de vente; s'il reconnait 
 une creance vis-a-vis d'un particulier il le fait dans une forme qui 
 implique la reconnaissance d'obligations reciproque; cela se fait tou- 
 jours dans une forme distincte d'un decret. Pourquoi? Parce qu'il 
 faut des conditions, parce que si Ton vend, parce que si l'on abandonne 
 un droit on demande quelque chose en retour, on impose des conditions, 
 des obligations. 
 
 Concevez-vous, messieurs, que ce decret qui ne nommait pas encore 
 l'eveque, qui ne l'instituait pas encore mais qui annoncait 1'intention de 
 de l'instituer, aurait eu pour objet un transfert de propriete" ou la trans- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 675 
 
 mission d'une creance civile au profit de l'eveque de San Francisco, ou 
 au profit d'une personne que n'existait pas encore? C'est inadmissible: 
 D'ailleurs le texte du decret lui-m§me dit que les biens appartenant 
 au Fonds Pie sont places a la disposition du nouvel eVeque pour etre 
 administres. Ce sont les deux mots que j'ai indiques; je ne puis plus 
 y revenir, mais je vous ai dit que nous avions trouve dans la legislation 
 francaise les m&mes mots lorsqu'on decidait dans le decret du 26 mes- 
 sidor, an IX, article 12: 
 
 Toutes les eglises metropolitaines, cath^drales, paroissiales ou autres non alienees 
 sont raises a la disposition des evSques. 
 
 Est-ce que quelqu'un a jamais pense que les eveques devenaient pro- 
 pri^taires des cathedrales parce que le Concordat en avait decide ainsi ? 
 Mais non! Messieurs, et nous voyons dans Particle 91 de la loi de 1793, 
 qui est posterieure: 
 
 Les habitations et emplacements n^cessaires aux services de la commune, qui sont 
 employes comme tels, comme les prisons, les presbyteres ne peuvent cesser d'apparte- 
 nir aux communes. 
 
 Vous voyez done toujours dans le droit public cette notion de mise 
 a la disposition de quelqu'un en vue de 1'exercice d'un service public, 
 comme le culte dans le cas que j'indique, et jamais on n'estime que 
 c'est un transfert de propriete. 
 
 Nous avons d'ailleurs a ce point de vue des autorites irrecusables et 
 qui ne seront certes pas r^cusees par nos honorables contradicteurs. En 
 effet, je vous ai dit hier que nous avions pour nous l'autorite et l'aveu 
 de l'eveque lui-meme; je vous citais son aveu expres par l'organe de 
 l'avocat qui avait ete' charge de protester en 1842 contre des mesures 
 dont je vais avoir a vous parler. Mais je vais maintenant vous indiquer 
 son aveu'tacite, car si un decret du 19 septembre 1836 avait mis les 
 biens a la disposition de 1'eVeque un autre decret du 8 fevrier 1842 
 lui reprenait ce qui lui avait ete concede. Ceci, a, mon sens, est tout 
 a fait decisif , parce que cela vous montre, d'abord ce que pensait le 
 Gouvernement mexicain. C'est lui qui a fait le decret de 1836; s'il 
 estime qu'il a renonce - a ses droits, qu'il les a abandonnes au profit de 
 l'eveque, qu'il les lui a attribues, il ne peut pas reprendre ce qu'il lui 
 a donne. Mais, avec la plus grande facilite, de mfime que ce decret 
 avait ete signe en 1836, un autre decret va reprendre ce qui 6te con- 
 cede, et on va dire que l'Etat va se charger directement de l'adminis- 
 tration du Fonds et de l'application des produits de ce Fonds. 
 
 Comme je l'indiquais hier, si tant est qu'un droit civil fut ne dans le 
 chef de l'eveque, une expropriation etait n^cessaire. Or, non seulement 
 l'Etat ne fait pas d'expropriation mais l'eveque n'en reclame pas, parce 
 que 1'evSque reconnait que c'est le droit de l'Etat, qu'il n'a ete investi 
 de droits que dans la mesure du service qui lui etait confie. 
 
 En 1842 l'Etat charge le general Valencia d'administrer le Fonds. 
 Le 24 octobre 1842 le gouvernement va decider cette f ois que les biens 
 vont §tre nationalises, incorpores au Tresor — ce sont les termes dont 
 se sert le decret. C'est-a-dire que s'il pouvait rester encore un doute 
 dans cette affaire, cet acte du pouvoir souverain du 24 octobre 1842 va 
 le dissiper et l'aneantir definitivement. Et l'Etat annonce qu'il va 
 affecter une somme representant un inte're't de 6 pour cent du produit 
 du Fonds k "des buts de bienfaisance et nationaux" conformes aux 
 volontes des donateurs. 
 
676 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Ici, Messieurs, j'aurai vite fini, parce que je n'ai a me poser qu'une 
 question: Est-ce que ce decret du 24 octobre 1842 aurait donne nais- 
 sance a une creance civile que l'on pourrait faire valoir aujourd'hui? 
 
 II faut se demander d'abord quel estce creancier; serait-cel'eVSque? 
 Mais, c'est impossible, puisque la loi de 1842 a eu precisement pour 
 objet de retirer a 1'eVeque l'administration et la disposition qu'on lui 
 avait donn^es. Ce n'est qu'en 1845 qu'il sera question de lui rendre 
 une partie de cette administration , mais en 1842 le de"cret du 24 octobre 
 comme celui du 8 f eVrier nationalisaient, c'est-a-dire qu'on reprenait a, 
 l'eveque ce qu'on lui avait donne"; ce n'est done pas lui qu'on va creer 
 creancier de l'Etat. Si ce n'est pas l'eveque, si ce n'est pas l'eglise, 
 alors qui est-ce? Ce ne sont pas les Indiens; j'ai dit, en effet, indivi- 
 duellement ils n'ont aucun droit, collectivement ils ne sont rien ou ils 
 sont represented par la nation. Done, Messieurs, il est impossible 
 d'imaginer, d'indiquer le creancier que l'Etat se serait cree en 1842. 
 
 Ce decret, qui est l'expression d'une volonte unilaterale du pouvoir 
 souverain, va etre remplace par le decret du 3 avril 1845. A cette 
 epoque l'on decide de rendre a l'eveque une certaine administration, 
 l'administration de ce qui reste, de ce qui n'est pas aliene\ 
 
 Sur ce point, Messieurs, il n'y a pas de demande; mes honorables 
 contradicteurs ne reclament pas de droits derivant du de"cret de 1845 
 en tant qu'il aurait restitue a, I'eV^que l'administration des biens qui 
 n'avaient pas 6te" aliened parce que ce serait la revendication d'un 
 capital; or, cela on ne nous le demande pas. 
 
 Qu' est-ce qui reste alors dans le decret du 3 avril 1845 ? reaffirma- 
 tion du pouvoir souverain, du droit du congres de disposer du Fonds 
 comme il l'entend, en tant que celui-ci a 6te aliene\ Or, en tant qu'il 
 avait 6te aliene, ce qui pouvait subsister c'6tait un revenu de 6 per cent 
 que l'Etat avait indique comme devant etre affecte a des objets de bien- 
 faisance; on reserve au congres le droit d'en disposer, il n'en a jamais 
 dispose. 
 
 Mais cela ne suffit pas. Quelles que soient les consequences de cet 
 acte,^ quelle que soit la disposition qui est prise et que nous n'avons 
 pas a, discuter ici, ce que vous avez a rechercher et a proclamer c'est 
 le caractere souverain de tous ces decrets, et cela, Messieurs, me parait 
 indiscutable et incontestable. Est-ce que nous ne voyons pas dans 
 cette succession meme de decrets l'affirmation constante du pouvoir 
 souverain au sujet de ce Fonds? Est-ce que ces modifications succes- 
 sives permettent encore que l'on vienne dire qu'il existait un droit 
 privatif en dehors de l'Etat et contre l'Etat? Cela n'est pas possible. 
 
 Messieurs, la question avait deja ete examinee et resolue dans le 
 proces auquel je faisais allusion dans l'audience d'hier, leprocesrelatif 
 a, la succession de Dona Josepha Arguelles. Vous vous souvenez que 
 le Conseil des Indes, par une sentence du 4 juin 1783, avait decide" que 
 les biens dependant de cette succession, en tant qu'ils avaient 6te" attri- 
 bues aux missions des Jesuites, dtaient a la disposition du Roi et a son 
 bon plaisir. Est-ce que, Messieurs, une sentence pareille a pu inter- 
 vene sans contradiction de la part de Pautorite" religieuse, et est-il 
 possible qu'une autorite" religieuse dise aujourd'hui que faisant valoir 
 des droits de son auteur elle a des droits contraires a ceux qui ont 6t& 
 proclames alors ? 
 
 II me parait, Messieurs, que cette decision a une importance capitale 
 a ce proces. 11 y avait un quart qui a 6te abandonne" par les Jesuites, 
 auquel ils ont renonce, qui 6tait destine aux colleges et qui ne leur a 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 677 
 
 pas e"te" attribue" : n'en parlons plus. Mais il y avait les f de la succes- 
 sion qui de par la donation 6taient destines aux missions des Jesuites. 
 Le proces Itait considerable. Eh bien, voici que les Jesuites sont 
 expuls^s depuis 1768, qu'ils ont disparu, la famille conteste la donation, 
 elle demande que ces biens lui soient attribues; alors si l'eglise est 
 l'heritiere des Jesuites, si elle est aux droits des Jesuites, n'est-ce pas 
 elle qui va intervenir, et concoit-on que sans protestation de la part de 
 l'autorite religieuse la Cour Supreme d'alors ait pu decider que ces 
 biens, par le fait qu'ils 6taient donnes aux missions des Jesuites, appar- 
 tenaient originellement au Koi et qu'ils devaient §tre mis a sa discretion ? 
 Est-ce que cette absence de protestation n'est pas l'aveu le plus complet 
 qu'on puisse souhaiter? 
 
 Je ne parle plus, parce que je vous en ai dit un mot ce matin, mais 
 vous en retiendrez l'importance, du proces juge dans l'Am^rique m§nie, 
 dans la Haute Californie, depuis la suppression des Jesuites, et dans 
 lequel nous avons vu cette affirmation f ormelle que les missions etaient 
 des ceuvres politiques et non pas des ceuvres religieuses; et cela a ete 
 juge depuis la separation de la Californie. 
 
 D'ailleurs peut-on concevoir que quelqu'un puisse dire encore 
 aujourd'hui: il y a des sommes qui ont ete donne*es aux missions et je 
 les revendique au nom de la Haute Californie? Quelle serait la signi- 
 fication d'une telle demande ? Le Gouvernement mexicain, le 16 Janvier 
 1839, par l'organe de son ministre des affaires ecclesiastiques — c'est 
 un document qui se trouve reproduit dans la defense de M. Azpiroz, 
 page 393 dulivre rouge — s'etait exprime dans les termes suivants: 
 
 La Basse Californie doit maintenant devenir l'objet de toute la- sollicitude du 
 Gouvernement, en ce qui concerne ses besoins tant civils qu' ecclesiastiques, parce que 
 ce territoire ayant 6t& d6membr6 en vertu du traits de Guadalupe Hidalgo la part qui 
 nous reste a besoin de legislations speciales pour assurer son administration. Elle ne 
 peut pas <jvidemment seule constituer I'ev6ch6 qui fut cree par decret du 19 septem- 
 bre 1836. Le Gouvernement dirige son attention sur les intents des habitants de la 
 region et il fera usage de tous ses pouvoirs constitutionnels dans ce but, sauf a 
 demander au besoin aide et appui aux representants de la nation. 
 
 C'est-a-dire, Messieurs, qu'en 1849, au lendemain du traite qui avait 
 definitivement enleve au Mexique les territoires du Nouveau Mexique 
 et de la Haute Californie, le ministre des affaires ecclesiastiques, qui 
 avait dans ses attributions le Eonds Pie, disait: II faut maintenant 
 s'appliquer k defendre, a proteger la Basse Californie. Le ministre 
 d'alors se rendait compte de la faute politique que j'indiquais hier; on 
 n'avait pas assez tenu compte des ne"cessit6s de ces pays de la cote; il 
 y avait maintenant & se preoccuper avant tout de la Basse Californie, 
 parce que la lecon avait profite. 
 
 Eh bien, je vous le demande, Messieurs, alors que le Gouvernement 
 du Mexique comme pouvoir souverain va affecter toutes les disponi- 
 bilites qu'il aura pour soutenir la Basse Californie et qu'il demande ra 
 meme l'aide de la nation dans ce but, il sera permis a un tiers, & un 
 Stranger, de venir lui dire: Non, vous allez employer le produit de ce 
 fonds Pie a la Haute Californie? C'est inadmissible. Et comme je le 
 disais, est-il possible de fonder une reclamation pareille sur la volonte 
 des donateurs primitifs, sur la volonte des Mexicains d'alors, de ceux 
 qui devaient avant tout se preoccuper du territoire du Mexique, de la 
 race mexicaine, de la race espagnole, de ceux qui ne pouvaient alors 
 connaitre que la Basse Californie '( Et n'y a-t-il pas, par consequent, en 
 dehors de toutes les considerations juridiques que je viens de vous 
 presenter, une antinomie absolue a venir reclamer au nom d'un Etat 
 
678 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIt'ORNlAS. 
 
 Stranger ou plut6t au nom d'eVSques Strangers, l'application du produit 
 du Fonds Pie au profit de la partie etrangere du territoire ancien au 
 detriment de la partie du territoire rest^e nationale. 
 
 C'est important, parce que vous voyez immediatement le caractere 
 de la demande, qui est un caractere d'immixtion: on veut en somme 
 empScher le Gouvernement mexicain, qui a toujours <3te propri^taire 
 ou titulaire de ce Fonds, de l'employer pour la Californie, Haute ou 
 Basse, comme il l'entend ; il n'a plus que la Basse Californie, on lui a 
 conquis l'autre, et il ne pourrait pas y employer les fonds qu'il a k sa 
 disposition. 
 
 Je passe, Messieurs, a l'examen d'un point tout different, mais qui 
 constitue a mon sens, elle aussi, une reponse decisive et peremptoire a 
 la demande que est formulee devant vous. Cette reponse est puisee 
 dans le traite de 1848. 
 
 Je n'ai plus a revenir sur les circonstances dans lesquelles ce traite a 
 ete" conclu, vous les connaissez; mais je dois indiquer k le cour ce qui 
 a ete la pensee des parties au moment ou elles ont conclu ce traite, et 
 surtout ce qu'elles ont abandonne, les decharges qu'elles se sont 
 donnes et qui sont incompatibles avec la demande actuelle. 
 
 Comme je vous l'ai dit, Messieurs, de la part du Gouvernement am6ri- 
 cain une reclamation serait tout a fait impossible. Lorsque le traite a 
 ete debattu il l'a ete pied a pied; il avait en grande partie pour objet une 
 question d'argent; la conquete etait realisee depuis 1846, les territoires 
 devaient §tre abandonnes, c'etait entendu, les Etats-Unis vainqueurs 
 n'admettaient plus la discussion de ce point; mais il y avait une ques- 
 tion d'equite, il y avait une question d'argent a debattre. Comme 
 vous l'avez vu, Messieurs, c'etait en somme au point de vue superficiel 
 la plus grande partie du territoire du Mexique qui etait c£dee aux 
 Etats-Unis; c'etait un abandon considerable qui avait pour conse- 
 quence de laisser toutes les charges du Mexique a la partie qui n'etait 
 pas detachee. C'est ce que se sont dit les plenipotentiaires qui sont 
 intervenus a la conclusion de ce traite. lis ont dit: il y a la une 
 chose raisonnable, il faut que nous intervenions, non pas pour acheter 
 le territoire comme on l'a dit — il n'en etait pas question — mais pour 
 rembourser une dette qui affectait ce territoire et qui serait laissee a 
 la charge du pays vaincu. Par consequent, il f aillait fixer cette indem- 
 nity. Tous les elements en ont et6 d^battus; il y a eu naturellement 
 des preliminaries nombreux, on a du faire des calculs, 6tablir des 
 chiffres, et c'est ainsi que l'on est arrive a fixer de"finitivement une 
 somme de 15 millions de dollars qui a 6t6 payee. L'on a ete plus loin 
 encore, l'on a donne discharge au Gouvernement mexicain au nom des 
 citoyens americains qui pouvaient etre ses creanciers. 
 
 Quelle devient, je vous le demande, la pretention actuelle, dans ces 
 conditions ? 
 
 A ce moment-E les deux parties, apres deux ann^es de d&bats en 
 arrivaient a un accord, a, une decharge r^ciproque absolue; elles allaient 
 aussi loin que possible dans les efforts tentes pour supprimer tout sujet 
 de confiit dans l'avenir et elles auraient voulu reserver cet 616ment de 
 discorde actuellement debattu ? Est-ce possible ? 
 
 II y aurait euquelqu'un a qui on aurait reserve" un droit vis-l-vis du 
 Mexique ! qui etait-il ? Assurement s'il y avait eu quelqu'un qui eut 
 pu pretendre k cette reserve ? C'etait l'Etat am^ricain seul; il aurait 
 pu tenir au Mexique ce langage: Vous avez un Fonds, vous avez des 
 biens qui ont 6t6 donnas jadis pour l'ensemble du territoire mexicain 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 679 
 
 et plus specialement pour la Californie, nous prenons une partie du 
 territoire, donnez-nous une partie de ce Fonds. Ce a quoi probablement 
 le Mexique aurait repondu: Pardon, je prends toute la dette, je prends 
 toutes les charges, et je n'ai pas a vous donner une partie du Fonds. 
 
 Concevrait-on d'ailleurs qu'une telle pretention ait etc" formulee alors 
 qu'il s'agissait de determiner la somme que les Etats-Unis avaient a 
 payer, lis auraient pu faire valoir cette circonstance lorsqu'on de- 
 battait le chiffre de l'indemnite, je ne sais si cette pretention a 6t6 
 formulee, jepense qu'elle ne l'a pas et6; mais dans tous les cas c'est 
 alors et alors seulement qu'elle pouvait §tre produite utilement. Mais, 
 si ce debat termine la decharge etait donn.ee r^ciproquement, que pou- 
 vait reclamer encore le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis, qui representait 
 naturellement la collectivity soit d'Indiens soit de catholiques qui aurait 
 eu des droits vis-a-vis du gouvernement mexicain? 
 
 Or, messieurs, le Gouvernement americain donne quittance, il donne 
 decharge sans reserve aucune; comment imaginer encore que le Mexi- 
 que ait une dette soit vis-a-vis du Gouvernement americain soit vis-a-vis 
 des collectivit^s qu'il represente? Vis-a-vis des citoyens americains il 
 n'en pouvait avoir davantage. Sur ce point les adversaires ne con- 
 testeront certainement pas ce que j'ai dit ce matin, parce que c'est le 
 texte de Particle 14 du traite qui le dit express6ment: 
 
 Le gouvernement donne decharge au nom des citoyens des Etats-TJnis. 
 
 Et le texte de Particle 15 confirme cela de plus pres puisque le 
 Gouvernement Americain se charge de toutes les dettes que le 
 Gouvernement Mexicain pouvait avoir vis-a-vis des citoyens des Etats- 
 Unis moyennant la remise d'une somme de 3.250 000 dollars. 
 
 Des lors, ni PEtat ni les citoyens americains ne pouvaient avoir un 
 droit reserve contre l'Etat mexicain. 
 
 Que restait-il ? On nous dit: PEglise. J'ai repondu deja, en vous 
 disant: PEglise, la collectivity des catholiques ou la collectivite des 
 Indiens, c'etait la nation, c'etait le gouvernement qui les representait 
 qui devait faire une reserve pour eux. Mais a partir du traite de 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo de 1848, le Gouvernement mexicain s'etant affranchi 
 de toute dette vis-a-vis des citoyens et de PEtat americains, il n'avait 
 plus de dettes de Pautre c6te de la frontiere et il n'en pouvait plus 
 avoir. 
 
 Que peut-il rester si l'Etat et ses sujets n'ont plus de creance? II 
 ne reste plus rien! 
 
 Mais on dit: ce ne sont pas des citoyens, c'est une personnalite 
 civile. Non, elle n'existait pas, puisque PEglise comme personnalite 
 civile dans la Haute Californie ne va naitre qu'en 1854 en vertu d'une 
 loi am^ricaine; done en 1848 elle n'existe pas, elle ne peut par conse- 
 quent pas etre sujette du droit et consequemment avoir une creance 
 contre PEtat mexicain. 
 
 Je vous ai rappele, messieurs, cette circonstance caracteristique que 
 dans un premier projet de traite il avait ete stipule que les communa- 
 utes jouissant de la personnalite civile jusqu'en 1848 auraient momen- 
 tanement continue a en jouir apres 1848, e'est-a-dire apres Pincorpora- 
 tion americaine: mais le Senat de Washington n'a pas voulu de cette 
 disposition et Pa remplacee par une disposition platonique que n'etait 
 que la confirmation du principe de la liberte de conscience de tous. 
 
 De telle facon, messieurs, que je mets encore ici mes honores 
 contradicteurs au deii de dire quelle etait lors du traite de 1848 la 
 
680 PlOtJS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA^. 
 
 personne qui pouvait avoir un droit contre 1'Etat mexicain ? Si en 
 1848 PEtat mexicain n'a plus de debiteurs, il ne peut appartenir a, 
 personne de l'autre c6te" de la frontiere de lui r^clamer l'execution 
 d'un engagement comme etant aux droits d'un debiteur de 1848. 
 
 Si le gouvernement mexicain n'a plus pris d'engagements depuis le 
 traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo, s^il n'est plus intervenu pour se creer 
 une charge en Haute Californie apres 1848, il faut qu'on me demontre 
 qu'a la date du 2 fevrier 1848 il existait quelqu'un qui eut un droit; 
 ce quelqu'un on ne me le nommera pas parce qu'il n'existait pas, parce 
 qu'il ne pouvait pas exister ! 
 
 Dans les preliminaires de ce traite de 1848 je trouve dans des 
 documents ofEciels, dans des rapports qui etaient adresses au Gouverne- 
 ment mexicain, les indications que voici : 
 
 Les 15 millions Gonvenus & l'article 12 et les stipulations des articles 13 et 14 sont 
 l'indemnisation las plus claire que nous puissions obtenir comme compensation des 
 dommages soufferts par la Republique; celle ci, diminuee par l'accroissement de 
 territoire acquis par sa voisine, les memes obligations qu'elle avait auparavant vont 
 peser surun nombre moindre d'habitants et sur un pays moins grand et sont par 
 consequent plus onereux. Ainsi, notre Dette interieure et extilrieure devra 6tre 
 satisfaite en entier par la partie du peuple mexicain qui concerve ce nom, tandis que 
 sans la cession elle s'6tendrait sur toute la Republique telle qu'elle 6tait auparavant. 
 Ce sont des dommages de cette nature qui dans la mesure du possible son r6par6s par 
 l'indemnisation. 
 
 Vous voyez, messieurs, que ce que je vous disais tout-a-1'heure n'est 
 pas neuf , mais que c'etait la pensee due traite puisque je le trouve dans 
 les travaux preparatoires. C'etait une pense"e d'ailleurs normale: 
 Lorsqu'un territoire est d^tach^ d'un autre a la suite d'une conquele 
 il y a un compte a faire, et si la reclamation actuelle avait eu une 
 valeur elle aurait du prendre place dans ce compte. Mais aujourd'hui 
 que ce compte est liquide on ne concoit plus qu'une nation vienne dire 
 a l'autre: Nous avons traite, nous avons debattu, nous avons fait un 
 compte, nous sommes arrives a une somme de 15 millions de dollars, 
 et nous exigeons encore aujourd'hui de nouveaux millions. C'est 
 impossible. 
 
 Dans les mSmes travaux preparatoires je lis ce qui suit: 
 
 La veritable utility, disait le plenipotentiaire mexicain, des arrangements contenus 
 dans les trois articles ne consiste pas precis6ment en ce que la Republique soit 
 exoneree dupaiement des sommes auxquelles il se refere, quel qu'en soit le montant, 
 petit ou 61ev6, mais dans le reglement de tous ses comptes avec la nation voisine, et 
 & ce que rien ne reste pendant, susceptible d'alterer la bonne intelligence entre les 
 deux gouvemements et de donner lieu a des contestations embrouill^es et danger- 
 euses. Cela est bien d'une importance capitale. 
 
 C'est-a-dire, messieurs, que la pensee qui avait anime les plenipo- 
 tentiaires etait cette pensee qui doit toujours guider ceux qui ont 
 l'honneur de discuter un traite entre deux nations jadis en guerre: II 
 faut supprimer toute cause de conilit, il faut non seulement aplanir les 
 difficultes du passe mais encore faire en sorte qu'il n'en puisse plus 
 naitre. C'est cette pensee que nous retrouvons ici, et c'est contre 
 cette pensee que se heurte la demande actuelle. 
 
 _ Quelles sont les objections que Ton formule? car enfin cela semble 
 si evident que Ton se demande comment Ton peut soutenir que le 
 traite de 1848 a maintenu a, la charge du Mexique une dette vis-a-vis 
 de la nation ou d'une partie de la nation des Etats-Unis. 
 
 11 y a une double objection qui nous est faite; la premiere est celle-ci, 
 on nous dit: Mais, les demandeurs, ce sont les eveques de Californie 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 681 
 
 ou plut6t.oe sont les eYSches de Californie; ils n'existent comrae per- 
 sonne morale que depuis 1854, ils n'existaient pas en 1848, par conse- 
 quent ils n'ont pas pu donner une decharge a cette date. 
 
 Ah! messieurs, ]'allais dire et je m'en excuse: Le bon billet! . . . 
 Comment! lorsque nous recherchons si lors du traite il y avait une 
 reserve, c'est-a-dire s'il y avait encore un sujet de droits qui put avoir 
 une creance quelconque contre le Mexique, et qui put recevoir par 
 consequent une obligation du Mexique, je demontre qu'il n'y en avait 
 pas et qu'il n'en pouvait pas exister, et voici que les honorables con- 
 tradicteurs qui doivent contester ce que je viens de dire invoquent les 
 memes circonstances mais pour pr^tendre qu'ils ne pouvaient pas 
 renoncer a un droit parce qu'ils n'existaient pas! Ce qui fait, messieurs, 
 qu'apres avoir reconnu ainsi implicitement la valeur de notre argu- 
 ment lorsque nous disions: vous ne pouvez pas avoir un droit parce 
 que vous n'etiez pas encore; ils eludent l'argument en disant: nous 
 n'avions pas de droits et nous ne pouvions done pas y renoncer. 
 
 Mais vous ne pouviez pas renoncer parce que vous n'aviez pas de droits 
 et vous n'aviez pas de droits parce que vous n'existiez pas. Nous en 
 revenons done toujours a ma these primitive, a savoir que lors du 
 traite de 1848 il n'y avait personne qui eut un droit privatif vis-a-vis 
 du Mexique. 
 
 L'autre objection est celle-ci: on nous dit: Nous n'avions pas de 
 creance en 1848, notre creance n'a pris naissance que posterieurement. 
 Et pour donner une apparence de fondement a cette these on nous fait 
 observe que ce que Ton demandece sont des interets et non le capital; 
 "comme les inter&ts coulent d'annee en annee, on peut ne pas avoir 
 de creance en 1848 et avoir des droits aux interests en 1849!" 
 
 Je n'ai pas besoin, messieurs, de vous demontrer combien cette 
 these me parait — sauf le respect que je dois a mes honores contradic- 
 teurs — peu juridique, parce qu'il me parait impossible, si vous n'avez 
 pas de droits de creance reserves en 1848, et si depuis lors le Mexique 
 n'est pas intervenu pour vous en conferer, que vous puissiez en avoir 
 un. Si vous n'aviez pas de creance en 1848 comment en auriez-vous 
 acquis depuis, et comment est-il possible de dire que parce qu'on ne 
 reclame que les interets et non le capital on ne se trouve pas atteint 
 par la decharge de 1848? N'est-il pas evident, messieurs, que si des 
 interets sont dus e'est en vertu d'un droit preexistant a 1848? Cela 
 est apparu d'autantplus a l'evidence lorsque j'ai demande tout-e-1'heure 
 a mes honorables eontradicteurs le titre, le fondement de leur creance, 
 ce titre, ils ne le puisent que dans les d^crets de 1836 a 1845 ou dans 
 les actes de donation primitifs, c'est-a-dire dans des documents, dans 
 des droits anterieurs a 1848. La creance devait exister, a terme ou 
 non avant 1848, et si elle n'existait pas alors elle ne pouvait plus naitre. 
 
 Notez que la these des adversaires revient a dire ceci: C'est que leur 
 titre serait fonde sur une loi americaine, et que sans l'intervention due 
 Mexique ce serait la loi americaine qui aurait donne naissance a la 
 creance dont ils se prevalent aujourd'hui. 
 
 Et, messieurs, c'est bien leur these puisqu'ils disent qu'ils n'existaient 
 pas avant 1854, que leurs droits ne pouvaient naitre qu'a partir de la 
 loi americaine qui leur a donne la personnalite civile. 
 
 II en resulte d'abord ceci: c'est que s'il avait plu a l'Etat ame"ricain 
 de ne pas mettre au monde cette entite juridique nouvelle, nous n'au- 
 rions pas eu de cr6anciers. Mais, s'il lui a paru avantageux de creer 
 
682 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAB. 
 
 cet &tre nouveau, s'ensuit-il que nous en devenions le parrain oblige* 
 et que nous devions alimenter perpetuellement cet etre qu'il lui a plu 
 de cree'r ? Ce n'est pas possible. 
 
 Est-il plausible qu'une loi d'un Etat etranger puisse avoir cette con- 
 sequence de creer une obligation civile privee a, la -charge d'un autre 
 Etat? Si vous n'aviez pas de droits avant 1848 vous ne pouviez plus 
 en acque"rir et si vous en aviez un il est couvert par le traite de 1848 
 qui emporte la d^charge la plus absolue. 
 
 Dans la these meme des demandeurs les inter^ts sont la contrepres- 
 tation de 1' exoneration de la volonte des fondateurs: les fondateurs 
 primitifs auraient eu la pens^e que le revenu des biens qu'ils donnaient 
 serait applique annuellement a une pensee de bienf aisance et religieuse, 
 a l'exoneration d'une Mission. Or, ils doivent reconnaitre qu'ils n'ex- 
 istaient pas de 1848 a, 1854; ils sont done impuissants a etre sujets du 
 droit comme ils sont impuissants a exonerer une fondation, et malgre* 
 cela ils auraient droit annee par anne"e a ces interets, meme pendant la 
 periode ou ils n'existaient pas! 
 
 Vous voyez, messieurs, a quelle erreur juridiquela these des deman- 
 deurs me parait se heurter. En 1848, disons-nous, le Mexique avait 
 le droit de croire qu'il n'avait plus de dette de l'autre c6te de la fron- 
 tiere, il n'y avait plus d'etre pouvant formuler une revendication civile 
 vis-a-vis de lui, il avait obtenu une decharge, il avait m§me pris le soin 
 de constituer un debiteur a sa place et ce debiteur e'etait le Gouverne- 
 ment des Etats-Unis; il lui avait remis une somme de 3,250,000 dollars 
 pour qu'il se chargeat de payer a sa place toutes les dettes qu'il pouvait 
 avoir de l'autre cote de la frontiere. Concoit-on que dans ces condi- 
 tions un etre puisse dire: Je n'existais pas, je n'avais pas de droits, et 
 parce qu'une loi posterieure m'a donne" naissance je puis puiser dans 
 cette naissance le fondement d'une revendication? Messieurs, e'est 
 impossible! 
 
 Nous croyons done qu'a ce second point de vue encore la these des 
 demandeurs n'est pas fondee, qu'il y a-dans le traite a c6te d'un element 
 juridique qui doit faire ecarter la demande un element moral dont la 
 haute porte"e n'echappera pas a, la Cour d'arbitrage. 
 
 II y a une appreciation du traite qui doit etre faite par vous. Vous 
 devez vous rendre compte des difficultes qui ont pu naitre au lendemain 
 de conflits aussi aigus que ceux qui ont exists entre le Mexique et les 
 Etats-Unis, de la pensee qui doit guider ceux qui font de tels traites, 
 et vous devez vous dire, meme s'il doit rester un doute dans vos esprits, 
 que les auteurs du traite* ont du avoir la pensee de mettre fin a tout 
 sujet de conflit. 
 
 Nous croyons avoir pu vous demontrer que e'etait non seulement la 
 pensee du Mexique rnais aussi celle des Etats-Unis. Je vous ai indique" 
 en effet, lorsque j'ai eu l'honneur de vous exposer les faits, que la 
 demande actuelle avait ete deja agitee par les honorables avocats de la 
 Haute Californie a partir de 1852 ou 1859, qu'alors ils l'avaient etudiee, 
 qu'ils l'avaient pr&entee aux Etats-Unis; et, messieurs, le gouverne- 
 ment des Etats-Unis n'aurait certainement pas attendu que les inter- 
 esses lui adressassent des communications officielles s'il avait cru qu'il 
 y avait eu un oubli dans le traite, s'il y avait eu une reserve qui n'avait 
 pas 6t6 exprim^e mais qui 4tait implicite. 
 
 Messieurs, il^ne fait rien pendant vingt ann^es. Dix ann4es apres 
 le traite, les eVeques addressent a leur Gouvernement une reclamation, 
 et il va encore se passer dix annees sans que le gouvernement des Etats- 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 683 
 
 Unis formule une reclamation quelconque vis-a-vis du gouvernement 
 du Mexiqvie; il a fallu le hasard de l'institution d'une Commission 
 mixte qui precis&nent avait ete destined a regler toute une serie de 
 conflits n£s post^rieureinent & 1848, pour que les demandeurs trouvas- 
 sent un Tribunal devant lequel ils pussent porter leur demande, sinon 
 le gouvernement des Etats-Unis ne la prenait pas en main et par con- 
 sequent acceptait cette interpretation large mais cette interpretation 
 rationnelle que nous donnons au traite de 1848. 
 
 Je passe, messieurs, a une autre proposition. II s'agit d'une troisieme 
 reponse que nous faisons a la demande; nous disons: Les lois mexi- 
 caines sont applicables au Fonds Pie de Californie et elles ont natio- 
 nalise les biens ecclesiastiques. Ces lois de 1857 et 1859 ont ete distributes 
 a la Cour ou se trouvent dans les documents du dossier. 
 
 Aux termes de cette legislation, posterieure au traite" de 1848, il y a 
 au Mexique une interdiction absolue pour les communautes religieuses 
 de posseder, elles ne peuvent avoir la personnalite civile. La loi de 
 1857 dont vous verrez les termes, est d'une violence-—je puis bien 
 m'exprimer ainsi — extraordinaire. Nous avions des lois de la lie volu- 
 tion Francaise qui s'etaient expriuiees au sujet des biens ecclesiastiques 
 dans des termes 6nergiques, mais les lois du Mexique de 1857 et de 
 1859 sont absolument radicales: c'est une interdiction absolue de 
 posseder des biens, qu'il s'agisse de communautes religieuses, d'eglises, 
 d'ecclesiastiques seculiers ou reguliers. 
 
 Ce sont 1st des lois sur le merite ou l'opportunite" politique desquelles 
 nous n'avons pas a nous prononcer, c'est la loi; une loi guidee par une 
 pensee d'ordre public, bien ou mal entendue, opportune ou inoppor- 
 tune, mais la loi, ne sera-t-elle pas applicable au Fonds Pie? 
 
 Constatons tout d'abord que d'apres les demandeurs eux-memes le 
 Fonds Pie appartiendrait pour partie a l'Eglise de la Haute Californie 
 et pour une autre partie a l'Eglise de la Basse Californie; onapartage 
 par moitie naguere; on reclame actuellement pres de 9/10. 
 
 Et voici done que la loi mexicaine serait necessairement applicable 
 a la partie du Fonds Pie qui serait affectee a la Basse Californie : 
 l'eveque de la Californie ne pourra se presenter devant le Gouverne- 
 ment mexicain et lui dire : j'ai une creance a votre charge, vous me 
 devez telle somme, et pour l'obtenir, je m'adresse aux institutes pour 
 juger le Governement mexicain. Sans aucun doute sourais a, la loi 
 mexicaine, les fonds qu'il reclamerait devraient etre soumis a l'appli- 
 cation de la loi de 1857 ; une telle demande de sa part serait done cer- 
 tainement non recevable. Aussi n'a-t-elle pas ete formulee. 
 
 Des lors concevrait-on la logique du systeme qui consisterait a dire 
 que cette loi ne serait pas applicable a, l'autre partie du Fonds? _ II 
 s'agit d'un Fonds qui etait compose autrefois d'immeubles realises 
 pour la plus grande partie et aujourd'hui represented par une creance 
 hypothecate. Je dis hypothecate parce que le decret de 1836 affecte 
 le revenu des Tabacs a" la garantie du paiement de la somme a titre 
 d'hypotheque ; e'est-a-dire que le gouvernement a transform^ un 
 meuble en immeuble par destination et fait une creance reelle de ce 
 qui aurait pu etre une creance personnelle. 
 
 Voici done en tout cas qu'il s'agit d'un fonds mexicain, qui d'apres 
 la the"orie m§me des adversaires reste dans le chef du Mexique, dont 
 le Mexique doit le produit dans l'hypothese des adversaires; eh bien, 
 je vous le demande, est-ce que cette loi ne sera pas applicable? 
 
 Sir Edward Fkt. Ou se trouve cette loi ? 
 
684 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Elle doit e~tre entre les mains de M. le Secretaire 
 general, elle est parmi les documents du dossier que nous ayons depose*. 
 
 Done, messieurs, cette loi devrait recevoir son application generate 
 parce qu'elle est d'ordre public; elle devrait e'tre appliquee par les 
 tribunaux mexicains dont vous avez pris la place, auxquels vous Stes 
 substitues. II est certain que le d^fendeur e"tant le Mexique, la creance 
 6tant a, sa charge, les f onds qu'on revendique 6tant mexicains, cette loi 
 devrait etre appliquee. 
 
 Ah! messieurs, j'ai du le dire en commencant, il est de ces lois dont 
 l'opportunite peut etre critiquee, et Ton peut admettre qu'il y ait 
 quelque chose de froissant a ce qu'une loi d'un pays puisee nuire a des 
 interets de l'etranger; cela donne lieu alors a des representations dip- 
 lomatiques; seulement il n'en est pas moins vrai que dans larigueurde 
 la justice cette loi doit etre appliquee. Est-ce qu'il n'existe pas dans 
 certains pays une interdiction par exemple aux juifs de poss^der, et 
 dans d'autres pays d'une maniere generale une interdiction aux etrangers 
 de posseder? Eh bien, je vous le demande, si un etranger, par igno- 
 rance de ces lois ou par suite de certaines circonstances se trouvait en 
 possession de biens, si la loi devait lui etre appliquee ce serait dur, 
 mais enfin elle devrait l'§tre. Tout au plus cela pourrait-il entrainer 
 une intervention diplomatique, mais il n'en est pas moins vrai qu'on 
 ne pourrait pas trouver la justification juridique de cette loi dans l'exclu- 
 sion de son application au Fonds en question. 
 
 Comme je vous le disais, il y a ici un principe de droit international 
 prive, e'est pourquoi des le debut j'indiquais a la Cour qu'il y avait a 
 se preoccuper du droit qui regissait la creance; ce'st une creance 
 privee que l'on fait valoir, e'est un droit civil qui f onde la demande des 
 demandeurs, et par consequent e'est un droit civil que vous devez 
 apprecier d'apres les lois civiles. 
 
 Cette loi a ete - prise dans des termes generaux; elle est d'une appli- 
 cation g6n6rale et specialement en ce qui concerne le Fonds Pie il est 
 impossible qu'elle ne soit pas appliquee. Cette loi est intituled "Loi 
 de nationalisation des biens ecclesiastiques," et s'il 3 r a dans ce fait 
 qu'une loi etrangere peut §tre ainsi appliquee a un fonds revendique" 
 partiellement par des Strangers une anomalie, cette anomalie disparait 
 si l'on songe pour quelles raisons ce Fonds pretendiiment appartenant 
 a des Grangers se trouve encore entre les mains du Mexique. 
 
 Mais messieurs, n'est-il pas evident — et ceci vient confirmer ce 
 que je vous disais tout a l'heure a propos du traits de Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo — que si les Etats-Unis avaient eu un droit a pretendre sur 
 le Fonds, soit pour eux-memes soit pour des collectivity qu'ils rep- 
 resentaient, ils devaient le f aire valoir de suite ? Est-ce que de la part 
 des Etats-Unis ce n'etait pas, si je puis m'exprimer ainsi, une imprud- 
 ence tout au moins que de laisser ce Fonds Pie qui appartenait a eux 
 ou a leur collectivitee" entre les mains du Mexique? Le fait qu'ils le 
 laissaient a la disposition ou a la discretion du Mexique devait aboutir 
 a^ cette consequence, que plus tard le Mexique pouvait adopter une 
 legislation funeste aux etrangers. 
 
 Done, messieurs, s'il y a qulque chose dans cette argumentation, 
 dans ce moyen, qui peut etre froissant— le fait d'une legislation aussi 
 radicale etant imposee a un etranger et pouvant nuire k ses interets— 
 cela derive du fait des Etats-Unis eux-memes, qui s'ils avaient eu un 
 droit en 1848 auraient du prendre ce Fonds et Padministrer eux-m6mes 
 immediatement, le faire valoir, de facon a empecher que le Mexique 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 685 
 
 prit plus tard une legislation qui n'etait d'ailleurs pas prise pour ce 
 oas exceptionnel et qui put nuire a des etrangers. 
 
 J'ajoute qu'a l'^poque ou ces lois mexicaines etaient adoptees il n'y 
 avait pas encore de reclamation au sujet du Fonds Pie. La premiere 
 reclamation n'a ete adressee au Mexique — sauf une reclamation verbale 
 sur le caractere de laquelle nous ne sommes pas Edifies — qu'a ladate de 
 1870 ou 1871; de telle facon que lorsqu'en 1857 et 1859 le Mexique 
 adoptait ces legislations qui excluaient toute espece de revendication 
 il le faisait dans la plenitude de son droit, parce que cette legislation 
 lui apparaissait comme opportune, comme conforme aux interets de 
 sa nation. 
 
 Voila done, messieurs, une legislation qui, speciale au Mexique 
 devait avoir pour consequence, d'interdire la reclamation actuelle, e'est 
 pourquoi, lorsque le Mexique s'etait pr^sente devant la premiere Com- 
 mission mixte, il avait fait valoir cette circonstance que les ev&ques 
 de Calif Qrnie ne jouissaient de la personnalite civile que dans certaines 
 limites, que le decret qui leur avait donne la personnalite civile limi- 
 tait leurs pouvoirs aux biens situes dans leurs dioceses, que par conse- 
 quent ils ne pouvaient pas avoir de droits sur des biens qui auraient 
 ete situes a l'etranger. 
 
 Nous ne reproduisons pas ce moyen comme tel parce qu'il nous 
 parait qu'il devient inutile. La legislation des deux pays se trouve en 
 concours non en contradiction; de meme que le Mexique dit: aucun 
 ecciesiastique ne peut posseder, ne peut meme administrer, de meme 
 aux Etats-Unis il avait ete decide que la personnalite civile qui avait 
 ete donnee aux eveques etait limitee a, l'exercice des droits situes dans 
 leurs dioceses. 
 
 Ici, messieurs, je repare une omission qui s'est produite dans la 
 plaidoirie que j'ai eu l'honneur de vous faire. J'ai oublie de vous dire 
 que les Jesuites n'ont pas, d'apres leur ordre, le droit de posseder ; les 
 jesuites, d'apres leur regie ne peuvent pas posseder de biens. Si done 
 ils ont eu des biens k un moment donne, s'ils ont recu cette permission 
 exceptionnel] e et contraire aux regies de leur ordre ce n'etait done pas 
 
 f)our 1'Eglise, en supposant qu'ils eussent qualite pour representer 
 'Eglise, c' etait pour l'ceuvre a laquelle ils etaient specialement attaches, 
 et je vous ai demontre que cette ceuvre avait un caractere politique et 
 national de conquete militaire. Je crois done vous avoir demontre que 
 par les trois raisons que j'ai developpees jusqu'ici la reclamation des 
 demandeurs ne peut etre accueillie. 
 
 M. de Martens. Permettez-moi devous poser une question: Est-ce 
 que le Mexique a refuse de discuter ces pretentions devant les deux 
 Commissions qui ont ete nominees en vertu de l'arrangement de 1868 
 ou plus tard ? Est-ce que le Mexique est entre en discussion de ces 
 pretentions? Est-ce qu'il a refuse nettement ou bien est-ce qu'il a 
 aamis la possibilite de discuter cette question, qui est a, present portee 
 devant ce Tribunal? 
 
 M. Delackoix. Quelle question ? 
 
 M. de Maktens. C'est-a-dire justement la pretention des eveques de 
 Californie. 
 
 M. Delackoix. Lors de la Commission mixte le Gouvernement a 
 resiste, il a discute, il a plaide, il s'est defendu et il a succombe. 
 
 M. de Martens. Vous dites que d'apres ie traite de Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo le Mexique etait en droit de refuser toutes les pretentions 
 avant 1848 . . . 
 
686 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Parfaitement. 
 
 M. de Martens. Maintenant, cette pretention a ete portee devant 
 la commission ? 
 
 M. Delacroix. Parfaitement. 
 
 M. de Martens. Est-ce que le Gouvernement mexicain a refuse 
 d'entrer en discussion ? II pouvait refuser nettement, dire que c'etait 
 une pretention n'a3 T ant pas une force legale. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Voici la reponse. Comme j'ai eu l'honneur de vous 
 le dire, le traite de 1848, d'apres nous, excluait toute reclamation pour 
 des faits anterieurs. Mais les demandeurs, au lieu de reclamer, comme 
 cela se trouvait indique dans la lettre de 1859 comme aussi dans celle 
 du 13 mars 1870, le capital, c'est-a-dire le Fonds lui-meme, la creance 
 dont l'origine evidemment etait anterieure a 1848, ont reclame seule- 
 ment 1'inter^t en disant : l'interet a une naissance posterieure a 1848, 
 et par consequent nous sommes recevables a en poursuivre la recla- 
 mation devant la Commission mixte. C'est ce point qui etait debattu, 
 il s'agissait de savoir si on pouvait demander les interets comme ayant 
 une origine posterieure a 1848 et comme n'etant pas couverts par le 
 traite. Ce point a ete debattu devant la Commission mixte ; la ques- 
 tion de la cr6ance ne pouvait etre utilement discutee par la raison que 
 la partie adverse avait dit d'avance : ce n'est pas la creance que je 
 reclame, ce sont les interets d'annee en annee posterieurement a 1848. 
 
 M. de Martens. Merci. 
 
 M. Delacroix. J'ai maintenant a examiner, messieurs, quelques 
 moyens subsidiaires que j'indique parce qu'ils derivent de la nature 
 des choses, qu'ils sont profondement juridiques, et je ne serais pas 
 complet si je ne les avais pas indiques. 
 
 II s'agit d'autres lois mexicaines, de 1885 et de 1894. Vous savez, 
 messieurs, que dans la premiere moitie du siecle le Mexique avait 
 traverse une periode de trouble et d'agitation, des gouvernements 
 successifs avaient occupe le pouvoir, il y avait eu dans l'administration 
 certaines lacunes comme cela peut se concevoir lorsqu'il s'agit d'un 
 gouvernement jeune, age de quelques annees seulement. En 1885, le 
 Mexique a estime qu'il ne pouvait pas arriver a avoir de bonnes 
 finances s'il n'y mettait pas de l'ordre, et pour cela il a estime qu'il 
 etait necessaire qu'il appelat tous ses creanciers pour qu'ils vinssent 
 afnrmer quel etait le montant de leur creance. Le Mexique a alors, 
 aux termes de cette legislation speciale que vous possedez egalement — 
 lois de 1885 et de 1894 — institue un Tribunal special — je crois meme 
 que Son Excellence M. Pardo etait president de ce Tribunal — qui 
 etait charge de juger toutes les creances existant a charge du Gouv- 
 ernement mexicain, de telle maniere que le gouvernement pouvait 
 connaitre exactement le montant de sa dette et pouvait se convaincre 
 qu'il n'ayait pas de dettes en dehors de celles qui avaient ete reconnues. 
 Comme il existait un certain desordre dans l'etablissement de la dette, 
 c'etait le moyen radical d'etablir des finances nettes et claires. 
 
 _ Le Gouvernement, en vue de sanctionner la mesure qu'il prenait 
 ainsi, avait decide que ceux qui n'auraient pas produit leurs creances 
 dans un certain deiai, fixe d'abord a 8 mois, ensuite a 11 mois, seraient 
 dechus de leurs droits de debiteurs. C'etait radical mais c'etait un 
 acte du pouvoir souverain. L'Etat mexicain avait estime que c'etait 
 pour lui une necessite et de meme que nous avons vu certains gou- 
 vernements se trouver a un moment obliges de fiercer leur dette, c'est- 
 a-dire de diminuer la dette qu'ils avaient primitivement contractee, en 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 687 
 
 vue de consolider leurs finances, de meme ici le gouvernement pouvait 
 prendre cette mesure, qui pouvait etre critiquee si elle affectait des 
 etrangers et qui pouvait amener, comme je le disais precedemment, 
 une intervention diplomatique, maisqui devait etre en toutcasappliquee 
 par les tribunaux. 
 
 Cette loi a ete appliqu^e a des etrangers: il y avait de la dette vis-a- 
 vis d' Anglais, vis-a-vis d'habitants de la Haute Californie, tons ont du 
 accepter cette loi et s'y soumettre, c'est-a-dire faire reconnaitre leur 
 dette au bureau constitute - pour etablir le bilan des dettes de l'Etat. 
 
 A cette legislation les demandeurs ne se sont pas soumis; et il est 
 d'autant plus etrange qu'ils ne s'y soient pas soumis que precisement je 
 vous indiquais a, une precedente audience qu'il etait incroyable que si 
 les demandeurs estimaient qu'ils avaient une creance annuelle aussi 
 considerable a la charge de l'Etat mexicain, ils ne l'aient pas reven- 
 diquee a chaque echeance, et que depuis 1870 jusqu'a 1891 aucune de- 
 mande n'ait ete formulee. 
 
 Get argument, que je vous citais en termes generaux a une prece- 
 dente audience, est renforce par cette circonstance qu'il existait au 
 Mexique des lois de decheance pour ceux qui n'auraient pas formule 
 leurs reclamations dans un certain delai. Vraiment, peut-on les 
 plaindre de n'avoir pas fait ce qui etait necessaire pour maintenir, 
 proteger et conserver leurs droits ? 
 
 Mais, messieurs, cette legislation est-elle done si exceptionnelle ? 
 Est-ce que dans tous nos Codes nous n'avons pas une prescription de 
 20 ou 30 ans, qui exclut les revendications tardives ? Nous avons aussi 
 dans la legislation mexicaine une prescription quinquennale affectant 
 les annuites qui ne sont pas reclamees. De telle facon, messieurs, 
 qu'a tous egards nous constatons ici Texistence de prescriptions suc- 
 cessives qui constituent des fins de non recevoir contre la reclamation 
 actuelle. 
 
 Vous voyez qu'il nous est a peu pres indifferent que l'on invoque ces 
 dispositions generates de tous les Codes civils, de toutes les legislations, 
 ou que l'on invoque cette legislation speciale mexicaine de 1885 et de 
 1894. Vous voyez que tout cela entame par la base la reclamation des 
 demandeurs. Est-ce que tout cela ne vous prouve pas que la creance 
 n'etait pas dans le patrimoine des demandeurs comme le serait une 
 creance ordinaire ? 
 
 Et quand on songe que les demandeurs ont plaide que nonseulement 
 ils avaient une creance, mais que cette creance etait reconnue par un 
 jugement international, qu'il y avait chose jugee sur la question! et 
 ils ne la produisent pas, et ils laissent rnalgre ce jugement atteindre 
 leurs reclamations par ces prescriptions successives, speciales et gene- 
 rales que je viens d'indiquer ! 
 
 Tout cela vous demontre, messieurs, que la reclamation manque de 
 fondement a tous egards et se heurte aux moyens divers que je viens 
 de vous indiquer. 
 
 M. Asser. Je voudrais demander a M. Delacroix quelle est la date 
 de la loi qui inscrit les prescriptions. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. 1884. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Tous les articles auxquels je viens de faire allusion 
 ont ete remis par M. le Ministre Pardo dans le dossier que possede le 
 Tribunal et que detient l'honorable secretaire general. Je n'ai pas 
 donne lecture de toutes ces dispositions parce que je suis deja confus 
 d'abuser des moments de la Cour; elle les trouvera dans le dossier, 
 
688 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 nous en avons d'ailleurs des copies. Vous trouverez toutes ces 
 dispositions, qui sont, je le repete, communes a la plupart des 
 legislations. 
 
 M. Assee. Avant ce Code Civil de 1884 est-ce que la prescription 
 n'existait pas pour les rentes ? 
 
 M. Delacroix. Le premier Code civil qui a e"te promulgue au 
 Mexique date de 1871; le Code de 1884 ne fait pas autre chose que de 
 reduire le delai de la prescription. 
 
 M. Assee. Je vous remercie beaucoup. 
 
 (Le Tribunal s'ajourne a vendredi a 2£ heures de relevee.) 
 
 ONZIEME SEANCE. 
 
 26 s&pteiribre 190% (apes-midi). 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni a 2i heures de l'apres-midi, tous les Arbitres 
 etant presents. 
 
 M. le President. Le parole est a M. 1' Agent des Etats-Unis de 
 l'Amerique du Nord. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. On the 21st of August, the charge" d'afT-iires of Mex- 
 ico in the United States addressed a demand for discovery upon the 
 United States to the following effect: "Whether it is true that there 
 are Indians who are not Christianized or who are wholly free from obe- 
 dience to the authorities in the State of California." We have pre- 
 pared our discovery and have it printed, and I will file, with the 
 permission of the court, the original and certified documents, as well 
 as printed copies, and we shall on our own account desire the evidence 
 to be placed before the court. Adding one word, I may say that the 
 exhibits which are attached to the letters certified by the Secretary of 
 State are taken from the Annual Report of the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs for the year ending June 30, 1901, which is the official 
 document which I shall deliver to the secretary-general. The exhibits 
 show that there are in the Catholic schools — Indian Catholic schools 
 within the territories regarded as a part of California — 1,177 Indians. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Not the State of California? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Not the State of California. In the State of Cali- 
 fornia there are 234 attendants. The total is as I have stated. In 
 addition there are in the State of California about 15,377 Indians, and 
 in the limits of California as shown by the map filed here the other 
 day — in Alta California — there are 68,397 Indians, and the additional 
 territory which we consider was formerly claimed by Spain under the 
 name of California has some 20,000 additional Indians. But at any 
 rate, limiting ourselves to the territory ceded by the treaty of Gaude- 
 lupe Hidalgo, there are more than 60,000 Indians. 
 
 M. le President. Nous prenons acte de votre communication. M., 
 le Secretaire general communiquera ce document a l'adver«aire. La 
 parole est au Conseil des Etats-Unis du Mexique, M. Delacroix. 
 
 FIN DE LA PLAIDOIRIE DE M. DELACROIX. 
 
 Messieurs : Pour terminer ma plaidoirie sur le fond du proces, je 
 n'ai plus a analyser devant vous qu'un document de la plus haute 
 importance, que nous considerons a lui seul comme decisif ; nous 
 croyons que s'il a pu rester encore apres ces debats un doute dans 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 689 
 
 l'esprit de la Cour au sujet du fondement de la these que nous avons 
 l'honneur de lui presenter au norn du Mexique, ce doute sera dissipe* 
 par le document que vous allez connaitre. 
 
 Dans le livre rouge que vous possedez, il y a a la page 343 un docu- 
 ment dont je veux vous faire une courte analyse parce que vous allez 
 apercevoir imm^diatement son importance. 
 
 Avant de formuler la reclamation dont le Tribunal est actuellement 
 saisi, l'Eglise catholique de la Haute Californie avait formula une pre- 
 tention analogue devant le Tribunal americain de la Haute Californie. 
 Sa pretention etait celle-ci ; elle disait : II y a dans la Haute Californie 
 des biens de Missions, des terres, des vergers, des proprietes, des etab- 
 lissements de tout ordre, qui ont ete autrefois acquis par les Missions, 
 nous sommes, nous Eglise catholique, evSches de la Haute Californie, 
 les successeurs des Missions, et par consequent c'est a nous que ces biens 
 appartiennent. 
 
 Ces biens, messieurs, avai.ent une importance considerable. La 
 question a ete soumise au Tribunal americain en octobre 1856, la Cour 
 trouvera dans les pages 343 a 350 l'indication du systeme qui fut pre- 
 sente" devant le Tribunal americain par l'Eglise de la Haute Californie. 
 Ce systeme, messieurs, vous le lirez, mais je demande la permission 
 de vous indiquer et d'analyser devant vous la reponse qui fut faite, 
 non pas pour l'Etat americain mais par tous ceux qui etaient interess£s 
 a ce que ce ne fut pas l'Eglise de Californie qui eut l'attribution de la 
 propriete de ces biens des Missions. 
 
 La question etait importante, elle a ete etudiee en droit de tres pr&s, 
 et voici ce qui fut r^pondu par le sollicitor qui representait les parties 
 defenderesses. II fut etabli devant les tribunaux ameVicains de la 
 Haute Californie que l'Eglise americaine n'avait pas de personnalite 
 civile et que par consequent elle n'avait pas de capacite" pour recevoir. 
 
 Cet argument est absolument decisif , puisque nous avons discute 
 jusqu'ici le point de savoir si les autorites, le pouvoir souverain du 
 Mexique ou de l'P^spagne, avaient transf ere des droits civils au profit 
 de l'Eglise, et je crois avoir demontre" avec succes qu'il n'en est rien. 
 Mais voici que maintenant, par une demonstration absolument decisive, 
 nous en arrivons a pouvoir etablir que non seulement on n'a rien trans- 
 fer mais que l'Eglise etait impuissante a recevoir. Voici done (page 
 350) les quelques considerations qui ont ete presentees: 
 
 1. L'Eglise, nous dit M. Horace Hawes, etait originellement incapable d'acquerir, 
 de possecler, de transferer des biens fonciers. 
 
 2. Subsequemment, quand ce pouvoir d'acquerir etdeposseder (mais non d' aligner) 
 des' biens temporels, fut confere a l'Eglise, ce fut sous de grandes restrictions. Et il 
 ne pouvait s'exercer sans l'expresse sanction, pour chaque acquisition, du pouvoir 
 souverain. 
 
 3. Les modes par lesquels l'Eglise peut acquenr, ou les titres et documents neces- 
 saires pour conferer le droit (de propriete) sont les memes que ceux requis dans le 
 cas de particuliers ou d'autres personnes civiles, avec l'addition de la sanction sou- 
 veraine. 
 
 4. Toutefois, contrairement au cas des particuliers, le droit de l'Eglise d'acquerir 
 des biens fonds n'est pas inherent, ni d'origine divine, mais purement d' ordre civil, 
 cree par des lois civiles et sujet aux limitations qu'elles peuvent imposer. 
 
 Voici done que l'honorable avocat qui defendait alors les intents 
 dont nous avons la charge aujourd'hui— e'etaient les memes — disait: 
 L'Eglise n'a pas par essence le droit de posseder ou d'acquerir des 
 biens, il faut qu'une loi le lui ait attribue. Nous allons rechercher, 
 
 S. Doc. 28 44 
 
690 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 dit-il, quelle est la loi civile qui aurait donne a l'Eglise le droit de posse"- 
 der; et il ajoute: 
 
 5. Bien que l'Eglise comme corps spirituel, restreinte aux objets spirituels de son 
 institution divine, existe independamment de et en dehors du contr&le de 1'Etat; 
 cependant, envisaged conime corporation et propri^taire de biens temporels, elle est 
 simplement line communaute' politique, une partie constituante de 1' organisation 
 politique de la .societe, n'ayant que les droits de celles de sa categorie, et sujets & tous 
 les changemeiits et modifications qui peuvent y 6tre apportes. 
 
 6. Les acquisitions de l'Eglise, comme celles de toutes autres communaut<$s poli- 
 tiques et au contraire des personnifications civiles fondles dans un but commercial, ne 
 sont jamais, rii en tout ni en partie, la proprie'te' de ses membres; elles ne sont pas 
 davantage destinies ft leur benefice individuel, mais aux usages d'utilit6 publique que 
 la "corporation" a pour but de poursuivre. 
 
 Voici done qu'il etablit que l'Eglise, si elle a pu a un moment posse - - 
 der, ne possedait pas au m§me titre qu'un particulier ou une societe 
 commerciale. Quand une societe" commerciale vient a, se dissoudre, 
 tous les elements qui la composent, toutes les personnes qui en font 
 partie ont une part du produit de la liquidation; tandis que l'Eglise 
 catholique n'a rien pour ses membres, elle ne peut avoir que comme 
 corps en vue de la destination que l'on a eu en vue. 
 
 7. L'Eglise, considered sous l'aspect dont elle est revenue dans les propositions 
 pr6c6dentes, est done k proprement parler un simple administrateur de proprifite' 
 publique, placed sous sa gestion pour des raisons politiques et qui, en cas de dissolu- 
 tion de 1' existence politique ou civile de l'Eglise, retourne ordinairement ft la masse 
 de la proprMte publique, sous reserve de tous droits de reversibility existant, le cas 
 e'eh^ant, en faveur de ceux qui representent les donateurs. 
 
 Messieurs, dans la pretention qui etait presented au nom de l'Eglise 
 catholique, on avait dit: En Espagne, et plus tard au Mexique, le droit 
 
 r.n.non p.r,si.lt p.n vicmp.nr n.n mnins nnur fnntoo loo *licT-»r\oifir*vic; .-o-ii Yi'nfoi_ 
 
 ceptible de reeevoir un transf ert de propriete ou d'acquerir une creance 
 contre le Gouvernement. C'est a, cela, messieurs, que va repondre 
 l'avocat des defendeurs: 
 
 Les membres des ordres religieux, dits clerg^ rggulier, qui seuls furent employes 
 comme missionnaires dans les Indes sont considers en droit comme 6tant civilement 
 morts ("morts pour le monde") et incapables d'acquerir ou de poss6der en aucune 
 maniere. 
 
 Les Missions n'gtaient pas des "corporations" mais des 6tablissements fond^s par 
 le Gouvernement, pour le progres de la population, de la civilisation et du christian- 
 lsme. Le pouvoir ecctesiastique n' avait pas de contrdle sur elles, ni aucune possession 
 de terres ou autre propn6te" dependantes d'elles— et cette possession n'^tait pas 
 davantage mvestie en les peres ou missionnaires religieux. 
 
 La seule possession distincte de celle des membres de la communaute" 6tait la pos- 
 session du Gouvernement; les missions elles-memes et les peres, les escortes militaires 
 et admimstradores" 6tant de simples instruments et agents du Gouvernement. 
 
 Et alors, messieurs, voici que ce document nous apprend que par un 
 decret espagnol du 27 septembre 1820, decret promulgue" a nouveau en 
 Espagne le 30 aout 1836, il est decide que les eglises, monasteres", 
 couvents et communautes eccle"siastiques de toute nature quelconque, 
 d'ordres tant seculiers que reguliers, h6pitaux, maisons de refuge, 
 Hotels-Dieu et d'inatruction, confreries, commanderies et autres e"tab- 
 lissements permanents aussi bien ecclesiastiques que lai'ques connus 
 sous le nom de mainmorte n'auront desormais aucun pouvoir d'acquerir 
 des biens immeubles dans aucune province de la monarchic ni par testa- 
 ment, ni par donation, achat, echange, etc. 
 
 Voici done, messieurs qu'un decret espagnol promulgue en Espagne 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNTA8. 691 
 
 a 1'epoque oil le Mexique faisait encore partie de cette nation, c'est-a- 
 dire le 27 septembre 1820, decide qu'aucune eglise, aucune communaute 
 religieuse tant s£culiere que r^guliere, ne peut posseder, ne peut 
 acqu^rir ni par testament, ni par donation; done, s'il y avait une desti- 
 tution de toute capacite" de recevoir e'est bien dans ce de"cret que nous 
 en trouvons la proclamation la plus absolue et la plus officielle. De 
 telle sorte que si l'on pretendait que par les documents successifs, par 
 les decrets de 1836, 1842 et 1845 l'Eglise avait acquis un droit, on 
 devrait reconnaitre que l'on serait revenu sur une legislation promul- 
 guee en 1820. 
 
 En continuant la lecture de ce document, nous trouvons, a la page 
 352: 
 
 Arguilles, dans son "Dictionnario de Hacienda," article "Ventas" indique a 
 propos des memoires d'Ouvrard, publies a Paris en 1806, qu'en novembre 1804, le 
 Pape Pie VII a approuve' une cedule royale, signee par Charles IV, par laquelle 
 6tait ordonnee la vente de toute la propriete ecclesiastique d'Espagne et deslndes. 
 
 Dans la suite de ce document vous allez voir la demonstration de 
 ceci: e'est que le droit canon n'avait qu'une valeur coutumiere en 
 Espagne, que e'etait dans l'^chelle des lois le dernier echelon; et voici 
 l'importance de ce fait: e'est que l'on avait dit: D'apres le droit canon, 
 l'Eglise, les eVecMs, peuvent avoir des proprietes. A cela on repon- 
 dait: Soit, d'apres le droit canon, mais pour autant que le droit canon 
 ne soit pas contraire a. l'une ou l'autre des dispositions des lois civiles 
 qui doivent le primer. Or il est etabli que dans l'ordre de ces lois 
 viennent en premiere categorie les lois nationales subsequentes a 
 1'independance, puis les lois espagnoles promulguees avant l'independ- 
 ance, puis les reglements royaux, puis les regleraents des alcades, puis 
 telles et telles lois, et finalement et en dernier lieu les " Partidas." De 
 facon qu'il n'y a pas de doute que d'apres la loi espagnole — tout cela 
 est deVeloppe ici avec une minutie qui ne pourra pas echapper au 
 Tribunal forsqu'il voudra bien consulter ce document — l'Eglise ne 
 pouvait pas posseder, n'avait pas de capacity et si elle n'avait pas de 
 capacite" le proc&s est resolu. 
 
 Nous avons jusqu'a present demontre" qu'on ne lui avait pas donne", 
 mais si elle n'etait pas capable de recevoir, toute discussion devient 
 superflue.. 
 
 Puis, nous voyons encore: 
 
 Toutes bulles, brefs ■et rescrits de conciles geheraux ou autres dispositions ecclesia- 
 stiques, mtaie si elles concernent des sujets de Foi et de discipline, doivent Stresoumis 
 a et recevoir le "Pase" du gouvernement avant de pouvoir 6tre promulgu^s. 
 
 Ceci e"tait encore en vue d'etablir que l'Eglise n'avait pas pu donner 
 par un bref un droit civil a, une autorite' ecclesiastique, parce que ces 
 bulles ne pouvaient avoir de valeur qu'a la condition d'etre publiees, 
 et elles ne pouvaient §tre publiees qu'avec une autorisation du pouvoir 
 civil. 
 
 D'ailleurs, messieurs, il y a une distinction qui est tres nettement 
 e"tablie par ce document: e'est la distinction dans l'autorite ecclesia- 
 stique entre le caractere civil et le caractere religieux. Tout ce qui 
 concerne la partie religieuse des pouvoirs de l'autorite" ecclesiastique 
 releve du Pape, sous un contr61e plus ou moins precis de l'autorite" 
 civile; mais en ce qui concerne les droits civils que peut avoir une 
 autorite religieuse ou une communaute" religieuse, cela releve du Roi; 
 e'est done la loi qui doit prevaloir dans l'interpretation que nous 
 rechercbons ici. 
 
692 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Voici un nouveau decret que nous n'avions pas cite" jusqu'ici : 
 
 Par decret du Congres du Mexique en date du 16 mars 1822, les biens temporels 
 des ordres religieux furent mis en vente, et le produit de cette vente consacre a 
 l'entretien des troupes. 
 
 J'ai eu l'honneur de vous exposer hier, lorsque je faisais I'histoire 
 des faits, qu'en 1820 notamment c'etait une periode d'agitation et de 
 trouble, que l'Espagne etait inquiete de voir se demembrer son terri- 
 toire par l'independance qui serait proclamee au Mexique ; elle est 
 dans un moment de necessite, que fait-elle? Elle prend les biens des 
 ordres religieux et elle le fait pour entretenir les troupes. 
 
 Par autre decret du meme Congres, en date du 30 juin 1823, il est ordonne que la 
 propriefce de San Lorenzo sera delivree aux citoyens de Chapalzingo selon un mode 
 juste et equitable de distribution, etc. 
 
 Voila que l'Etat distribue les biens. Cela vous montre combien 
 l'Etat disposait de tous les biens sans que l'Eglise protestat. 
 
 Par autre decret, meme Congres, du 5 mai 1823, il est ordonne que les biens fonds 
 de l'ex-Tribunal de l'Inquisition et d'autres communautes eteintes, soient cedes par 
 petits lots. Le 16 du meme mois, l'ordonnance est renouvelee et etendue a tous 
 biens temporels. Par la loi generate du 4 aout 1824, il est declare^ que les biens 
 temporels (des ordres 6teints et de 1' ex-Inquisition) appartiennent a la Nation. 
 
 Ce document que je voulais faire passer sous vos yeux n'est pas une 
 plaidoirie, ce n'est pas un developpement, ce sont des faits, ce sont des 
 decrets, qui vous montrent combien l'Etat se considere toujours 
 comme le proprietaire de tous les biens dont s'agit. II en dispose, et 
 cette fois il en dispose sans reserve aucune, pour l'entretien des troupes, 
 pour distributions diverses, il en dispose en maitre, sans protestation 
 aucune. 
 
 Par decret du Congres general du 25 mai 1832, la possession et l'administration de 
 ce Fonds pieux furent placees exclusivement entre les mains du gouvernement. 
 
 Ceci, vous le connaissez: c'est la loi que nous avons analysee, par 
 moi hier, et qui, notez-le bien, est invoquee par des Aniericains; il 
 s'agit d'un proces qui ete plaide dans la Haute Californie ame'ricaine, 
 et cette loi a ete invoquee dans le meme sens que nous l'invoquons ici, 
 a savoir que c'est un acte par lequel le gouvernement marque son 
 intention ae disposer des biens et regie les conditions dans lesquelles il 
 voudra les louer, les administrer, etc. 
 
 Voici maintenant, messieurs, que, toujours dans le m§me document, 
 on va 6tablir le caractere des Missions. On a dispute" devant vous le 
 point de savoir si ces Missions avaient un caractere politique ou 
 religieux, si l'un de ces caracteres predominait sur l'autre; comme il 
 s'agit d'un proces analogue du notre, le mSme caractere a 6t6 discut6 
 devant le Tribunal americain de la Haute Californie, et voici ce qu'un 
 rapport americain va etablir (page 354): 
 
 Le caractere de ces 6tablissements est exactement indique au Rapport offlciel 
 qu'adresse au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Wm. Carey Jones, en 1849. 
 
 Le gouvernement nouveau, le gouvernment conqueVant, a pris pos- 
 session de la Californie; il charge un agent americain — qui est done 
 l'organe de la partie contre laquelle nous avons l'honneur de plaider 
 ici — de faire des 1849 un rapport ofEciel au Gouvernement americain 
 sur le caractere des Missions; voici ce qu'on y lit: 
 
 Dans le royal " Reglement pour les Presidios de la Peninsule de Californie, l'erec- 
 tion de nouvelles Missions, le d6veloppement de la population et 1' extension de 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 693 
 
 l'etablissement de Monterey," approuve par le Roi le 24 octobre 1781, se trouvent 
 des dispositions minutieuses concernant lea Missions d6ja fondees alors et celles qui 
 devaient §tre fondles dans la Haute Californie: i! suffit de les consul ter, particulicire- 
 ment letitre XV, pour constater que toutes les Missions dans eet Etat e>,aient, dans 
 l'acception la plus stricte de l'expression, des £tablissements gouvernementaux, 
 fondes, reglement^s et gouvemes jusque dans les plus inflmes details, par le pouvoir 
 civil et supported exclusivement par le Tresor royal. 
 
 Voici done que l'agent officiel des Etats-Unis appre"cie ainsi ce que 
 sont les Missions. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Ou trouvez-vous cela ? 
 
 M. Delacroix. A la page 354 du livre rouge. C'est toujouvs dans 
 ce debat qui a eu lieu devant le Tribunal americain et ou la meme ques- 
 tion que celle qui vient devant vous a 6te discutee, que nous trouvons 
 cette serie de documents officiels par lesquels je voudrais terminer ma 
 plaidoire, afin de vous montrer que tout ce que nous avons dit se trouve 
 appuye" par des documents e"manant precisement des Etats-Unis. 
 
 Au rapport d'une Commission speciale nommfe par le Gouvernement mexicain 
 pour presenter un plan de reglement applicable aux Missions de Haute et de Basse 
 Californie, date" le 6 avril 1825, nous faisons l'extrait suivant : 
 
 'La Junta reconnait que le grand progrSs fait par les Missions 6tablies par les 
 Jesuites de la Yieille Californie, comme par celles etablies dans la Nouvelle, par les 
 Ferdinandites (ou Franciscains) est attribuable au systeme espagnol de dficouvertes 
 et de commutes spirituelles — elle sait aussi les floges que ces 6tablissements ont 
 merites non seulement de la part d'Espagnols, mais aussi d' strangers eclair£s. 
 
 L'6tat dans lequel les missions actuelles se trouvent ne correspond pas au grand 
 progres qu'elles ont fait au debut. Cette decadence est notable dans la Basse Cali- 
 fornie, et suffirait a prouver que le systeme doit etre modifi^ et r£forme\ Mais parmi 
 ces reiormes, celle-la est indispensable qui a pour cause le de'tournement dont les 
 Missionnaires ont eu a souffrir de leur ministere essentiel; ayant a s'occuper des 
 interels temporels de chaque Mission, de son administration et Gouvernement. 
 Independamment que ceci porte prejudice au but et a, la destination principale des 
 Missions (lesquels furent tout a fait politiques et d'ordre temporel) , la chose n'est 
 realisable que moyennant d'entrainer un relachement sensible des vceux professes 
 par les fils de San Francisco, sans opposition avec 1' esprit et la lettre de la bulle 
 a'TJrbain VII du 22 feVrier 1633, laquelle ordonne que les moines missionnaires 
 s'abstiendront de tout ce qui puisse avoir couleur d'affaires, marcbandises ou traflc. 
 
 C'est -a-dire qu'a un moment donne" un rapport officiel dit: C'est un 
 tort de conserver a ces Missionaires ce charactere d'administrateurs, 
 ils font des affaires, c'est contraire a leur essence religieuse, puisqu'ils 
 font du commerce, ils font des affaires, ils vendent des marchandises, 
 ils font du gouvernement, de l'administration, de Fart militaire, de la 
 justice; mais alors ce ne sont plus des religieux, ils oublient leur 
 caractere religieux, c'est contraire aux regies de leur ordre. Voila 
 ce qu'on trouve dans un rapport officiel. 
 
 Je continue, et je trouve a la page 355 : 
 
 Dans un rapport d'un Comite" de la meme Junta, date du 13 mai 1827, concernant 
 les reglements a adopter pour le Gouvernement des Californies, il est dit: 
 
 Meme 1' ordre du gouvernement en vertu duquel ce pays delicieux commenca a £tre 
 gouvernS fut original; les Missionnaires 6taient a la fois gouverneurs civils etperes 
 spirituels; ils 6tablirent la vente ascendante de "reductions," missions et "pueblos," 
 mais dans toutes ils 6taient les gouverneurs, et le supeneur des Missions reunissait 
 sous son couvre-chef l'authorite civile, eccllsiastique et militaire; les troupes de pro- 
 tection e'taient sous ses ordres; de sorte que le renouvellement de la catastrophe qui 
 s'est produite au Paraguay n'eut pas 6t6 surprenant. 
 
 Ce document officiel vous demontre que les peres Jesuites etaient 
 considered comme des agents du gouvernement. 
 
 Je ne vous lis pas les reflexions qui furent faites alors et les deduc- 
 tions qui furent tirees par l'avocat des Etats-Unis ou du d&fendeur 
 
694 PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 dans ce proces, parce que je veux me borner & des citations de docu- 
 ments officiels. En voici un autre: 
 
 En 1844, Manuel Castanares residait a, Mexico, en quality de depute" flu au Con- 
 gres general pour le departement de Haute Californie. 
 
 C'est ce depute" de la Haute Californie qui va prendre la parole & 
 Mexico, et voici ce qu'il va dire le 13 mai 1844: 
 
 II n'est pas douteux qu'a ees 6tablissements cette peninsule doit l'origine de son 
 existence poh>'que; que les Missions constituaient son gouvernement primitif; 
 qu'elles ont toujours 6te" considerees corame alliees avec les formes anterieures deson 
 administration etqu' en tout cas le systeme qui pourra §tre adopts quant aux Missions 
 constituera une part essentielle de ce qui pourra 6tre etabli pour la prosperite et le 
 d^veloppement du pays. Le plus grand tort qui ait pu Stre fait a mon Departement 
 £tait 1' alienation de la propria appartenant au Fonds pieux de Californie par le 
 gouvernement provisoire. Ce Fonds en lui-m6me constituait un levier suffisant pour 
 donner une impulsion generale a ce pays, sans negliger pour cela 1'objet d'origine de 
 son institution. 
 
 D'autres citations sont faites qui sont egalement int^ressantes et que 
 je ne puis rn'empScher de vous indiquer. Dans un autre discours de ce 
 m§me depute de Californie, qui avait done qualite" pour prendre la 
 parole au nom de la Californie, nous trouvons ce qui suit: 
 
 Je donnerai a Votre Excellence (le Ministre des Eelations) une autre indication 
 quant aux fonds qui peuvent en partie 6tre consacres a cette mesure, laquelle est le 
 salut pour le territoire national: tous les biens temporels des missions sont une pro- 
 priety leur appartenant en commun, et dans laquelle les Missionnaires et les ordres 
 religieux dont ceux-ci dependent n'ont rienau-dela de la mission de 1' administration 
 par delegation du gouvernement. 
 
 C'est done le depute 1 de la Californie qui va lui-m§me dire quel est 
 le r61e des missionnaires: ils n'ont rien, dit-il, sauf l'adm frustration au 
 nom du gouvernement. 
 
 Eh bien, je crois, messieurs, que ces citations n'6taient pas inutiles 
 et qu'elles sont au contraire decisives en ce qui concerne le litige dont 
 vous avez a connaitre. 
 
 11 est encore dit, a la page 356: 
 
 Le reglement general sur la colonisation en date du 21 novembre 1828, article 17, 
 stipule que "Dans ces territoires ou il peut exister des missions, les terres que celles-ci 
 occupent ne seront pas colonisees actuellement, ni jusqu'a ce qu'il soit decide" si elles 
 devraient £tre considerees comme proprietes des 'reducciones,' neophytes, catechu- 
 menes ou colons mexicains." Cette situation transitoire prit fin par acte du Congres 
 du 26 novembre 1833, stipulant que " le Gouvernement est autorise il prendre toutes 
 les mesures pouvant assurer la colonisation, et a realiser la secularisation des missions 
 des Haute et Basse Californie, etant autoris6 a employer dans ce but et de la maniere 
 la plus efficace les biens des 'obras pias' desdits territoires, afln de fournir des 
 ressources a la Commission, ainsi qu'aux families en destination (de ces territoires) 
 qui sont actuellement dans cette capitale." 
 
 Ceci, messieurs, est extr&mement inte"ressant. En 1828 le gouver- 
 nement, qui se preoccupe de ces missions tombees en decadence, va 
 charger des families mexicaines d'aller peupler la Californie; qu'est-ce 
 qu'on fait? On donne au gouvernement le droit de disposer de tout 
 ce qui appartient aux missions pour entretenir ces families. C'est une 
 autre application du Fonds", de tous ces biens qui etaient aux Missions. 
 Est-ce que ce n'est pas encore une affirmation en fait du droit que 
 pr^cisement poss^dait l'Etat de disposer de tous ces fonds? 
 
 Dans les reglements provisoires adopted par Figueroa, le 9 aout 1834, pourex£cuter 
 la loi du Congres, il est pourvu que les vignobles, vergers et champs de bl6 seront 
 cultives par les Indiens en commun . . . jusqu'a ce que le Gouvernement supreme 
 prenne une mesure definitive. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 695 
 
 C'est-a-dire que dans toutes les dispositions legislatives, dans toute 
 cette serie de decrets qui sont £num6res ici, vous voyez toujours qu'il 
 est affirme a chaque pas, a chaque page, que c'est le gouvernement qui 
 dispose; etil dispose dans les formes les plus variees, il dispose suivant 
 sa fantaisie. Est-ce qu'il pourrait le faire, je vous le demande, est-ce 
 que cette seVie de decrets aurait et^ possible s'il s'agissait de biens 
 d'Eglise? Est-ce que cette serie de decrets que je viens d'enumerer 
 devant vous ne constitue pas le renversement le plus absolu de toute 
 la these que l'on peut presenter de l'autre c6te" de la barre \ 
 
 II serait superflu de mentionner en particulier chaque disposition des gouverne- 
 ments, general ou depart einentaux, ou du Congres, sur la question; les divers regle- 
 ments de Figueroa, d'Alvarada, de Micheltorena et Pio Pico, dont les plus impor- 
 tants sont in extenso dans Rockwell, 455 — 477, et analyses dans le Rapport de Jones 
 8-22, prouvent sans laisser le vestige d'un doute, que ni les Peres missionnaires, ni 
 l'Eglise, n'ont jamais eu titre ni propriety d'aucune des terres des Missions, mais 
 que les premiers les administraient, pour employer les propes termes de Castafiares 
 d<ija cit4 "en vertu d'une commission du gouvernement. 
 
 M. Asser. Je trouve, aux pages 358 et 359, le jugement de la Cour, 
 rendu en appel dans cette affaire, confirmant, n'est-ce pas, le jugement 
 de premiere instance? 
 
 M. Delacroix. Parfaitement. 
 
 M. Asser. Je voudrais vous demander, si la demanderesse e"tait 
 l'Eglise, qui etait defendeur? 
 
 M._Delacroix. Je ne 1'ai pas dit parce que precisement, cela ne s'y 
 trouve pas. II y a M. Horace Hawes qui se pre*serite pour les d6f endeurs 
 lesquels devaient etre tous les int6ress6s a la possession du Fonds. 
 
 II ne s'agissait que d'une seule affaire, de la Mission de Santa Clara, 
 c'6tait un proces particulier a, propos d'une affaire determined ; mais 
 il va de soi que cette decision devait avoir une portee considerable 
 comme precedent, et c'est pourpuoi la question fut agite"e dans son 
 ensemble et que toute la question de droit fut discutee, mais elle 
 n'affectait pas l'ensemble des missions. 
 
 M. Asser. Vous ne savez pas quel 6tait le defendeur? 
 
 M. Delacroix. Non. 
 
 M. Beernaert. C'est un des points sur lesquels nous avons demande" 
 des renseignements au Mexique; mais 1'eloignement esttel et les delais 
 qui nous sont impartis sont si courts que la reponse arrivera probable- 
 ment quand vous aurez rendu votre sentence. 
 
 M. Delacroix. En ce qui concerne le demandeur je puis vous don- 
 ner les reseignements que voici, qui se trouvent dans le livre rouge a 
 la page 340, et cela respond partiellement a la question de M. l'Arbitre : 
 
 Les terres occupies par ces missions ne furent pas transferees a qui que ce soit, 
 mais demeurerent la propria du gouvernement; et m6me les batiments d'Eglise 
 eriges sur ces terres ne devinrent pas la propri6te de la corporation de l'Eglise avant 
 le decret de secularisation de 1833. 
 
 La plainte expose que le demandeur est le prltre catholique romain et pasteur 
 dument constitu6 de la Mission et eglise de Santa Clara et que, selon les regies et la 
 discipline de l'Eglise Catholique Romaine, il a 1' administration des biens temporels 
 de ladite eglise et mission, comme le droit a la possession de sa proprMte' meuble 
 et immeuble; que le deiendeur s'est ilMgalement empart d'un certain lot de terre 
 dans ledit comt6, connu sous la designation de Le Verger, appartenant a l'ancienne 
 Mission de Santa Clara et aujourd'hui la propria de ladite Eglise; et pour rentrer 
 dans la possession dudit lot, le demandeur fait proces. La seule question dans 1' espece 
 est le droit de l'Eglise Catholique Romaine aux terres des Missions dans cet Etat. 
 
 Done, en ce qui concerne le demandeur, il n'y a pas de doute, c'est 
 le reprfeentant de l'Eglise, le cur6, le prStre seculier qui dit: Voila un 
 
696 • PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 bien appartenant slux Missions, je le revendique parce que j'ai quality 
 pour parler au nom de l'Eglise. Et alors celui qui d^tient le fonds 
 repond: Non, vous n'etes pas l'Eglise, vous n'avez pas de droits. 11 
 est probable que le d^fendeur, Redman — c'est un renseignement que 
 nous devrions avoir ^-avait 6te autorise" aposseMer par le Gouvernement. 
 Un autre d^cret qui ne manque pas d'un certain interet est repro- 
 duit a la page 357: Le d^cret de Pio Pico du 28 octobre 1845 ordonnait 
 ceci: 
 
 Art. 1. Seront vendues en cette capitale, au plus offrant, les Missions de-San 
 Rafael, Solores, Soledad, San Miguel et La Purisima, qui sont abandonngs par leurs 
 neophytes. (Ce decret fut fait aprSs due proclamation en conformity du decret du 
 28 mai 1845). 
 
 Done le Gouvernement va decider la vente des biens appartenant a 
 certaines Missions. 
 
 C'est inteSressant, parce que quand une mission venait a §tre aban- 
 donnee par ses neophytes il e"tait tout naturel que l'Eglise revendique 
 les biens si elle avait des droits. Elle ne dit rien, c'est le Gouverne- 
 ment qui en dispose sans protestation. 
 
 Et Particle 14 du decret du 28 octobre 1845 dit: 
 
 La location des Missions de San Diego, San Luis Eey, San Gabriel, San Antonio, 
 Santa Clara et San Jose\ aura lieu quand les difiicultes qui existent actuellement en 
 raison des dettes de ces 6tablissements auront 6t6 surmont^es et alors le public sera 
 avis<5. 
 
 Et, a la page 358: 
 
 Nous voyons done que chaque acte du Gouvernement depuis la peViode la plus 
 reculee, sans excepter le d£cret de Micheltorena et l'ordonnance all£gu6e du Gou- 
 vernement de Bustamente, du 17 novembre 1840, ind^pendamment de l'acquiesce- 
 ment constant du clerg6, tendent a cpnfirmer et a 6tablir sans controverse possible, 
 que les terres des Missions de toute nature, ameliorates ou non, jardins, vergers et 
 vignobles_, sans excepter les Mtiments, elaient la propri6t6 de la nation et sujettes a 
 6tre administrties, vendues, loupes, distributes aux colons ou affect£es a d'autres 
 usages par le gouvernement en conformity des lois; de plus, que les Peres, ou le 
 clerg6 s^culier, ou l'Eglise, non seulement n'auraient pas et n'ont jamais pr^tendu 
 avoir de droit de propria a eux, mais qu'ils ne les ont jamais possess ; ou, pour 
 exprimer cette conclusion plus clairement encore, dans les termes m6mes de Casta- 
 fiares et qui ne sont qu'une repetition de ceux de la savante Junta d6ja cit£e "Les 
 Missions ou les ordres religieux dont elles dependent, n'avaient rien de plus que leur 
 administration en vertu d'une delegation du Gouvernement." 
 
 J'ai ainsi termine, messieurs, l'examen de cette procedure, je l'ai 
 fait rapidement, mais la Cour analysera ces documents de pres; nous 
 y voyons une serie de citations de la plus haute importance, l'^numer- 
 ation des decrets royaux depuis 1815 jusqu'a 1848 qui sont l'attestation 
 la plus formelle du droit du Gouvernement comme aussi de la recon- 
 naissance implicite de son droit resultant de l'absence de protestation 
 aucune de a part du clerge. 
 
 La question ainsi ported devant le Tribunal americain a e'te' r^solue 
 en faveur de la these que nous defendons ici et que defendait M. 
 Horace Hawes. Voici la sentence de la Cour supreme de Calif ornie: 
 
 L'avis de la Cour fut donne" par le juge Heydenfeldt, le juge en chef Murray 
 approuvant. 
 
 Le demandeur, qui est le pasteur de l'Eglise catholique de Santa Clara, poursuit 
 pour la possession d'un lot de terre dit "le verger" qui appartenait a 1' ex-mission de 
 Santa Clara, alleguant que les terres des missions sont proprtete de l'Eglise et que 
 par les regies de celle-ci il est 1' administrates des biens temporels de cette eglise et 
 missions en particular. 
 
 De longs dgbats se sont produits sur les questions du droit de l'Eglise d'acqu&ir 
 la propriety sous les systemes espagnol et mexicain, comme sur le droit du demandeur 
 a triomplier; mais l'opinion que j'ai forn.ee rend cet examen superflu. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOUNIA9. 697 
 
 Selon toutes les autorites espagnoles et inexicaines (lesquelles ont etc) bien com- 
 piles dans le plaidoyer du defendeur) les missions etaient des etablissements 
 politiques, ne s'alliant en rien a l'Eglise. 
 
 Le fait que moines et pr&tres etaient a la tete de ces institutions ne prouve rien en 
 fayeur du droit de l'Eglise a la propria absolue. II n'est pas n^cessaire de deter- 
 miner ici dans quelle maniere ou par quel mode de transfert l'Eglise comme corpora- 
 tion ou personne civile pouvait legalement avoir titre. II suffit qu'il ait fallu quelque 
 mode de ce faire, de maniere a pouvoir enlever le titre du gouvernement, ou a des 
 particuliers pour le conf erer a P Eglise — et certainement 1' existence de riende semblable 
 n'a 6t6 d^montr^e. Si Ton excipe de ce qu'un pretre ou moine avait 1' administration 
 et le contr61e de la mission, la reponse est simplement qu'ils en etaient les gouver- 
 neurs civils; et bien qu'ils combinassent avec le pouvoir civil les fonctions de peres 
 spirituels, ceci n'etait que pour assurer 1' execution plus efficace du but desdits etab- 
 lissements, but qui etait la conversion et la christianisation des Indiens. Et il appert 
 pleinement de toutes les investigations faites dans V organisation espagnole et mexi- 
 caine en ce qui concerne les missions, qui ni celles-ci ni leurs pretres n'etaient incor- 
 por^s dans l'Eglise, ou places d'une maniere quelconque sous le controle et la direction 
 de ses ecclesiastiques diocfeains dont la supr^matie 6tait complete sur tous leurs 
 subordonnes. 
 
 Ceci confirme ce que j'avais l'honneur de dire a, une pr6ce"dente 
 audience, a savoir que les Jesuites comme .Ordre n'avaient pas capacity 
 pour poss^der, que c'6tait contraire a leur institution; si done des biens 
 leur ont 6te attribues ce n'etait que pour l'oeuvre qu'ils r^alisaient, 
 e'etait pour le Gouvernement dont ils Etaient les administrateurs ou 
 les dengues. 
 
 Au contraire, les Missions prirent naissance directement de par l'action et 1' autor- 
 ite du Gouvernement du pays . . . 
 
 Notez, messieurs, que e'est une Cour am^ricaine quie dit cela! 
 
 .... lois et reglernents leur furent appliques par son autorite legislative sans en 
 re^erer a, ni consulter 1' autorite de l'Eglise; les terres occupies par eux ne furent 
 transferees a personne, ni prfitre, ni neophyte, mais demeurerent la propriety de 
 l'Etat; et il n'y a pas un mot dans tous les actes ou decrets du Gouvernement pour 
 montrer que me"me les batiments d'Eglise consacrts au culte divin uniquement devin- 
 rent jamais la propriety de la corporation de l'Eglise jusqu'au decret de secularisa- 
 tion de 1833. 
 
 II est avance par l'appelant que le decret fut suspendu par un decret subsequent 
 et qu'il ne fut par consequent jamais applique aux Missions de Californie. 
 
 En ce cas, comme l'Eglise n'avait pas de droits dans la Mission avant le decret de 
 1833, elle demeure sans droit, attendu que ce fut seulement par ledit decret que des 
 droits quelconques, s'il en est, lui furent donnes; d'autre part, si elle pretend prendre 
 en vertu de ce decret, les limitations qu'il contient ne confereraient pas a l'Eglise 
 de droits sur la propriete objet du procfis actuel. 
 
 Notre conclusion est que le demandeur n'a pas droit a la propriete en question et, 
 par consequent, le jugement de la juridiction inferieure est confirme. (Copie du 
 Tome VI de la compilation intituiee " Comptes-rendus des process plaides et juges 
 par devant la Cour Supreme de Californie, pages 325 et suivantes.) 
 
 Ce document est une des annexes du memoire de M. Azpiroz. 
 
 J'ai tenu, messieurs, a vous faire cette analyse, non pas seulement 
 a raison de son autorite, qui est incontestable, puisqu'il s'agit d'un 
 proces plaide et juge" devant la Cour supreme de Californie — mais 
 encore a raison des autorites multiples qui y sont citees par l'avocat 
 des defendeurs devant ce Tribunal et qui sont decisives. II en resulte 
 que le droit de l'Eglise que nous discutons ici a ete" debattu aux Etats- 
 Unis, qu'il a ete discute pied a pied, que les autorites ont ete produites 
 et que la decision a ete ce que sera assurement la votre. 
 
 J'ai maintenant a vous dire quelques mots d'une question subsidiaire, 
 e'est-a-dire du chiffre de la demande, ou de la composition du Fonds 
 Pie de Californie. 
 
 Messieurs, en ce qui concerne le chiffre de la demande, le document 
 le plus important que nous puissions discuter et consulter est assure- 
 
698 PIOUS FUND Off THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 ment l'inventaire dresse" par Don Ramirez, lequel etait charge" de l'ad- 
 ministration du Fonds au nom de l'ev&que de Mexico, a la date du 28 
 avril 1842. Le texte de ce document important se trouve dans le 
 volume rouge, en anglais, pages 512 a 523, et en espagnol pages 488 
 a,498. 
 
 Tout d'abord, messieurs, 11 faut que je vous dise qnelles sont les 
 circonstances dans lesquelles ce document a 6te dresse. Vous vous 
 souvenez que par un decret du 19 septembre 1836 1'eVeque Don Diego 
 avait 6te" charge" de l'administration du Fonds Pie et qu'il 6tait alle" 
 s'installer en 1840 & Monterey, siege Episcopal. Comme les biens dont 
 il s'agissait se trouvaient a Mexico il a charge" un homme respectable, 
 Don Ramirez, de l'administration de ce Fonds a Mexico. Par un 
 decret du 8 fevrier 1842 le decret precedent a ete rapporte et Don 
 Ramirez a ete charge de rendre les biens au gouvernement; il en a fait 
 une nomenclature, un inventaire detaille\ C'est la base de la demande: 
 les demandeurs n'ont pas autre chose pour vous indiquer ce que serait 
 le Fonds Pie de Californie; je prends done ce document. 
 
 Nous y trouvons d'abord Vindication des biens fonds (page 512) ; ces 
 biens fonds se divisent en biens urbains et en biens ruraux; e'etaient 
 les maisons de la rue Vergara, qui avaient ete donn^es par Dona 
 Josefa Paula Arguelles. Ces maisons 6taient louees pour 3,000 
 piastres, nous dit Don Ramirez; elles etaient en mauvais 6tat, et elles 
 ont 6t6 vendues moyennant une rente annuelle de 3,500 piastres, pay- 
 able par trimestres et par anticipation. Ainsi que je vous l'ai deja 
 indiqu6, les biens de la succession Arguelles appartenaient pour un 
 quart §, la famille Arguelles, par suite de l'annulation de la disposition 
 faite au profit des colleges des Jfeuites, et pour les 3/4 au Fonds Pie, 
 moite pour lesiles Philippines et moite" pour les Missions de Californie. 
 
 Le revenu de ces maisons est done de 3,500 piastres; mais il faut en 
 d^duire, comme l'explique fort justement Don Ramirez, 1/4 pour la 
 famille Arguelles, soit 875 piastres; il reste les trois autres quarts, 
 soit 2,625 piastres, dont moitie pour les Missions de Californie et moiti£ 
 pour les lies Philippines. 
 
 Don Ramirez nous apprend aussi (page 513) qu'un embargo avait 
 6te place sur ces biens. 
 
 Le premier revenu est done de 2,625 piastres. Maintenant, il y a 
 des biens ruraux dont l'enumeration se trouve a. la page 513. II y a 
 l'Hacienda de Cienega del Pastor; c'e"tait une ferme importante qui 
 e"tait lou6e 17,100 piastres par an. Elle provenait aussi de la succes- 
 sion Arguelles, par consequent il y en avait un quart pour les heritiers 
 et la famille, soit 4,875 piastres, il restait done un revenu annuel de 
 12,825 piastres. II y avait aussi sur ce bien un embargo dont nous 
 parlerons plus tard. 
 
 Le second fonds rural etait l'Hacienda de San Pedro de Ibarra loue" 
 2,000 piastres; puis les Haciendas de San Augustin deAmoIes, El Cus- 
 todio, San Ignacio del Buey et La Baya louees au total pour 12,025 > 
 dollars par an. Mais Don Ramirez nous apprend qu'il a pu resilier 
 l'ancien bail et en faire un nouveau pour 12,705 piastres par an. 
 
 II y avait encore des cre"ances hypothecates; il y en avait une de 
 42,000 piastres a 5 pet. due par Jose Barrientos et garantie par le 
 domaine de Santa Lugardo et ses d^pendances. 
 
 II y avait une autre creance hypothecate de 40,000 piastres a 6 pet. 
 due par les banquiers Revillas, mais pour laquelle il y avait des 
 arrieres considerables: il y avait 26,800 piastres d'interets arrieres sur 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 699 
 
 cette creance au capital de 40,000 piastres, ce qui repre"sente un nom- 
 bre d'annees considerable. Don Ramirez nous apprend que des pour- 
 suites ont et6 intente"es, mais que jusqu'alors elles n'ont donne" aucun 
 r^sultat. 
 
 Enfin, il y a 3,000 piastres a 5 pet. sur le domaine de San Jose" 
 Muiyo dont les intents ne sont plus payes depuis 1827 — et nous 
 sommes en 1842! II y a 2,275 dollars d'arriere. 
 
 Cela, messieurs, 6tant enumer6, comme j'ai l'intention de vous 
 indiquer d'une facon precise quelle est la composition du Fonds Pie, 
 je vous renvoie au resume fait par Don Rainirez, qui ne se trouve pas 
 traduit dans le texte anglais mais que vous trouverez dans le texte 
 espagnol, page 493. 
 
 On rappelle les 2,625 piastres de la rue Vergara, les 12,825 piastres 
 de l'Hacienda de Cienega del Pastor, les 2,000 piastres de San Petro 
 de Ibarra, les 12,705 piastres des haciendas de San Augustin et autres, 
 les 2,100 piastres produites par le capital hypothecate de 42,000 
 piastres, puis les 2,400 piastres produites par les 40,000 dues par la 
 maison Re villas; cela fait au total 34.655 piastres. 
 
 Nous acceptons, messieurs, ce chiffre, sauf une reduction que vous 
 trouverez assur^ment legitime: elle est relative aux 40,000 piastres 
 dues par la maison Re villas; cette maison etait dans des affaires telle- 
 ment mauvaises que rien n'a jamais ete paye, et l'on reconnait que sur 
 ce capital de 40,000 piastres il y avait des arrieres d'interets pour 
 26,700 piastres; vous devrez admettre que e'etait une creance d'un 
 recouvrement difficile et qu'il serait peu admissible et peu Equitable de 
 mettre a la charge du Mexique la charge de cette mauvaise creance. 
 D'ailleurs, Don Ramirez, dans l'enum6ration qu'il fait, lorsqu'il en 
 arrive a la discussion de cette creance, dit qu'elle est tellement mau- 
 vaise qu'il a constitue un avocat pour faire des poursuites, et tout ce 
 qu'on peut esp^rer e'est de recevoir de temps en temps de petits 
 acomptes. 
 
 Done, je de"duis les 2,400 piastres qui ne sont pas payees, et j'en 
 arrive a avoir un revenu du Fonds Pie de 32,255 piastres. 
 
 Conforme'ment a la these des demandeurs, il faut capitaliser a 6 pet. 
 ce revenu pour en avoir la valeur en capital. Cela fait exactement 
 537,583 dollars. Telle etait la valeur du Fonds Pie au point de vue 
 immobilier. Seulement, j'ajoute imm^diatement qu'il faut de\iuire de 
 ce capital la somme qui a ete paye"e pour le fonds des iles Philippines, 
 e'est-a-dire 145,000 dollars. 
 
 Messieurs, je viens de vous e'nume'rer les immeubles qui composaient 
 le Fonds de Californie, et je viens de vous en indiquer l'origine, 
 notamment en ce qui concerne l'hacienda de Cienega del Pastor et les 
 maisons de la rue Vergara. Vous savez que les biens de la succession 
 Arguelles appartenaient pour moitie* au fonds des Philippines et pour 
 moitie" au fonds de Californie. Comme, a la suite d'un arrangement 
 que les demandeurs approuvent — au point qu'ils y voient un precedent 
 en leur faveur — il a ete entendu que les biens qui revenaient aux iles 
 Philippines resteraient la propriere du Roi d'Espagne ou des Missions 
 d'Espagne, cette somme de 145,000 piastres doit incontestablement, et 
 au minimum, etre deduite du montant du fonds immobilier, e'est-a-dire 
 des 537,583 piastres. Je dis que e'est un minimum parce que la suc- 
 cession Arguelles se composait d'autres Elements, et que dans une 
 convention du 24 octobre 1836 intervenue entre l'Espagne et le Mexique 
 il a 6te" entendu que tous les biens qui provenaient de la succession 
 
700 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIE'OKNTAS. 
 
 Arguelles appartiendraient pour mortis a l'Espagne en vue des lies 
 Philippines. 
 
 Le fonds immobilier se trouverait compose ainsi d'une somme de 
 392,583 piastres. 
 
 Voyons maintenant quelles sont les cre"ances actives du Fonds, que 
 Don Ramirez va 6numerer dans la suite de son inventaire. 
 
 A la page 514 "Cre'ances actives du Fonds, recouvrables, dues par 
 le Trevor Public", nous avons d'abord l'indication d'un capital de 
 20,000 piastres a 5 pour cent d'inte"ret qui serait du par le Gouverne- 
 ment espagnol. Celui-ci aurait emprunte" cette somme au Fonds Pie 
 et il n'en aurait plus paye" les inteVSts, d'apres ce que dit Don Ramirez, 
 depuis 1812. Don Ramirez va ajouter que depuis cette 6poque jusqu'a 
 present — c'est-a-dire jusqu'en 1842 — aucune somme n'a ete recue ni en 
 capital ni en inter&ts; de telle sorte, dit-il, que les inte're'ts courus 
 depuis 1812 jusqu'a 1842 represented 29,166 dollars. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, il y a une reflexion qui ne vous aura pas echappes; 
 est-ce que les eVeches des Etats-Unis qui sont nes en 1850 ou 1854 vont 
 pouvoir r^clamer pour eux les interests courus depuis 1812, alors qu'a 
 cette epoque il est incontestable que c'etait le Gouvernement espagnol 
 et ensuite le Gouvernement mexicain qui etait maitre du Fonds et dis- 
 posait de ses produits? Est-ce que par hasard la pretention des 
 demandeurs serait d'exiger un compte du Mexique et du Gouverne- 
 ment espagnol sur la maniere dont ils disposaient des produits du 
 Fonds pendant ces epoques ou assure"ment ils n'avaient de comptes a 
 rendre a personne, et surtout pas aux eveques de Californie? 
 
 Done, quand on demande des interets je ne comprends pas. Mais, 
 voyons meme quant au capital. II s'agit d'une somme due par le 
 gouvernement espagnol! II est bien certain que le Mexique ne peut 
 pas reclamer une somme au gouvernement espagnol pour la donner 
 aux Etats-Unis ou aux eV&ques de Californie. 
 
 Don Ramirez ne nous dit pas a quelle epoque le gouvernement 
 espagnol a pris ce capital de 20,000 piastres, mais ce qu'il nous dit, 
 e'est que depuis 1812 il n'a plus plu a l'Espagne d'en payer les interets. 
 Et je le comprends; pourquoi? Le Roi d'Espagne etait alors le maitre 
 de ce Fonds, il en disposait comme il l'entendait; s'il a pris 20,000 
 piastres et a dit: je les affecte a l'entretien des troupes, ou a toute 
 autre de"pense, il ne pourrait pas aujourd'hui en devoir compte aux 
 eVeques de Californie. Et cependant non seulement il en devrait 
 compte, mais il devrait les interets qu'il n'a pas payes! Imaginez-vous 
 cette cr^ance civile cr6e"e par l'Espagne au profit des eVSques de 
 Californie nes en 1854? C'est vraiment insoutenable". 
 
 de 
 
 Mais il s'agirait d'etablir que l'Espagne 
 reconnaitre une dette vis-a-vis du Fonds. 
 
 Je passe a la reclamation suivante: il s'agit d'un capital de 201,856 
 dollars que le gouvernement espagnol s'est approprie pour ses "n6ces- 
 sites." Don Ramirez veut bien nous dire (p. 514) que c'est pour des 
 n^cessites urgentes. A partir de 1812 le Gouvernement espagnol n'a 
 plus affecte les interests de ce prelevement aux objets du Fonds Pie. 
 Depuis 1812 jusqu'en 1842 les interets arrieres s'eleveraient d'apres 
 Ramirez a 294,434 dollars; il fait l'addition et il trouve que cela fait 
 496,291 dollars. 
 
 Je ne repete pas, messieurs, toutes les observations que j'ai pr6sent4es 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIA S. 701 
 
 a propos du chiffre, pr6ce\lent et qui doivent s'appliquer ici. Si a 
 une epoque de son histoire l'Espagne se trouvant devant des n^cessites 
 urgentes — ce mot est tres vague — au sujet desquelles elle n'avait pas a 
 s'expliquer puisqu'elle 6tait pouvoir souverain, a pris 200,000 piastres, 
 est-ce que nous, Mexique, nous allons avoir a en rendre compte aux 
 e>§ques de Calif ornie ? 
 
 Mais quels sont les titres de tous ces documents ? II est evident que 
 c'est aux adversaires a nous indiquer quels sont les titres qui ont con- 
 stitue la dette de l'Espagne. 
 
 J'arrive au troisieme paragraphe de ce document, page 515; il s'agit 
 d'un capital de 162,618 piastres qui est reconnu par le Tribunal du 
 consulat de Mexico a 6 pet. Qu'est-ce que le Tribunal du consulat de 
 Mexico? C'etait le Tribunal de Commerce; ce serait done un Tribunal 
 qui aurait reconnu cette dette de 162,168 dollars a 6 pet. Mais Don 
 Ramirez nous apprend que le gouvernement aurait repris cette cr^ance. 
 On voudra bien nous dire de quoi cela requite? Surtout que nous ap- 
 prenons que depuis 1820 l'interet n'a pas ete paye. Je suppose qu'en 
 1820 le roi d'Espagne pour une raison politique quelconque ait dit au 
 Tribunal du consulat de Mexico: Je vous decharge de votre dette, ou 
 je vous dispense des intents; est-ce que par hasard le Mexique devra 
 rendre compte aux evSques de Californie de cet acte du pouvoir sou- 
 verain d'Espagne? 
 
 Depuis 1820 les intents s'eleveraient a 206,'525 piastres; on les 
 ajoute au capital et on arrive ainsi a la somme de 369,143 piastres. 
 
 Messieurs, si, contrairement a tout ce que nous avons plaide, le 
 Tribunal arbitral devait dire que le Mexique est condamne a une res- 
 titution, a un paiement en capital et interets ou en interets seulement 
 du Fonds Pie, il est incontestable que vous ne vous contenteriez pas 
 d'affirmations aussi 16g&res que celles-ci, emanant d'un mandataire 
 d'eV§que dont les demandeurs actuels se pr^tendent les successeurs. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, il y a plus. Ici, nous allons voir la confirmation 
 de tout ce que je viens de dire. II s'agit d'une somme de 38,500 
 piastres due originairement par le college de San Gregorio a 3 pet., et 
 Don Eamirez nous apprend que cette somme est due depuis avant 
 l'expulsion des J6suites, done depuis avant 1767. II ajoute que le 
 Gouvernement a repris cette somme a sa charge, d'apres ce que lui a 
 dit le Senor Don Antonio Icarra. Don Antonio Icarra a done en con- 
 versation dit a Don Ramirez : le Gouvernement a repris cette dette du 
 college de San Gregorio . . . . et ce propos hypothetique suffirait 
 pour que le Gouvernement mexicain soit condamne? . . . . et cela 
 alors qu'il s'agit d'une creance ancienne, anterieure a l'expulsion des 
 Jesuites, dont les interets n'ont plus ete" payes pepuis longtempts. 
 Car, messieurs, c'est la ce qui est caracteristique : si ces fonds avaient 
 cette vitality que l'on semble indiquer de l'autre cdte de la barre, si ces 
 creances 6taient re"elles — et notez qu'il n'y a pas le moindre titre pro- 
 duit a l'appui de chacune de ces deniandes ou de ces creances — si tout 
 cela avait un fond serieux, il est bien evident que les interets auraient 
 6t6 paye"s. 
 
 Depuis 1811 il n'a plus rien e'te' paye", mais cela n'empechera pas 
 Ramirez d'en faire le calcul et de dire: cela represente 34,000 piastres. 
 II ajoute cette somme au capital, ce qui fait que l'on reclamera au Gou- 
 vernement un total de 73,342 piastres. 
 
 Puis, messieurs, il y a une somme de 68,160 piastres quia et& d6pose*e 
 en 1825 a la Monnaie par Don Jose Ildefonso Gonzalez del Castillo. 
 
702 PIOUS FUND OF TfiE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 Sous le Gouvernement espagnol, toujours, une somme de 68,160 pias- 
 tres qui provenait d'une dette des Senores Revillas aurait 6t6 deposee 
 a la Monnaie; et on nous dit: cette somme est due. 
 
 Ici, messieurs, la question est plus delicate. J'avoue n'avoir pas 
 tres bien pu saisir le sens de cet alinea, car il est dit que le Senor 
 Estera aurait disposed de ces fonds. C'est un point sur lequel nous 
 avons demande - quelques 6claircissements que peut-etre nous pourrons 
 vous donner plus tard; en tout cas, ce que nous apprend Don Ramirez 
 c'est que cette somme aurait £te deposee a la Monnaie sous le Gou- 
 vernement espagnol. C'est un dep6t dont M. Estrada a dispose" ; c'est 
 tres vague. Cette somme en tous cas ne produisait pas d'inter&ts. Elle 
 devrait en produire maintenant? Ce sont la des elements &, propos 
 desquels encore une fois un titre serait n^cessaire. 
 
 En ce qui concerne le numero suivant, il s'agit d'une somme de 7,000 
 dollars qui aurait 6t6 payee par les senores Revillas le 20 octobre 1829. 
 On leur demandait le paiement d'une somme de 20,000 dollars, ils n'en 
 avaient que 7,000, et ils les ont payes par une lettre de change sur la 
 Compagnie germano-mexicaine qui n'a pas fait honneur a la traite! 
 Dans ces conditions cette somme de 7,000 dollars ne peut eVidemment 
 pas etre due puis-qu'elle n'a pas 6te recue par le Ponds. 
 
 Enfin il y a une somme de 3,000 piastres empruntee avec promesse 
 de remboursement, nous dit Don Ramirez, pour couvrir les de"penses 
 mentionnees dans le 5e article du decret du 19 septembre. 
 
 Voici ce que c'etait. Lorsque le Gourvernement mexicain a decide 
 l'erection d'un «3v6ehe en Calif ornie il a decide de lui donner un traite- 
 ment annuel de 6,000 dollars, et une somme de 3,000 piastres pour ses 
 frais de voyage. Mais il se fait que le Gouvernement a pris cette 
 derniere somme dans le Fonds Pie. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, s'il s'agissait d'un bien d'Eglise, il semble que 
 c'etait une depense qui pouvait rentrer dans les obligations du Fonds; 
 le transport de l'evSque etait une depense justifiee, on dit: c'est le 
 Gouvernement qui doit payer. Par une de ces deductions un peu 
 larges dont M. Ramirez est coutumier, il arrive a dire qu'il y a pro- 
 messe de remboursement, parce que dans un decret on a decide que 
 1'eVeque recevrait 3,000 dollars pour ses frais de dem^nagement. 
 
 Enfin, messieurs "une somme de 15,973 dollars, sous forme de 
 certificat payable sur les ressources existant dans le Fonds, a 10 pet. , 
 faisait partie d'un emprunt de 60,000 dollars que le Gouvernement 
 negfocia avec hypotheque sur les biens du Fonds de Calif ornie." 
 
 bi je comprends bien ce que je viens de lire le Gouvernement 
 mexicain a emprunte" 60,000 dollars et aurait donne— c'est toujours 
 M. Ramirez qui parle— en hypotheque les biens du Fonds a con- 
 currence de 15,973 dollars; et on dit aujourd'hui: le Gouvernement 
 doit rembourser cette somme. Mais une hypotheque est une garantie; 
 est-ce que le gage a ete realise? 
 
 II y a, de la part de M. Ramirez, une propension, une tendance a 
 exagerer toujours les sommes qui composent le Fonds Pie; quand fl 
 s'agit d'un capital de 20,000 piastres il le fait monter a 49,000 en y 
 ajoutant les interns; a un autre de 200 mille piastres il ajoute 296,000 
 piastres d'int^rets. C'est une tendance facheuse qui Justine pleinement 
 ce que nous disons d'ailleurs a tout demandeur : vous f ormulez une 
 reclamation, produisez vos justifications ! 
 
 Les demandeurs ont montre que pour eux rien n'6tait secret, m§me 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 708 
 
 les archives mexicaines dont ils font 6tat ; ils ont tout vu ; qu'ils 
 veuillent done bien nous renseigner! 
 
 II s'agit icid'une creance civile et on se fonde sur des acteS du pou- 
 voir souverain. Le Roi d'Espagne n'a pas dit seulenient dans les 
 d^crets que j'ai analyses de 1767 et de 1768 qu'il s'appropriait les fonds 
 des J6suites et qu'il en disposerait suivant ses vues inais notamment 
 encore dans un decret de 1772 qui se trouve reproduit a, la page 456 il 
 affirme a nouveau ses droits absolus. Voici en effet ce que ]e lis au 
 deuxieme paragraphe (p. 456) : 
 
 Afin d'ecarter ces difficult^ et d'eviter le danger que pourraient creer le doute et 
 l'ignorance, et en vue aussi de 1' opinion donnee par mon procureur Jos6 Monno, et 
 de la declaration contenue dans mes lettres patentes du 14 aout 1768, par lesquelles 
 ma couronne et ma personne subrogeait tous ses droits, et a la priere de mon Oonseil 
 de donner des ordres correspondant aux vice-rois et gouverneurs de mes domaines 
 des Indes, des Philippines et des lies adjacentes, declarant que j'avais subroge dans 
 ma personne royale tous les droits qui appartenaient aux reguliers, de meme que ceux 
 qu'ils pouvaient encore posseder en commun avec d'autres Ordres, sans prejudice de 
 ceux qui sont consacres au meme but qu'ils l'etaient avant l'epoque de l'expulsion, 
 et qui tous deux doivent etre executes par mes vice-rois et gouverneurs en mon nom 
 comme par le personnel de ma couronne royale, en tenant compte de chaque trans- 
 action dans les livres et archives des departments ou les inscriptions doivent etre 
 faites. J'ai done consenti a ce faire, a la charge a mon Conseil des Indes de mettre 
 ceci a execution. Je vous ordonne a chacun de vous d'accomplir respectivement le 
 r61e qui vous appartient et de faire que mon ordre royal recoive son accomplissement. 
 
 J'ai tenu, messieurs, a vous rappeler dans quels termes s'exprimait 
 le Roi d'Espagne; il disait: les biens de ces corporations, je me les suis 
 appropri^s. Et dans ce texte de 1672 il ne fait pas meme une reserve 
 pour les titres des donateurs primitifs; e'est lui qui en dispose. Et, 
 je vous le demande, si dans les moments difficiles que traversait l'his- 
 toire de l'Espagne il en a dispose, quel reproche peut-on lui en faire, 
 et peut on aujourd'hui surtout en faire reproche au Mexique qui, lui, 
 n'a pas herite de ces Fonds, qui dans tous les cas ne les a pas percus? 
 
 Je passe maintenant aux creances sur particuliers (p: 515). Nous 
 tiouvons d'abord une somme de 42,000 piastres qui etait garantie par 
 hypotheque et qui se trouve d6ja mentionnee dans le calcul que j'ai 
 indique en parlant des biens immeubles; e'est done une premiere 
 somme qui doit etre e"cartee, elle est comprise deja dans les chiffres 
 anterieurs. 
 
 II y a ensuite une somme de 13,000 piastres. Don Ramirez, qui a 
 fouille les livres, a trouve qu'un ancien administrateur de la ferme 
 Cie"nega, Don Juan de Dios Navarro "semble" avoir laisse dans son 
 administration nn deficit de 13,000 dollars; apres plusieurs reclamations, 
 un solicitor a ete appointe pour recouvrer cette somme, mais jusqu'ici 
 sans succes. Cependant on va porter cette somme au d6bit du Mexique ! 
 Don Ramirez n'ose pas affirmer qu'il y a eu un deficit, il dit que cela 
 semble resulter de ses investigations, sur le caractere desquelles il ne 
 nous renseigne d'ailleurs pas. Voila done cette somme qui lui semble 
 etre due par un ancien administrateur d'une ferme et qui figure comme 
 6tant due actuellement par le Mexique. Mais apres tout, s'il y a eu 
 un administrateur infidele — cela arrive a tous les proprietaires — est-ce 
 que e'est le Mexique qui va devoir supporter les consequences de la 
 faute de cet administrateur, surtout que cette somme a ete prise 
 probablement sur les revenus de la ferme? 
 
 Vient ensuite une somme de 33,782 piastres reconnue par Don Este- 
 van Velez Escalante, syndic du college de San Fernando. Don Ramirez 
 
704 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOEH1AS. 
 
 nous apprend que diverses d-marches ont ete faites en vue d'obtenir 
 un remboursement partiel ou le paiement des interSts, mais qu'elles 
 n'ont rien produit. On a commence une instance devant la Justice de 
 Paix de Don Agustin, mais tout cela n'a rien produit. Voila done une 
 mauvaise creance. Nous ne sommes pas renseign^s parce que nous 
 n'avons pas de titres; Don Ramirez nous dit qu'il y a une creance de 
 33,782 piastres, mais il ajoute qu'elle est mauvaise, qu'on a 6t6 devant 
 le Juge de Paix, et que cela n'a abouti qu'a des f rais. Et nous devrions 
 non seulement payer oes frais, mais rembourser le capital! Est-ce 
 possible? Est-ce admissible? 
 
 II y a lors de petites sommes que j'indique parce qu'elles fixent le 
 caractere de la demande: 325 piastres dues par les filles du ge'ne'ral 
 Cosio. Don Ramirez ajoute qu'elles sont parfaitement insolvables; 
 vous devriez neanmoins comprendre cette comme dans le rembourse- 
 ment auquel nous devrions etre condamne\ Puis une somme de 416 
 piastres sur laquelle 100 piastres ont 6te payees, de facon qu'il reste 
 316 piastres dues par Don Manuel Prieto, qu'on n'a jamais pu retrou- 
 ver. Ensuite, 193 dollars due pour location d'un verger; ici e'est plus 
 fort: le debiteur nie sa dette et il est impossible d'en demontrer l'exist- 
 ence! 
 
 Enfin, il y a une somme de 13,997 piastres dupar Don Ramon Vertis 
 pour rupture du bail de l'hacienda de Amoles. Don Ramirez n'a rien 
 obtenu, cependant il y a des garants qui se sont engages a payer, mais 
 cela ne produit rien. 
 
 Voila, ce que nous apprend Ramirez en ce qui concerne les creances 
 sur particuliers. Tous voyez que ce Fonds Pie qu'on vous avait repre- 
 sents d'abord comme considerable a valu au Mexique beaucoup de 
 d^boires et de macomptes. 
 
 Mais ce n'est pas tout, messieurs, ce qu'il reste a voir ce sont les 
 dettes du Fonds. Ici M. Ramirez, a la page 516, sous le titre de 
 " Liabilities", indique ce qu'il y a a deduire de l'actif que nous avons 
 indique" tout §, l'heure. 
 
 II y a d'abord, au premier paragraphe, une somme de 5780 dollars 
 qui est due a Don Eduardo Virmond. Void ce qui s'etait pass6, Don 
 Ramirez nous l'explique : A certains moments les Peres avaient besoin 
 de fonds pour les Missions, et ils avaient eu l'autorisation du Comite" 
 qui s'occupait de l'administration du Fonds Pie de creer certaines 
 traites. II y a une traite qui a ete" tiree ainsi & concurrence de 5,780 
 piastres et qui est due; Don Ramirez nous indique que e'est une dette 
 du Fonds, il n'y aurait pas a la contester. 
 
 Puis, dans le paragraphe suivant il y aurait d'autres traites du 
 m§me genre dues a Don Jose Antonion Aguirre, s'elevant au total a 
 24,600 piastres, qu'il faut egalement deduire. Enfin il y a une somme 
 de 2,000 piastres qui serait du a Don Ignacio Cortina Chavez: e'est 
 une autre traite endossee par Don Virmond ainsi que nous l'indique 
 Don Ramirez et qui a ete" cre6e en 1840. 
 
 Toutes les traites que je viens de vous indiquer ont ete er^ees en 
 1840, e'est-a-dire lorsque l'ev&que de Californie, dont les demandeurs 
 se disent les successeurs, a 4>t6 provisoirement charge de l'administra- 
 tion et de la disposition du Fonds Pieux; il a cree" des dettes, ou il a 
 autorise de la creation par les Peres de ces quelques traites, et par con- 
 sequent elles sont dues. Tout cela repr^sente une somme d'une bonne 
 trentaine de mille piastres, il y aura & les deduire lorsque nous ferons 
 le compte final. 
 
FIOU8 FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. ([)& 
 
 Mais alors, messieurs, yient un element qui a dans ce proces une 
 importance capitale et qui est decisif quant a l'importance du Fonds: 
 il s^agit de 1'affaire de la Marquise de la Torres de Rada. 
 
 Je m'excuse d'un sourire, messieurs, parce que j'ai a vous rendre 
 compte d'un proces fantastique, d'un proces qui est digne d'alimenter 
 les romans de Gaboriau ou de Paul de Kock, la succession de la Mar- 
 quise de la Torres del Rada a donne - lieu en Espagne et au Mexique a 
 un proces qui a dure plus d'un siecle. Je vais vous le returner rapide- 
 ment; ce qui est interessant pour vous c'est le judgement final qui 
 ordonne, a charge du Fonds, la restitution d'une somme considerable. 
 Ainsi, messieurs, apres vous avoir d^montre" que le Fonds n'appartient 
 certes pas aux demandeurs, je vous aurai demontre — ce qui aurait 
 peut-etre pu paraitre une gageure — qu'il n'y a pas de Fonds du tout! 
 
 Voici ce qu'etait ce proces: II est relatif a la donation qui a 6te faite 
 par la Marquise de Villapuente en 1735. 
 
 La Marquise de Villapuente a ete mariee trois fois. Elle etait nee 
 Dona Gertrudis de la Pena; elle s'etait mariee d'abord a Don Martin 
 Amor Ortanez, elle avait eu de ce premier mariage deux enfants. 
 Son mari meurt le 12 mai 1694, elle veste done veuve avec deux 
 enfants. On procede a la liquidation de la succession de son mari et il 
 est reconnu qu'elle a des reprises a executer pour 33,347 piastres, 
 somme relativement modique, que la jeune rename avait apport^e et 
 qu'elle reprenait lors du deces de son mari. Outre cela, elle avait la 
 tutelle de ses enfants et a ce titre elle recevait certaines sommes dont 
 le chiffre n'est pas indique et que je reserve pour le moment. 
 
 En 1700, Dona Gertrudis, douairiere de Don Martin Amor Ortanez, 
 s'est remariee; elle a epouse le Marquis de la Torres del Rada. Les 
 documents du proces nous apprennent que c'est son cousin, le Marquis 
 de Villapuente, qui est alle a Vera Cruz, ou se trouvait le Marquis de 
 la Torres del Rada, negocier ce mariage . . . nouis allons voir que le 
 Marquis de Villapuente avait de grandes attentions pour sa cousine, 
 qu'elle etait l'objet de toutes ses sollicitudes. Le Marquis de Villa- 
 puente fait done le voyage de Vera Cruz et negocie un brillant mariage 
 pour la douairiere, sa cousine; puis il negocie aussi quelques questions 
 relatives a la situation financiere. Le Marquis de la Torres del Rada 
 reconnait en dot a sa fiancee 139,831 piastres. Nous savons qu'elle 
 n'avait eu en realite" que 33,347 piastres. 
 
 Le Marquis de la Torres del Rada meurt subitement le 21 avril 1713. 
 11 parait que lorsque le Marquis de la Torres del Rada est mort, le 
 Marquis de Villapuente, le cousin — l'indispensable cousin — etait dans 
 la piece voisine, et qu'imme'diatement il a fouille les documents, les 
 papiers, le secretaire. 
 
 On a tres promptement procede" a la liquidation de la succession du 
 Marquis de la Torres del Rada, le cousin intervenant toujours en faveur 
 de la veuve. II n'y avait pas d'enfants de ce second mariage, il n'y 
 avait pas non plus de testament, de telle facon que la succession devait 
 revenir a des collateraux, ou plutot a un neveu qui se trouvait en 
 Espagne, Don Jose" Lorenz del Rada. A la diligence du Marquis de 
 Villapuente, le mandataire naturel de la Marquise de la Torres del 
 Rada, un inventaire de la succession fut dresse. On constata que la 
 fortune du Marquis de la Torres del Rada, qui etait d'apres la renom- 
 mee considerable, etait beaucoup moins importante qu'on ne l'avait 
 cru; on s'apercut d'autre part que les dettes de la succession etaient 
 
 S. Doc. 28 45 
 
706 PIOTJS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 bien superieures a ce que l'on aurait pu deviner. De sorte, messieurs, 
 que la situation qui resultait de cet inven'taire e"tait qu'au lieu d'un 
 actif net il y avait un deficit, c'est-a-dire que la Marquise de la Torres 
 del Eada, qui avait a recouvrer le montant de ses reprises s'elevant a 
 139,000 piastres reconnues par son contrat de mariage, qui avait a 
 reprendre aussi les biens dont elle avait la tutelle et dont la jouissance 
 avait passe naturellement a son second mari, ne pouvait pas rentrer 
 dans l'integralite" des sommes qui lui etaient dues. Le montant total de 
 la fortune s'61evait a 284,880 piastres; il y avait a en de"duire les frais 
 de funerailles, les dettes de tout genre, les messes dites pour 9,869 
 dollars, de facon qu'il restait liquide une sonime de 204,390 piastres. 
 Et il etait 6tabli que la veuve, du chef de ses 139,000 dollars de reprises 
 et de ses creances diverses provenant notamment des biens dont elle 
 avait la tutelle, avait une creance totale de 252,000 piastres; il y avait 
 done un passif non couvert de 47,600 piastres. 
 
 Que se passa-t-il? La Marquise de la Torres del Rada exigea qu'on 
 fit avec le plus grand soin constater que l'inventaire avait ete dresse" 
 minutieusement et sans fraude, et qu'on reservat tous ses droits pour 
 le cas ou l'on decouvrirait d'autres biens non inventories, elle accepta 
 de reprendre tout l'actif et tout le passif. Ainsi f ut regle"e, & la dili- 
 gence du Marquis de Villapuente, la liquidation de la succession du 
 Marquis de la Torres del Rada; la veuve disait: je me chargerai des 
 dettes, je ne suis pas couverte de mes reprises, il reste un deficit, mais 
 je me reserve de faire valoir mes droits le cas 6ch6ant. 
 
 A quelque temps de la, s'est produit un eVenement qui 6tait peut- 
 Stre attendu: le Marquis de la Villapuente a epouse" la veuve: e'est le 
 troisieme mariage. 
 
 Seulement, un proces f ut entame" alors par le neveu, l'he*ritier du 
 sang, Don Jose de la Torres del Rada; il pretendit que son oncle avait 
 une fortune considerable: il etait gouverneur, chancelier, il avait des 
 charges de tout genre; il paraissait inadmissible que sa succession 
 soldat par un deficit! 
 
 Le proces avait pour objet la discussion de l'inventaire. On lui 
 repondit que la fortune du Marquis de la Torres del Rada avait e"te" 
 perdue dans l'expedition de l'Invincible Armada dans la baie de Vigo, 
 que ses biens avaient ete engloutis par la tempete. II repliqua que 
 les biens avaient 6te bel et bien vendus en Espagne. 
 
 On interrogea la Marquise pour lui demander si son mari avait des 
 livres, elle repondit que non. Des temoins dirent qu'il en avait et le 
 proces continua. 
 
 En 1735, le Marquis et la Marquise de Villapuente firent l'acte de 
 donation que vous connaissez au profit des Jesuites. Ces donations 
 considerables auraient bien pu avoir leur origine dans la fortune du 
 Marquis de la Torres del Rada, mais e'est la la question que le proces 
 va elucider. 
 
 Tout cela, messieurs, n'a qu'un interet historique, et je ne me serais 
 pas permis d'y insister s'il ne m'avait pas paru qu'il etait necessaire 
 pour le Tribunal de connaitre la portee des decisions judiciaires qui 
 vont intervenir et qui celles-la l'interesseront au premier chef. 
 _ Dans le livre que vous poss^dez vous verrez l'intitule" suivant — je 
 lis textuellement: — 
 
 Memorial form6 a la demande de Don Jos6 de Rada et en vertu de l'ordonnance 
 du Conseil supreme, avec citation du procureur et celle de Don Jose d6ja cite\ de son 
 instance, des actes suivis par lui et ses autres coheritiers comme hentiers ab intestat 
 
XMUUO Jt!U11i» (J* XJH.J!i UAJLiJLfl U.KJN IAS. JU( 
 
 du Marquis de la Torres del Rada, son oncle, d'abord devant les juges des Wens de 
 morte de la ville de Mexico et ensuite dans cette audience. . . . 
 
 M. Asser. Ou est-ce? 
 
 M. Delacroix. C'est dans un livre dont l'original seul a 6h6 trouve" 
 et^ joint a la rSponse deposed par le Mexique; c'est un livre du 18e 
 siecle retrouve" par hasard. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Nous pourrons en avoir des copies ? 
 
 M. Delacroix. Parfaitement. Nous ne donnerons pas la copie de 
 la traduction de tout le livre, parce que cela n'a pas d'intergt; c'est un 
 point d'histoire seulement que j'ai expose\ Ce qui a de PinterSt, ce 
 sont les decisions, car nous allons voir ce que le Tribunal va decider . . . 
 
 M. Ralston. Vous avez la traduction ? 
 
 M. Beernaert. La traduction ne porte pas sur tout le livre. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Je vais y arriver. 
 
 Sur l'exhibition des lettres et papiers du Marquis de la Torres del Rada, nullite" des 
 inventaires, appreciation faite apres sa mort .... 
 .... la tutelle de ses enfants mineurs. 
 
 J'ai fait traduire l'intitule - de chacun des chapitres du livre, parce 
 que dans ce livre, comme certains romans, on fait dans l'mtitule - du 
 chapitre l'analyse du texte: 
 
 Chapitre Ier. Ou l'on voit apparaitre les mensonges, vices, d&auts et nullit£s 
 commis dans 1' execution des inventaires et Evaluations des biens qui rest^rent a )a 
 mort du Marquis de la Torres del Rada, et dans le jugement qui les a remis a Dona 
 Gertrudis de la Pena, sa femme. 
 
 Chapitre 2. Ou l'on decouvre que la fortune du Marquis de la Torres del Rada 6tait 
 beaucoup plus considerable que les inventaires no le constatent. 
 
 Chapitre 3. Ou l'on prouve que le montant du passif du Marquis del Rada 6tait 
 beaucoup moindre que les inventaires ne l'etablissent. 
 
 Chapitre 4. Que si m£me la fortune du marquis n'avait pas 6te' plus considerable 
 que les inventaires le reconnaissent, elle aurait sum sans toucher aux charges et titres 
 au paiement integral de la dot de Dona Gertrudis de la Pena et a la tutelle des enfants 
 du premier mariage qui 6tait beaucoup moindre qu'il n'apparatt des instruments 
 produits par elle. 
 
 On va dans ce chapitre e*tablir que m6me en supposant que l'actif 
 n'eut pas 6t& superieur a, ce qui ete indique, comme le passif 6tait 
 moindre que l'a indique la dame douairiere, il en resulterait qu'il n'y 
 avait pas de deficit; et on va indiquer la consequence: 
 
 Chapitre 5. Que meme en supposant que la fortune n'ait pas sum au paiement de 
 la dot et de la tutelle, l'adjudication ne devait pas comprendre le titre et la dignity 
 de Marquis, ni les charges de chancelier et contr61eur. 
 
 Ceci demande une explication. Le Marquis de la Torres del Rada, 
 en dehors de sa fortune considerable, avait une charge de chancellerie 
 qui rapportait 5,000 piastres par an; c'etait une charge qui etait 1'ac- 
 cessoire de son marquisat et qui avait cette consequence que mgme ses 
 heritiers et successeurs pouvaient perpetuellement toucher ces 5,000 
 piastres par an. Et alors on dit: En supposant que la fortune ne fut 
 pas plus considerable, dans tous les cas ce n'etait pas la veuve qui aurait 
 eu le droit de s'approprier les 5,000 piastres par an affectees a la con- 
 tinuation de la charge, cela apportenait aux heritiers, a l'heritier nat- 
 urel Don Jose del Rada. 
 
 C'est alors qu'intervient le document relate par M. Ralston et qui se 
 trouve dans la replique a la page 40. 
 
 J'en ai ici la traduction sous les yeux, mais puisque vous avez ce 
 document entre les mains il sera peut-Stre pr6fe"rable que j'en fasse 
 une analyse, sauf a vous lire ensuite les termes de la sentence definitive. 
 
708 
 
 PIOUS F0ND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Une sentence est intervenue en 1749, aux termes de laquelle il ne fut 
 statue que sur une partie du litige. Ce litige etait considerable, je 
 viens de vous en indiquer le caractere quelque peu romanesque; il 
 s'agissait d'aller chercher a de grandes distances des temoins que 
 devaient venir £tablir en quelque sorte par commune renommee quelle 
 etait la consistance de la fortune du Marquis de la Torres del Rada; il 
 s'agissait d'etablir que le Marquis de Villapuente 6tait entre" dans la 
 chambre du defunt immediatement avant que les scell^s f ussent apposes 
 ou que des mesures pussent etre prises, qu'il avait pu faire disparaitre 
 les livres et documents pouvant etablir la consistance de la fortune; il 
 s'agissait en un mot d'un proces complique a tous e"gards 
 
 Une sentence etait intervenue en 1749 de laquelle il resultait qu'en 
 tout cas la charge de chancelier, c'est-a-dire ce produit annuel de 5,000 
 piastres que s'^tait attribue la marquise douairiere, ne lui revenait pas 
 et devait appartenir a 1 heritier du sang, a Don Jose. C'est ce qui fut 
 decide dans un jugement dont je vous lis la partie appelee decret: 
 
 Nous devons revoquer et rejeter les actes. . . . ordonnons et signons. 
 
 Cette sentence fut prononcee par la Cour supreme des Indes a 
 Madrid le 16 avril 1749. Elle avait pour consequence que pour une 
 periode de 37 ans la marquise ou ses ayants droit devaient rendre 
 5,000 piastres par an, soit 185,000 piastres. C'est ce qui se trouve dans 
 le document que j'analysais tout a l'heure. 
 
 Apres cette digression, messieurs, j'en arrive a 1'etablissement du 
 passif du Fonds Pie, des restitutions importantes dues par lui et qui 
 vont consister dans les sommes que je vais vous indiquer. 
 
 Ces sommes, Don Ramirez nous les indique a la page 517. II y a 
 d'abord la somme de 185,000 dollars due en comformite de ce que je 
 yiens de dire. Mais Don Ramirez nous apprend qu'il y a un autre 
 jugement beaucoup plus recent, un jugement definitif du 31 Janvier 
 1829, et il dit: 
 
 II est du au seigneur Don Jose Juaregui. . . . 
 
 Voici done que Don Ramirez nous apprend qu'un jugement du 31 
 Janvier 1829 a coiidamne' le defendeur du Fonds Pie a payer une pre- 
 miere somme de 155,875 piastres, plus les intergts, ce qui fait au total 
 443,875 piastres. 
 
 Je recapitule, messieurs, les sommes que j'ai indiquees, 7,580 piastres, 
 24,600 piastres, 2,000 piastres, 443,875 piastres, et j'arrive a un total 
 de 475,255 piastres. Or, nous avons etabli que la consistance raison- 
 nable du Fonds Pieux, capitalise comme les demandeurs le soutiennent 
 a, 6 pet. , ne f aisait que 392,583 piastres. De telle sorte que nous arrive- 
 rions a ce resultat que le Fonds Pie, au lieu d'exister en actif, con- 
 sisterait en un passif representant la difference entre les 475,255 piastres 
 indiquees par Don Ramirez et l'actif de 392,583 piastres, soit un deficit 
 de plus de 82,000 piastres, que pourraient a la rigueur combler les 
 68,000 dollars douteux ou incertains que nous avons indiqu^s comme 
 ayant 6te deposes a la monnaie de Mexico. 
 
 M. Ramirez ajoute qu'il est tres embarrasse, et je le comprends. 
 
 II va consulter. II ecrit pompeusement la lettre que vous trouverez 
 dans le livre rouge a la page 518 et consulte un avocat sur le moyen 
 de payer 475,000 dollars avec un capital inde'termine' que j'ai chiffre" 
 par 392,000 dollars. . . . Probleme difficile! 
 
 Mais, messieurs, les conseils auxquels s'adresse Ramirez sont plus 
 
PIOTXS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 709 
 
 embarrasses encore que lui; ils lui repondent que ne connaissant pas 
 le dossier ils sont impuissants a lui donner la solution qu'il recherche. 
 
 Don Ramirez avait songe" alors I une transaction et a payer les 475,000 
 piastres par une somme'de 210,000 piastres a titre de forfait definitif ; 
 c'etait su r l'opportunite de cette transaction qu'il avait demande l'opinion 
 d'honorables jurisconsultes de l'epoque, au nombre de trois. Et ces 
 trois messieurs lui repondent qu'ils ne sont pas suffisamment docu- 
 mented pour lui donner un avis; je ne sais ce qu'ils attendaient: peut- 
 etre la decouverte du livre que le Tribunal possede actuellement. 
 
 Quoi qu'il en soit, messieurs, nous avons maintenant la consistance 
 active et passive du Fonds Pie d'apres les documents que vous con- 
 naissez, et des lors je me demande comment, en toute hypothese, il 
 serait encore possible de condamner le Mexique au paiement d'une 
 somme quelconque. 
 
 Nous ne pouvons pas, sans doute, justifier d'un reglement definitif 
 qui serait intervenu avec les heritiers de la Marquise de la Torres del 
 Rada; nous voyons par le document de Don Ramirez qu'il y avait un 
 embargo, une saisie qui avait 6te faite par Don Jose" Juaregui au nom 
 des heritiers d'Espagne; on avait d'abord saisi les maisons de la rue 
 Vergara, puis on a consenti a lever cet embargo et on a saisi l'hacienda 
 de Cieuega del Pastor. Nous apprenons par Don Ramirez — c'est 
 int^ressant — qu'on reclame l'annuite due pour la charge de chancellerie 
 pendant 37 ans avec les interets jusqu'a la date de l'embargo. Cela 
 suppose que cet embargo a donne" un resultat sur le chiffre duquel je 
 ne puis pas renseigner la Cour. 
 
 Quoi qu'il en soit, que le Gouvernement du Mexique ait pay6 ou 
 non, qu'il soit debiteur ou non, il y a une chose certaine, c'est que, 
 lorsque vous serez appeles a determiner quel est le montant du Fonds 
 Pie, il est impossible que vous fassiez abstraction des decisions judi- 
 ciaires qui sont produites dans les documents de la cause et desquelles 
 il resulte que le montant du passif du Fonds Pie est de 475,000 dol- 
 lars. II est impossible d'etablir le montant de ces sommes dont nous 
 aurions profite sans deduire de l'actif le montant du passif: c'est abso- 
 lument eMmentaire. 
 
 Done, tout en reclamant l'indulgence de la Cour pour la sobriete* des 
 renseignements que j'ai pu lui donner, je la crois suffisamment edifiee 
 maintenant sur la consistance du Fonds Pie pour que, sachant que ce 
 sont les demandeurs qui doivent en etablir la consistance et justifier de 
 leur titre, elle dise que ce Fonds ne lui apparait pas avec une consist- 
 ance suffisante pour qu'une condamnation puisse §tre prononcee a la 
 charge du Mexique dans ces conditions. 
 
 Mais il y a assurement, a propos de ces chiffres, une consideration 
 qui vous aura frappes: c'est qu'en realite le seul titre qui soit 
 produit, qui soit invoque' pour appuyer la demande, c'est le titre de 
 donation du Marquis de Villapuente; en dehors de lui, les deman- 
 deurs ne poss6dent aucun titre, aucun document qui vienne appuyer 
 leur reclamation. Cette donation du Marquis de Villapuente est 
 precisement celle qui se trouve aujourd'hui fondue comme boule de 
 neige. 
 
 tPaboutis a la fin des considerations que j'ai a vous presenter? On 
 nous dit: II faut partager le Fonds Pie entre la Haute et la Basse 
 Calif ornie et il appartient a la Cour de dire dans quelle proportion doit 
 se faire le partage. 
 
 Je dis tout de suite: pourquoi une proportion? Les donateurs ont 
 
710 PIO0S FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 eu en vue les Missions des Je*suites de Callfornie; j'ai indique" & la Cour 
 ou etaientles missions des Jesuites; elles n'ont exists que dans la Basse 
 Calif ornie; alors ou la Haute Calif ornie trouve-t-elle un titre? Elle 
 demande un partage, mais pour partager il faut consulter le titre. 
 On ce titre ne confere de droits qu'aux Missions de Jdsuites 6tablies 
 dans la Basse Californie. 
 
 Le titre prevoyait une eventualite, c'^tait l'e"tablissement par les 
 Jesuites de Missions dans d'autres contr^es, mais coinme les Jesuites 
 n'ont jamais 6tabli de Missions que dans la Basse Californie, que par 
 consequent cette eVentualite ne s'est past realised, il est certain que 
 c'est la Basse Californie seulement qui peut avoir un droit. 
 
 Due autre consideration me vient a l'esprit: les demandeurs se 
 fondent sur un titre dans lequel je lis ceci: Dieu seul pourra demander 
 compte de 1'emploi des fonds. C'est au profit des Jesuites que la 
 donation est f aite. Alors, si Dieu seul peut demander compte, pourquoi 
 vous arrogez-vous le droit? 
 
 Enfin, messieurs, la partie adverse nous dit: Pour la proportion, il 
 faut se baser sur la population. Messeurs, je ne pense pas qu'on puisse 
 trouver dans les elements de la cause une indication qui puisse appuj r er 
 ce soutenement. Dans la Haute Californie il y a une population aise"e, 
 tres riche, une population de fideles catholiques et de protestants; 
 est-ce que ce serait en vue de cette population de fideles de l'Eglise 
 catholique que les donateurs auraient entendu disposer? Mais non! 
 c'etait au contraire au profit d'une population de sauvages, d'Indiens, 
 de gens de couleur. II y a, n'est-ce pas, dans tous les pays d'Am^rique 
 des Indiens; c'est une population que personne ne confondra avec une 
 autre. C'etaient eux qui 6taient l'objet de la sollicitude des Jesuites. 
 Comment dans ces conditions la population tout entiere pourrait-elle 
 servir de criterium pour determiner la proportion de ce qui peut §tre 
 du a la Haute ou a la Basse Californie? 
 
 II s'agitaujourd'huid'interdireau gouvernement mexician d'employer 
 tout le produit de ce Fonds, d'ailleurs hypothetique, a la Basse Cali- 
 fornie; cette base juridique — j'en reviens toujours la— nous ne pou- 
 vons la trouver dans aucun document. 
 
 Le seul document interessant est celui relatif au partage de la pre- 
 miere somme attribute aux eveques de Californie. vous y voyons que 
 si certaines sommes ont 6te attributes aux "Missions de l'Oregon," 
 aux "Missions de l'Utah," en ce qui concerne la Californie la somme 
 est donn^e a l'Eglise pour 6tre employee par les eVSques "aussi sage- 
 ment et aussi utilement que possible." 
 
 Loin de rnoi assurement la pens^e de contester que les honorables 
 eveques de Californie n'aient pas employe" les fonds dans Pint6ret de 
 leurs 6glises aussi sagement et aussi utilement que possible; mais la 
 n'estpas la question: il s'agirait de savoir ce qu'ils ont fait de ces fonds 
 pour les Indiens. 
 
 II y a un autre point qu'il faut examiner, c'est celui-ci: Est-ce qu'il 
 f aut payer en or comme lerfolament les demandeurs? En or? Qu'est-ce 
 qui iustifie ce paiement? L'etalon, vous le savez, au Mexique est 
 l'etalon d'argent, tout le monde peut se liberer en argent; c'est la 
 monnaie liberatoire. La monnaie d'or, c'est une monnaie que l'on peut 
 acheter a. des prix variables, au prix du change, qui ne sera plus le 
 prix de la relation d'autrefois de 15£ a 1, mais vraisemblablement de 
 32, 34, 35. Comment voudrait-on aujourd'hui condamner le Mexique 
 a faire l'achat de cette monnaie d'or qui n'est pas sa monnaie liberatoire 
 pour payer une dette qui serait constatee a sa charge? 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 711 
 
 II y a dans la loi gouvernementale du Mexique les articles 635 en 
 636 que je me permets de vous lire: 
 
 Art. 635. La base de la monnaie mercantile est la piastre mexicaine, et c'est sur 
 cette base que se feront toutes les operations commerciales et l'echange sur l'etranger. 
 
 Art. 636. Cette meme base servira pour les contrats faits a l'etranger et qui devront 
 avoir leur complement dans la Republique mexicaine, de m&ne que pour les lettres 
 de credit, cheques tires d'autres pays. 
 
 Peu iniporte done qu'il s'agisse d'un Stranger ou d'un mexicain, 
 celui-ci comme le gouvernement mexicain peut se liberer en argent, 
 c'est la loi qui le dit. Des lors, messieurs, comment les demandeurs 
 pourraient-ils justifier leur pretention de se soustraire a 1'application 
 de cette loi generale et demander pour eux le paiement en une monnaie 
 autre que celle qui est la monnaie du Mexique, en une monnaie excep- 
 tionnelle qui devrait etre achetee? 
 
 Notez, messieurs, que c'est d'autant plus injustifiable que, lorsque le 
 Mexique a pu realiser les proprietes, il en a recu le produit en argent. 
 
 Je signale encore ceci, qui appellera peut-etre une explication de 
 mes honorables contradicteurs dans une autre audience: Pourquoi 
 l'ev^que de Grass Valley, dont le diocese est un des trois de la Calif or- 
 nie n'est-il pas au proces? Sur les trois dioceses de Calif ornie deux 
 seulement sont represents, ceux de San Francisco et de Monterey, il y 
 en a necessairement un troisieme qui n'est pas represente et que ne peut 
 
 {>as obtenir condamnation h son profit. Lorsque le premier d£bat a eu 
 ieu devant la Cour mixte, celle-ci a eu devant elle les trois evSques 
 representant les trois dioceses de Calif ornie; j'ignore pour quelle raison 
 le troisieme n'est pas represente aujourd'hui; mais je fais cette indica- 
 tion au point de vue du chiffre de la demande. 
 
 Enfin, il y a une consideration qui en tout cas n'aura pas echappe" si 
 des jurisconsultes qui-connaissent specialement cette matiere du droit 
 international. II est bien certain que si un peuple a un moment donne 
 contracte une dette, cette dette doit etre repartie sur l'ensemble du 
 territoire. Si done en 1842 ou en 1845 le Mexique a employe" des fonds 
 dans un but politique quelconque c'est l'ensemble de son territoire qui 
 devra rembourser la somme parce que c'est l'ensemble du territoire 
 qui est cense" en avoir profite; or, comme une grande partie, plus de 
 la moitie du territoire s'est trouvee enlev^e au Mexique, il se trou- 
 verait que M. Ralston devrait a certains moments changer de barre et 
 venir s'asseoir a nos c6t£s comme defendeur pour une partie de la 
 demande, car ce seraient naturellement les Etats-Unis qui, ayant suc- 
 c6de dans les droits comme dans les devoirs que peut avoir cette partie 
 du territoire, devraient par consequent supporter cette charge; il y 
 aurait la une repartition qui est juridiqueetelementaire et qui assure- 
 ment ne serait pas contestee par les Etats-Unis. 
 
 A toutes nos observations juridiques les demandeurs ont repondu: 
 Est-ce juste? Eh bien, si nous avons demontre" que c'est conforme au 
 droit c'est juste, parce que ce qui est juste, c'est ce qui est conforme 
 au droit. Nous disons done que s'il devait 6tre decide que par le fait 
 qu'on accepte un tribunal arbitral on fait abstraction de sa legislation 
 nationale, il est evident que ce serait le bouleversement de toutes les 
 notions que nous pouvons avoir sur le Tribunal international, et ce 
 n'est certainement pas ainsi qu'il interpretera sa competence. 
 
 J'ai dit. 
 
 (La seance est leve"e a 5 heures et le Tribunal s'ajourne au lendemain 
 .& 10 heures.) 
 
712 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 DOTTZIEME STANCE. 
 
 27 septembre 1902 (Matin). 
 
 Le Tribunal se reunit a 10 heures, tous les £rbitres etant presents. 
 
 M. le President. Le parole est a Monsieur le conseil des Etats- 
 Unis mexicains, M. Beernaert. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Messieurs, j'ai eu Phonneur de prevenir la Cour 
 que ma plaidoirie completera celle de M. Delacroix, et qu'elle sera 
 elle-metne completee par une note r^digee par Son Excellence M. Pardo, 
 l'agent special des Etats-Unis mexicains; il Hevrait etre donne" lecture 
 de cette note pour qu'elle fasse partie de la plaidoirie, mais conime elle 
 est a l'impression, peut-etre la Cour trouvera-t-elle cette lecture inutile, 
 la note devant etre distribuee aux membres de la Cour et aux conseils 
 de la partie adverse; la Cour y gagnera ainsi quelques heures de son 
 temps precieux. 
 
 M. le President. Le Tribunal prendra acte de cette declaration. 
 Je suppose que la note sera communiquee a la partie adverse? 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je viens de le dire, Monsieur le President, je puis 
 affirmer qu'elle pourra etre distribuee aujourd'hui. 
 
 M. Ralston. I suppose we shall have an opportunity to examine it. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis mexicains, 
 M. Beernaert. 
 
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. BEERNAERT. 
 
 Messieurs de la Cour, de nombreuses questions de fait et de droit 
 viennent d'etre agitees devant vous, et vous voici en possession de tous 
 les elements du debat assurement grave et complique auquel donne 
 lieu de Fonds Pie de Californie. Or, il se trouverait que c'etait la un 
 travail inutile! Naguere, devant la Commission mixte le proces n'a 
 pas ete plaid6, il n'y a eu que des echanges de notes, sans ces explica- 
 tions contradictoires qui eclairent toujours si utilement un difKrend 
 judiciaire. La sentence du tiers-arbitre — il doit etre permis de le 
 dire — ne donne que de m^diocres clartes, mais le debat- actuel serait 
 d'avance juge pour toujours; tout serait dit, et votre tache se bornerait 
 a constater que vous n'avez rien a juger! 
 
 Sans doute, dit-on, l'Eglise catholique de Haute Californie n'a aucun 
 droit sur le Fonds Pieux en lui-rneme, et ses eveques ne peuvent pr6- 
 tendre a aucune part de la propriete des biens qui le dotaient ou de la 
 creance qui les a remplaces. On declare que le proprietaire, c'est 
 l'Etat mexicain. Mais cette propriete" serait une charge et non un 
 avantage. L'Etat mexicain se trouverait condamne" a demeurer pro- 
 prietaire, mais sans avoir rien a retirer de ce Fonds il aurait a payer a 
 perpetuite 6 pet. d'interets sur le capital qui le representerait. Et 
 cette obligation perpetuelle, indefinie, sans terme possible, il aurait a 
 lacquitter dans des conditions vraiment ruineuses et qui donneraient 
 a la situation un caractere presque usuraire: il aurait a payer en or! 
 
 En bien, messieurs, sur tous ces points, il y aurait chose jugee, et 
 tel est le moyen que l'on nous oppose en ordre principal. 
 
 J'estime, messieurs, que cette exception de chose jugde n'est nulle- 
 ment fondle, et j'appuie mon opinion sur trois moyens differents: Le 
 premier, c'est que la demande actuelle n'a pas ete jugeV, et elle ne l'a 
 pas ete pour cette bonne raison qu'elle ne s'etait pas produite, or jamais 
 l'autorite' de la chose jug£e ne peut depasser les limites du dictum 
 
PIOtTS „FTJND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 713 
 
 d'une sentence, et ce dictum lui-meme ne peut sous peine d'annulation 
 ou meme de nullite - , exceder les termes de la demande dont le juge est 
 saisi. En second lieu, je dis qu'il n'y a pas chose jugtSe parce que 
 l'objet de la demande d'hier etait different de l'objet de la demande 
 d'aujourd'hui. Enfin, je dis qu'entre la demande d'hier et la demande 
 actuelle il ne peut y avoir identity de cause, puisque l'on allegue des 
 droits successifs venant a <3che"ance chaque anne"e, partant des lesions 
 de droit difl^rentes, et que dans ces conditions la cause ne peut pas 
 §tre la m§me, les faits et le droit 6tant sujets a d'incessantes, a d'inevi- 
 tables fluctuations. 
 
 C'est, messieurs, la triple demonstration que je veux entreprendre 
 de vous faire. 
 
 Mais, avant d'en aborder les elements, je demande a vous rappeler 
 en quelques mots les circonstances dans lesquelles le premier proces 
 s'est engage, et celles ou a surgi la seconde demande, car a mon sens 
 elles s'accordent bien peu avec le caractere perp^tuel et pr^tendument 
 indiscutable que l'on voudrait attribuer au droit que l'on reclame. 
 
 Vous savez, messieurs, que les Etats-Unis se sont empares de la 
 Haute Californie en 1846, et que cette annexion a ete consacree le 2 
 Fevrier, 1848. II n'y avait a cette epoque qu'un seul eVeche pour les 
 deux Californies, et par suite du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo, cet 
 ev&che se trouva a cheval sur les deux territoires, le diocese s'etendant 
 a une partie du territoire mexicain et a une partie du territoire devenu 
 americain. Le siege episcopal etait etabli a Monterey, c'est-a-dire 
 dans la Haute Californie devenue americaine. 
 
 Mais precisement 1'eVeque Don Diego vint a mourir le 30 avril, 
 1846, au moment ou ces choses se passaient. 11 parait — je dis qu'il 
 parait, parce que je n'ai pas trouve au dossier de documents a cet 
 egard — il parait que le siege episcopal de Monterey f ut alors occupe" 
 par un vicaire apostolique a titre d'interim. 
 
 C'est en 1852 que cet unique diocese fut fractionne. II y eut desor- 
 mais un eVeche mexicain pour la Basse Californie, et l'on etablit pour 
 la Californie devenue americaine, deux dioceses, l'un archi<Spiscopal 
 a San Francisco, et l'autre episcopal a Monterey. Cette nouvelle insti- 
 tution fut regularisee comme elle devait l'etre par un bref pontifical 
 en date du 29 juillet 1853; il se trouve au livre rouge publie" par les 
 soins de nos tres honorables contradicteurs. 
 
 La Cour sait que plus tard — en 1868 — il y eut un nouveau fx-ac- 
 tionnement, et qu'alors on detacha du diocese de Monterey certains 
 territoires pour en faire le diocese de Grass Valley. 
 
 S'il faut admettre la these des demandeurs, en 1848 des droits indis- 
 cutables se seraient ou verts en f aveur des nouveaux dioceses catholiques 
 de la Haute Californie; il y avait la une indivision qu'il etait urgent de 
 regler; cette necessity devait apparaitre plus vivement le jour ou 
 l'Eglise americaine se trouva regularisee. 
 
 Or, il est certains que ni le vicaire apostolique qui a fait l'interim 
 du siege episcopal, ni Monseigneur Alemany dont on connait cepen- 
 dant le zele, ne souleverent de reclamation d'aucun genre avant 
 1859. Ainsi, on aurait laisse" passer plus de dix anne"es sans faire 
 valoir un droit que l'on represente comme evident! 
 
 Monseigneur Alemany a dit dans un affidavit public" au livre rouge 
 qu'il s'6tait rendu a Mexico en 1852 et qu'il avait fait alors ace sujet 
 quelque reclamation. M. Thornton dans sa sentence dit qu'a raison 
 de la quality du personnage dont cette affirmation emane il n'y a pas 
 
714 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 lieu de douter de son exactitude, mais en ajoutant qu'il n'y a point 
 trace de la demarche allegu6e. Ce langage, nous le reprendrons pour 
 nous-memes; mais comment tenir quelque compte d'une communica- 
 tion verbale dont il ne reste aucune trace ecrite et dont on ne peut 
 indiquer exactement l'objet? 
 
 M dans les archives episcopates ni dans celles du Gouvernement 
 mexicain, il ne reste aucun document se rapportant aux rapports qui 
 se seraient e'tablis & cette epoque. Et la meilleure preuve qu'il n'y a 
 pas d'importance a y attacher c'est qu'il n'y est meme pas fait allusion 
 dans le travail, d'ailleurs remarquable, que M. Doyle a fait a l'appui de 
 la reclamation des eV§ques en 1859, M. Doyle que j'ai le regret de ne pas 
 voir ici, il raison de son grand age je pense, et a" qui je prie son fils de 
 transmettre mon salut de l'autre cote" de l'Atlantique. 
 
 J'oubliais d'ajouter cette autre consideration qu'en 1852 Monseigneur 
 Alemany n'aurait eu aucune qualite pour revendiquer un droit au nom 
 d'un diocese ame"ricain, puisqu'a cette epoque il n'y a aucune trace que 
 cette Eglise nouvelle se fut fait incorporer et eut par consequent l'ex- 
 istence officielle qui d'apres la legislation americaine lui permet de 
 posse"der et de recevoir. La declaration des eveques et leur incorpora- 
 tion avec les droits qui en re"sultent, ne datent que de 1854 — ce docu- 
 ment se trouve au livre rouge — et on comprend qu'on ait attendu pour 
 ce faire que l'Eglise americaine fut regularisee, par sa separation de 
 l'eV^che - mexicain; jusque-la l'incorporation eutamene" je ne sais quelle 
 existence by bride qui aurait prete" k des difficultes; sans doute on aura 
 voulu y 6chapper. 
 
 Done, messieurs, aucune reclamation de 1846 — 1848 jusqu'a" 1854, et 
 l'Eglise reconstituee n'y songe pas davantage avant 1859! 
 
 Chose assurement etrange, elle attend, pour faire valoir le droit 
 
 au'elle s'attribue, que precisement la legislation mexicaine eut acheve 
 e l'en priver en effet et qu'une loi du 5 fevrier 1857, reprenant les 
 dispositions le la loi espagnole dont argumentait hier M. Delacroix, 
 nationalisa, coniisquat si on veut, tous les biens d'Eglise. II fallut, 
 semble-t-il, que ce fait grave intervint, pour que les eveques se sou- 
 vinssent que depuis dix ans ils etaient fondes k reclamer une part con- 
 siderable du Fonds Pieux de Californie. 
 
 La premiere reclamation est du 20 juin 1859, et, chose curieuse, & 
 qui l'adresse-t-on ? Est-ce au Mexique? Lui redame-t-on ce regle- 
 ment comme allant de soi? S'excuse-t-on de ne pas y avoir songe plus 
 t6t? Pas le moins du monde: c'est au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis 
 que l'on s'adresse, par un memoire tres remarquable de M. Doyle; 
 mais ce Gouvernement parut n'y attacher aucune attention, au moins 
 n'y donna-t-il point suite. 
 
 La Cour sait que dans ce proems nous sommes dans une situation 
 vraiment difficile; le dossier est loin d'etre complet, et nous n'avons 
 guere que les pieces soumises naguere a la Commission mixte et qui 
 ont ete imprimees a" Washington comme dossier commun; nous en 
 avons reclame avec instance a Mexico, mais la Cour sait que d'ici la" 
 il faut un long temps pour ecrire et pour obtenir reponse; notre dossier 
 n'est done pas ce que je voudrais qu'il fut. Mais toujours est-il que, le 
 livre rouge & la main, nous pouvons affirmer que la lettre du 20 juin 
 1859, premiere expression de la reclamation episcopale, ne fut suivie ni 
 d'une reclamation au Gouvernement mexican ni d'une reponse du 
 Gouvernement des Etats-Unis aux eveques, ni mdme d'un simple accuse 
 de reception. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 715 
 
 Ce qui parait plus etrange encore, c'est que Nos Seigneurs les eV6ques 
 laisserent passer dix annees sans s'etonner de ce silence et sans meme 
 adresser au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis une lettre de rappel. 
 
 Mais alors la situation change. La Cour sait que de nombreux 
 griefs prives etaient survenus depuis la separation de la Californie du 
 territpire mexicain; des citoyens des Etats-Unis disaient avoir des 
 reclamations a faire a charge du Mexique et vice versa. L'on con- 
 vint d'instituer une commission mixte et on lui donna des pouvoirs 
 quasi-arbitraux. 
 
 II importe, messieurs, de constater et je n'ai pas besoin d'y insister, 
 que les pouvoirs de cette commission mixte ne visaient que des conilits 
 entre citoyens de l'un des deux Gouvernements, mais qu'a aucun point 
 de vue et a aucun titre la commission mixte ne pouvait avoir a statuer 
 sur une difficulte queloonque, sur un ditferend quelconque entre les deux 
 Etats. Ce n'est pas sous cette forme qu'aurait pu se vider un diiferend 
 international. 
 
 Done, institution d'une commission mixte pour statuer sur les diffe"r- 
 ends des citoyens americains et les Etats-Unis et des citoyens ame"ri- 
 cains et le Mexique. 
 
 Les ev^ques se de"cident a suivre la voie ainsi ouverte et a saisir la 
 commission mixte de leurs pretentions, en recourant encore cette fois 
 aux bons offices de M. Doyle, qui r^dige pour eux un memoire ou il 
 rappelle la lettre de 1859; et cette fois il reclame au nom des trois 
 eveques interess6s; l'eV§que de Grass Valley prend place a c6te de 
 l'archeveque de San Francisco et de 1'evSque de Monterey. 
 
 Mais cette fois encore la reclamation n'est pas adressee au Gouverne- 
 ment mexicain. A cette epoque-la — en 1870 — il n'est encore saisi de 
 rien, M. Doyle s'adresse a M. Hamilton Fish, secretaire d'Etat des 
 Etats-Unis, et celui-ci saisit par un simple renvoi la commission mixte 
 de cet objet comme des autres differends pendants. 
 
 Ainsi de 1846-1848 jusqu'en 1870, e'est-a-dire pendant 22 ou 23 ans, 
 rien n'est demande au Mexique, et il y a eu une seule reclamation dont 
 on ne lui a pas me'me donne connaissance: la lettre de 1859 adressee 
 aux Etats-Unis. Assurement ces faits, meme au point de vue de la 
 these que je plaide en ce moment, ne sont pas sans importance. Mais 
 quant a la chose jug£e ce qui suivit est peut-etre plus interessant encore. 
 
 La sentence de Sir Thornton est du 29 novembre 1875. Elle a porte 
 sur la seule chose qui etit 6t6 demandee; rien du principal du fonds 
 ou de la creance qui aurait pris la place de la valeur originaire; pas un 
 mot dans la decision d'un droit perpetuel, d'une rente perpetuelle, 
 d'une obligation perpetuelle de la part du Mexique envers les eveques 
 americains. La condamnation ne porte que sur ce qui etait demande, 
 c'est- a-dire sur 21 annuites partant de 1848 jusqu'a 1870. 
 
 Je fais remarquer en passant, messieurs, que l'allocation faite en 
 vertu de cette premiere sentence partait du jour meme de la separation 
 des deux territoires, et reconnaissait ainsi a l'Eglise americaine un 
 droit qu'elle ne pouvait faire valoir aussi longtemps qu'elle n'etait pas 
 incorporee; jusque-la cependant elle etait sans existence et ne pouvait 
 etre admise a faire valoir aucun droit. Observation que je ne fais 
 d'ailleurs qu'en passant, car le Mexique s'est execute et ne reclame 
 point. 
 
 Si la sentence alloue des intents depuis 1848, elle s'arr^te a 1870, et 
 voila assurement quelque chose d'assez etonnant puisqu'elle est de 1875: 
 cinq annees s'etaient passees depuis la demande, cinq nouveaux "droits 
 
716 PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 annuels" s'e"taient ouverts, quoi de plus simple que de les faire valoir 
 en demandant aux juges d'y statuer en m6me temps que sur le reste? 
 Eh bien, non, on ne le fait pas, et je vous dirai pourquoi. Pas meme, 
 a ce sujet, la moindre reserve. 
 
 AussitSt apres la sentence, le Gouvernement mexicain recut une 
 lettre de son avocat, M. Avila. Celui declare (V. Correspondance,diplo- 
 matique aux pages 77 et 78) : 
 
 Que quoique l'arret final se rapporte seulement a des inter£ts accumules, a une 
 6poque fix^e, la reclamation doit etre tenue comme reglee in toto, et que par conse- 
 quent toute nouvelle reclamation par rapport au capital du Fonds ou a des intents 
 ulterieurs echus ou a (Schoir, serait a jamais inadmissible. 
 
 L'avis 6tait categorique, et il emanait de 1'avocat du Gouvernement 
 mexicain, qui avait dirige le proces. II semble que M. Avila se soit 
 notarament inspire de la vieille theorie romaine mieux connue encore 
 en Espagne et au Mexique, d'apres laquelle jamais un droit ne pouvait 
 donner qu'une action. Ce n'est pas a vous, messieurs, que je rappel- 
 lerai l'ancienne formule romaine accordee par le pr^teur et cette regie 
 invariablement suivie qui ne permettait pas une seconde action fonde°e 
 sur une meme base. 
 
 Done, M. Avila dit a son gouvernement, lui qui vient de plaider 
 l'affaire, que tout au moins e'est une chose finie, qu'on n'y reviendra 
 pas, et que les 21 annees d'interets payes, tout sera dit. 
 
 Le gouvernement du Mexique transmet — des le lendemain je 
 pense — cette lettre aux Etats-Unis en s'en appropriant les termes. 
 
 Que va-t-il arriver? Si le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis est d'avis 
 qu'il y a au contraire une decision de principe, d'un effet permanent, 
 il va assurement trouver cette lettre presque impertinente: Comment! 
 vous pretendez que tout est regie ! que la decision relative a 21 annees 
 d'interets est une solution in toto ! par exemple ! mais e'est le principe 
 qui est decide; e'est un droit perpetuel qui est reconnu! Et a vous, 
 Messieurs du Mexique, qui venez dire que vous n'aurez jamais plus 
 rien a payer, je vous rappelle qu'a cote des 21 annees allouees il y en 
 a cinq qui sont dues encore, et par consequent je vous prie de vous 
 liberer imm^diatement. 
 
 Voila la reponse a laquelle il fallait s'attendre si la conviction des 
 Etats-Unis 6tait ce que l'on dit aujourd'hui. Eh bien, messieurs, ce 
 n'est pas du tout cela: le Secretaire d'Etat (sa lettre se trouve egale- 
 ment au livre rouge, page 79) declare qu'il ne veut pas s'expliquer; il 
 ne le peut pas; il s'agit, dit-il, d'une decision de justice, elle est ce 
 qu'elle est, on n'y peut rien changer. Seulement, s'il ne dit rien, il ne 
 veut pas qu'on prenne ce defaut de reponse comme un acquiescement — 
 et je n'ai garde de le soutenir. 
 
 A cette lettre qui ne dit rien, mais qui surement n'allegue aucun 
 droit perpetuel et ne reclame pas meme quant aux interets echus 
 depuis 1870, M. Mariscal se borna a repondre (page 60) "que ni M. 
 Avila ni lui ne songent a rouvrir une question close et a mettre en 
 doute le caractere d^finitif et concluant de l'arret intervenu"— 
 nouvelle affirmation de la meme pensee. 
 
 La correspondance en resta la. 
 
 Et ce qui est assurement interessant, e'est qu'ensuite les Etats-Unis 
 ne reclament plus. Ce qui est plus extraordinaire encore, e'est que 
 les eV6ques, qui viennent de gagner leur proces et a qui cinq annees 
 seraient des lors dues, n'en demandent pas le paiement; et cette 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE OALIPORNIAS. 717 
 
 indifference des eveques, ce silence dure depuis 1875 jusqu'en 1891. 
 Us atteDdent qu'il y ait de nouveau 21 annees d'interets echus comme 
 la premiere fois — 1870 a, 1891. 
 
 Ainsi, messieurs, tandis que le Mexique dit que pour lui le debat est 
 clos, qu'il y a jugement in toto, les eVeques ne disent rien, ils ne r6cla- 
 ment qu'apres 2l annees accumulees, 16 annees apres la premiere sen- 
 tence. La lettre du M. Ryan qui rouvre le debat porte la date du 17 
 aout 1891. 
 
 Puis, six annees se passent et c'est sous la date du ler septembre 1897 
 que le Secretaire d'Etat, M. Clayton, appelle de nouveau l'attention du 
 Mexique sur la reclamation des eveques. 
 
 La Cour sait que cette correspondance a abouti a la convention 
 d'arbitrage en suite de laquelle nous avons le tres grand honneur de 
 plaider en ce moment devant elle. 
 
 11 faut reconnaitre, messieurs, que dans les circonstances que je viens 
 de rappeler, 1'allegation de la chose jugee d'un droit indiscutable auquel 
 il n'y avait rien a objecter est bien un peu surprenante. Que de temps 
 on aurait mis a s'apercevoir de ce droit et a en vouloir tirer fruit ! 
 
 Mais c'est la question en elle-m§me que j'ai a examiner. 
 
 Nos honorables contradicteurs ont depense beaucoup de temps et beau- 
 coup de talent pour etablir des principes que nous ne songeons nulle- 
 ment a contester. Et tout d'abord la legitimite de cette fiction qui 
 eieve la chose jugee a la dignite d'une verite\ Elle existe, dit-on, dans 
 toutes les legislations, elle est necessaire. 
 
 Je le reconnais volontiers: il ne faut pas que l'on puisse remettre 
 en question ce qui a ete juge, et je sais que deja Ciceron plaidant 
 pour Sc3 r lla disait que cette fiction etait le plus ferme soutien de la 
 Republique. 
 
 Mais, si c'est une fiction necessaire, ce n'est qu'une fiction. Toute 
 ceuvre humaine est sujette a l'erreur et notre pauvre raison n'a heias! 
 rien de commun avec l'absolu. 
 
 On voit la justice modifier incessamment l'interpretation de la loi: 
 c'est ce qu'on appelle les variations de la jurisprudence. On voit les 
 m&mes faits, les memes circonstances, etablis apprecies ou interpretes 
 de la facon la plus differente, le m§me contrat donner lieu a des proces 
 successifs et lu a des aspects tout opposes. 
 
 Souvent done le juge se trompe, mais la verite de la chose jugee 
 n'en est pas moins, et je le proclame avec vous, une fiction necessaire. 
 
 Seulement, quel est le veritable caractere de cette notion ? Quelle 
 en est la portee? A-t-on eu cette pretention impossible que l'ceuvre de 
 la justice put apparaitre une, sans tache, sans faiblesse, sans contra- 
 dictions? Du tout! C'eut ete une entreprise impossible. 
 
 Non seulement les juges, mais le meine juge peut varier du tout au 
 tout dans l'appreciation des memes faits ou d'une meme question de 
 droit. Les tribunaux n'ont et ne peuvent avoir a cet egard qu'un seul 
 guide, c'est leur conscience. 
 
 Mais ce qui n'est pas admissible, c'est que les mSmes querelles soient 
 recommencees: la paix publique ne le permet pas. 
 
 Qu'est-ce done que la chose jugee? Verite tout ce que le juge a 
 dit? Non, rien que ce qu'il a ordonne. La chose jugee reside seule- 
 ment et exclusivement dans le dictum de la sentence, car c'est la, qu'il 
 parle comme juge. 
 
 Et encore dans ces limites il ne s'agit que d'une verite relative; ce 
 
718 PIOTJS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 qui est juge n'est vrai que s'il s'agit de la m&me demande — eadem 
 questio — si elle est bas6e sur la m&me cause et agitee entre les mfemes 
 parties agissant en la m§me qualite. 
 
 Et c'est parce que tel est le caractere de notre fiction que les auteurs 
 s'accordent a dire qu'il n'y a chose jugee ni quant aux constatations de 
 fait ni quant au droit. Elle ne consiste que dans l'application emprique 
 du droit a un fait determine" a l'egard des parties en cause; une question 
 de relation pas autre chose. 
 
 C'est, messieurs, ce que dit, et en fort bons termes, un auteur qu'on 
 a cite et sur l'autorite duquel j'aurai a revenir, Griolet, dans sa Dis- 
 sertation sur l'autorite de la chose jugee, notamment aux pages 7 et 9. 
 
 Autre consequence grave et profond&netft juridique de ces prem- 
 isses: Le juge ne cree pas le droit et il ne l'eteint pas; le droit est dans 
 la spere de l'absolu, nous ne l'atteignons guere, mais l'absolu existe et 
 il n'appartient pas a, l'homme d'y toucher. 
 
 Le droit est done au-dessus des decisions de l'homme, il est ce qu'il 
 est, et Perreur du juge n'y peut rien changer. 
 
 Mais par sa decision le juge eieve une presomption qu'il est impos- 
 sible de surmonter; du moment oii il a juge, il n'est plus permis de dire 
 que le droit est autre que ce qui a ete juge. C'est si peu une chose 
 ibsolue qu'il n'st pas permis au juge de supplier l'exception de 
 chose jugee; si les parties ne l'invoquent pas le juge n'a pas le droit de 
 la faire; il a beau trouver au dossier la preuve que ce qu'on lui demande 
 a. ete juge et dans les conditions requises pour etablir la chose jugee, 
 il n'en peut tenir compte si on ne le lui demande point. Pourquoi? 
 Pr^cisement parce que ce n'est qu'une presomption d'une valeur rela- 
 tive et exclusivement reserved a, Pay ant- droit. Si celui-ci a quelque 
 trouble de conscience, s'il estime que la chose jugee en sa faveur a ete 
 mal jugee, il peut ne pas s'en preValoir dans une autre instance; le 
 juge n'y peut point contredire (Griolet). 
 
 Et allant plus loin encore, l'un des geants de l'ancien droit francais, 
 Cujas, disait que la chose jugee n'eteint pas meme l'obligation naturelle; 
 expression 6nergique de cette idee qu'il n'y a rien ici qui touche au 
 droit en lui-meme, mais seulement une presomption qui permet a celui 
 qui a obtenu jugement d'empecher qu'on ne remette son droit en question. 
 
 H peut arriver, il arrive que dans un meme proces, a, propos d'une 
 m(kae question, il y ait tout a, la fois presomption absolue de verity 
 pour le blanc et le noir, et un exemple n'est pas bien difficile a trouver. 
 Nous poursuivons a deux le ni6me droit, une succession, une revendi- 
 cation de propriety le premier juge nous ^conduit, il declare notre 
 reclamation non fondle: c'est le noir. Plus timide, l'un de nous 
 s'abstient d'appeler, l'autre saisit le juge du degre" sup^rieur de la meme 
 question et celui-ci reforme: c'est le blanc. Et la m&me pre'somption 
 d'absolue verite couvre ces deux decisions qui se contredisent. 
 
 Tout ceci, messieurs, n'etablit-il pas la veYite de ce que j'affirmais: 
 qu'il s'agit ici d'une fiction n6cessaire mais qu'il faut ramener a ses 
 veritables termes, et que comme le dit Griollet (page 68) il faut inter- 
 preter restrictivement comme toute exception ? 
 
 Mais, revenons-en a ce qui est la chose jug6e. La definition que 
 j'en donnais tout a l'heure est empruntee a Particle 1351 du Code 
 Napoleon, mais je crois qu'elle peut §tre consideree comme de droit 
 universel. 
 
 Le texte de Particle 1351 est a peu pr§s textuellement emprunte a 
 Pune des sommites de la jurisprudence universelle, & Pothier, qui lui- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 719 
 
 mgne avec les grands juristes des 16e, lTe et 18e socles, l'avait d^duit 
 du droit romain. 
 
 Je parlerai peu du droit romain, messieurs, parce qu'en cette matiere 
 il prete peut-etre a quelque confusion; a la notion de la chose jug^e 
 vient se m§ler cette autre regie qu'un m<kne droit ne peut donner 
 qu'une action et que cette action une fois mise en mouvement s'6teint 
 par sa consommation. 
 
 Tenons-nous en done plut6t a l'article 1351 du Code Civil. 
 
 La verite judiciaire ne s'applique qu'a ce qui a etc" juge, et, partant, 
 a ce qui a 6te" demande", car le juge ne peut jamais exceder la demande, 
 elle ne porte que sur le dictum de la sentence et elle n'existe que dans 
 les conditions que j'indiquais tout a l'heure. II faut qu'il y ait eu 
 identite de demande, identity de decision, identite d'objet et de cause, 
 identity de parties, identity des quality dans lesquelles ces parties 
 agissaient. 
 
 Or, d'apres nous il y a trois elements de la chose jugee qui font ici 
 d^faut: La question d'aujourd'hui n'a pas ete jugee; elle n'aurait pu 
 l'§tre puisque la demande est nouvelle, l'objet de la demande est differ- 
 ent, enfin les deux demandes se fondant sur des causes successives ne 
 peuvent avoir qu'une apparence d'identite. 
 
 Tela sont les points que je vais examiner. 
 
 D'apres nos adversaires, la chose jugee resulterait non pas du dis- 
 positif de la sen tence Thornton , qui ne porte que sur 21 annees d'interets , 
 mais de ses motifs; ils etabliraient implicitement un droit permanent; 
 et il y aurait eu chose jug^e implicite pour l'avenir, mikoe en l'absence 
 de toute demande. 
 
 II y a, messieurs, une remarque que je pourrais me dispenser de 
 faire devant vous qui avez une si grande experience des choses et du 
 droit universel: e'est la difference de forme qui existe gen^ralement 
 entre les jugements du continent europeen et d'une partie de l'Amtm- 
 que, et une partie de ceux qui emanent des tribunaux americains ou 
 anglais. Chez nous — je parle avec l'extension que je viens d'indiquer — 
 il y a et il doit y avoir division entre les motifs et le dispositif , elle 
 est prescrite, elle est necessaire. En Angleterre et en Amerique, le 
 juge a a cet egard plus de liberte, et il arrive que motifs et dispositif 
 sont emmeles dans une redaction unique. 
 
 Mais ici, comme l'a plaide hier M. Delacroix, nous avons a tenir 
 compte de la forme des jugements continentaux parce que e'est celle 
 usitee au Mexique et que e'est la legislation mexicaine qu'il faut 
 appliquer. 
 
 Or, il y a un point qui ne peut faire doute, e'est que en France, en 
 Belgique, en Hollande, en Espagne, au Mexique, les motifs n'ont pas 
 force ae chose jugee. Comme je le disais tout a l'heure, les motifs 
 disent quelle est la constatation de fait, quelle est l'appreciation du 
 fait, quel est le theme de droit qui dicte la sentence; mais ce n'est pas 
 la sentence, ^5e n'est pas le dictum du juge: e'en est la raison, 1' expli- 
 cation, rien de plus. Or la verite juridique couvre non ce que dit le 
 juge, mais ce qu'il ordonne, quand il personnifie ainsi la puissance 
 publique et que sa parole en est l'expression. 
 
 Ce que je dis la, messieurs, e'est en droit Francais ou Beige l'enseig- 
 nement de toun les auteurs. 
 
 Dalloz (V° jugements, 324, 958, etc.) dit: 
 
 Le dispositif constitue le jugemeDt proprement dit. 
 O'est le dispositif qui constitue seul le judgement. 
 
720 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 M. Larombiere — la Cour sait quelle 6tait la tres haute autorite* de 
 cet ancien Premier President de la Cour de Cassation de France — 
 s'exprime ainsi: 
 
 M. Descamps. Quel passage? 
 
 M. Beernaert. Sur Particle 1351, N°. 18: 
 
 La chose jugee reside exclusivement dans le dispositif du jugement, etnondans ses 
 motifs' 
 
 Le Pandectes Beiges . . . , la Cour sait peut-6tre que c'est une 
 compilation fort importante deja arrived a son 70e volume et qui 
 merite assurement beaucoup d'attention .... s'expriment de meme 
 (V° Chose jugee, N°. 120 et suivants). 
 
 L'un de nos jurisconsultes les plus remarquables, M. Arntz, prof esseur 
 a l'Universite de Bruxelles, ditau Tome 3 de son Droit Civil, page 404: 
 
 La chose jugee resulte seulement du dispositif du jugement, non de ses motifs, 
 quelle que puisse etre 1' opinion qui s'y trouve Snoncee sur le point en contestation. 
 
 Laurent (N°. 29, Tome 20) est encore plus energique: 
 
 II est de principe que le dispositif seul des jugements a autorit6 de chose jugee 
 [il ne discute pas, il affirme]. Les motifs donnes par le juge ne decident rien, il n'en 
 peut done resulter de chose jugee. Cela est fond£ en raison ; la presomption de v£rit6 
 est attachee aux jugements afin de mettre fin aux process et pour eviter qu'un second 
 jugement contredise le premier. La chose jugee implique done 1' existence d'une 
 decision judiciaire. Peu importe que les motifs expriment une opinion relative a, un 
 point contest^; si le dispositif ne consacre pas ce-t-te opinion en admettant ou en 
 rejetant 1' opinion enoncee dans les conside>ants, iln'y a pas de chose jugee. Un 
 arrfit reconnalt dans ses motifs que le terrain litigieux est vague et que la commune 
 demanderesse en doit 6tre r£putee propri6taire, mais le dispositif ne prononce rien a 
 cet egard; il se borne a ordonner une expertise et en reservant le droit; la commune 
 pretend qu'il y a chose jugee sur la nature du terrain et sur la question de propria, 
 en se fondant sur les motifs de l'arret. La Cour de Cassation de France a decide que 
 la chose jugee doit s'induire du dispositif, et non des motifs. 
 
 Et l'auteur continue. 
 
 Un autre jurisconsulte, peut-Stre l'un des plus remarquables qui aient 
 6crit sur le droit civil francais, Zacharie, professeur a l'Universite' 
 d'Heidelberg, est plus energique encore; voici ce que je lis au Tome 
 3 de son livre, paragraphe 769: 
 
 La chose jug6e ne resulte pas des motifs, mais seulement du dispositif des juge- 
 ments; aussi, bien que les motifs expriment relativement a, un point quelconque des 
 contestations une opinion explicite et formelle, il n'y a chose jugee sur ce point 
 qu'autant qu'une disposition du jugement en a prononce' l'admission ou le rejet. 
 
 Le dispositif d'un jugement (etceci est remarquable, messieurs) n'al'autorite dela 
 chose jugee que relativement au point qui s' y trouve decide. C'est ainsi par exemple 
 qu'un jugement qui sur la demande d'un creancier condamne le debiteur aux interets 
 des interets deja echus d'un capital dont le montant y est enonc6, n'a pas l'effet de 
 dela chose jug6e quant a la quotite de ce capital (c'est presque notre question). 
 C'est ainsi encore qu'un jugement qui accorde des aliments au demandeur (c'est 
 l'hypothese signalee par Laurent dans un passage discute par M. Ralston) en qualite 
 de pere ou d'enfant du defendeur, n'a pas l'autorite de la chose jugee quant a la 
 question de fraternite ou de filiation, lorsque cette question n'ayant pas fait l'objetde 
 conclusions respectivement prises par les parties, n'a pas ete posee etdecidee par une 
 disposition speciale et explicite du jugement. 
 
 M. Descamps. C'est clair! 
 
 M. Beernaert. Ce passage vous paralt clair? 
 
 M. Descamps. Mais oui! 
 
 M. Beernaert. Eh bien! fen suis enchants, car il me parait de*cisif! 
 Montrez-nous done, je vous prie, cette demande a un droit perp6tuel 
 que vous pretendez avoir ete jugee ! Montrez-nous done, au moins dans 
 le dernier 6tat de la cause, les conclusions ou le memoire ou vous 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 721 
 
 auriez reclame" des interets non pour 21 ann^es mais pour tou jours! 
 Ou dites-nous comment il aurait ete possible au juge de statuer sur 
 une demande qui n'etait point faite! 
 
 Messieurs, puisque nos honorables contradicteurs paraissent d'accord 
 avec ce que ]e viens de dire, je puis me dispenser d'accumuler les 
 autorite's. 
 
 Que la chose jug6e n'est attribute qu'aux motifs, cela est de juris- 
 prudence constante et en France et en Belgique. J'ai la une longue 
 serie d'arrets, mais je fatiguerais la Cour en la lisant; elle me per- 
 mettra sans doute de lui remettre a cet egard quelques indications." 
 
 Et le meine prin'cipe est admis en Espagne et au Mexique. C'est ce 
 que nous aurions voulu demontrer par le recueil de M. Pantoja auquel 
 renvoie le me'nioire de M. Azpiroz devant la Commission mixte; il 
 nous estexpedie, mais je crains qu'il ne nous arrive troptard, et quant 
 a, l'exemplaire que nous adversaires, plus heureux que nous, possedent, 
 parait-il, il semble que la pagination n'y soit pas concordante . . . 
 
 M. Ralston. II est a votre disposition. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Merci. 
 
 La meme regie se trouve encore consacree par une decision formelle 
 de "Allgemeine Gesichtsordnung " d'Allemagne, que voici: 
 
 Les colleges de juges et les rgdacteurs des jugements doivent distinguer soigneuse- 
 ment la decision rdelle de ses motifs et leur donner une place differente sans les con- 
 fondre jamais, car de simples motifs ne doivent jamais avoir l'autorite' de la chose 
 jugee. 
 
 Voila pour l'Allemagne deux constatations inte"ressantes: " De sim- 
 ples motifs ne doivent jamais avoir l'autorite' de la chose jugee;" et il 
 est prescrit au juge de ne pas confondre ces deux choses, il doit separer 
 les motifs du dispositif . 
 
 Savigny, qui, vous le savez, enseigne une opinion differente et dont 
 je parlerai tout a l'heure, se prononce dans notre sens par d'autres rai- 
 sons; mais il reconnait que sur cette question des motifs la plupart des 
 auteurs allemands se prononcent dans un autre sens que lui, et son livre 
 cite des decisions de la jurisprudence allemande qui decident la question 
 comme les jurisprudences beige et francaise. 
 
 Et un autre auteur cite avec complaisance par nos honorables con- 
 tradicteurs, M. Griolet, qui traite longuement la question, refute 
 la these de Savigny, et il y revient a maint endroit de son livre. Pour 
 Griolet, il n'y a pas a tenir compte des motifs, ils n'ont que l'auto- 
 rite du juge et ne participent en aucune facon — il le dit page 7— a la 
 presomption de verite attribute a, la chose jugee. • 
 
 II y revient page 9: 
 
 L'erreur de M. de Savigny commence quand il etend l'autorite' de la chose jugee 
 non plus seulement aux rapports de droit considered comme motifs de la sentence, 
 mais a des faits ou mSme a des droits qui ne sont pas mis en cause. 
 
 Et a la page 102, avec plus de precision, nous lisons: 
 
 Dans nos usages comme en droit remain, la sanction ou le refus de sanction con- 
 stitue le dispositif du jugement . . . aucun de nos auteurs n'a enseigne' un systfime 
 analogue a celui de M. de Savigny sur l'autorite des motifs; et la jurisprudence 
 reconnait en principe que l'autorite' de la chose jug6e ne s'6tend jamais a aucun 
 des motifs' de la decision. 
 
 a C. C. F. 5 juin 1821, S. V. 1. 341, 21 d^cembre 1830, 31, 1, 152, 9 Janvier 1838, 
 1. 550, 23 juillet 1839, 1. 560, 8 juin 1842. 1. 321, 30 aout 1850. 1. 497, etc. Pandec- 
 tes Beiges, V° Chose jugee, N° 144 a 159.— Voir aussi 0. C. B. 18 Janvier 1877. P. 1. 
 85, 25 mars 1880, etc., Bruxelles 1 mars 1849. 1. 13(5, 2 aout 1855. 2. 453, etc. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 46 
 
722 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 Vous retrouverez ailleurs encore cette m6me these — mais je ne veux 
 pas abuser des citations. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Voulez-vous me preter le livre? 
 
 M. Bbernaert. Tres volontiers, mais comme j'en aurai encore besoin, 
 Votre Honneur voudra bien me le faire rendre. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. C'est pour un instant seulement. 
 
 M. Bebrnaert. Je disais done que l'ouvrage de Griolet confirme 
 ma these en ce qui concerne l'absolue distinction a faire entre les motifs 
 et le dispositif . 
 
 M. Desoamps. Voulez-vous avoir la bonte" de m'indiquer les pages 
 auxquelles vous vous ref erez, parce que c'est tres important. 
 
 M. Beernaert. J'en ai indique plusieurs. Voyez aussi pages 102, 
 183, j'en signalerai d'autres encore. 
 
 Le principe que je viens d'indiquer a recu di verses applications qui 
 le mettent mieux en lumiere. Non seulement les motifs d'une decision 
 iudiciaire n'ont aucune autorite" de jugement, mais ils ne lient pas meme 
 le juge de qui ils 6manent. 
 
 C'est la raison de cette regie fondamentale que l'interlocutoire ne 
 lie pas le juge. Index ab interlocutorio discedere potest. 
 
 Et M. Larombiere (N°. 16) fait remarquer que, pour qu'il en soit 
 ainsi, il y a cette raison decisive qu'entre l'objet de la demande jugee 
 par l'interlocutoire et la decision qui admet ou repousse cette demande 
 au fond il ne peut y avoir identity, et que "l'identite d'objet est 
 toujours 1'une des conditions essentielles et fondamentales de la chose 
 jugee." Sans doute le juge a exprime son sentiment, et il peut l'avoir 
 fait dans les conditions les plus explicites, les plus formelles; il n'y a 
 plus qu'a en tirer la conclusion, mais peii importe, ce n'est qu'un senti- 
 ment, qu'un prejuge, et aussi longtemps qu'il n'y a pas jugement le 
 juge est libre de changer d'avis. 
 
 Je ne veux citer qu'un arret tout recent de notre Cour de Cassation 
 (18 juillet 1901); et c'est la en jurisprudence une grande et tres serieuse 
 autorite' ; plusieurs des membres de la Haute-Cour sont a meme de 
 confirmer ce que j'en dis. 
 
 " Considerant, porte cet arret, que le jugement du 19 novembre 1868 
 s'est borne a admettre la preuve de certains faits, que ce jugement est 
 purement interlocutoire, que les appreciations qu'il contient sur le fond 
 du proces ne constituent aucunement la chose jugee, celle-ci re"sidant 
 exclusivement dans le dispositif des jugements." 
 
 Done, le prejuge d'un jugement simplement interlocutoire n'a aucune 
 force juridique, et- voila qui renforce mon argumentation de tout a, 
 l'heure. 
 
 Autre consequence du meme principe: Dans les Etats ou, comme 
 en France, en Belgique, et si je ne me trompe dans les Pays-Bas, la 
 Cour Supreme n'a a juger que le droit et l'exacte application de la loi 
 sans avoir a se pre"occuper du fait, aucun recours en Cassation ne peut 
 §tre admis si celle-ci ne vicie pas en meme temps le dispositif. Des 
 motifs errones ne peuvent par eux-memes donner ouverture a, cassation, 
 car ne liant pas le juge ils ne disent pas le droit. 
 
 Cette question-ci, messieurs, ayant peut-Stre une relation plus directe 
 avec la these que je defends, je me permettrai de vous indiquer quel- 
 ques-unes des decisions de Cours Supremes qui l'ont ainsi jug6e. Ce 
 
 «V. C. C. F. 10 juin 1856 (D. P. 56. 1. 425). 
 
 C. C. B. 28 Janvier 1848 (P. 48. 1. 296), 20 mai 1898 (98. 1. 191), 18 juillet 1901 
 (1901. 1. 349). 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 723 
 
 soiit les arrets de la Cour de Cassation de Belgique des 3 mars 1853 
 (Pasicrisie de Belgique 1853, 1. 249) 13 fevrier 1865, et du 5 novembre 
 1888 (Pasicrisie, 1889. 1. 20). La Cour de Cassation de France l'a 
 decidee aussi nettement par ses arrets plus anciens des 8 fevrier et 8 
 aout 1837, 12 mars 1838, etc. 
 
 Si mince est l'importance des motifs au point de vue de la chose 
 jugee qu'aucum pourvoi en Cassation n'est meme admissible quand il y 
 a contradiction, contradiction absolue, entre les motifs et le dispositif 
 d'une m&me decision judiciaire. Ainsi, le jugement dit blanc dans ses 
 motifs, noir dans son dispositif, la contradiction est absolue, peu 
 importe l'erreur commise, il n'y a a tenir compte que du dispositif. 
 C'est ce qu a juge la Cour de Cassation de France — je suis confus de 
 ces citations, mais peut-etre sont-elles necessaires — notamment le 11 
 fevrier 1807, le 9 Janvier 1839, le 23 juillet 1839, le 3 mai 1843. 
 
 Je crois done, messieurs, pouvoir conclure de ce que je viens de dire 
 que tout au moins au point de vue des legislations qui precedent du 
 droit romain et specialement de la legislation hispano-americaine, on 
 peut affirmer que la chose jugee reside exclusivement dans le dispo- 
 sitif, et ne s'6tend jamais aux motifs d'un jugement. 
 
 Est-ce a dire que les motifs n'aient en pareil cas aucune importance? 
 Ce n'est pas ma pensee. Les motifs peuvent etre utilement invoques 
 pour determiner le sens du dispositif, pour lui donner sa veritable 
 portee, pour l'interpr^ter s'il est obscur; cela aussi est de jurispru- 
 dence, mais les motifs n'ont pas ici d'autre portee. 
 
 II y a plus: les auteurs et la jurisprudence sont d'accord que meme 
 dans cette partie sp^ciale du jugement qui constitue le dispositif, la 
 force de chose jugee ne s'attache qu'a ce que le juge ordonne et qu'il 
 faut que ce soient des dispositions certaines: Sententia debet esse certa. 
 De simples enonciations ou une condamnation sans precision ne par- 
 ticipent pas a la presomption de verite. 
 
 C'6tait deja, messieurs, la disposition de la loi romaine; et Pothier la 
 lui a empruntee. Vous pourriez voir aussi ce qu'en dit Larombiere 
 (Traite des Obligations, Tome 3, No. 19); 
 
 J'avais tant6t l'honneur de vous dire que sur cette question de la 
 force des motifs, il y avait l'opinion divergente et qui assurement 
 merite d'arreter l'attention de Savigny. 
 
 II m'appartiendrait, messieurs, moins qu'a personne de ne point 
 parler de cet illustre jurisconsulte avec le respect qui lui revient: je 
 suis peut-etre l'un des derniers auditeurs encore en vie de son cours de 
 Berlin et je lui garde le plus reconnaissant souvenir. M. de Savigny 
 n'etend pas l'autorito de la chose jug6e a tous les motifs; il fait une 
 distinction un peu nuageuse, peut-etre trop nuageuse, entre ce qu'il 
 appelle les motifs subjectifs et les motifs objectifs, et n'accorde qu'a, 
 ces derniers la force de la chose jugee. Pour lui, le motif subjectif 
 n'est qu'accessoire, il peut avoir eu quelque influence sur l'esprit du 
 juge, mais sans aller jusqu'a, determiner sa decision; le motif objectif, 
 c'est le motif determinant, celui-la devrait participer a la verite de la 
 chose jugee. 
 
 La Cour voit quel danger presenterait en pratique l'admission d'une 
 semblable these, et combien serait delicate la recherche psychologique 
 qu'il faudrait faire pour discerner les motifs decisifs et ceux qui n'ont 
 qu'une valeur accessoire! Toujours est-il que telle est l'opinion de 
 Savigny, et pour la preciser, il s'approprie ce que dit Bohmer: 
 
 Les motifs qu'il faut retenir sont ceux qui forment l'ame de la sentence. 
 
724 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 C'est la these que Griolet condamne avec une grande force de 
 raisonnement, mais nous verrons tout a l'heure que par d'autres motifs 
 Savigny nous donnerait raison, s'il etait de nos juges. 
 
 De tout ce que j'ai dit jusqu'a present je crois, messieurs, pouvoir 
 conclure que l'exception de chose jugee ne pourrait nous etre opposee 
 que si dans la premiere sentence, la sentence de M. Thornton, il avait 
 e"te statue sur notre cas; il aurait fallu que M. Thornton eut declare" le 
 droit des eVeques, non pas seulement aux annuities qu'il a alloue"es, 
 mais a un capital ou a, la rente perpetuelle qui representerait ce capital. 
 
 Or, messieurs, vous le savez, le contraire resulte du texte precis de 
 la decision du tiers-arbitre qui ne porte condamnation qu'a 21 annuite*s 
 seulement. 
 
 Et cela devient encore plus decisif lorsqu'on rapproche, comme il 
 esttoujours indispensable de le faire, la chose ainsi jugee de la demande 
 dont le juge etait saisi. C'est en effet une regie aussi elementaire 
 qu'aniverselle que le juge ne peut jamais de"passer les limites de la 
 demande. La demande est la base du jugement, on ne peut l'exceder; 
 c'est le vieux brocard: Tanturn judicatum quantum litigatum. Et 
 sous une autre forme c'est le principe proclame par Particle 1351 du 
 Code Civil; il n'y a, il ne peut y avoir chose jugee que sur ce qui a 
 fait l'objet de la demande; telle est "l'ame" — je me sers a mon tour 
 de cette expression — de Particle 1351. 
 
 En droit francais, beige ou espagnol, si le juge a pronounce sur 
 choses non demandees, il y a lieu a requete civile, et lui-meme doit 
 retracter le jugement qu'il a rendu. C'est ce que portent les Codes de 
 Procedure francais et beige, article 480, N°. 3 et 4. 
 
 Laurent va plus loin: il n'admet meme pas qu'il soit necessaire d'une 
 retractation formelle; il ne faut pas, dit-il, tenir compte (Tome 20, 
 N°. 13) du jugement en ce qu'il statue ultrapetita. 
 
 Et je ne dois pas insister, puisque nos honorables contradicteurs 
 eux-memes ont reconnu dans les documents distribues par eux que si 
 des arbitres avaient statue au-dela de la demande, leur decision ne 
 serait pas obligatoire. Savigny est du m&me avis. 
 
 Done, les premiers juges n'auraient pu reconnaitre un droit per- 
 petuel et le consacrer que si pareille chose leur avait ete demandee; il 
 etait impossible que leur sentence debordat la demande sans §tre nulle. 
 Telle est la regie; elle est absolue et universelle. 
 
 Voyons ce qui a ete demande. 
 
 Au debut, les evtjques avaient annonce une reclamation en capital; 
 dans leur premiere lettre au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis, ils disaient 
 qu'ils avaient a charge du Mexique des reclamations tres importantes 
 et se chifl'rant par de grosses sommes — ils parlaient de 14 ou 1,500,000 
 dollars. Mais la partie demanderesse a plus tard change complete- 
 ment d'attitude pour ne plus demander que 21 annuites s'etendant de 
 Pannee 1848 a Pannee 1870, et comme je le rappelais tout a l'heure, 
 plus tard ils n'etendirent pas m6me leur demande aux annuites echues 
 en cours d'instance, comme il eut ete si naturel de le faire, sans meiue 
 faire de reserves a ce sujet. Ainsi, ils r^duisaient bien leur demande 
 a 21 annuites, et lorsque Sir Thornton les a allouees il a fait exactement 
 ce qu'on lui demandait; il ne lui eut pas ete permis d'aller au-dela sans 
 faire ceuvre nulle. 
 
 Comment admettre des lors que ses motifs eussent d^borde et ce 
 qu'il decidait et ce qu'on lui demandait de decider? En fait comme 
 en droit c'etait chose absolument impossible. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 725 
 
 Et pourquoi, messieurs, ce changement d'attitude de la partie 
 demanderesse ? pourquoi aujourd'hui encore devant vous demandet- 
 on, non pas la reconnaissance d'un droit perpetuel, mais seulement 32 
 annuites? La raison en est du plus haut interet et vous a deja ete 
 indiquee. 
 
 C'est que le traite de Guadulupe Hidalgo avait donne quittance au 
 Mexique a un double point de vue: de la part du Gouvernement des 
 Etats-Unis il constituait un reglement formel, definitif et complet, 
 ecartant tout sejet de querelle, toute possibilite de conflit; et, chose 
 
 {)lus importante a notre point de vue, ce m§me traite abolissait toutes 
 es reclamations que pourraient avoir a faire des citoyens des Etats- 
 Unis a charge du Gouvernement mexicain moyennant le paiement par 
 le Mexique au Gouvernement americain, d'une somme de 3,250,000 
 dollars; les Etats-Unis, en dechargent le Gouvernement mexicain, se 
 chargeaient de faire eux memes droit a toutes les reclamations qui 
 seraient reconnues fondees. Ainsi, desormais plus de reclamation 
 possible par des citoyens de l'un des deux pays a charge du Gouverne- 
 ment de l'autre, du moment ou le principe ou la raison d'etre de ces 
 reclamations proc^dait de faits ou d'actes anterieurs a, la ratification 
 du traite. 
 
 Dans ces conditions, comment la reclamation d'une part du Fonds 
 Pie pouvait-elle se produire? Comment reclamer a raison de faits, 
 les uns datant d'un siecle ou d'un siecle et demi, les autres plus 
 recents mais procedant du Gouvernement mexicain et des arret.es par 
 lesquels il a successivement donne puis enleve a l'eveque de Californie 
 l'administration des biens, mais tous bien anterieurs a la date du 
 traits? C etait impossible, le texte etait formel, et ce que les eveques 
 americains ne pouvaient faire, il est evident que le Gouvernement des 
 Etats-Unis l'aurait pu bien moins encore. 
 
 Sans le traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo, une reclamation du Gou- 
 vernement des Etats-Unis se serait presentee dans des conditions 
 juridiques plus avantageuses quo celle des eveques. Peut-etre 
 auraient-ils pu dire: Voici un Fonds ayant une destination publique, 
 destine a de grands interets, pour l'avantage d'un territoire qui est 
 aujourd'hui divise entre nous, partageons les ressources comme nous 
 aurons desormais a, nous partagcr les charges. 
 
 Mais le texte du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo interdisait semblable 
 langage. 
 
 On le comprit, et voila pourquoi les eveques, apres avoir annonce 
 une pretention & un capital ou a une rente qui representait ce capital, 
 se sont bornes a demander 21 annuites en disant que c'etaient la des 
 droits qui avant 1848 n'etaient pas ne"s, qu'ils naissaient chaque ann^e 
 par le non paiement, que par consequent il n'y avait pas ete renonce. 
 
 Le tiers-arbitre, messieurs, reconnait la verite de ce que je viens 
 de dire; voici ce que je lis presque au debut de sa sentence: 
 
 Les reclamations anterieures a la ratification du traite 1 de Guadalupe Hidalgo qui 
 auraient pu 6tre presentees avant cette date ne pouvaient etre soumises a la Commis- 
 sion, mais on est recevable quant aux reclamations poste>ieures; et c'est ainsi qu'il 
 alloue les interets 6chus du 30 mars, 1848, jusqu'i ce jour. 
 
 " Jusqu'a ce jour" constituait une distraction — cela se voit mSme 
 dans une ceuvre de justice — car on etait en 1875, et dans le dispositif 
 l'arbitre n'alloue que les interets demandes, les seuls par consequent 
 qu'il put allouer, c'est a dire jusqu'en 1870. — Ce montif-la du moins 
 n'est pas invoque comme valant chose jugee. . . 
 
726 PIOUS FUKD OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 Ainsi, on ne pouvait pas r^clamer un drpit en principal, on ne l'a 
 pas fait, et il n'y a pas ete statue. Et, chose remarquable, aujourd'hui 
 encore on reconnait qu'on ne le peut pass! M. Ralston dit dans sa 
 lettre du 21 fevrier 1901. 
 
 Nous n'avons jamais reclame la propria ni le capital. C'eut 6t6 impossible, 
 puisque les confiscations prononc6es 6taient des actes souverains. 
 
 On se trouvait done devant une tin de non recevoir qu'on reconnais- 
 sait insurmontable, et voila pourquoi on a transforme Paction en la 
 reduisant a, 21 ans, sous pretexte que le droit n'etait viole que d'annee 
 en ann6e et qu'ainsi il y avait autant de demandes annuelles differentes 
 q'il y avait d'6ch6ances. 
 
 J'avoue, messieurs, qu'en elle-m&me cette transformation de la 
 demande me parait injustifiable. Comment concevoir ce droit annuel 
 qui n'aurait pas de principe ? Comment naitrait-il s'il n'y avait pas de 
 o -oit anterieur ? Ou bien vous aurait-il sum de ne pas f aire juger ce 
 droit, de ne pas le f aire reconnaitre ? Pretendriez-vous que votre titre i 
 s'imposait, qu'il faisait loi, qu'il ne fallait pas meme le faire admettre, 
 alors qu'il 6tait si f ormellement conteste ? II f aut bien que vous sou- 
 teniez cela, car autrement la transformation de votre action ne se 
 concevrait pas. , 
 
 D'autre part, qu'est-ce done que cet Strange respect des droits et des 
 actes souverains du Mexique? — e'est le mot dont on se sert. 
 
 Le Mexique a nationalise les biens du Fonds Pie, comme plus tard il 
 a nationalise tous les biens de l'Eglise, suivant en cela plus d'un pre- 
 cedent. On peut, dit M. Ralston, deplorer ces actes, les regretter — et 
 je dois dire que sur ce point-la nous serions aisement d'accord; mais il . 
 reconnait que e'est en vain que philosophiquement ou historiquement 
 on les deplorerait, puisque telle est la loi. Et en effet, nous sommes 
 ici non pas des hommes politiques mais des juristes: nous devons nous 
 incliner devant la loi sans y contredire; la loi est comme les chiffres: [ 
 on ne discute pas avec eux. 
 
 Mais qu'est-ce done que cette f aoon de s'incliner ? Vous reconnaissez 
 que le Mexique est propritStaire du Fonds Pie que vous n'avez rien a 
 reclamer a ce sujet; cette propriete il ne lui serait pas meme permis 
 de s'en depouiller, il serait condamne a etre proprietaire a perp^tuite! — 
 sorte de tunique de Nessus. — Mais en quoi consisterait ce droit que 
 vous entendez respecter scrupuleusement? Dans l'avantage d'avoir a 
 payer perpetuellement un interet de 6 per cent sur le capital soi-disant 
 represente, et cela indefiniment, perpetuellement, et en or, et sans 
 qu'on accorde au Mexique aucune intervention en ce qui concerne 
 Femploi des fonds, sans qu'on lui permette aucun controle! 
 
 Vous ne reolamez pas le capital, oh! non, vous respectez la loi mexi- 
 caine, vous reconnaissez que vous ne pouvez pas la discuter. il y faut 
 obeir, mais vous reclamez tout ce que la propriete pourrait donner 
 d'avantages, et meme au-dela! 
 
 Quoi qu'il en soit de cette question que j'ai eu tort de traiter puisque 
 M. Delacroix l'a fait hier de la maniere la plus complete, il y a une 
 chose ici qui me semble absolument inadmissible et sur laquelle je me 
 permets d'appeler tout l'attention de la Cour: e'est que Ton plaide a 
 la fois — qu'on ne peut reclamer le capital et qu'on s'est bien garde de 
 le faire, qu'on s'en garde encore aujourd'hui — et que cependant ce 
 capital aurait 6te implicitement adjuge - sous la forme d'une rente per- 
 petuelle. Ce qu'on ne peut pas faire, e'est de pr^tendre en meme 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIA8. 7 Si 7 
 
 temps echapper a la fin de non recevoir que devait soulever ne"cessaire- 
 ment la demande de principe, et de dire que ce mfime principe a 6te 
 juge. 
 
 II s'agirait, dit-on, d'un droit qui nait chaque annee, et il serait 
 juge ad futurum, a perpetuity, relativement a des droits qui n'etaient 
 pas n&! 
 
 Essayez done de mettre tout cela d'accord. Pour moi je m'y essaie 
 vainement. 
 
 Messieurs, on a eu pour le Gouvernement mexicain certains mots un 
 peu vif s; je n'en veux point prononcer de semblables. La solennite de 
 cette instance qui met pour la premiere fois en mouvement une institu- 
 tion a laquelle je tiens a grand honneur d'avoir pu contribuer, la per- 
 sonnalite de nos juges, la sphere elev^e dans laquelle nous discutons 
 doivent les exclure. Mais il doit m'etre permis de dire qu'il y a ici de 
 la part de nos adversaires une habilete d'attitude^qui ne resistera pas a 
 l'examen. A mon avis, il n'est pas correct de vouloir cumuler les 
 avantages de deux situations contradictoires. Vous avez demande 21 
 annuites d'interets et vous les avez obtenues; soit, cela a 6t6 juge, la 
 sentence a ete - executee; vous en demandez maintenant 32, vous y etes 
 recevables et je ne le conteste pas; raais je dis que quant a, cette seconde 
 demande succedantde si loin a la premiere j'ai le droit de me defendre 
 sans que l'on puisse m'opposer la chose jugee, et vous ne pouvez le f aire 
 qu'en transformant le caractere de votre demande et en lui donnant 
 des la premiere instance ce caractere permanent et perpetuel qui l'aurait 
 rendue absolument non recevable. 
 
 On a represents ce qu'il y auraitd'etrange avoir ainsi soulever deux 
 fois non pas la me~me demande mais la mSme question. Comment! 
 dit-on, il a deja ete juge que des interets sont dus, voici d'autres inte"r§ts 
 4chus, et il faut un second proces! 
 
 Mais a, qui la faute? A vous, et a vous seuls; qu'est-ce qui vous 
 empechait, si vous vous y croyiez fondes, de maintenir la forme 
 que vous aviez originairement donn^e a votre reclamation? Pour- 
 quoi ne pas demander la reconnaissance du droit allegue en principe? 
 Pourquoi aujourd'hui encore ne le faites-vous pas? Pourquoi ne 
 demandez-vous que 32 annuites, sans plus? Parce que vous ne le 
 pouvez pas, parce que vous ne l'osez pas, parce que si vous donniez 
 a votre demande une portee generale, le traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo 
 se dresserait devant vous pour vous barrer le chemin. Done ce n'est 
 pas a nous qu'il faut s'en prendre de ce que vous dites une bizarrerie. 
 
 Et, tandis que je suis sur ce terrain, qu'il me soit permis derepondre 
 a d'autres reproches que j'ai ete surpris d'entendre dans la bouche de 
 nos contradicteurs. II n'est pas bien, a-t-on dit, d'accepter une 
 sentence lorsqu'elle est favorable, pour la repousser dans le cas con- 
 traire; il ne se peut pas qu'on repousse la chose jugee sous pretexte 
 qu'elle emanerait d'arbitres ou que l'on mette en doute leur competence. 
 
 Ou done voit-on rien de semblable? Ou le Mexique aurait-il 
 manque" S, ses devoirs de nation ou indique qu'il serait dispose" a y 
 manquer? Une premiere fois, il a admis l'arbitrage, et on a rappele 
 avec raison qu'il a eu ensuite dix occasions de s'y derober puisqu'il a 
 fallu proroger successivement les delais. Le Gouvernement mexicain 
 n'y a pas song6; honn^tement et loyalement, il a reconnu qu'il y avait 
 lieu pour lui de prolonger le terme du compromis, et, chose curieuse, 
 on a paru vouloir en tirer argument contre lui ! 
 
728 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Dans cet arbitrage, le Mexique n'a point contests la competence de 
 la commission, il n'a conteste que la pretention de la saisir d'une recla- 
 mation a laquelle le traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo avait mis terme; et 
 le Mexique avait raison puisque ce sont ces considerations qui vous 
 ont determine a modifier la demande en luidonnantun autre caractere. 
 C'est Id, messieurs, ce que M. Azpiroz a fait remarquer dans le 
 remarquable memoire reproduit au livre rouge et sur lequel je me 
 permets d'appeler l'attention de la Cour comme complement de notre 
 plaidoirie: l'affaire est trop compliquee, trop touffue, trop longue, pour 
 que l'on puisse tout dire. 
 
 M. Azpiroz disait que bien qu'on reduisit la demande a" certaines 
 annuites, elle avait la meme nature; vous ne demandez, disait-il, que 
 21 ann6es d'interets, mais ces 21 annees supposent une base, un prin- 
 cipe, et peut-e'tre viendrez-vous dire plus tard que ce droit a ete 
 reconnu alors qu'il ne peut pas m§me etre allegue. Et voici que pre- 
 cisement l'appr6hension ainsi exprimee s'est realisee. II avait done 
 raison encore. 
 
 La defense du Mexique a ete, a" mon sens, absolument correcte. 
 Mais il a succomb6: le tiers arbitre s'est declare competent pour la 
 contestation limitee dont seul il s'est saisi. Et il a statue, statue" sans 
 grand examen, ou du inoins sans examen de detail, puisque de tous les 
 moyens et de tous les chiffres pue vous avez entendu discuter il n'est 
 pas question dans la sentence. Mais le debat n'avait pas 6te" eclaire 
 par ces plaidoiries contradictoires qui font la lumiere meme pour les 
 juges les meilleurs. Cette sentence, le Gouvernement mexicain l'a 
 respectee, et pleinement executee, mais il doit etre permis de dire, 
 sans manquer de respect au juge qui l'a rendue, qu'elie n'annonce que 
 des connaissances juridiques un peu sommaires. Lui-meme le recon- 
 nait d'ailleurs au debut de sa sentence; Sir Thornton declare ne pou- 
 voir discuter les arguments formes par les deux parties, et decider 
 d'apres ce qu'il trouve juste et equitable. 
 
 Toujours est-il que le Mexique s'est soumis et a paye, comme il le 
 devait. Nous reconnaissons a cette sentence, que je veux considerer 
 comme arbitrale, force de chose jugee dans son dispositif. Mais nous 
 plaidons, et nous avons le droit de plaider que la chose ainsi jugee se 
 limite a la demande, qu'elie n'a pas statue" pour l'avenir, et que la 
 nouvelle demande dont vous 6tes saisis nous trouve en possession de 
 tous nos moyens de defense. 
 
 Pour le surplus, messieurs, la conduite du Mexique sera a l'avenir 
 ce qu'elie a 6te jusqu'a present. Son Gouvernement a trop le souci 
 de la dignite national e et le sentiment des devoirs que cette dignite" 
 commande pour qu'il soit permis d'en douter; ce n'est pas mon 
 honorable et excellent collegue Son Excellence M. Pardo qui me con- 
 tredira. Les critiques auxquelles je reponds en ce moment n'avaient 
 done pas meme de pretexte. 
 
 Mais je reviens a mon sujet. Je crois avoir de"montre qu'il ne faut 
 tenir compte au point de vue de l'autorite" d'un jugement que de son 
 dispositif, de ce qu'il decide et a pu decider et non de ses motifs; mais 
 je vous ai annonce que j'avais encore k cet egard quelques mots a vous 
 dire de Savigny. 
 
 Si Savigny, disais-je, e"tait notre juge, il nous donnerait raison, 
 malgre sa theorie contraire quant aux motifs; et voici a quel double 
 point de vue. Savigny, lui aussi, veut que le juge ne puisse dire droit 
 que sur ce qui lui est demande, sans que jamais sa sentence puisse 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 729 
 
 exceder les limites de la demande, et il rend sa pense"e en s'appropriant 
 ces termes de Buchka: 
 
 "Le juge peut et veut prononcer sur tout ce qui est fixe comme 
 objet du litige par les actes de la procedure." 
 
 M. Descamps. Quelle page ? 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je vous l'indiquerai. 
 
 Messieurs, c'est en d'autres termes la reproduction de cette partie 
 essentielle de Particle 1351 du Code Civil sur laquelle j'ai appele votre 
 attention, et qui vise Pobjet de la demande et l'objet du jugement. 
 
 Eh bien, messieurs, si comme le dit Savigny le juge n'a pu statuer 
 que sur Pobjet du litige determine par les actes de la procedure, com- 
 ment pourrions-nous etre econduits par la chose jugee? 
 
 II y a un second point de vue auquel Savigny nous donne encore 
 raison: c'est que d'apres lui aussi jamais la chose jugee ne peut avoir 
 d'influence sur des faits posterieurs. Le juge applique le droit a un 
 fait accompli, mais il ne peut d'avance decider ce que serale droit dans 
 une hypothese donn^e. Le juge ne peut statuer ad futurum, cela 
 n'est pas possible. 
 
 Vous pourriez encore, messieurs, consulter a ce sujet Laurent (T. 
 20 N° 37), un arret de la Cour de Cassation de France du 12 avril 1856 
 (D. P. 1. 260) etc. 
 
 II y a une matiere a propos de laquelle cette verite juridique a ete 
 souvent mise en lumiere: c'est lorsque les parties sollicitent et que le 
 juge prononce des astreintes; prevoyant que la partie pour rait ne pas 
 se soumettre a sa decision, il la rend d'avance passible de dommages- 
 interets calcules par jour de retard ou autrement. On s'est demande 
 quelle est la valeur obligatoire de la chose ainsi jugee. Elle est dans le 
 dispositif , et cependant semblable disposition n'a rien d' obligatoire. 
 
 Prise ad futurum, a raison d'un fait qui ne s'est pas encore produit, 
 elle n'a que Papparence de la chose jugee, et il est certain que ce qui a 
 ete ainsi juge* peut etre disrate" le lendemain et §tre remis en question. 
 
 II me reste a developper mes deux autres propositions, mais je pour- 
 rai etre ici plus bref. 
 
 (A midi la seance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures.) 
 
 TREIZIEME SEANCE. 
 
 27 septembre 1902 (apres-midi). 
 
 L'audience est ouverte a 2 h. 1/2, sous la presidence de M. Matzen. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains, 
 M. Beernaert. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Messieurs, je crois avoir eu ce matin Phonneur de 
 demontrer que la chose jug^e ne porte que sur Pordre de juge, ordre 
 qui ne peut jamais exceder la demande, et qu'a ce seul point de vue elle 
 ne peut nous etre opposee. Je crois avoir demontre du meme coup, et 
 sans qu'il faille y insister davantage, que dans Pespece Pune des autres 
 conditions essentielles de la chose jugee vient a manquer aussi: c'est 
 qu'entre les deux demandes il n'y a pas identity d'objet. La premiere 
 portait sur 21 annuites bien determinees, de 1848 a 1870, et il s'agit 
 maintenant de 32 autres annuity's, £galement determinees, et qui por- 
 tent sur les ann^es 1870 a 1902. Entre les deux demandes, Pidentite" 
 d'objet ne pourrait se concevoir que si Pon avait pretendu et si Pon 
 pretendait encore a un droit perpetuel, puisqu'alors on pourrait dire 
 
730 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 que toutes ces annuites ne constituent que des parties d'un mSme tout; 
 uiais, vous savez que ce n'est point ce qu'on a reclame naguere, que ce 
 n'est pas ce qu'on reclame aujourd'hui, et vous savez aussi pourquoi on 
 ne pourrait pas le r^clamer; — je n'ai done plus a y insister. 
 
 Et j'aborde le trbisieme ordre d'idSes qui doit, a mon avis, faire 
 ecarter la chose jug6e. 
 
 Etant donn6 que d'apres les demandeurs il s'agit d'actions multiples 
 naissant d'ann^e en anne, s'ouvrant par le non paiement, etant donne 
 dis-je qu'il s'agit d'actions ainsi independantes les unes des autres, il 
 ne peut pas y avoir entre ces demandes successives et multiples cette 
 absolue identity de cause que la chose jugee comporte necessairement; 
 certaines annuites pourraient etre ref usees alors que d'autres auraient 
 ete adjugees, sans qu'il y eut entre le jugement qui admet et le juge- 
 ment qui rejette aucune contrariety. Cette observation a" elle seule me 
 parait decisive: 
 
 On a represents a vingt reprises ce litige comme s'il s'agissait d'un 
 capital du et productif d'interets dont une partie a determiner revien- 
 drait aux eveques de la Haute Californie, ou si l'on aime mieux, d'une 
 rente perpe"tuelle. 
 
 Et partant de ces premisses on dit: comment serait-il possible 
 qu'apres avoir une premiere fois alloue des interets pour quelques 
 annees on n'en allouerait pas pour les annees suivantes? 
 
 Mais e'est la une confusion qu'il importe de dissiper. II ne s'agit 
 pas ici d'un capital. Mon collegue, M. Delacroix vous a, je pense, 
 d^montre que dans ce proces il n'est en aucune facon question d'un 
 contrat civil, qu'a l'origine et k la base de la reclamation il n'y a ni 
 dep6t, ni pret, ni vente, ni rien de semblable; il s'agit d'un fonds con- 
 stitue naguere dans un interet public et affecte a des interets publics; 
 e'est a une part de ce fonds que l'on pretend droit. 
 
 Or, meme en faisant abstraction de tout ce que j'ai plaide ce matin, 
 demandons-nous quelle est des lors la situacion. Vous pretendez avoir 
 droit & une proportion donnSe, 85 pet. d'apres vous, du revenu du 
 capital formant aujourd'hui, dites-vous, le Fonds Pie de Californie. 
 Eh bien, pour que vous puissiez etre admis a reussir dans cette pr6- 
 tention-la, il y a trois conditions qu'il faut que vous remplissiez et que 
 vous devez remplir successivement chaque annee a propos de chaque 
 demande: Vous avez d'abord a Stablir votre qualite, et votre qualite 
 doit r^sulter et de l'existence d'une Eglise catholique en Californie et 
 du maintien de la legislation americaine actuelle qui donne a cette 
 Eglise la personification civile. Je veux esperer que la legislation 
 americaine continuera, en matiere religieuse a s'inspirer des considera- 
 tions lat-ges et genereuses qui ont determine ce grand pays a appliquer 
 la mSme regie si eminemment liberale a toutes les confessions religie- 
 uses; mais e'est la, une esp£rance et non une certitude, elle peut etre 
 contredite par les faits; en politique tout change et d' autres idees 
 peuvent prdsider a la gestion des affaires publiques, comme cela s'est 
 vu et se voit en Europe. Or, de la personification civile de l'Eglise 
 • depend la qualite sans laquelle elle ne peut avoir aucun droit. Des 
 lors, rien qu'a ce point de vue, comment pretendre a une allocation 
 perpetuelle ? 
 
 Voyez, messieurs, ce qui s'est passe" en France lors de la Revolution 
 en ce qui concerne les droits f eodaux. II y avait la une serie de choses 
 jugees et de droits qui semblaient bien acquis. Mais avec la legisla- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 731 
 
 tion nouvelle toutes ces v6rit6s juridiques, tous ces droitea, toutes ces 
 constitutions de rentes, de creances, que sais-je? sont venus a disparai- 
 tre. II en serait de meme ici. 
 
 11 faut en second lieu, pour que vous puissiez avoir droit a une part 
 du Fonds Pie, que l'Eglise catholique de la Haute Californie soit a" 
 meme dans les circonstances du moment de realiser les intentions des 
 donateurs, puisque c'est la, surtout ce dorit elle se preVaut. Je laisse 
 de c6te, pour n'y pas revenir, ce que l'on vous a dit, et fort bien dit, 
 du but patriotique, du but national autant que religieux qu'avaient ces 
 donateurs; supposons, par une hypothese bien gratuite, que leur pen- 
 see ait ete exclusivement religieuse, qu'ils n'aient eu en vue que les 
 Missions, que la conversion des Indiens; eh bien, pour que l'Eglise de 
 la Haute Californie puisse reclamer une part du Fonds, il faut qu'elle 
 soit a meme de remplir ces intentions des donateurs. Le peut-elle? Y 
 a-t-il encore des Indiens & convertir en Californie? On nous dit que 
 oui, et on produit un document qui chiffre la population Indienne a la 
 date, si je ne me trompe, du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo. Quelle est 
 la situation actuelle? En reste-t-il, et s'i] en reste aujourd'hui, en res- 
 tera-t-il demain? Chacun sait que la politique des Etats-Unis relative- 
 ment aux Indiens differe de ce qu'^taient les habitudes mexicaines, de 
 ce qu'elles sont en general dans l'Amerique espanole, au Bresil et ail- 
 leurs. Dans ces vastes contrees il reste beaucoup d'Indiens, ils se civil- 
 isent dans une certaine mesure, il se produit meme entre les blancs et 
 eux quelques mariages. Mais aux Etats-Unis, qu'on le veuille ou non, 
 que ce soit une politique suivie ou le resultat de la puissance d'absorp- 
 tion de la race, l'Indien disparait. S'il en reste en Californie, je le 
 demande encore, combien en restera-t-il demain? 
 
 Et puis, il ne suffirait pas qu'il y eut des Indiens, ni m6me des 
 Indiens & convertir, on devrait encore etablir que c'est a cet objet que 
 peuvent et doivent servir les sommes que l'on reclame. 
 
 II faudrait done nous dire quelles sont les Missions qui restent, 
 sous quelle forme elles existent, ou elles sont etablies, et puis aussi 
 comment la legislation des Etats-Unis en matiere religieuse compor- 
 terait encore l'ceuvre des Missions dans l'ordre d'idees ou les donateurs 
 l'avaient institute. 
 
 Done seconde condition a remplir. Et remplie aujourd'hui elle ne 
 pourrait plus l'etre .demain: s'ily n'y a plus d'Indiens, s'ils sont tous 
 convertis, ou si l'ceuvre ne peut plus etre accomplie, ou serait votre 
 titre? Les Jesuites seuls d'apres les actes de donation auraient pu 
 donner au Fonds une autre destination, c'est la un droit tout personnel, 
 et vous seriez done dans l'inipossibilite' de remplir la condition a 
 laquelle votre droit serait subordonne; a ce second point de vue autant 
 qu'au premier on ne comprendrait done pas une condamnation ad 
 f uturum avec des effets perpetuels. 
 
 Mais ce n'est pas tout. Vous reconnaissez qu'a propos de ce Fonds 
 Pie il y a un partage a faire: II faudrait repartir les fonds entre Ja 
 Basse et la Haute Californie, le Mexique d'un c6te, les Etats-Unis de 
 l'autre. Pour cette repartition il n'y a aucune base. C'est contraire- 
 ment aux pretentions de NN. SS. les eveques que l'on a admis dans la 
 premiere sentence un partage par moitie. Sir Thornton a trouve sem- 
 blable repartition Equitable; il ne serait point juste, dit-il, de tenir 
 compte de ce que la population de la Haute Californe est beaucoup 
 plus considerable que celle de la Basse Californie, ce qu'il fant voir 
 
732 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 surtout c'est l'ceuvre religieuse a accomplir, et d'apres lui on peut la 
 considerer comme d'egale importance dans les deux parties de l'ancienne 
 Californie. 
 
 Ce serait la en tout cas la yerite d'hier, resultant de considerations 
 du moment; et les circonstances ici sont essentiellement variables et 
 mobiles. Tenez, vous-memes, vous ne voulez plus de la solution de 
 Sir Thornton, et vous pretentions sont beaucoup plus vastes: vous 
 voudriez obtenir 85 pet. du total. Vous vous fondez sur une base qui 
 est a notre avis absolument inadmissible, celle de la population. Mais 
 supposons-la equitable, n'est-elle pas fort sujette a changement? Au- 
 jourd'hui, vous pretendez que la proportion de la population de la 
 Haute Californie est a, celle de la Basse comme 85 est a 15; mais demain 
 la proportion pourrait etre de 90 ou de 95. 
 
 Bien plus variable encore serait l'appreciation des conditions respec- 
 tives des deux contrees, quant aux Indiens, a laquelle il f audrait, selon 
 nous, se livrer. 
 
 II ne peut done y avoir de chose jugee, puisqu'elle serait invariable, 
 a propos de choses qui doivent necessairement changer. 
 
 Un autre fait, messieurs, marque quelle est l'importance de l'obser- 
 vation que je viens de presenter. On vous a montre hier combien est 
 injustiriable la pretention de faire payer par le Mexique en or ce qu'il 
 clevrait. Lorsque cela a e"te ainsi admis par Sir Thornton, e'etait sans 
 discussion de la part du Mexique, et il n'y en a pas eu parce que a 
 cette epoque cela n'avait pas d'interet; l'ancienne proportion etablie 
 par l'union latine comme representant la valeur relative des deux 
 metaux etait encore conforme a la verite ou peu s'en fallait, et des lors 
 que pouvait-il importer au Mexique de payer dans l'une ou Fautre 
 monnaie? Mais voici qu'aujourd'hui les circonstances ont change a, ce 
 point que la dette du Mexique serait beaucoup plus que double"e si 
 elle devait etre payee en or, et que cette circonstance indifferente 
 naguere deviendrait ainsi de la plus haute importance. 
 
 Et c'est dans ces conditions que l'on allegue la chose jugee; Sir 
 Thornton aurait decide d'avance qu'un demi-siecle plus tard on paierait 
 en or, quoi qu'il arrivat. II en serait ainsi meme si la difference de 
 valeur entre les deux metaux venait a s'accentuer encore. 
 
 Autre observation. Toutes les legislations comportent certaines pre- 
 scriptions en matiere d'arrerages, de tout ce qui se paie d'annee en 
 annee, et il semble evident que dans l'espece ces prescriptions-la du 
 moins sont encourues. Je vous rappelais ce matin ces vingt annees 
 passees sans que le pretendu creancier eut dit un mot a son pretendu 
 debiteur! Mais je n'ai pas a y insister puisque cela vous a ete dit. 
 Mais comment pourrait-il y avoir ici aussi chose jugee, puisque pour 
 chacune de ces annuites la question pouvait se presenter dans des con- 
 ditions de fait differentes, et que les unes seraient prescrites alors que 
 les autres ne le seraient point? 
 
 Combien tout cela demontre que c'est avec raison que les auteurs et 
 la jurisprudence n'admettent pas que le juge statue pour l'avenir, mais 
 seulement quant a des faits pose's, ayant produit leurs effets juridiques 
 et par consequent pouvant etre apprecies tout entiers ? 
 
 Done, messieurs, je crois avoir demontre qu'il n'y a pas chose jugee, 
 et cela a de multiples points de vue— pas de dictum, pas d'identite de 
 demande, pas d'identit& d'objet, pas d'identite de cause. 
 
 Une autre consideration encore me parait confirmer ma these: Tout 
 droit donne une action, tout jugement emporte avec lui un ordre d'exe"- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 733 
 
 cution; lorsque le jugement est rendu, on n'a plus rien ft demander au 
 juge; il a parle, il a ordonne, la puissance publique doit assurer l'ex6- 
 cution de ce qu'l a decide\ 
 
 Eh bien, messieurs, supposons que dans l'occurence NN. SS. les 
 eVSques, au lieu d'avoir en face d'eux un Etat, se trouvent devant un 
 particulier; comment auraient-ils pu s'y prendre pour faire valoir le 
 droit dont ils se pretendent investis? lis auraient remis leur titre, 
 c'est-ji-dire la sentence de Sir Thornton, a un huissier pour en exiger 
 l'execution. Mais l'huissier aurait dit: Je vols bien que 21 annuites 
 doivent etre payees, or elles le sont, je ne puis pas les reclamer a nou- 
 veau, et comment moi qui ne suis qu'un agent d'execution trouverais-je 
 dans ce titre un nioyen de contrainte pour amener le debiteur a pa3 r er 
 ce dont il n'est pas dit un mot? 
 
 C'est la, messieurs, une consideration de plus. • Elle confirme qu'il 
 n'y a pas chose jugee, car la chose jugee comporte un mandement de 
 justice, c'est-a-dire un ordre d'execution, et ici il n'y a rien de pareil. 
 
 En realite, messieurs, ce n'est pas vraiment la chose jugee que l'on 
 invoque; c'est une sorte de prejuge, c'est-a-dire de chose jugee impli- 
 cite, et l'on dit: C'est une action analogue, et les motifs qui l'ont fait 
 admettre un premiere fois doivent la faire admettre encore. 
 
 Je reconnais volontiers que la sentence de Sir Thornton constitue aux 
 mains de nos adversaires un argument qu'ils ont le droit d'invoquer ; c'est 
 une autorite dont je respecte la valour, elle nous oblige a, demontrer et a 
 demontrer de tres pres que la sentence n'est pas' juridique — nous nous 
 sommes charges de cette tache et croyons l'avoir accomplie. Mais ce 
 qu'il m'est impossible d'admettre, et ce que vous n'admettrez pas, je 
 pense, c'est que cette sentence constitue par elle-mene cette chose jugee 
 qui n'admet plus ni examen ni discussion. Ce serait tout au plus un 
 prejuge, et je crois avoir demontre que le prejuge^ meme dans le dis 
 positif, ne lie pas le juge, meme quand il emane de lui-meme. 
 
 Chose jugee implicite, dit-on, et l'on invoque surtoutle livre de M. 
 de Savigny. Je vous ai montre deja qu'a" un double point de vue, 
 l'autorite de Savigny peut au contraire etre invoquee par nous — chose 
 future et impossibilite pour le juge d'exceder la demande. Mais, 
 meme au fond et sur cette these de la chose jugee implicite, nous pou- 
 vons encore invoquer son sentiment, et voici ce qui me permet de 
 l'affirmer. 
 
 II est une question de droit speciale souvent traitee et en droit 
 romain et en droit moderne; cette question la voici. Apres avoir 
 demande en justice un objet et avoir echoue dans cette pretention, 
 
 {>eut-on introduire une nouvelle demande plus ample et qui comprend 
 a pretention deja repoussee? Savigny cite le cas que voici: 
 
 Un grand domaine comprend plusieurs terres, A. B. C. ; je reclame, 
 soit comme proprietaire et par re vendi cation, soit comme heritier et 
 d'apres Faction nere"ditaire, la propriete de la terre A et j'echoue; on 
 decide que ma revendication ou mon action hereditaire n'est point 
 fondee; la demande est ainsi repoussee — c'est chose jugee. Mais 
 quant a la terre B qui est a cote, je puis, des le lendemain, reprendre 
 exactement le meme proces contre les m^mes adversaires, arme des 
 memes pieces. La question est la meme, parties et qualites sent les 
 memes, titres et arguments sont les me"mes. Peu importe: Paction est 
 recevable. Cela ne fait de doute pour personne. C'est ce que dit 
 Savigny. 
 Mais il y a une autre question sur laquelle l'accord n'est plus complet, 
 
734 PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 et la controverse date des romanistes: Puis-je, apres avoir revendique 
 sans succes la terre A revendiquer le domaine tout entier, c'est-a-dire 
 les terres A. B. C. ? M. de Savigny estime que non parce que, dit-il, la 
 demande ainsi presentee comprendrait celle deja acfjugee quant a A et 
 que par consequent il pourrait y avoir contradiction entre la decision 
 qui m'accorderait le domaine entier et celle qui deja m'aurait econduit 
 quant a, la terre A. — Identite de demande, d'objet, de cause, de parties, 
 de qualites. 
 
 Beaucoup d'auteurs, et parmi les plus illustres, ne partagent pas 
 l'opinion de Savigny a cet egard, et pre"tendent qu'api'es avoir ainsi 
 echoue dans la terre A, rien n'empeche de demander par voie d'action 
 nouvelle la propriete de A. B. C. ; et ils se fondent sur ce que, si la 
 partie est comprise dans le tout, le tout n'est pas compris dans la 
 partie, et qu'ainsi la seoonde action est differente de la premiere, 
 quoiqu'elle comprenne celle-ci. C'est l'enseignement de Larombiere, 
 de Toulier, de Xachariae d'Arndz, de bien d'autres encore. 
 
 Dans cette controverse, qui n'est pas la notre, je ne veux pas exa- 
 miner si c'est Savigny ou si ce sont se$ contradicteurs qui ont raison; il 
 me suffit que tout le monde soit unanime a reconnaitre que l'on peut 
 soulever une seconde fois un m&me debat, identiquement le meme, s'il 
 porte sur un objet materiellement different. Et peu importe qu'il 
 s'agisse du domaine B. apres le domaine A, ou de certains interets, 
 apres d'autres int6rets t ou d'autres loyers. Le debat est toujours le 
 meme, mais il porte sur un objet materiellement different. 
 
 Et il n'y aurait rien de plus extraordinaire a ce qu'en fait il y eut 
 ainsi deux choses jugees contradictoires, que si Mgr de Grass Valley, 
 qui n'est pas au debat — nous ne savons pas encore pourquoi — reprenant 
 pour lui-meme le proces actuel, cette nouvelle instance aboutissait a, 
 une solution opposee. La, la question serait eVidemment entiere et il 
 pourrait echouer la, ou Mgr. de San Francisco aurait reussi, ou recipro- 
 quement. 
 
 C'est la consequence de cette nature speciale de la verity de la cbose 
 jugee et de la pr^somption qui en resulte, sur laquelle j'insistais au 
 debut de ma plaidoirie. 
 
 Ici encore, on a invoque l'autorite de Griollet, et j'y reviens une 
 derniere fois. II serait veritablement surprenant que M. Griolet, qui 
 combat si energiquement la doctrine de Savigny quant a la confusion 
 que celui-ci voudrait (Stablir entre le dispositif d'une sentence judiciare 
 et ses motifs objectifs, ne ffit pas de notre avis. Ce matin, j'ai cite 
 deja, certains passages de son livre en disant qu'il y en a d'autres. M. 
 Descamps a demande a, cet egard des indications plus completes; c'est 
 une lacune que je repare. A la page 114 Griolet approuve la Cour de 
 Cassation de France d'avoir decide" qu'une decision qui tranche un 
 diff^rend quant a, la competence en alleguant laqualite de commerfant, 
 ne fait pas chose jugee quant a cette qualite. 
 
 II y avait eu declaration de faillite, et la faillite suppose n^cessaire- 
 ment que l'on soit commercant. Mais il n'y avait pas a cet egard chose 
 jugee. On plaide qu'elle etait implicite. Non, dit la Cour de Cassa- 
 tion, c'est un motif cella, rien de plus, done pas de chose jugee. 
 
 Veuillez ecouter, messieurs, ce que dit encore Griolet a, la page 114 
 de son livre, en resumant ce qui precede: 
 
 Le fait juridique qui a donn6 naissance au droit juge" ne peut 6tre affirm^ par le juge 
 que tomme cause de ce droit et comme motif de la decision: ainsi il n'y a pas de juge- 
 ment sur la cause elle-m^me; la declaration du jugeioent ne s'6tendra done pas aux 
 
PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIF0RNTA8 . 735 
 
 droits n6s de cette cause qui n'auraient pas eux-memes ete l'objet d'un jugement 
 rendu. 
 
 C'est toute ma plaidoirie; elle est encore r^sum^e dans quatre lignes 
 que je trouve a la page 117: 
 
 Les jugements qui dedarent la faillite, qui prononcent 1' interdiction, la separation 
 de corps, la separation de biens, affirment ou nient les faits qui donnent naissance a 
 la faillite, qui autorisent 1' interdiction, la separation de corps et la separation de biens, 
 mais il n'y a chose jugee sur aucun de ces faits. 
 
 Et page 123: 
 
 II est bien certain que le juge a prononce' sur l'existence d'un droit lorsqu'il a 
 sanctionn6 ou refuse de sanctionner ce droit; en connaitra toujours et d'une maniere 
 sur les declarations rendues par le juge en interpretant la sanction ou le refus de 
 sanction, la condamnation ou 1' absolution, c'est-a-dire en recberchantles declarations 
 de droit qui dans chaque espSce sont appliquees par la decision du dispositif . 
 
 Je crois avoir ainsi donne satisfaction a mon honorable contradicteur, 
 il voudra bien m'excuser de ne pas 1 'avoir fait des ce matin. 
 
 II est si vrai que d'apres Griolet il ne peut y avoir chose jugee que 
 sur ce qui a ete demande, par quelque conclusion formelle, qu'appuye 
 du reste de nombreuses autorites il enseigne qu'il n'est pas permis au 
 juge de donner raison au demandeur qui fait defaut. Le juge peut 
 trouver la preuve de son droit dans le dossier de la partie adverse, il 
 peut y avoir quelque titre irrecusable et la conviction du juge est done 
 faite, il est en mesure de dire droit, eh bien, il ne le peut pas, et 
 pourquoi ? Parce que, comme le dit Griolet, il doit avoir ete" conclu 
 et plaide\ 
 
 Le juge est saisi du droit que le demandeur met lui-meme en cause (pages 127 
 et 136) . 
 
 L'on voit que l'enseignement de Griolet ne differe guere de celui 
 de Laurent, dont l'autorite avait ete plus specialement invoquee par le. 
 Gouvernement mexicain dans la correspondance diplomatique et que 
 nos honorables contradicteurs ont mal lu, qu'ils me permettent de le 
 leur dire. Laurent est formel, et nous n'avons guere fait que repeter 
 en d'autres termes son opinion. II faut lire notamment son N° 32 tout 
 entier: 
 
 Le dispositif d'un jugement a-t-il l'autorite de la chose jugee a l'egard de tout ce 
 qui s'y trouve enonce? Non; si le dispositif fait chose jugee c'est parce qu'il decide 
 une contestation. Tel est le principe qui domine la matiere. Tout ce qui est etranger 
 a la decision est aussi etranger a l'autorite que la loi attribue a la chose jugee. Ainsi, 
 les simples enonciations n'ont jamais l'autorite de la chose jugee. Cela est fonde en 
 raison; la loi attache une presomption de verite aux decisions judiciaires parce qu'elle 
 suppose que le juge les a murement deiiberees et qu'il a pe?e tous les termes de sa 
 sentence. Cette raison ne s'applique pas aux simples enonciations; c'est une opinion 
 que le juge emet sans en avoir fait l'objet d'une deiiberation._ Un jugement accorde 
 i une personne des aliments en qualite d' enfant; a-t-il l'autorite de la chose jugee sur 
 la question de filiation? Si la question a ete debattue entre les parties, 1' affirmative 
 n'est pas douteuse. 
 
 Et plus loin: 
 
 On objecte que le demandeur a reclame les aliments en qualite d'enfant et qu'il ne 
 pouvait les obtenir qu'a ce titre." Sans doute le juge n'a accorde les aliments qu'en 
 supposant qu'il etait enfant du defendeur, mais supposer n'est pas juger. La raison 
 est d'accord avec la subtilite du droit; Petat d'enfant legitime est la base de l'ordre 
 civil, etc. 
 
 En note, Laurent renvoie a, l'autorite" de Toullier etajoute: "Toul- 
 lier Tome 5, et tous les auteurs; " puis il passe a un second exemple: 
 Le creancier demande contre son d6biteur les intents d'un capital . • . 
 
736 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 
 
 J'ai montre que, dans notre cas, il ne s'agit pas d'un capital, mais 
 supposons-le: 
 
 Lecreancier demande contre son debriteur les intents d'un capital; le juge condamne 
 le d^biteur a les payer; y a-t-il chose jugee quant au capital? On suppose que le 
 dispositif 6nonce le montant du capital. II a 6t£ juge" que la decision n'avait pas 
 l'autoritil de la chose jugee quant au capital. On peut objecter que le juge en allouant 
 les inteVSts decide implicitement que le capital est du, puisqu'il ne peut y avoir 
 d'intertts sans capital. Sans doute, mais la question est de savoir s'il y a chose 
 jugde, et le juge n'a rien decide" quant au capital. 
 
 11 passe encore a un autre cas, qui merite egalement votre attention: 
 
 Une instance s'engage sur une adjudication; l'adjudicataire allegue certains 
 «reaDciers, le juge fixe le chiffre de ces cr£ances et 6nonce le chiffre qui constitue le 
 prix; posteVieurement, l'adjudicataire soutient qu'une remise lui avait 6te" consentie, 
 on lui oppose la chose jugee. La Cour a decide" qu'il n'y avait pas de chose jugee 
 quant au prix d'adjudication, car le prix n'avait ete" l'objet d'aucune conclusion 
 devant le juge. 
 
 Voila ce que dit Laurent, vous voyez qu'il est aussi net que possible. 
 
 Dans ce meme ordre d'idees, messieurs, il me res>te a vous citer deux 
 autorites puissantes. C'est d'abord un arret de la Cour de Cassation 
 de France du 6 feVrier 1883, rapporte dans le Recueil Periodique de 
 Dalloz, 1883-1-451. II decide qu'apres une demande en paiement de 
 loyers, le litige peut se reproduire entre les memes parties quant a des 
 loyers 6chus a d'autres dates, sans que la chose jugee puisse etre 
 opposee. 
 
 Voici la seconde espece, et elle est toute re"cente: il s'agit d'un arret 
 de la Cour de Cassation de Belgique en date du 5 avril 1900 (Pasicrisie 
 Beige 1700-1-201). C'etait un vieux d^bat remontant a l'ancien 
 regime; des rentes etaient reclamees a charge de la commune de 
 Jupille lez Liege par le bureau de bienfaisance de Liege; or, un 
 premier arr&t avait condamne la commune de Jupille pour une moitie" 
 du capital, mais l'autre moitie n'avait pas ete l'objet d'une decision 
 formelle; il n'y avait que condamnation implicite. Get arret rendu, le 
 Bureau de bienfaisance de Liege decrouvrit de nouveaux documents 
 qui modifiaient la situation et lui donnaient l'espoir de reussir la ou il 
 avait d'abord echoue. Le debat est repris et naturellement on oppose 
 la chose jugee La Cour de Liege l'admet. Mais la Cour de Cassation 
 1'a rappelee aux ve"ritables regies du droit en cassant sa decision, et 
 voici ce que je lis dans l'arret: 
 
 Considerant qu'aux termes de Particle 1351 du Code Civil l'autorite" de la chose 
 jugee n'a lieu qu'a l'egard de ce qui a fait l'objet du jugement: 
 
 Considerant que ce principe s' applique aussi bien quand la chose sur laquelle il a 
 e'te' statue 1 est un objet determine dans son integrality que quand elle n'en est qu'une 
 partie indivise; qu'en constatant l'indi vision de la dette, l'arret attaque" n'en constate 
 nullement 1' indivisibility, et que les parties indivises d'un tout sont susceptibles 
 d'affectations juridiques tres diverses; 
 
 Considerant qu'en dScidant que ce qui avait 6t<§ statue" in terminis pour la moitie" 
 indivise de la dette l'avait 6te" implicitement, mais necessairement, pour l'autre 
 moitie, l'arret attaque" a 6tendu l'autorite de la chose jug6e a une partie de la dette 
 qui n'avait pas fait l'objet de l'instance anterieure et a ainsi contrevenu au dit article 
 1351. 
 
 La Cour aurait pu en juger autrement s'il s'e"tait agi d'une chose 
 indivisible, mais pour une chose indivise pas de chose jugee. 
 
 II y a, messieurs, d'autres autorites encore sur les quelles je voudrais 
 appeler votre attention, et notamnent celles citees par M. Azpiroz et 
 dans la correspondance par M. le Ministre des affaires etrangeres du 
 Mexique, Mariscal, avec les Etats-Unis. Mais il faut se borner et je 
 prie la Cour de se reporter aux documents que je viens de citer. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. " 737 
 
 II y a par contre certaines autorites citees par la partie adverse 
 que j'avoue ne pas connaitre malgre une longue pratique du droit, par 
 exemple: le Dictionnaire general de Bertheau. M. Descamps est peut- 
 etre plus heureux que moi. 
 
 Je viens de dire qu'il n'y a pas a tenir compte d'un simple prejuge. 
 Cela est plus particulierement vrai quand il s'agit de sentences arbi- 
 trates. Je ne veux pas meconnaitre, messieurs, que les sentences 
 arbitrates ont force de chose jug6e; je sais que des auteurs recommand- 
 ables ont soutenu le contraire, et M. Ralston a cite notamment 
 l'autorite de M. Rivier qui etait assurement un jurisconsulte important, 
 et celle de M. Bonfils; mais tel n'est point mon avis; je crois que les 
 sentences arbitrales ont la meme autorite, la tneme, la m§me force de 
 chose jugee que les decisions des juges ordinaires; et le .Mexique a si 
 
 Seu songe a, le contester qu'il a execute la sentence de Sir Thornton, 
 lais s'il est vrai, messieurs, qu'il y a ici chose jugee, nous disons, 
 comme nous l'avons toujours dit, que la Commission mixte n'a pu juger 
 que ce qu'on lui a demande, et que s'agissant de quasi-arbitres l'autorite 
 de la chose jug6e doit etre ici plus strictement comprise. 
 
 La juridiction arbitrate, messieurs, n'emane pas de la puissance 
 publique, elle n'en est pas une delegation; 1'arbitre n'est pas charge" 
 comme le juge de dire le droit, ce n'est point sa fonction. II est 
 seulement charge de dire droit dans un cas determine, et parce 
 qu'il est appele a cet honneur par le consentement prive et libre des 
 parties qui l'en ont charge; sa fonction procede done non de la loi mais 
 du consentement des parties, et du mandat prive qu'elles ont donne. 
 Et e'est a raison de ce fait que les sentences arbitrales rendues en pays 
 etianger ont au dehors la meme autorite que dans le paj^s meme. 
 L'autorite du juge s'arrete, a la frontiere, parce que la s'arrete la 
 puissance publique. Mais un college arbitral a un autre caractere: 
 Mandataire des parties, il agit et juge en vertu de leur consentement: 
 ce consentement ne comporte pas de frontieres, et par consequent la 
 chose jugee vaut au-dela ce qu'elle valait endeca. 
 
 Larombiere dit avec raison que l'arbitrage considere comme con- 
 vention appartien't au droit des gens et etablit entre les contractants 
 un lien de droit. Done ici, messieurs, e'est a, la convention qu'il s'en 
 faut rapporter, et vous savez si l'on peut voir dans les correspondances 
 ^changees naguere quelque plein pouvoir donne aux membres de la 
 commission mixte et qui leur aurait permis d'exceder meme les bornes 
 de la demande; done, messieurs, ici, impossibility d'admettre un pre- 
 juge quelconque. Les pouvoirs des arbitres sont strictement et rig- 
 oureusement circonscrits dans les bornes de la demande; ils jugent ils 
 ne peuvent prejuger. 
 
 Je conclus, messieurs. Aux divers points de vue que je viens suc- 
 cessivement d'examiner, j'estime que le terrain juridique du debat 
 actuel est absolument libre d'obstacles. Sans aucun doute il y a pour 
 la partie adverse des arguments, et la sentence Thornton en est un, 
 mais ce n'est pas une barriere, ce n'est pas la chose juge"e, et e'est, 
 messieurs, a la tres haute juridiction devant laquelle je plaide en ce 
 moment — ce que je tiens pour l'un des grands honneurs de ma vie 
 judiciaire — e'est, dis-je, a la Cour, a la Cour seule & dire le droit. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est a M. 1'agentdesEtats-Unismexicains. 
 
 M. Emilio Paedo. Messieurs, pour couper court a toute espece de 
 difficulte, je me decide a imposerau Tribunal la corvee d'entendre une 
 
 S. Doc. 28 47 
 
738 PIOUS FTJND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 lecture qui doit etre tres penible pour Messieurs les arbitres, et aussi 
 pour moi. Nos contradicteurs ont eu l'avantage de parler leur langue, 
 tandis que je suis oblige de parler une langue qui ne m'est pas du tout 
 familiere. Voila pourquoi, pour f atiguer le moins possible l'attention 
 de la Cour, je me decide a lire le plaidoyer que j'ai l'honneur de sou- 
 mettre a sa consideration; je suis du reste dans les provisions du pro- 
 tocole du 22 mai dernier, puisqu'il autorise les plaidoyers oraux et les 
 plaidoyers par ecrit. 
 
 Mais, avant d'entrer en inati&re, je demande au Tribunal la permis- 
 sion de lui presenter quelques explications au sujet d'un reproche que 
 j'ai entendu plusieurs fois dans la bouche de nos contradicteurs, et un 
 peu aussi dans la bouche de nos avocats* C'est a cause de certaines 
 donnees indiquees par les Etats-Unis et qui ont 6te d6niand£es a mon 
 pays. On a demande des Oclaircissements, des documents au sujet de 
 tel ou tel incident du proces; mon pays n'a pas ete en mesure de repon- 
 dre a, ces requites. On en a fait un reproche a, mon Gouvernement, 
 et meme il y a eu un des avocats de la partie adverse qui a consider^ 
 ce defaut de presentation de certains documents comme la base d'une 
 presomption contre le Mexique. Or, vous pouvez savoir, messieurs, 
 par la lecture du dossier, que tous les documents que les Etats-Unis 
 ont demandes a mon pays et qui ont ete signales d'une facon precise, 
 ont 6te presentes. Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis et leur agent ont 
 eu toutes les facility desirables pour se renseigner sur les actece"dents 
 de cette affaire, ils ont pu s'adresser a, toutes les archives, ils ont meme 
 trouve des avocats mexicains pour les aider dans leurs recherches. Ainsi 
 done, mon Gouvernement a fait tout son possible pour eclairer la 
 religion de la Cour: il a fourni tous les moyens et tous les documents 
 qui etaient a sa disposition. 
 
 II est bien vrai que les archives ne sont pas tout a fait completes, 
 mais cela s'explique du reste parfaitement bien. Vous savez, parce 
 que malheureusement le fait est tres connu, que mon pays a traverse des 
 epoques tres agitees, il a ete la proie de revolutions qui heureusement 
 paraissent d^finitivement finies; pendant ces revolutions, ces agitations, 
 les archives ont ete exposees a, tous les accidents de la guerre civile. Le 
 Mexique a eu a soutenir dernierement deux guerres, non seulement 
 civiles mais etrangeres; le Gouvernement a 6te oblige^ pour sauver ses 
 archives, de les transporter avec lui pendant ses peregrinations a 
 travers le territoire; if n'y a done rien de surprenent si ces archives 
 laissent quelque chose a, desirer, si tous les documents que le Gouverne- 
 ment des Etats-Unis a voulu avoir n'ont pas pu §tre mis a sa disposi- 
 tion. 
 
 Une fois cette explication donnee, je commence ma lecture, deman- 
 dant d'abord pardon a messieurs les arbitres de l'ennui et de la fatigue 
 que je suis oblige de leur imposer. 
 
 Quelques remarques sur la replique de l'Agent des Etats-Unis a la 
 reponse de M. J. Mariscal a, la reclamation presentee au nom de MM. 
 les EvSques de la Haute Californie. 
 
 1. La reclamation presentee dans la demande des Etats-Unis se f onde 
 sur le decret du Gouvernement du Mexique en date du 24 octobre 1842, 
 qui incorpora au Tresor les biens du Fonds Pie, ordonna leur vente 
 pour le capital repr^sente par leur int^ret annuel a, 6 pet. et disposa 
 que le Tresor att'ectat le revenu a 6 pet. du produit total des alienations 
 aux intentions des donateurs. 
 
 2. Que le decret du 24 octobre soit le titre invoque par les r^cla- 
 
PIOXJS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 739 
 
 mants a l'appui de Paction qu'ils exercent, ne peut etre douteux, etant 
 donne - que la demande porte precisement sur le paiement de ces inte- 
 rets pendant un certain nombre d'annees et non sur la valeur de9 biens, 
 ni sur la remise de ceux qui n'auraient pas 6t6 ali^nes. 
 
 3. Kaisonnant sur ces bases, M. Mariscal dit que les reclamants invo- 
 quent en vain les dispositions de la loi du 19 septembre 1836, qui 
 ordonna de mettre a la disposition de l'eveque de Californie les biens 
 appartenant au Fonds Pie, afin qu'il les administrat et les appliquat a 
 leurs buts ou a d'autres analogues, parce que ce decret f ut modifie - par 
 celui du 8 fevrier 1842, et que personne n'a mis jusqu'a present en 
 doute la faculte souveraine du Gouvernement mexicain de modifier 
 ses propres disposition legislatives. 
 
 4. Quant au decret du 3 avril 1845 ordonnant la devolution a l'eveque 
 de Californie de tous les biens du Fonds Pie qui n'etaient pas vendus a 
 cette (jpoque, il ne semble pas invoque dans la demande eomme titre de 
 Paction qui y est exercee, et ne pourrait d'aucune maniere servir aux 
 intentions des reclamants attendu qu'ils ne reclament pas la devolution 
 des biens vises par la loi du 3 avril 1845, mais le paiement des interets 
 a 6 pet. sur le montant qu'ils attribuent arbitrairement a tous les 
 biens, valeurs et credits qui, a leur fantaisie, formaient le capital du 
 fonds susdit. Cette pretention est enticement arbitraire, ou se fonde 
 sur un titre. II faut evidemment accepter le second terme du dilemme 
 et Padmettant comme le seul possible, on est force d'admettre que ce 
 titre est le decret si souvent invoque du 24 octobre 1842. Les recla- 
 mants se sont lasses de repeter qu'ils ne demandent aucune remise des 
 biens, qu'ils reconnaissent le droit souverain par lequel le Mexique 
 conserve en son pouvoir ce qui pourrait actuellement revenir au Fonds 
 Pie, et qu'ils reduisent leurs pretentions aux interets, a 6 pet. sur la 
 valeur qu'il leur plait d'attribuer au capital dudit Fonds. 
 
 5. M. Mariscal a done pu dire, que la reclamation devant etre jugee 
 a, la lumiere de la legislation mexicaine, les demandeurs n'ont aucun 
 titre a reclamer quelque chose au Gouvernement Mexicain. Le raison- 
 nement conduisant &, cette. conclusion est d'une extraordinaire simpli- 
 cite. Le decret du 24 octobre 1842 ordonna la constitution d'un 
 "censo consignativo " avec le produit de la vente des biens qui for- 
 maient le Fonds Pie. afin que les revenus a 6 pour cent de ce censo fus- 
 sent appliques aux buts de la fondation primitive. Je me demande 
 alors: Cette loi conceda-t elle a l'eveque de Californie ou a ses succes- 
 seurs, la faculte de recevoir ces interets et de les appliquer a leurs fins? 
 Non, certainement. Le decret du 24 octobre 1842 ne crea aucun titre 
 efEcace en faveur de ce prelat et de ses successeurs. Le Gouvernement 
 Mexicain charge du maniement et de Padministration du Fonds — les 
 reclamants n'osent pas le nier — demeura par la meme investi de la 
 faculte de continuer a Padministrer, et d'employer, au moyen des 
 fonctionnaires qu'il lui plaisait de nommer a cet effet, les produits que 
 l'on en recueillait. II est done d'une verite" evidente que le decret du 
 24 octobre 1842 ne donne aucun titre aux eveques actuels de Californie. 
 
 6. Qu'opposent les reclamants a, une argumentation si decisive? 
 D'abord, que l'eveque de Californie, et pour tant ses successeurs, 
 avaient des droits legomx et oCequite independamment de tout decret du 
 Gouvernement Mexicain, a administrer ce fonds, et que meme, une fois 
 promulgue le decret du 24 octobre 1842, le Gouvernement ordonna 
 qu'on leur fit plusieurs paiements a, compte du Fonds Pie. Quant au 
 premier point, on voit sans peine qu'il n'est qu'une affirmation gratuite, 
 
740 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 parce que rien ne le prouve. Comment! Les reclamants admettent 
 sans hesiter qu'ils ne peuvent attaquer la validite ni l'efficacite des lois 
 mexicaines suceessivement edictees a propos du FondsPie, ils les invo- 
 quent a l'appui de leurs pretentions,' proclamant sans reserve qu'ils ne 
 peuvent meconnaitre la faculte souveraine du Gouvernement qui les 
 expedia, mais perdant de vue que- toutes ces lois etablissent, changent, 
 modifient, alterent l'administration du Fonds, la confient a differents 
 fonctionnaires ou employes, la confient et la. retirent k 1'eVeque de 
 Californie, ils invoquent encore des droits legaux de celui-ci a avoir la 
 charge de cette administration. Une si grande inconsequence est 
 inexplicable. 
 
 7. Quant aux differents ordres de paiement edictes par le Gouverne- 
 ment Mexican, apres la promulgation du decret du 24 octobre 1842, 
 que demontrent-ils? Simplement quele Gouvernement Mexicain, usant 
 de son droit, jugea convenable de donner certaine affectation aux 
 produits du Fonds. Et loin que l'on en puisse inferer qu'il reconnut le 
 droit des eveques de Californie a l'administrer, ce qui resulte des faits 
 allegues est, comme nous venons de le dire, que le Gouvernement du 
 Mexique fit usage, chaque fois qu'il le jugea convenable, de sa faculte 
 souveraine de gerer le Fonds et de disposer de l'emploi de ses produits. 
 
 8. M. Mariscal fait remarquer tres justement que, quoiquele decret 
 du 3 avril 1845 servit de pretexte au surarbitre de la Commission 
 Mixte pour affirmer que l'obligation y etait reconnue de remettre a 
 l'eveque les produits du Fonds, les reclamants en cette occasion se 
 sont abstenus de le produire a, l'appui de leur demande actuelle, pour- 
 des raisons qu'il est bon d'examiner avec soin. Mais des maintenant 
 il sera impossible de meconnaitre cette verite: La loi du 24 octobre 
 1842 ne donne aucun titre efficace aux reclamants pour pretendre qu'ils 
 aient droit a administrer et a recevoir les interets a, 6 pet. de la valeur 
 qu'il leur plait d'attribuer aux biens du Fonds Pie. S'il pouvait y avoir 
 quelque doute a cet egard, la reponse de l'agent des Etats-Unis et de 
 leur eminent avocat a M. Mariscal, le dissiperait entierement. Dans 
 ce document on parle de droits legaux et d'.equite dont la source n'est 
 point precisee; on n'explique pas par qui ils f urent conferes ni quel est 
 leur titre, et de la loi du 3 avril 1845, que les reclamants se decident 
 enfin a alleguer comme base de leur reclamation. Etudions-la done. 
 
 9. La loi disposa que les credits et les autres biens du Fonds Pie de 
 Californie, qui existaient invendus. seraient immediatement rendus a 
 1'Eveque et a ses successeurs, aux fins dont parle l'art. 6 de la loi du 
 29 sept. 1836 et sans prejudice de ce que deciderait le Congres touchant 
 les biens alienes. 
 
 Que resulte-t-il irresistiblement de cette disposition legislative sur 
 la validite de laquelle aucune contestation n'est soulevee? Que le 
 Gouvernement Mexicain continua a faire usage de sa faculte souveraine 
 de disposer de l'administration du Fonds et de l'emploi de ses pro- 
 duits — Cela est indiscutable. — En second lieu, que les biens qui 
 n'etaient pas vendus devraient etre remis a l'eveque de Californie et a 
 ses successeurs, et troisiement que le Congres se reservait de disposer 
 quant aux biens alors alienes. 
 
 10. II faut done 6tudier suceessivement chacun de ces trois points, 
 les seuls du decret dont il s'agit. Mais il y a quelque chose a ajouter 
 a ce qui est deja expose, par rapport au premier. Une fois de plus, 
 le Gouvernement Mexicain dispose selon qu'il l'estime convenable, de 
 l'administration du Fonds et de son emploi, et comme les reclamants 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 741 
 
 n'attaquent et ne peuvent attaquer la f aculte souveraine exercee par la 
 promulgation de la loi dont ]e m'occupe, parce qu'ils se mettraient 
 alors en contradiction ouverte avec euxmemes, il est evident que ce 
 point ne peut donner matiere a discussion. 
 
 11. La seconde disposition du d^cret ordonne que les biens qui, a 
 cette epoque, n'auraient pas ete aliened fussent immediatement rendus 
 a l'eveque de Californie et a, ses successeurs pour les fins de Part. 6 du 
 decret du 29 sept. 1836. Cette disposition constituet-elle un titre 
 en faveur des reclamants? La reponse s'impose. Non simplement, 
 parce que si c'etait un titre il pourrait servir a motiver la pretention 
 que le Gouvernement Mexicain delivra aux eveques actuels de la Haute 
 Californie une partie des biens invendus, et je dis une partie, parce 
 qu'une part devrait revenir a l'eveque de la Basse Californie, puis que 
 les reclamants memes ont la bonte d'admettre que le 15 pet. du total 
 ravient a l'eglise catholique de la peninsule californienne. Les recla- 
 mants demandent-ils qu'on leur remette quelque bien, quelque valeur, 
 quelque chose de ce qui a forme leFonds? Non. Us demandent qu'on 
 leur paie les intents du capital qu'ils supposent, et seulement ces 
 intents. Done la reclamation ne porte pas sur des biens existant 
 invendus du Fonds Pie. 
 
 En consequence, sous ce point de vue, la loi du 3 avril, 1845, nest 
 pas le titre de Taction deduite dans la demande. Les reclamants sont 
 d'accord avec nous sur ce point et ils ont dit en maintes occasions qu'ils 
 reconnaissent le droit du Gouvernement du Mexique a retenir indefini- 
 ment la propriete du Fonds; done leur reclamation ne porte que sur les 
 interets a 6 pet. d'un capital dont ils supputent le montant du mieux 
 qu'il leur semble. 
 
 12. Le decret vise enfin les biens deja vendus, et s'abstenant d'en 
 disposer, il reserve au Congres la determination ulterieure sur les Mens 
 alienes. Est-il possible de tirer un titre legal quelconque d'un ajourne- 
 ment qui n'ordonne rien? Tout considere, ce qui derive naturelle- 
 ment de la derniere partie du decret que j'analyse, est une nouvelle 
 confirmation de la faculte que le Gouvernement Mexicain avait et qu'il 
 exercait, de disposer comme il le jugeait convenable de l'administra- 
 tion et de l'emploi du Fonds Pie. Mais quoi qu'il en soit, il est certain 
 que le Congres Mexicain ne prit aucune mesure au sujet des biens deja, 
 alienes, jusqu'au moment de l'annexion de la Haute Californie aux 
 Etats-Unis. Du neant rien ne peut resulter. La reserve faite par le 
 decret du 3 avril 1845 au sujet des biens deja alienes, n'est pas et ne 
 peut etre un titre pour personne ni pour rien. Et l'abstention du 
 Congres Mexicain de determiner sur l'emploi des biens deja alienes, ne 
 constitue et ne peut constituer ce titre, en depit de tous les efforts de 
 
 ialectique et d'habilete de nos adversaires. 
 
 13. Je deduis des observations anterieures qu'aucum des de"crets 
 expedies par le Gouvernement Mexicain au sujet des biens du Fonds 
 Pie, ne peut servir de base a, la reclamation presentee au nom des 
 Eveques de l'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Californie. — Cependant, 
 par l'intermediaire de l'agent des Etats-Unis et d'un de leurs avocats 
 les plus distingues, ils pretendent que, quoique le Congres Mexicain 
 n'ait rien determine sur l'emploi des biens deja alienes le 3 avril 1845, 
 les demandeurs sont en possession d'une qualite pour reclamer ce 
 qu'ils ont demande, parce qu'une interpretation pratique embrassant 
 les matieres reservees par la loi citee avait ete donnee a la loi 
 d'octobre 1842, et que par la meme, toute action ulterieure du 
 
742 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 Congres etait inutile, aussi arriva-t-il a ne rien de"creter. — J'avoue 
 ingenument qui si la remarque n'est pas un concept purernent 
 verbal qui ne signifie rien, je ne puis me rendre compte de ce que 
 l'on a voulu dire. Je suppose que l'id6e de nos adversaires est 
 celle-ci: La loi du 24 octobre 1842, qui ordonna la constitution d'un 
 censo consignativo avec le produit de la vente des biens du Fonds Pie, 
 et la reconnaissance d'un interest de 6 pet. annuel, etant promulguee, 
 le Gouvernement ordonna a diverses reprises comme le supposent les 
 reclamants — et e'est peut-etre ici une bonne occasion de faire 
 remarquer avec quelle frequence ils se livrent a, des suppositions sur 
 lesquelles ils basent de longs raisonnements — que des paiements 
 divers f ussent faits a l'eveque de Calfornie au compte du Fonds Pie. 
 II est done reconnu que l'eveque mentionne avait un droit a recevoir 
 les revenus promis. Voila le titre qu'invoquent ses successeurs, et il 
 est inutile d'alleguer qu'aucune disposition ne s'edicta sur les biens 
 invendus en 1845, parce que cette disposition etait deja prise: payer 
 les revenus en vertu de la loi du 24 octobre 1842 a 1'evSque de Cali- 
 fornie et a ses successeurs. Comme on le voit, le raisonnement pour 
 arriver a cette conclusion est veritablement laborieux. Un titre legal 
 est bien obscur s'il ne resulte que d'une argumentation, si p^nible et 
 vicieuse d'ailleurs sous tous les points de vue. 
 
 15. Quel est le sens de ce concept de la loi du 3 avril ,1845, "sans 
 prejudice de ce que le Congres decide au sujet des biens alienes"? II 
 est evident qu'ayant 6te vendus et que se trouvant legitimement aux 
 mains des acheteurs, le Congres ne pouvait pas en disposer. Ils avaient 
 ete incorpores legitimement au domaine de la Nation et en vertu d'une 
 loi regulierement promulguee, ils avaient et6 achetes par des particu- 
 liers. Les reclamants n'attaquent pas la validity de ces alienations, et 
 loin de l'attaquer, la reconnaissent expressement en exigeant qu'on leur 
 paie les interests produits par un capital qui n'est que le prix de ces biens. 
 II est done certain que par rapport aux biens mSmes d6ja vendus, 
 aucune resolution ulterieure ne pouvait etre prise par le Congres Mexi- 
 cain; et comme malgre tout, la loi du 3 avril 1845 lui rfeerva la faculte 
 de disposer quant a ces biens, il est evident, aucune autre interpretation 
 n'etant possible, qu'il visa les interets du capital du censo que la loi 
 du 24 octobre 1842 fit constituer sur la Rente du tabac. Ces interets 
 etaient tout ce qui restait de disponible, pour ainsi dire, et ils 6taient 
 la seule matiere sur laquelle le Congres put prendre une resolution. 
 Eh bien! Une loi anterieure avait dispose (24 octobre 1842) que les 
 revenus du censo consignativo forme - du capital produit de la vente des 
 biens du Fonds Pie, f ussent applicables a l'objet de la fondation primi- 
 tive. La loi de 1845 ordonnant que le Congres devait disposer a 
 l'avenir quant au capital meme du cens et quant a ses interSts, il semble 
 evident que le decret du 24 octobre 1842 demeura modine" en substance 
 sur ce point, puisque la loi du 3 avril 1845 confia au Congres le soin de 
 prendre des measures sur ce qui devait Stre fait des biens d6ja ali6ne"s a 
 l'epoque. Si done les reclamants et les Mi endeurs admettent qu'aucune 
 autre loi ne fut adoptee apres celle de 1845, nous pouvons affirmer en 
 toiite securite que, comme ni la loi du 24 octobre 1842, ni celle du 5 
 avril 1845 ne peuvent servir de titre & la reclamation dont il est ques- 
 tion, il n'y a plus que "ces droits legaux et equitables" auxquels se 
 refere la replique de l'agent des Etats-Unis . . . e'est-a-dire quelque 
 chose de vague, d'indetermine' et d'Squivoque. Un concept verbal, 
 pas un titre. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS 743 
 
 II. 16. Les r^clamants comprennent bien I'irr6m6diable faiblesse de 
 leur cause pour ce motif, et admettant, par voie de supposition, que 
 I'eglise catholique de la Haute Californie pourrait manquer d'un droit 
 a administrer le Fonds Pie de Californie ou a re"clamer un int^ret per- 
 
 {>etuel, ils soutiennent qu'un tribunal d'equite, appliquant au cas de 
 arges principes de droit — broad principles of right— devrait recon- 
 naitre a la dite Eglise qualite" suffisante pour recevoir les int^rets dudit 
 Fouds. Discutons la these. On a dit, en effet, que ce tribunal est un 
 tribunal d'equite, ou, ce qui revient au meme, si je ne me trompe, que 
 pour se prononcer sur la question qui lui a ete soumise, il n'y a pas 
 besoin de recourir a des dispositions legales, ni de tenir compte de ce 
 que, par un euphemisme veritablement curieux, on a appele techni- 
 calities et que sans s'en tenir aux rigueurs du droit, il doit juger ex 
 equo et bono. Je resiste & cette pretention avec toute l'energie dont 
 je suis capable. Elle est depourvue de tout fondement. Si les parties 
 en cause avaient voulu chercher une solution d'equite" au diffeYend 
 survenu entre elles, elles l'auraient stipule ainsi; et c'est en vain que 
 l'on chercherait dans le protocole du 22 mai, un pacte qui permette de 
 dire que l'intention des Hautes Parties contractantes fut de liberer les 
 juges choisis pour regler le conflit, du devoir d'avoir recours au droit, 
 aux lois applicables au cas, pour trouver le criterium de decision indis- 
 pensable. Chaque fois qu r une question d'ordre juridique survient— 
 et nul ne pourra nier que la question a l'ordre du jour n'appartienne 
 a cette categorie— et que les interesses ont recours a des ]uges con- 
 stitu^s ou nomm^s par eux pour la decider, il va de soi que c'est au 
 droit qu'ils doivent recourir si l'on n'a pris soin de stipuler autrement. 
 Le protocole du 22 mai crea-t-il une cour d'equite ? Institua-t-il un 
 tribunal n'ayant pas a appliquer des lois mais des considerations 
 d'equite? Que signifie alors le fait d'avoir choisi pour juges des juris- 
 consultes d'une reputation mondiale? Que signiiie alors cet imposant 
 appareil d'avocats qui ont defile devant la Cour, chacun plus eloquent 
 que l'autre, discutant la question sous tous ses aspects de droit. 
 
 17. Mais il a 6t6 dit qu'en plus de la question sur l'efficacite de 
 Parrot de la Commission Mixte de Washington, la Cour devra se pro- 
 noncer, si elle nie l'existence de la res judicata, sur la justice ou Fin- 
 justice de la reclamation de l'Eglise Catholique de Californie, et que 
 cette question ne doit pas etre examinee au point de vue de la science 
 du droit ni avec le criterium de quelques lois positives, mais par des 
 considerations d'equite. Pour juger de la hardiesse de cette these il 
 suffit de fixer l'attention sur ce que juste veut dire ce qui est conforme 
 a" la justice, idem sonatjure et rite (Vocabularium juris utriusque Scott 
 et Heineccius, verb, justitia). Lorsque le Protocole confie a ce Tri- 
 bunal la mission de decider si la reclamation qui lui est soumise est 
 juste, il lui impose le devoir de se prononcer sur ce qui peut etre con- 
 forme a, la justice et la- justice d'une reclamation au point de vue juri- 
 dique ne peut etre appreciee que juridiquement. 
 
 18. On doit done fermer l'oreille aux appels de nos adversaires k 
 l'equite", et il est n^cessaire de leur rappeller que nous ne sommes pas 
 aux Etats-Unis, afin qu'ils ne perdent pas leur temps & invoquer des 
 precedents de la jurisprudence de ce pays sur les causes dont la con- 
 naissance incombe aux Cours d'equite ni sur le criterium que ces 
 Cours doivent appliquer a la decision des questions qui leur sont 
 soumises. 
 
 19. Sans envahir le terrain reserve" aux distingue^ avocats du 
 
744 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 Mexique devant ce tribunal, je me permettrai de faire constater que, 
 comme la reclamation de FEglise Catholique de la Haute Calif ornie 
 aurait du §tre soumise aux tribunaux mexicains, les seuls competents 
 pour decider sur des reclamations de citoyens Strangers contre le 
 Gouvernement National, la bonne volonte de mon pays a se departir 
 du droit indiscutable qu'il avait d'exiger cette soumission a ces juges 
 d'une demande formulee contre la Republique, n'implique pas et ne 
 peut impliquer la renonciation au droit d'exiger que la question soit 
 jugee selon les lois mexicaines, les seules applicables au cas. Les lois 
 mexicaines, comme le d^montreront bientfit les avocats du Mexique, 
 sont celles que cette Haute Cour devra consulter, et on ne peut 
 admettre l'existence de quelque renonciation a ce sujet, s'il est vrai 
 que les renonciations ne se pr&ument pas mais doivent 6tre expresse- 
 ment constatees. 
 
 20. Si j'ai justement compris les observations de la replique de 
 l'agent des Etat-Unis a la reponse de M. Mariscal, on lui fait un 
 reproche plus ou moins voile qu'en citant Facte de donation considere 
 comme l'instrument constitutif du Fonds Pie, il n'a copie que les pas- 
 sages propres a son but. Le reproche est in juste. La Cour est en 
 condition de connaitre le document dont il s'agit, autrement que par 
 les paragraphes reproduits par M. Mariscal, Le Ministre des Affaires 
 Etrangeres de mon pays savait bien que Facte auquel je me refere 
 f aisait partie du dossier soumis a la Commission Mixte, et par la meme 
 son texte integral etait a la disposition de nos juges. Recherchant la 
 brieVete, il copia ce qu'il jugea le plus convenable au but poursuivi, 
 c'est-a-dire pour demontrer que ce document ne pouvait pas §tre la 
 base de la reclamation americaine. La teneur des extraits fidelement 
 copies ne permet pas de douter que le fait m£me de la discussion de 
 ce cas devant la Cour soit une infraction manifeste de la volonte des 
 donateurs, parce qu'ils exprimaient explicitement leur volonte qu'en 
 aucum temps le juge ecclesiastique ou seculier ne s'entremette — ce 
 mot a en espagnol une signification d'une energie peu commune — a 
 savoir si s'execute ou non la condition de cette donation, notre volonte 
 est qu'elle ne donne lieu k aucune pretention, et que la Sacree Com- 
 pagnie Faccomplisse ou non en vue des missions " elle n'aura a en 
 rendre compte qu'a Dieu notre Seigneur." Si cette volonte" des pre- 
 miers donateurs est une loi, nous pourrons dire qu'en ce moment 
 meme on Fenfreint, et que le Mexique seul pretend qu'elle soit 
 respecte"e, tandis que les representants de l'eglise Catholique de Cali- 
 fornie essaient de la faire oublier. 
 
 21. L'afErmation estfondee; car les reclamants et nous, nous sommes 
 d'accord pour admettre qu'aux jesuites — a qui personne n'aurait en le 
 droit de demander compte de l'emploi du Fonds Pie — se substitua le 
 Gouvernement espagnol et au Gouvernement espagnol se substitua 
 celui du Mexique. 
 
 III. 22. Ce serait le moment de discuter le point de savoir si Farret 
 de la Commission Mixte a ou non force de chose jugee; mais comme 
 cette question doit §tre amplement traitee par les avocats de mon pays, 
 je m'abstiens de Faborder, non sans faire constater que nos adversaires 
 ont fait un effort considerable pour justifier une these que nul ne com- 
 bat: toute sentence sans appel, prononcee par un juge competent, a 
 force dechose jugee et parmi les sentences ayant cette force se trou- 
 vent les jugements des tribunaux d'arbitrages, internationaux ou non. 
 Nul n'a fait opposition au principe que je viens de formuler, qui est, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 745 
 
 certainement, de jurisprudence universelle; mais dans 1'espece, la 
 question est de fait plutot que de droit. Les conditions indispensable* 
 pour qu'une sentence produise la chose jug6e, furent-elles rdalisees en 
 cette occasion ? Tel est le probleme dont le deVeloppement est reserve 
 aux avocats du Mexique. Je me contenterai de f aire remarquer seule- 
 ment qu'etant eVident et indeniable que l'arret de la Commission Mixte 
 ne contient aucune declaration expresse dans sa partie resolutive ni sur 
 le montant du capital ni beaucoup moins sur l'obligation future et per- 
 petuelle de payer des interets pour ce capital, si ces declarations ne 
 sont pas exprim^es on ne peut les supposer contenues qu'implicitement 
 dans la decisions. Or la Commission Mixte n'ayant pas pu f aire ces dec- 
 larations explicitement, elle ne pouvait non plus les faire implicitement. 
 
 23. L'art. II de la Convention du 4 juillet 1868, qui crea la Commis- 
 sion Mixte, exclut expressement des reclamations dont cette Commis- 
 sion pourrait connaitre tout ce qui emanerait de faits anterieurs au 2 
 fevrier 1848. "II est convenue qu'aucune reclamation emanant de 
 faits anterieurs au 2 fevrier 1848 ne sera admise d'apres cette conven- 
 tion." Eh bien, l'incorporation au Tresor National des biens du Fonds 
 Pie, la constitution du censo consignativo du produit de cette vente, 
 avec hypotheque de la Rente du tabac, la charge donnee a, l'eveque de 
 Calif ornie de l'administration du Fonds, l'acte qui enlevait cette admin- 
 istration a ce prelat, la devolution de l'administration des biens qui 
 n'auraient pas 6te" vendus, tout cela emane d'evenements anterieurs au 
 2 fevrier 1848; done les exigences irresistibles de la logique imposent 
 la conclusion qu'aucune reclamation emanee de ces evenements ne put 
 etre soumise a la Commission Mixte, et ne put etre resolue par elle, 
 implicitement. D'une facon expresse, aucune resolution sur les points 
 indique"s n'est consignee dans la decision du tiers M. Thornton. Indi- 
 rectement ou implicitement aucun d'eux ne put etre l'objet de se deci- 
 sion Comment done peut-on invoquer la tneorie de la chose jugee et 
 nous parle-t-on de l'efficacite de decisions implicites ? 
 
 24. En ce qui regarde des prestations futures, e'est-a-dire l'obligation 
 que l'on suppose avoir ete imposee implicitement au Gouvernement 
 Mexicain de payer non seulement les sommes qui lui f urent demanded 
 devant la Commission Mixte, mais les interets successifs, perpetuelle- 
 ment et indefiniment, elle ne fut certainement pas comprise dans la 
 demande, ni ne fut la matieere de la defense, ni l'objet ducontrat judi- 
 ciare et ne fut pas expressement re"solue par la Commission. Le serait- 
 elle implicitement ? Impossible, car le moins que l'on puisse dire a, 
 cet egard est que la sentence ne peut aller au-dela de ce qui est 
 demande, que les arrets ultra petita sont nuls de plein droit. 
 
 25. Oii est done parmi les chapitres de la demande des eveques de la 
 Haute Californie la petition que le Mexique soit declare" dans l'obliga- 
 tion de payer perpetuellement les interets dont on parle ? Si une telle 
 declaration ne fut et ne put etre la matiere du litige, elle ne put etre 
 faite explicitement ni implicitement par la Commission Mixte. 
 
 26. Les pouvoirs memes des arbitres nommfe en vertu de la Con- 
 vention de 1868, e'est-a-dire, les termes memes du compromis, etaient 
 un obstacle insurmontable a toute tentative de pretendre a des presta- 
 tions futures. Le texte de l'art. I de la Convention susvisee cfissipe- 
 rait tous les doutes s'il pouvait y en avoir a cet egard. Toutes les 
 reclamations faites par des corporations, compagnies ou particuliers, 
 citoyens de la Republique Mexicaine, provenant de dommages soufferts 
 dans leurs personnes ou dans leurs proprietes par des autorites des 
 
746 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Etats-Unis qui aient 6t6 presentees a l'un des deux Gouvernements en 
 lui demandant son interposition pres de l'autre posterieurement a la 
 calibration du traits de Gaudalupe Hidalgo, seront re'fere's a deux 
 commissaires. II est eVident en consequence que la Commission Mixte 
 ne devait s'occuper que des reclamations pour dommages soufferts, ou 
 ce qui est la meme chose, qu'il n'etait pas dans ses faculty de connaftre 
 sur d'autres demandes relatives a des prestations futures, quelles 
 qu'elles fussent, ni a rien resoudre sur les obligations d'un accomplisse- 
 ment futur. 
 
 27. D'une part done, les reclamants ne demanderent pas qu'il fut 
 declare que le Mexique fut oblige a payer des interets dans l'avenir, 
 d'une autre, si m§me cette demande eut ete presentee a la Commission 
 Mixte, celle-ci aurait eu a s'abstenir de prononcer sur elle, faute de 
 competence; et enfin l'arret de cette Commission ne contient aucune 
 declaration sur ce point. Comment done ose-t-on invoquer des reso- 
 lutions implicites sur des obligations futures a la charge de la Kepub- 
 lique mexicaine ? 
 
 28. Grace a un subterfuge ingenieux, les eveques de Californie 
 obtinrent que la Commission Mixte accueillit une reclamation fixe, 
 precise, ponctualisee, reduite a un chiffre. Le jugement de la Com- 
 mission Mixte porta sur cette reclamation. Le Mexique fut injuste- 
 ment condamne" a payer la somme etablie par la sentence. Le Mexique 
 paya; la sentence fut executee dans toutes ses parties et tant pour ces 
 motifs que pour les stipulations de la convention de 1868, contenues 
 aux art. II, paragraphe II et V, l'arret de la Commission doit etre 
 regards comme l'arrangement complet, parfait et final de toute recla- 
 mation contre l'un des Gouvernements, procedant d'ev^nements d'une 
 date ant^rieure a l'echange des ratifications de la convention. Les 
 Hautes parties contractantes s'engagent aussi a ce que toute reclamation 
 presentee ou non a la Commission fut regardee et traite"e, finalement 
 reglee, annulee et pour toujour s inadmissible une fois clos les travaux 
 de la dite Commission. 
 
 29. Un mot encore avant de passer a une autre question. Bien que, 
 entre la presentation de la reclamation des eveques de la Haute Cali- 
 fornie, et l'arret du surarbitre de la Commission Mixte, il s'ecoulat 
 une periode de cinq annees durant lesquelles, si la these soutenue par 
 les ayocats de la partie adverse est vraie, les interets continuerent a 
 courir sur le capital constituant le Fonds Pie, le jugement du surarbitre, 
 n'osant pas faire de declarations pour l'avenir, s'abstint de faire payer 
 d'autres interets que ceux qu'il regarda 6chus dans les vingt et un ans 
 ecoules depuis le 2 fevrier 1848, jusqu'a la date de la reclamation. 
 Pom-craoi Parbitre s'abstint- il de faire quelque declaration sur les 
 interets echus durant les cinq and employes aplaider l'affaire? Pour- 
 quoi ne fit-il aucune indication sur la liquidation a etablir pour que les 
 reclamants percussent une somme qui se serait elev^e a plus de deux 
 cent mille piastres % 
 
 30. Assurement, parce qu'il considera comme l'avait consider^ le 
 coramissaire americain, que cette declaration ^tait hors de sa com- 
 petence, qui se bornait a connaitre des dommages soufferts jusqu'au 
 moment de l'echange des ratifications de la convention de 1868, et parce 
 qu'en un mot, il lui etait interdit de decreter ultra petita. 
 
 31. L'obligation de payer une rente perpetuelle et indefinie a Feglise 
 Catholique de Californie ne fut, d'apres ce qu'on a vu, ni demandee, ni 
 debattue, ni d^clarde expressement ni implicitement et par la m^me, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA. 747 
 
 la chose jug6e par l'arr^t de la Commission Mixte demeura 6puis6e, 
 c'est le mot, lorsque la Republique Mexicaine eut paye" la somme a 
 laquelle elle avait ete condamnee. 
 
 32. II me semble que j'ai fait ressortir l'importance de se rapporter 
 non seulement aux enseignements des auteurs sur l'extension de la res 
 judicata, et aux principes de la th^orie juridique sur oette matiere, 
 mais aussi, puisqu'il est question d'une sentence arbitrale, aux termes 
 du compromis et a la volonte des octroyants sur les effets, et sur 
 l'extension du jugement, parce que sur tous ces points la volonte des 
 parties est loi et preVaut sur le droit positif, sur les theories scien- 
 tifiques et sur les doctrines des jurisconsultes. 
 
 IV. 33. La response du Gouvernement Mexicain oppose a la demande 
 1'exception p^remptoire qui se deduit justement et naturellement des 
 Art. XIV et XV du Traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo. Selon le premier 
 de ces articles: "Les Etats-Unis exonerent aussi la Republique Mexi- 
 caine de toutes les reclamations de citoyens des Etats-Unis non r&olues 
 encore contre le Gouvernement Mexicain et qui peuvent avoir une 
 origine ante*rieure a la date du present traite: cette exoneration est 
 definitive et perpetuelle, soit que lesdites reclamations soient admises, 
 soit qu'elles soient rejetees par le tribunal de commissaires dont parle 
 Particle suivant et quel que puisse etre le montant de celles qui restent 
 admises." L'art. V ajoute: "Les Etats-Unis exonerant le Mexique 
 de toute responsabilite pour les reclamations de leurs citoyens, 
 mentionnees a Particle precedent et les considerant completement 
 annulees pour toujours, quel qu'en soit le montant, prennent a leur 
 charge de les satisfaire jusqu'a un chiffre n'excddant pas trois millions 
 deux cent cinquante mille dollars." Comment 1'exception alleguee 
 
 {>ar le Mexique resulte-t-elle de cet article % Si nous en jugeons par 
 a replique des reclamants a la reponse de M. Mariscal ils n'ont pas 
 compris la portee de la defense dont je m'occupe. Le texte anglais de 
 l'art. IV, qui est celui que l'on doit avoir present a l'esprit parce qu'il 
 est a supposer que la partie contractante, auteur de la renonciation 
 contenue dans ledit article, mesura la signification exacte des concepts 
 employes pour l'enoncer, dit que la liberation octroyed au Mexique se 
 re"fere a toute espece de reclamations ou credits — claims — ayant une 
 origine ante"rieure a la signature de Guadalupe. Est-il ou non certain, 
 que la reclamation relative au Fonds Pie est d'une creance — claim — 
 que l'on suppose existant avant cet evenement? 11 serait impossible 
 de nier que tous les elements de ce credit suppose" consistent en faits, 
 en actes ou en dispositions du Gouvernement Mexicain anterieurs a 
 1848, et s'il en est ainsi, a moins de fermer les yeux devant l'evidence, 
 ou devra convenir que cette reclamation — claim — selon l'autorite lin- 
 guistique la plus accepted en anglais — eut son origine, naquit, surgit, 
 avant la signature du traite de Guadalupe. Ce concept est compris 
 dans la liberation ample, absolue, illimitee, accordee au Mexique a 
 l'art. IV dudit traite. Ainsi le comprirent les negociateurs mexicains 
 du traite de Paix de 1848, et la meilleure preuve en est ce qu'ils 
 consignment dans le rapport presente a leur Gouvernement pour 
 lui rendre compte de leur mission. Je copie les passages relatifs de 
 ce rapport, qui fut presente a la Cour comme une des annexes de la 
 reponse de mon Gouvernement a la reclamation des Etats-Unis. Page 
 245. "Les quinze millions convenus a l'art. 12 et les stipulations 
 des art. 13 et 14, sont l'indemnisation la plus claire que nous puissions 
 obtenir comme compensation des dommages soufferts par la Repu- 
 
748 PIOUS FUND OF THE C ALIFORM AS. 
 
 blique. Celle-ci diminuee par l'accroissement de territoire acquis par 
 sa voisine, les memes obligations qu'elle avait auparavant vont peser 
 sur un pays moins grand, et sont par consequent plus onereuses. 
 Ainsi notre dette interieure et exterieure devra etre satisfaite en entier 
 par la partie du peuple mexicain qui conserve ce nom, tandis que sans 
 la cession elle s'etendrait sur toute la Republique telle qu'elle etait 
 auparavant. Ce sont des dommages de cette nature qui dans la mesure 
 du possible sont reparfe par l'indemnisation." Page 247. "La veri- 
 table utilite des arrangements contenus dans les trois articles — 13, 14 
 et 15 — ne consiste pas precisement en ce que la Republique soit exon- 
 eree du paiement des sommes auxquelles ils se referent quelqu'en soit 
 le montant, petit ou eleve, inais dans le reglement de tons ses comptes 
 avec la nation voisine, et a ce que rien ne reste pendant susceptible 
 oVdlterer la bonne intelligence entre les deux Gouvernements, et de don- 
 ner lieu a des contestations embrouillees et dangereuses. Cela est un 
 bien d'une importance capitale." 
 
 34. C'est ainsi que les commissaires Mexicains comprirent la portee 
 et la signification des art. 13, 14 et 15 du traite, et il est certain que la 
 these du Gonvernement du Mexique que relativement aux reclamations 
 ou credits pour faits anterieurs au 3 fevrier 1848, la Republique 
 resta absolument libre et exoneree, n'est que le resultat de l'interpre- 
 tation que des alors on considera qu'il convenaitde donner aux articles 
 cit6s. 
 
 35. Mais les reclamants pretendent se soustraire a la rigueur 
 inflexible des deductions qui derivent des textes invoques et alleguent 
 que le 2 fevrier 1848, aucun citoyen americain ne pouvait f ormuler de 
 reclamation au Gouvernement du Mexique pour des causes ou motifs 
 plus ou moins relatifs au Fonds Pie. La liberation consentie au 
 Mexique ne pouvait done comprendre la demande actuelle, comme elle 
 ne put non plus etre appliqee a, la demande soumise a la Commission 
 Mixte. Cet argument, malgre son energie apparente est notoirement 
 specieux. 
 
 36. En effet, acceptant le point de vue de nos adversaires, nous 
 pouvons dire avec eux qu'en 1848, aucun citoyen des Etats-Unis 
 n'avait a proposer de reclamation sur les biens du Fonds Pie. 
 Comment, dans la suite des temps, quelques citoyens des Etats-Unis 
 purent-ils acquerir un interet dans ce Fonds Pie? C'est ce que jamais 
 n'ont pu expliquer d'une facon satisfaisante les reclamants, qui avant 
 commence par s'intituler les maitres de tout ce qui devrait appartenir 
 a ce Fonds, (Voir la lettre de l'Eveque Alemany au Dt. d'Etat des 
 Etats-Unis en 1859) au moment de specifier leur demande devant la 
 Commission Mixte, abandonnent cette pretention et la reduisent aux 
 interets qu'ils supposent produits par le capital que, selon leur caprice, 
 ils calculent comme resultant du Fonds, posterieurement a la date du 
 traite" de paix. 
 
 37. Pour donner une apparence d'efficacite au subterfuge imagine" 
 pour eluder les stipulations dudittrait6; on dit que comme les interets 
 demandes furent causes et non payes apres fevrier 1848, le dommage 
 souffert pour cette raison, le prejudice dont ils demandent reparation, 
 survinrent apres cette date et a des citoyens Americains. Pour 
 arriver a cette conclusion qui fait plus honneur a Fhabilete de ceux qui 
 la soutiennent qu'a leur justification, on tente de separer la prestation 
 demandee, e'est-a-dire une serie d'annuit^s d'interets, de l'obligation 
 generate de les payer, comme si e'etait la deux choses differentes et 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 749 
 
 susceptibles d'exister l'une sans l'autre. Quiconque prendra la peine 
 d'examiner froidement la situation aura cette persuasion: l'obligation 
 de payer un interet p^riodique est une seule; c'est celle que contracte 
 un d^biteur en s'en inposant la charge; les echeances de cette obliga- 
 tion sont les diflerents et les successifs. On ne peut dire raisonnable- 
 ment qu'il y ait autant d' obligations que d' echeances periodiques des 
 interets. Le lien juridique est unique mais avec cette modality, que 
 les prestations auxquelles s'oblige le debiteur n'ont pas a etre accom- 
 plies en une seule fois, mais a des epoques consecutives. A chacune 
 de ces Echeances convenues, ou peut demander l'accomplissement de 
 l'obligation primitive qui est la seule exigible. 
 
 38. Si ces observations sont vraies — et je doute beaucoup que l'on 
 puisse les discuter de bonne foi — nous arrivons necessairement a cette 
 conclusion: l'obligation dont les reclamants exigerent raccomplisse- 
 ment devant la Commission Mixte, et celle dont on exige aujourd'hui 
 l'accomplissement du Mexique, qui est la meme, est celle que la Repub- 
 lique s'imposa, selon le criterium des representants de l'Eglise Catho- 
 lique de Californie, lorsqu'elle edicta le decret du 24 octobre 1842, ou 
 quand le 3 avril 1845, elle ordonna la devolution a l'Eveque de Cali- 
 fornie des biens invendus du Fonds Pie. Or, cette obligation quelle 
 qu'elle fut, resta absolument eteinte par les clauses XIV et XV du 
 traite de Guadalupe. Elle n'a pu renaitre seulement par le fait que 
 l'Eglise Catholique de Californie eut acquis la qualite de corporation 
 nord-americaine en 1854. Nous pouvons done affirmer que les recla- 
 mants actuels ne peuvent soutenir leurs pretentions en presence d'un 
 traite, qui, comme le dit M. Mariscal dans sa reponse, est le plus 
 solemnel de tous ceux qui unissent le Mexique et les Etats-Unis, et 
 grace auquel, selon que l'entendirent les negociateurs mexicains, depuis 
 1848, tous nos comptes avec cette nation demeurent soldes et rien ne 
 resta debout qui put donner l'occasion dans l'avenir a, des controrerses 
 compliquees et dangereuses. 
 
 39. II a ete dit que, grace a la decouverte d'un subterfuge plus 
 ingenieux que juridique, les eveques de la Haute Californie parvinrent 
 a faire encadrer leurs reclamations dans les previsions de la Convention 
 de 1868 et je crois qu'il faut bien revenir sur ce point. Le sophisme 
 du raisonnement employe a 1'efTet repose sur une confusion deliberee 
 entre ce qui constitue l'origine — techniquement la cause — d'une obliga- 
 tion avec les faits qui peuvent determiner son echeance. Causa, dit 
 la loi romaine (II D. de verb, sig), primum enim negotium significat, 
 et quamlibet obligationum originem, Causa, pro titulo (leg II. parr. 4 
 D. de except, rei. jud. Scott et Heineccius Vocab, juris Dtriusque 
 Verb. Causa). L'echeance d'une obligation quand elle est a terme, ou 
 consiste en des prestations periodiques, n'est pas l'origine, ni la cause, 
 ni le principe de l'obligation mais seulement l'occasion de la rendre 
 effective, cum dies credit; en d'autres termes, l'echeance n'est pas l'eve- 
 nement d'ou procede l'obligation, mais le fait qui determine l'occasion 
 d'en exiger l'accomplissement. 
 
 40. Insister sur ce point devant un tribunal compose de juristes 
 eminents, serait abuser de son attention. En appliquant done au cas 
 concret les remarques anterieures, on sera force de reconnaitre que les 
 differents actes des Gouvernements espagnol et mexicain dont l'his- 
 toire a ete amplement exposee dans ces .audiences, tous anterieurs aux 
 anneesl848 et 1868, etant l'origine, la cause, le principe de l'obligation 
 dont on exige l'accomplissement, et ces faits etant ceux dont procede 
 
750 PIOITS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 la reclamation, celle-ci est en tous points inadmissible parce qu'en face 
 d'elle se dresse l'insurmontable obstacle de deux pactes internationaux, 
 egalement respectables et obligatoires. 
 
 V. 41. Dans la prevision que, contrairement a ce que l'on.doit 
 esp^rer, la Cour decide que l'exception peremptoire d^duite des stipu- 
 lations du traite de Guadalupe n'est pas efficace, M. Mariscal propose 
 une autre du m@me caractere, fondle s,ur diverses lois mexicaines dont 
 les textes sont a la disposition du tribunal, ayant 6te depos^es en 
 meme temps que la reponse de mon Gouvernement, et tout en reservant 
 aux distingues avocats du Mexique le deVeloppement des questions 
 juridiques posees en meme temps que l'exception dont je m'occupe, .je 
 me permettrai quelques explications que je crois indispensables. 
 
 42. La somme re'clame'e est un revenu de 6 pet. garantie par l'hypo- 
 theque de la rente du tabac, et la garantie promise et constitute etant 
 une hypotheque qui ne peut porter que sur des immeubles ou droits 
 reels, il est manifeste que le droit constitue" si il est un droit, ce qui 
 est bien contestable, serait une valeur immobiliere. 
 
 43. L'art. 684 du Code civil mexicain dit que ' ' les biens immeubles 
 sont f ract. IX. Les autres droits r^els sur des immeubles. L'art. 1823 
 du m§me Code est ainsi concu: "L'hypotheque est un droit reel con- 
 stitue" sur des biens immeubles ou sur les droits re'els pour garantir 
 1' execution d'une obligation ou sa preference pour le paiement." En 
 consequence, tant a cause de la nature me'me de l'operation que a cause 
 de sa garantie par une hypotheque, l'obligation attribute au Gouverne- 
 ment du Mexique, constitue juridiquement un bien immeuble car il 
 est suppose avoir donne naissance a un droit reel, et les droits reels 
 sont des immeubles selon la legislation Mexicaine. 
 
 44. Quelle est la loi applicable a ce droit r6el ? Indiscutablement la 
 loi Mexicaine, parce qu'a l'epoque ou ce droit cornmenca d'exister, les 
 personnes, les choses, le lieu du contrat suppose et celui ou etait situe 
 l'objet de ce contrat, etaient mexicains. 
 
 45. Eh bien, selon les principes du droit international prive, le 
 statut reel, e'est-a-dire l'ensemble des lois applicables aux biens immeu- 
 iles, est le seul applicable dans les cas de differends, parce qu'il a 6te 
 reconnu a l'unanimite quechaque Etat souverain a le droit delegiferer 
 sur les immeubles situes dans son territoire. En vertu de ce principe 
 elementaire, l'art. 13 du Code civil du District Federal du Mexique 
 dispose que: "Sur.ce qui concerne les biens immeubles situes dans le 
 District Federal ou a la basse Californie, les lois Mexicaines seront 
 obligatoires quoi qu'ils soient possedes par des etrangers." Et malgre 
 ma crainte des propositions absolues, j'oserai affirmer que ce principe 
 appartient a la jurisprudence universelle. 
 
 46. Sans admettre bien entendu, que l'Eglise Catholique de Cali- 
 fornie flit proprietaire du censo constitue par le Gouvernement Mexi- 
 cain sur la rente du tabac et avec l'hypotheque de cette meme rente, 
 je pretends que les lois mexicaines sont les seules applicables. A leur 
 def aut, quelles autres lois pourraient l'etre ? 
 
 47. Des dispositions du Congres Mexicain obligent a considerer 
 comme eteints par la prescription negative les droits que pretendent 
 exercer les reclamants. A cette prescription ils opposent uniquement 
 que jamais encore on n'a soutenu devant un tribunal international 
 qu'une reclamation put etre rejetee pour cause de prescription. 
 
 48. Une affirmation aussi absolue est teme"i-aire; parce qu'il faudrait 
 pouvoir alleguer et prouver que des precedents de jurisprudence inter- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORKIA8. 751 
 
 nationale ont etabli pour regie que l'exception de prescription est inad- 
 missible contre des reclamations soumises a des tribunaux internation- 
 aux; et c'est ce que nos adversaires ne pourraient demontrer. Quelle 
 relation y a-t-il entre la nature ou Pespece de juridiction a laquelle est 
 soumise une action, et la valeur de tel ou tel systeme de defense? 
 Cependant les r^clamants posent en dogme que les lois relatives a, la 
 prescription negative, manquent d'autorite devant les tribunaux inter- 
 nationaux, mais jusqu'aujourd'hui on s'est borne a f ournir sur ce point 
 des affirmations. Nous devrions done attendre les preuves. Mais il 
 n'est pas inutile pour bien poser la question, de rappeler que le tri- 
 bunal constitue par le protocole du 22 mai s'est substitute, du consente- 
 ment des parties interessees, au tribunal preetabli qui en l'absence de 
 cette stipulation aurait du connaitre de la question. Nous affirmons 
 que ce tribunal aurait du &tre mexicain et invoquant l'art. 97 de la 
 Constitution Federale Mexicaine, presentee parmi les annexes de la 
 reponse de la Republique, nous soutenons que c'est devant ce tribunal 
 que les reclamants auraient du demander l'accomplissement de l'obli- 
 gation attribuee au Gouvernement du Mexique. Si la demande avait 
 2te° presentee devant semblable tribunal, le defendeur n'aurait-il done 
 pu invoquer la prescription ? II serait impossible de le nier. Et pour- 
 quoi cette defense reguliere devant un tribunal preetabli, ne serait-elle 
 opposable devant un tribunal specialement institu^ pour connaitre de 
 la question au moyen d'un compromis arbitral? Parce que, disent 
 nos adversaires, en premier lieu, l'objet de la prescription n'est pas 
 d'eteindre le droit mais d'empecher Paction. Nous ignorons si aux 
 Etats-Unis ce principe est juridique, mais suivant la tradition romaine 
 et d'apres les legislations civiles du Code Napoleon, la prescription 
 negative est precisement un moyen legal ^extinction d'obligations, 
 ou ce qui revient au meme, produit une exception pe"remptoire qui 
 detruit Paction, et non une defense dilatoire qui en empeche Pexercice. 
 En second lieu, ajoutent les reclamants, quiconque est sous l'obligation 
 d'une prestation, peut a son choix recourir ou non a la prescription, 
 mais du seul fait de son consentement a ce que la reclamation soit sou- 
 mise & Parbitrage il se desiste de la defense fondee sur la prescription. 
 Pourquoi? Nous Pignorons. Mais la throne de nos adversaires, 
 formulee in terminis, pourrait servir aussi bien a exclure tous moyens 
 de defense. Par le fait d'avoir consenti a ce que la reclamation pre- 
 sentee fut soumise a Parbitrage, le Mexique se serait declare vaincu 
 d'avance, et aurait signe la sentence le condamnant a payer tout ce 
 qu'on lui reclame? Non! Une pretention aussi absurde ne peut etre 
 nulle part accueillie car elle revient a dire que dans la celebration d'un 
 compromis arbitral le defendeur, du seul fait d'y souscrire reconnait 
 ne pouvoir lui opposer aucune exception. 
 
 49. A ce sujet, nous retrouvons une allegation qui a deja ete etudiee. 
 Elle consiste dans la supposition que d'apres les stipulations du Proto- 
 cole du 22 mai, la Cour a la juridiction de laquelle se soumettaient les 
 Hautes parties contractantes, ayant la faculte pour decider sur la justice 
 de la reclamation, au cas ou elle ne serait pas regie par le principe de 
 " res judicata" tout systeme de defense appuye sur le temps ecouie, 
 est inadmissible. L'injustice — dit-on — ne peut sous Paction du temps 
 devenir la justice, sans une faute de la part du chancier ou par les actes 
 du debiteur declarant la reclamation prescrite. 
 
 50. II serait oiseux de demontrer que dans la langue juridique juste 
 signifie ce qui est conforme a la justice, et que dans une question de 
 
752 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 l'ordre juridique comme celle-ci, justice signifie Droit. Or, la loi posi- 
 tive autorise la prescription, comme un moyen juridique legitime c'est- 
 a-dire juste, d'eteindre les obligations, de sorte que si le debiteur veut 
 l'invoquer et il en fait la preuve, le juge qui connait du proces devra 
 la declarer et nul ne pourra qualifier d'injuste la sentence rejetant 
 Taction intense. 
 
 51. Le cours du temps peut avoir pour resultat que l'injustice se 
 convertisse en justice; et le phenomene se realise tous les jours du fait 
 de la prescription positive et negative, sanctionnee par toutes les legis- 
 lations comme institution d'ordre public et nornme'epar les jurisconsultes 
 romains, la patronne du genre humain. 
 
 52. La partie adverse insinue que le creancier n'a aucune faute a se 
 reprocher, si le temps necessaire a la prescription s'est ecoule. Mais 
 on oublie, en formulant cette allegation, que la loi a cet 6gard ne 
 reproche au creancier d'autre faute que d'avoir laisse son action tomber 
 sous le coup de la prescription. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. Je demande a la Cour la permission de continuer 
 ma plaidoirie a l'audience prochaine, car je me sens tres oppresse. 
 
 M. Descamps. Es(-ce qu'on ne pourrait pas autoriser Son Excellence 
 a deposer son imprime, et le considerer comme lu ? 
 
 M. Beernaert. En effet, on pourrait considerer la lecture comme 
 terminee. 
 
 M. Descamps. De cette facon, les debats pourraient continuer sans 
 interruption jusqu'a la fin. 
 
 M. le President. Absolument. M. l'agent des Etats-Unis s'op- 
 pose-t-il a ce que le reste du memoire ne soit pas lu, et a ce que 
 «elui-ci soit depose ? 
 
 M. Ralston. 1 suppose M. Pardo finds himself fatigued and not 
 entirely prepared to continue, but simply desires an adjournment 
 until Monday. We are perfectly willing to agree to that. 
 
 M. Asser. He perhaps does not understand that it is proposed to 
 consider the oral argument as finished, and to file the printed argu- 
 ment Monday. Has the agent of the United States any objection? 
 
 M. Ralston. No. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Then we gain so much time. 
 
 M. Ralston. If I can have it in print Monday I shall not object. 
 
 M. de Martens. We shall begin Monday. 
 
 M. Ralston. With M. Penfield's remarks. 
 
 M. le President. Maintenant, la premiere partie des debats est 
 close, avec la reserve pour M. l'agent du Mexique de deposer lundi sa 
 plaidoirie imprimee. Alors commencent les repliques. Pour les 
 repliques, d'apres les regies de procedure etablies par le Tribunal, 
 chacune des parties a le droit de faire parler un conseil. 
 
 M. Descamps. Je demande la parole. 
 
 M. le President. M. le Chevalier Descamps a la parole. 
 _ M. Descamps. Je voudrais faire observer a, la Cour que j'ai ete vic- 
 time d'un cas de force majeure qui m'a empeche' de parler au jour qui 
 m'etait indique; je demande la permission de prendre maintenant la 
 parole, car ensuite il me serait impossible de le faire, M. Penfield, 
 juge aux Etats-Unis, ayant evidemment un droit de priorite sur moi; 
 de sorte que la consequence serait de me rendre victime d'un cas de 
 force majeure absolue, puisque le jour ou mon tour de parole est 
 venu etait precisement celui de l'inhumation de ma ven^ree souve- 
 raine. J'espere que la Cour ne voudra pas me tenir rigueur et qu'elle 
 
PIOTJS FUND OP THE CALTFORNIAS. 753 
 
 prendra en consideration la situation sp^ciale dans laquelle je me 
 trouve. 
 
 M. le President. Le Tribunal, vu le cas invoque" a l'appui de votre 
 demande, vous accorde celle-ci, sous la reserve du droit pour la partie 
 adverse de faire aussi repliquer par deux conseils. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Je pense que nous rentrerions dans les vues de la 
 Cour d'abreger autant que cela se peut les debats en faisant pour les 
 r^pliques ce que nous venons de faire pour les plaidoiries, de maniere 
 a eViter les repetitions. U y a deux grandes questions: La reclama- 
 tion est-elle juste? Y a-t-il chose jugee? Nous nous sommes distribue" 
 la tache; peut^etre nos honorables contradicteurs pourraient-ils faire 
 de meme, et nous reprendrions la meme etude. 
 
 M. Descamps. Oui, sauf le droit de faire valoir d'autres considera- 
 tions, en ce qui me concerne je tacherai de le faire; nous devons con- 
 server une certaine liberte d'action. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Bien entendu. 
 
 M. Ralston. Simply with the understanding that when the session 
 opens Monday, M. Descamps will open and will be followed by Judge 
 Penfield, who will close for the United States. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. II reste entendu que j'ai le droit de d^poser 
 lundi le memoire qui contient mon plaido} r er? 
 
 M. le President. Certainement. 
 
 M. Descamps. Nous n'aurons pas le temps de le lire! 
 
 M. de Martens. II s'agit seulement de la fin, M. Pardo avait 
 presque fini. 
 
 M. Descamps. S'il y avait une chose que nous n'aurions pas pu con- 
 naitre nous demandons a en avoir communication. 
 
 M. de Martens. II faut que M. Pardo communique directement la 
 fin de son plaidoyer a, la partie adverse. 
 
 (La seance est lev6e a, 4£ heures et le Tribunal s'ajourne a lundi le 
 29 septembre a 10 heures du matin.) 
 
 QTJATORZIEME SEANCE. . 
 
 29 septembre 1902 {matin). 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni k 10 heures du matin; tous les Arbitres 6tant 
 presents. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est a" M. l'agent des Etats-Unis du 
 Mexique pour la continuation de son discours. 
 
 M. EMILIO PARDO (CONTINUANT SON DISCOURS). 
 
 53. Les eVSques de Californie avaient & leur disposition les tribunaux 
 mexicains auxquels ils pouvaient presenter leur demande contre le Grou- 
 vernement de la Republique. Rdpetons qu'une des dispositions de l'art. 
 97 de la Constitution du Mexique, a pr^cisement pour but de determiner 
 la competence du tribunal appele" a connaitre des demandes d'etrangers 
 ou de nationaux contre la Nation. Jamais les eVeques de Californie 
 ne formulerent de demandes devant le juge competent pour en con- 
 naitre. Ils ne l'adresserent jamais directement au Gouvernement du 
 Mexique. Ills formulerent leur premiere reclamation devant la Com- 
 mission Mixte de Washington et se jugeant avec des droits a en elever 
 d'autres, eurent recours a la voie diplomatique si peu justifiee en ce 
 
 S. Doc. 28 48 
 
754 PIOUS FUKD OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 cas, car nul ne pouvait se plaindre de deni de justice ni de retard 
 injustifiable a l'administrer. 
 
 54. Les reclamants laisserent done volontairernent s'ecouler le temps 
 ne"cessaire a la prescription negative et e'est en vain qu'aujourd'hui ils 
 pre"tendent n'avoir aucune faute ft se reprocher; car le seule qui suffise 
 devant la loi a motiver la prescription: le non exercice de Taction leur 
 est imputable. Si la Republique Mexicaine avait 6dicte" une loi de 
 prescription speciale au sujet de la reclamation du Fonds Pie, la partie 
 adverse pourrait dire qu'un acte du d^biteur est insuffisant pour que 
 son obligation soit eteinte, mais il faut faire remarquer qu'il s'agit de 
 la loi applicable a. toutes les reclamations juridiques qui doivent avoir 
 leurs effets au Mexique. 
 
 55. Cette loi fait partie du Code civil du Mexique et elle etablit la 
 prescription negative a laquelle on a recours pour se sbustraire a, une 
 reclamation dont l'injustice a e"te demontr^e a d'autres egards. Cette 
 loi est obligatoire pour pous Mexicains et etrangers touchant les 
 relations juridiques formees au Mexique et que doivent y recevoir 
 une realisation pratique. Voila pourquoi les ev&ques de Calif or nie, 
 qui ont laisse s'ecouler un temps sufEsant pour que leur action tombe 
 sous le coup de la prescription, n'ont qu'a se soumettre aux conse- 
 quences de leur omission, parmi lesquelles est l'extinction des obliga- 
 tions qu'ils mettent a la charge du Mexique pour des responsabilites 
 relatives au Fonds de Californie. 
 
 VI. 56. D'un seul coup de plume, les reclamants voudraient rayer 
 de la defense Mexicaine toutes les exceptions subsidiaires et qui se 
 fondent sur les dispositions des lois expedites le 22 juin 1855 et le 6 
 septembre 1894. Grace a, ces lois la Republique Mexicaine a pu 
 liquider sa dette interieure, et exterieure, reconnaitre ses obligations, 
 les epurer, et en un mot retablir son credit et prendre une place hon- 
 orable parmi les pays respectes pour leur exactitude et leur fidelite 
 dans l'accomplissement de leurs engagements. 
 
 57. La premiere de ces lois invitait tous ceux qui, nationaux ou 
 etrangers, se regardaient comme creanciers du Gouvernement Mexi- 
 cain, a faire la preuve de leurs creances qui des lors, seraient liquidees 
 ou converties en titres reguliers dormant droit a toucher un interet 
 periodique. Ces dispositions n'avaient pas un caractere obligatoire, 
 mais le creancier qui refusait de s'y soumettre ne pouvait pretendre 
 etre plus favorise que ceux qui se rendirent a l'appel de la loi. 11 
 devait done se resigner a ce que le reglement de sa creance fut differe" 
 ou ajourne. 
 
 58. Le systeme de la loi de 1885 ne produisit pas un resultat aussi 
 complet qu'on esperait. Un grand nombre de crlanciers du Mexique, 
 place's dans Talternative de se soumettre a la loi ou de s'y soustraire, 
 prirent ce dernier parti, et le resultat fatal fut que malgre les efforts 
 du Gouvernement Mexicain pour regulariser la dette nationale, en 
 etablir le montant, et la payer, ces intentions furent irrealisables tant 
 qu'on n'obligea pas les creanciers a, presenter leurs creances. 
 
 59. Mais il ne suffisait pas de declarer que tous les creanciers du 
 Mexique etaient obliges de presenter leurs creances au bureau etabli a, 
 cet eff'et, il fallait encore sanctionner efficacement l'accomplissement de 
 ce devoir. Cette sanction fut cr6ee par la loi du 6 septembre 1894. 
 Elle disposait que les creanciers qui laisseraient passer les d61ais &x6s 
 pour presenter, liquider et convertir leurs creances sans remplir ces 
 f ormalites, perdraient tout droit a presenter des reclamations ulteri- 
 eures, lesquelles seraient prescrites pour toujours. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 7£5 
 
 60. Cette loi produisit un resultat surprenant. La Re"publique se 
 trouva en 6tat de connaitre ses responsabilites et le chiffre auquel elles 
 s'elevaient; elle les reconnut, les liquida, delivra les titres respectifs a 
 un intert&t assez r^munerateur, et qui sont acceptes sur presque tous 
 les marches importants de l'Europe et de l'Amerique. 
 
 61. Tous les creanciers du Mexique accoururent a son appel, et il 
 faut remarquer que parmi ces creanciers etaient tous ceux dont les 
 creances avaient 6te reconnues par des accords internationaux dans 
 lesquels le Gouvernement du Mexique s'etait engage a payer sa dette 
 sous une forme determinee ou en donnant telle ou telle garantie. Au 
 nombre de ces creanciers figuraient les porteurs d'obligations prove- 
 nant de la convention celebre du Pere Moran et par laquelle le Mex- 
 ique fit une transaction avec le Gouvernement Espagnol et s'engagea 
 a, payer une certaine somme pour desinteresser les missions des Phil- 
 ippines. 
 
 62. Messieurs les eveques de la Haute Calif ornie ne se crurent pas 
 obliges de se soumettre a la loi. lis crurent avoir toujours a leur 
 portee le moyen d'obtenir la preference sur les Mexicains et sur les 
 etrangers qui s'etaient rendus a l'appel honorable du Gouvernement 
 Mexicain, et ils attendirent que l'intervention diplomatique leur 
 assurat une situation unique et privilegiee, dans laquelle n'est place 
 aucun creancier du Mexique. ' 
 
 63. Comment expliquer cette attitude ? Sur quoi se f onde cette 
 pretention irritante de se soustraire a une loi obeie par tous ? D'abord 
 sur ce que la question discutee est simplement de savoir si la reclama- 
 tion est juste ou non, et que pour cette appreciation il est inutile de 
 tenir compte de la loi qui declara prescrites et caduques les creances 
 non presentees a la conversion dans les delais fixes a cette fin. Ensuite 
 qu'un acte du debiteur ne peut seul produire l'extinction de la dette. 
 
 64. Quant au premier point, il me semble oiseux de repeter qu'un 
 esprit clair et impartial ne pourra jamais admettre que le Gouverne- 
 ment du Mexique en signant le protocole du 22 mai dernier renonca a 
 opposer toutes les defenses qu'il avait a, faire valoir contre la demande 
 de l'Eglise Catholique de Californie. 
 
 65. Quant au second point, on voit ais^ment, qu'au moyen d'un 
 precede de generalisation assez facile, on veut appliquer a un Etat 
 souverain un principe qui ne pourrait etre invoque" que contre des 
 particuliers. D'apres les principes generaux du droit, des actes 
 exclusifs du debiteur ne peuvent en rien modifier l'obligation a sa 
 charge, mais lorsqu'il s'agit d'un Etat, dans l'exercise de sa souverainete, 
 ces principes perdent de leur inflexibilite, a cause des exigences d'un 
 ordre superieur. Pai'fois l'existence m§me de la nation, sa securite 
 interieure, la defense de ses institutions fondamentales imposent des 
 dispositions, qui, de la part d'un individu seraient impossibles. Rien 
 de plus facile que de citer des exemples a l'appui des observations 
 precedentes; mais afin de ne pas donner a ce travail une extension 
 immoderee, je me bornerai a faire remarquer que la faculte souveraine 
 que le Gouvernement Mexicain exerca en donnant la loi du 6 septembre 
 1894 n'est pas soumise a, l'appreciation du Tribunal, et j'ajouterai que 
 lorsqu'un Etat independant contracte en sa qualite de personne juridiq ue, 
 une responsabilite capable de l'obliger, il ne perd pas pour cela sa con- 
 dition cle Souverain investi de la faculte de legiferer sur toutes les 
 questions de droit interieur. 
 
 66. II est certain que la loi du 6 septembre 1894 est posterieure a la 
 date a laquelle, pour la premiere f ois apres le verdict de la Commission 
 
756 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 Mixte, Messieurs les Ev^ques de Californie intenterent une nouvelle 
 reclamation au sujet des interets du Fonds Pie, par la voie'du Departe- 
 ment d'Etat des Etats-Unis et de leur Ministre au Mexique. Mais 
 to us les creanciers du Mexique, invites a faire valoir leurs droits, se 
 trouvaient dans la m§me situation, c'est-a-dire que tous Otaient en 
 possession de droits acquis, ou supposes acquis, anterieurement au 6 
 septembre 1894. D'ailleurs, de sa nature meme, cette loi ne pouvait 
 se rapporter qu'aux creances en existence, et non a celles de l'avenir, 
 les premieres etant seules susceptibles de liquidation et de conversion. 
 
 67. En somme, c'est par suite d'un acte, ou pour mieux dire d'une 
 omission que les reclamants se trouvent places dans la situation d'ou 
 derive l'exception qui a ete opposee a leur demande. En obeissant a 
 l'appel de la loi, en agissant comme agirent tous les autres creanciers 
 du Mexique, ils auraient eu l'occasion de faire valoir leurs droits. lis 
 prefererent volontairement s'en abstenir, aspirant a, une situation 
 exceptionnelle et privilegiee — pretention dont la raison et le fonde- 
 ment nous echappent — ils doivent subir aujourd'hui les consequences. 
 C'est done un de leurs actes propres, un acte du pretendu creancier, qui 
 a determine l'extinction definitive des droits qu'il croyait avoir. 
 
 VII. 68. Je ne saurais trouver une occasion plus opportune d'appeler 
 l'attention sur les dispositions legales du Mexique etablissant l'inca- 
 pacite - radicale de l'Eglise Catholique de' la Haute Californie comme 
 corporation religieuse, a exercer les droits qu'elle pretend faire valoir 
 contre le Mexique et sur des biens situes au Mexique. 
 
 69. La personnalite civile que l'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Cali- 
 fornie peut avoir dans cet Etat de 1' Union Amoricaine, peut lui servir 
 aux Etats-Unis et par rapport a des biens situes dans le territoire 
 americain. Mais par rapport a des biens immobiliers — et le censo 
 constitue par la loi mexicaine du 24 octobre 1842, avec l'hypotheque 
 de la Rente du tabac, est un bien immobilier — cette capacite, dis-je, 
 selon les regies du Droit international prive, est regie par les lois du 
 Mexique. Or, ces lois ne reeonnaissent pas a l'Eglise Catholique de 
 la Haute Californie la personnalite necessaire a posseder et a admin- 
 istrer des biens immobiliers au Mexique. La loi supreme du Mexique, 
 sa constitution politique, art. 27, etablit l'incapacite civile des associa- 
 tions religieuses a posseder et a, administrer des biens immobiliers ou 
 des capitaux qui y seraient places. 
 
 70. Dans quelques Etats de l'Union amoricaine il est interdit par 
 exemple, que les associations religieuses possedent ou acquierent dans 
 le territoire de ces Etats, des proprietes pour une valeur superieure 
 a, un chiffre donne" et la legislation de quelques autres Nations a 
 cm devoir imposer des restrictions semblables pour empecher l'acca- 
 parement de la propriete immobiliere par la main morte. Ces restric- 
 tions font partie du droit public de ces Nations. Qui done pourra 
 raisonnablement pretendre que ce droit public perde sa valeur, lorsque 
 c'est une corporation religieuse Otrangere qui aspire k se cr^er une 
 situation privilegiee et exceptionnelle? On ne pourrait le croire, car 
 une telle pretention impliquerait la meconnaissance de la souverainete\ 
 Le Mexique reclame maintenant Papplication de ces principes, et 
 invoque, outre _ sa Constitution politique, les dispositions de deux lois 
 organiques, qui refusent a toute association religieuse, quelle que soit 
 sa croyance et quelle que soit sa denomination, la capacite civile pour 
 posseder et pour administrer des biens immobiliers ou des droits reels 
 au Mexique, et pour exiger execution d'obligations d'accomplissement 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 757 
 
 futur. Je me revere aux dispositions de la loi du 14 decembre 1874, 
 dont le texte a 6te" presents au Tribunal, et en particulier aux articles 
 14, 15 et 16 dont nous avons presente la traduction en francais. En 
 presence de ces textes il est impossible de reconnaitre a l'Eglise Catho- 
 lique de la Haute Californie une personnalite civile lui permettant de 
 presenter la reclamation actuelle. 
 
 VIII. 71. Dans l'exercice de sa souverainete, la R6publique Mexi- 
 caine decreta le 12 juillet 1859 la loi de nationalisation des biens eccle- 
 siastiques. Nous n'avons pas a considerer si cette loi fut juste ou non, 
 au point de vue du droit abstrait ou du droit canon. C'est une loi 
 6dictee par un pouvoir souverain, et par la, c'est une loi obligatoire. 
 Du reste, des lois semblables ont ete promulguees dans presque toutes 
 les nations des deux continents, pour obeir a des raisons d'ordre pub- 
 lic, que ce n'est pas le moment d'examiner ici. 
 
 72. Par l'ceuvre de cette loi de nationalisation, toutes les associations 
 religieuses qui possedaient des biens immobiliers ou des droits reels— 
 egalement biens immobiliers — en f urent irrevocablement privies. Les 
 etf ets de cette loi atteignirent-ils des associations religieuses e"trangeres ? 
 Nous le soutenons. Nos adversaires pr^tendent que non, et ils basent 
 leur denegation sur ce que lors de l'annexion de la Haute Californie 
 aux Etats-Unis, le Mexique etait lie par l'engagement de payer un 
 certain interet, calcule" sur le montant des biens du Fonds Pie, aux 
 ev§ques du territoire annexe. Dans la suite du temps, l'Eglise Catho- 
 lique de la Haute Californie obtint, dit-on, la qualite de corporation 
 Americaine et.elle fut par la soustraite a l'atteinte des lois que le Mex- 
 ique edictait au sujet de l'Eglise Catholique mexicaine, car autrement 
 ce serait donner un effet extraterritorial a ces lois. L'Eglise de Cali- 
 fornie a l'epoque de la cession de ce territoire, ajoute-t-on, avait une 
 existence legale d'apres le droit international. Elle conserva cette 
 existence, et les lois mexicaines edictees plus tard, sont impuissantes a 
 la lui enlever. 
 
 M. Emilio Pakdo. Ce passage de ma plaidoirie se rapporte a la loi 
 qui nationalisa les biens ecclesiastiques. Cette loi, d'accord avec la 
 Constitution de 1857, ordonna que tous les biens possedes par les 
 corporations religieuses seraient nationalises, c'est-a-dire qu'on declara 
 l'in corporation definitive de tous les biens de mainmorte dans le Tresor 
 national. Evidemment cette loi se constituait avec l'hypotheque de la 
 rente du tabac, puisque cette hypotheque etant de droit reel etait 
 comprise notamment dans les dispositions de la loi qui a ete deposee 
 devant la Cour. Cette loi met le Gouvernement — meme en admettant 
 1' existence de la creance qui est reclamee par Messieurs les eveques de 
 la Haute Californie — dans l'impossibilite absolue de se soumettre a 
 cette reclamation. Aucune corporation religieuse d'aucune confession 
 n'est capable, non seulement de comparaftre avec la qualite civile 
 necessaire pour faire une reclamation, mais de reclamer des biens en 
 meubles ou des droits reels. Toutes les corporations religieuses mex- 
 icaines et etrangeres ont du se soumettre a ces dispositions. On peut 
 done bien dire en ce qui concerne la reponse de l'agent des Etats-Unis 
 a la reponse de M. Mariscal que le Mexique a bien le droit de legif erer 
 sur les corporations religieuses etablies dans son territoire, mais 
 qu'une corporation religieuse comme l'Eglise Catholique de la Haute 
 Californie ne peut pas etre obligee de se soumettre a une loi qui a 4te" 
 edictee pour les corporations religieuses etablies au Mexique. 
 
758 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 C'est, messieurs, l'occasion de rappeler le principe d'apres lequel le 
 Mexique, comme tout pays souverain, a le droit exclusif de legif^rer 
 sur des biens meubles ou des biens reels sur son territoire. La ques- 
 tion de savoir si le proprietaire r6el ou suppose" de ces propriety, de 
 ces biens meubles ou droits r6els est national ou etranger n'a aucune 
 importance, parce que a, ce point de vue la personnalite" qu'une loi 
 etrangere peut accorder a une corporation religieuse etablie sur son 
 ■ territoire peut etre suffisante pour les relations entre cette corpora- 
 tion et son Gouvernement, mais est tout a fait insuffisante pour dtablir 
 les rapports legaux entre cette corporation et un Gouvernement 
 etranger. 
 
 La situation actuelle au Mexique est qu'aucune corporation, non 
 seulement ecclesiastique mais civile, d'une duree indefinie, n'a le droit 
 de posseder ou d'administrer des biens meubles ou des droits re"els. 
 Comment peut-on permettre a l'Eglise catholique de la Haute Cali- 
 fornie, par le fait qu'elle est une corporation etrangere, d'enfreindre 
 une loi qui fait partie du droit public au Mexique? La loi qui nation- 
 alisa les biens ecclesiastiques au Mexique, qui mit un terme aux abus, 
 est une de nos lois fondamentales; on ne peut pas pretendre qu'une 
 corporation etrangere religieuse, si respectable qu'elle soit, puisse 
 avoir le droit de se soustraire aux dispositions de cette loi. 
 
 Vous avez eu peu-etre, Messieurs les arbitres, l'occasion de remarquer 
 que, quoiqu'on ait fait certaines reserves sur le droit par lequel le 
 Gouvernement Mexicain edicta la nationalisation des biens ecclesi- 
 astiques, des biens de mainmorte, il faut reconnaitre que cette faculte" 
 de mon pays a decreter cette nationalisation n'est pas en cause; c'est- 
 a-dire que le Tribunal n'a aucune competence pour decider si cette loi 
 est d'accord ou non avec les principes gen^raux. Le Mexique quand 
 il decreta cette loi, a fait la rneme chose qu'ont faite presque tous les 
 Gouvernements des pays civilises; tous se sont crus obliges de mettre 
 un terme aux abus de la mainmorte, au danger que presentait pour la 
 richesse publique cet accaparement de la propriire, et on ne peut pas 
 reprocher au Mexique un fait qui a ete" consomme, reproduit partout ou 
 la mainmorte a produit les effets fatals qu'elle produit necessairement. 
 
 D'ailleurs, les corporations religieuses et le clerge au Mexique, 
 pendant les revolutions qui ont agite" mon pays fournissaient a, la 
 revolution, aux elements perterbateurs des ressources et des armes 
 pour combattre les autorites legitimes. Le Gouvernement de mon 
 pays se trouva dans l'obligation de desarmer ses ennemis et de priver 
 le clerge" et les corporations ecclesiastiques des elements qu'ils employ- 
 oient ft maintenir l'agitation dans le pays et a soutenir une guerre qui 
 nous ravageait et qui faisait l'esclandre du monde entier. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, c'est une digression qui n'a vraiment aucune oppor- 
 tunity dans le debat. Je me borne a faire remarquer qu'on ne peut 
 pas reprocher au Mexique d'avoir edicte une loi qui a ete" 6dict6e 
 partout ailleurs pour la meme raison: pour empecher l'accaparement 
 de la richesse mobiliere par les biens de mainmorte. 
 
 Si la reclamation des eVSques de la Haute Californie avait gain de 
 cause dans ce proces ils se trouveraient au Mexique dans une situation 
 tout a fait privilegi^e, exceptionelle. Je crois done qu'on ne peut pas 
 reprocher a monGouyernement d'avoir fait tous ses efforts pour eviter 
 une situation qui serait la cause de je ne sais combien de perturbations 
 et de difficultes. 
 
 On adit aussi, messieurs, que pretendre appliquer aux biens du Fonds 
 Pie de la Haute Californie la loi qui nationalise les biens appartenant 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 759 
 
 aux fondations eccl^siastiques ou civiles d'une dure*e perpe"tuelle ou 
 ind6finie, 6quivaudrait a donner un effet extra territorial a cette me'me 
 loi. Du moment, messieurs, que le Mexique pretend appliquer cette 
 loi a une reclamation qui est dirig^e contre lui et qui porte sur des 
 biens etablis au Mexique et se referant a un contrat qui a etc* fait au 
 Mexique, on ne peut pas admettre cette objection qu'en tsichant 
 d' appliquer la loi du 12 juillet 1859 il veut attribuer a cette loi un effet 
 extra territorial. 
 
 73. Le raisonnement qui precede, repose sur une confusion d'ide"es 
 et sur un sophisme dont il est facile de decouvrir le vice, parce que le 
 precepte de Part. 13 du code civil mexicain, d'apres lequel les lois mexi- 
 caines seules sont applicables en tout ce qui concerne les biens immo- 
 biliers, fussent-ils possedes par des Strangers, n'est autre que l'appli- 
 cation d'un principe de droit international prive, dont la demonstration 
 d&ja faite n'est pas a repeter devant ce Tribunal. 
 
 74. Les lois mexicaines de nationalisation des biens eccle"siastiques, 
 applicables a tous les biens de cette espece existant au Mexique, loin de 
 pretendre a, une action extraterritonale, sont d'un caractere strictement 
 et rigoureusement territorial, puisqu'elles ont pour objet des propri- 
 etes situees sur le territoire national. Et ainsi, de m^me qu'une 
 association religie.use mexicaine s'opposerait, avec raison, a, ce que le 
 Gouvernement du Mexique pr4tendit appliquer la loi de nationalisation 
 des biens de la mainmorte a des propriety situees a l'etranger, de 
 meme ce Gouvernement a le droit parfait d'exiger qu'une corporation 
 religieuse 6trangere se soumette aux lois Mexicaines en ce qui concerne 
 les propri^tfo iinmobilieres, situees sur territoire mexicain. 
 
 75. Le principe scientilique dominant dans la question, est celui-ci: 
 Toute nation a le droit de legiferer sur les biens fonds sitties dans son 
 territoire, que les possesseurs de ces biens soient nationaux ou etran- 
 gers, car si on n'admettait pas ce principe, il en resulterait forcement 
 cette application extraterritoriale dtmoncee par nos honorables adver- 
 saires. La loi americaine, par exemple, met une limite a la capacite 
 des corporations religieuses a acquerir des biens immobiliers au-dela 
 d'une valeur atteignant un certain maximum, parce qu'on a juge aux 
 Etats-Unis que ce systeme est le plus propre a 6viter l'accapare- 
 ment des biens fonds par la mainmorte. Que dirait le tribunal des 
 Etats-Unis, devant lequel une congregation religeuse etrangere vien- 
 drait maintenir la pretention que le statut limitant sa capacite" a pos- 
 seder des biens immobiliers, ne r%it que les corporations am£ricaines 
 et non les etrangeres ? II dirait avec raison que tacher de rendre exten- 
 sive la capacite illimitee d'une congregation religeuse selon la loi de 
 son pays, a des biens situ^s aux Etats-Unis, serait pretendre a l'appli- 
 cation extra-territoriale de cette loi, et que quiconque possede des 
 biens fonds sur le territoire am^ricain, se soumet tacitement, mais 
 necessairement, en ce qui tienta ces biens, a la souverainete americaine. 
 
 76. Sous ce point de vue done, les reclamants aspirent a se placer 
 dans une situation exceptionnelle et privilegiee. Aucune corporation 
 religieuse, catholique, protestante ou de quelque autre denomination, 
 ne peut posse"der au Mexique de biens immobiliers. Leur incapacity 
 a, cet egard est absolue, radicale, d'ordre public et cependant, l'Eglise 
 Catholique de la Haute Californie, une corporation etrangere, pour- 
 rait se soustraire au Droit public en vigueur dans la Republique mexi- 
 caine? Enoncer seulement semblable pretention, e'est la condamner, 
 comme un outrage a la souverainete d'un Etat independant. 
 
760 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 IX. 77. De notre cot6, il a et6 alMgue" qu'il n'y a plus d'Indiens 
 idolatres a christianiser dans la Haute Californie et que, en supposant 
 meme inefficaces toutes les autres exceptions proposees, celle-ci suffi- 
 rait au rejet de la reclamation, a quoi l'on respond que d'apres la 
 volonte des donateurs, meme realisee la provision sur laquelle ce 
 moyen de defense se fonde, les produits du Fonds devraient e'tre 
 employes pour les besoins des Indiens, et que cette supposition n'est 
 pas exacte parce qu'il y a encore des Indiens non civilises dans la 
 Haute Californie. 
 
 78. Si on s'appuie sur la volonte des donateurs pour pretendre qu'il 
 y a encore des Indiens a la subsistance desquels il faut pourvoir, on 
 doit se conformer strictement a cette volonte telle qu'elle f ut exprimee. 
 L'acte de donation octroye par le Marquis de Villapuente, stipule en 
 termes expres et categoriques que les proprietes qui y sont mention- 
 nees sont donnees aux Missions de la Compagnie de Jesus des Calif or- 
 nies (p. 105 Vol. imprime) ; idee qui semble corroboree plus loin (p. 106). 
 En ce qui concerne la donation Arguelles, d'apres le decret royal du 
 25 juillet 1803 son application doit §tre, selon les termes m§mes de la 
 cedule royale, rendue sous la forme de "distribution entre les religieux 
 qui desservent les missions qui etaient a la charge des Je'suites, dans ces 
 parages (pag. 319)." 
 
 79. On nous parle k tout moment du respect du aux volonte"s des 
 donateurs du Ponds Pie. On nous rappelle sans cesse que le Gouverne- 
 ment Espagnol comme celui du Mexique, en s'occupant des biens des 
 Jesuites et en disposant des biens qui formaient ce fonds, declarerent 
 leur intention de se soumettre a ces volontes. Mais il semble que 
 cette soumission ne soit obligatoire que pour le Mexique, et en ce qui 
 peut lui porter prejudice, car lorsqu'il est question de ce qui le favorise, 
 on passe sur les declarations des bienfaiteurs et on affecte d'en oublier 
 ou de n'en pas comprendre la veritable signification. 
 
 80. Laquelle des missions mentionnees dans le document distribue 
 par l'Hon. M. Ralston fait partie de eel les qui furent fondees par les 
 Jesuites ? N'est ce pas un fait patent qu'il n'y eut de missions fondees 
 par eux que dans la Basse Californie ? Ne l'est-il pas e"galement que 
 les donations eurent en vue les missions fondees ou a fonder par la 
 Compagnie de Jesus ? 
 
 X. 81. Si le Fonds pie de Californie avait pu survivre aux lois de 
 nationalisation des biens de mainmorte legitimement decretees par la 
 Republique Mexicaine, la faculte d'employer les produits de ce fonds 
 et les appliquer comme il lui semblerait le plus convenable aux inten- 
 tions de l'institution, appartiendrait exclusivement 3, ce Oouvernment. 
 De cette faculte indiscutable, que nos adversaires ont reconnue, puis- 
 qu'ils admettent comme dictes par une autorite souveraine et legitime 
 les divers decrets expedies jusqu'en 1845, r&ulte la liberte de dispo- 
 sition que j'invoque. Elle est la consequence naturelle et inevitable 
 d'un fait qui n'a pas ete* nie non plus; que par suite de la suppression 
 de la Compagnie de Jesus et de la prise en possession de leurs tempo- 
 ralites,- le Gouvernement Espagnol prit la place des Jesuites, auxquels 
 a son tour succeda le Gouvernement du Mexique, lorsqu'il eut conquis 
 son ind6|>endance. Selon la volonte des fondateurs primitifs, les Je- 
 suites, meme en admettant qu'ils aient ete investis de ce que l'on a bien 
 voulu nommer un trust, etaient autorises a disposer des produits du 
 Fonds pie, comme ils l'aurient juge convenable et dans Intelligence 
 qu'ils n'auraient & rendre compte de cette gestion ^ personne et qu'au- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 761 
 
 cune autorite s^culiere ou eccle"siastique, ne pourrait intervenir dans 
 cette gestion qui leur etait confiee sans restriction ni controle. 
 
 82. Si les lois de la logique ont conserve leur force, et si on admet 
 que le Gouvernement Espagnol et ensuite le Gouvernement Mexicain 
 se subrogerent aux premiers missionnaires pour leurs droits et leurs 
 facultes, il faudra admettre qu'ils acquirent du meme coup, et dans 
 toute sa plenitude, tontes les facultes, toutes les attributions illimitees 
 que la volonte des donateurs du Fonds Pie, avait concedees aux 
 J6suites. Le roi d'Espagne fit a ce sujet d'innombrables declarations 
 qui n'ont pas ete lues dans les audiences du Tribunal, et le Gouverne- 
 ment Mexicain legife'ra et decreta constamment sur l'administration 
 du Fonds, comme sur l'emploi de ses produits; et l'une des preuves en 
 est que c'est dans une des lois expediees par le Gouvernement du Mex- 
 ique que les reclamants s'efforcent de trouver un titre. 
 
 83. Cependant les reclamants meconnaissent le droit du Gouverne- 
 ment Mexicain et afBrment que l'emploi et la disposition du Fonds 
 Pie reviennent exclusivement aux eveques de la Haute Californie 
 comme le demontre rien moins que le decret du 3 avril 1845 si souvent 
 invoque dans cette discussion. 
 
 84. II me semble inutile de m'arreter &, repeter la refutation de 1'argu- 
 ment que l'on pretend tirer de cette loi, qui, ainsi que les avocats du 
 Mexique l'ont demontre de facon concluante, n'implique nullement un 
 contrat synallagmatique, source d'obligations exigibles devant tout tri- 
 bunal. Ce decret dans lequel l'autorite souveraine du Mexique dicta 
 une mesure, ne put creer un droit dans l'acception technique du mot, 
 de meme que les autres lois que la Republique dicta dans un but iden- 
 tique en disposant de l'administration du Fonds. 
 
 85. D'autre part, l'attitude de nos honorable* adversaires est incon- 
 sequente au dernier point. En meme temps qu'ils invoquent une loi 
 mexicaine chargeant l'eveque de Californie et ses successeurs de 
 l'administration et de l'employ du Fonds Pie, reconnaissent qu'ils 
 acceptent le caractere d'agents ou de delegues du Gouvernement 
 Mexicain, et pretendent tenir leur titre de ce meme Gouvernement, ils 
 proclament tres haut qu'ils se jugent dispenses du devoir de rendre 
 compte de leur gestion, et pretendent que nul n'a droit a leur demander 
 des comptes. Est-il done explicable qu'une corporation etrangere 
 soustraite a la juridiction des autorites mexicaines, assume la qualite 
 d'agent ou de delegue du Gouvernement de la Republique? L'eveque 
 de Californie a qui la loi du 3 avril 1845 confia l'administration et 
 l'emploi du Fonds Pie, 6tait un fonctionnaire mexicain, mais en vertu 
 de l'annexion de la Haute Californie aux Etats-Unis, les successeurs 
 de cet eveque ont la nationality americaine. Comment done conserve- 
 raient-ils une charge qui, sans avoir compte de son caractere precaire, 
 les placerait, eux citoyens etrangers, non residant en territoire mexicain, 
 dans la condition d'employes Ou d'agents d'un Gouvernement qui n'est 
 pas celui auquel ils doivent fid^lite ? L'acte d'incorporation d'ou derive 
 la personnalite civile attribute a l'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Cali- 
 fornie n'implique-t-il pas necessairement la soumission absolue aux 
 lois et aux autorites des Etats-Unis et la rupture de tout lien de depen- 
 dance a l'egard du Gouvernement, auquel le territoire annexe etait 
 soumis avant l'annexion ? 
 
 86. Les reclamants insistent cependant sur ce que le Gouvernement 
 du Mexique comme trustee, a le devoir de payer une pension perpetu- 
 elle de 6 pet. annuel sur une somme de'terminee et ils ajoutent que ce 
 
762 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 meme Gouvernement a reconnu cette obligation dont il revient a 
 l'Eveque de Californie d'exiger l'accomplissement. Pour juger de 
 l'efficacite - de ces allegations, il suffit de supposer pendant un instant 
 que la Compagnie de Je"sus n'a pas 6te" supprimee et que les biens 
 administre's par elle — done ceux des missions de Californie — ne sont 
 pas passes en d'autres mains. En ce cas, qui aurait le droit de deman- 
 der aux Jesuites, ces trustees, selon la qualification que nos adversaires 
 leur ont donnee, d'employer les produits des biens a l'entretien des 
 missions ou du culte catholique en Californie ? Personne sans aucun 
 doute, car la volonte" des donateurs 6tait qu'aucune autorite" seculiere 
 ou eccle"siastique ne s'entremit et demandat compte aux Jesuites de 
 l'accomplissement de la condition imposee a la donation. Eh bien, le 
 Gouvernement Espagnol succeda a la Compagnie de J6sus dans toute 
 la plentitude des facultes qu'exprime Facte de fondation du Fonds Pie; 
 et au Gouvernement Espagnol succeda celui du Mexique, sans restric- 
 tion d'aucun genre. Done, le Gouvernement Mexicain qui assuma le 
 trust a la charge d'abord des Je"suites, selon que l'entendent les reclani- 
 ants le prit dans les memes conditions que ceux-ci, ou, ce qui revient 
 au mSine, avec la faculty de disposer des produits du Fonds comme il 
 lui semblerait le plus convenable, et de les employer comme il le 
 jugerait le plus utile. 
 
 87. Pour soutenir le contraire, il serait necessaire que l'on nous 
 montrat l'acte juridique modificant le trust primitif confie aus Jesuites 
 missionnaires, et cet acte juridique n'a pas ete" produit et ne peut l'etre, 
 parce que nous avons deja vu que les lois Mexicaines expedites a, 
 diverses epoques et desquelles on veut conclure que le Gouvernement 
 Mexicain s'imposa des obligations, n'ont pas et ne peuvent avoir le 
 caractere de contrats, sources de droits dont l'exercice reviendrait aux 
 eveques actuels de la Haute Californie. De plus, outre qu'il s'agit 
 d'actes unilateraux, excluant de facon absolue toute idee de lien juri- 
 dique, ce furent des actes de souverainete" soumis de leur propre nature 
 & la volonte du souverain dont ils emanerent. 
 
 88. II est du, avant de poursuivre, d'examiner la question actuelle 
 sous un point de vue assez interessant et qui me semble nouveau. 
 Quoique l'on puisse dire sur la faculte" du Gouvernement Mexicain 
 par rapport a l'administration et a l'emploi des produits du Fonds 
 Pie, on ne dit pas cependant en quoi il les emploie ni ce qu'il en fait. 
 Cette observation ne resiste pas a l'analyse, pour deux raisons egale- 
 ment puissantes. 
 
 89. La premiere est qu'il a de"ja ete d^montre que le Gouvernement 
 Mexicain, meme en le consid^rant comme un trustee, n'a a rendre 
 compte a, personne de l'accomplissement ou du non accomplissement 
 de la condition imposed par les premiers donateurs, puisque, succes- 
 seurs des trustees originaires, (les Jesuites), il jouit de la liberte* 
 illimitee qui leur etait concedee. 
 
 90. La seconde est que la fondation ayant eu en vue un double but, 
 l'un politique et l'autre religieux, le premier est impossible, puisque 
 la Haute Californie n'est plus une dependance mexicaine. 11 ne serait 
 done plus possible de remplir en tous points les volontfo des donateurs. 
 D'autre part, PEglise Catholique de Californie est une corporation 
 riche, etablie dans une contree renomm^e egalement pour sa richesse, 
 et qui est soumise a l'autorite d'un Gouvernement, l'un des plus puissants 
 de la terre, et les previsions des donateurs du Fonds ne sont plus 
 r^alisables aujourd'hui. A cet expose\ il faut ajouter que les lois 
 d'ordre public de la Nation Mexicaine, les principes de sa constitution 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 763 
 
 politique, lui dependent de considerer comme subsistant un fonds qui 
 depuis 1859 et en vertu de la loi du 12 juillet de cette meme annee, fut 
 d£finitivement et irrevocablement nationalise" et cessa completement 
 d'exister. Nulle corporation ecclesiastique, d'aucune denomination, 
 ne peut avoir au Mexique les droits que pretend exercer au moyen de 
 ses eVeques, ou de quelqaes-uns d'entre eux au moins, l'Eglise Catho- 
 lique de Californie. Etrangere comme elle l'est; en ce qui regarde 
 des proprMtes situees en territoire mexicain, elle est soumise aux lois 
 du pays, a l'obeissance desquelles elle ne peut se soustraire en alleguant 
 qu'elle est une corporation de nationality ame"ricaine. 
 
 91. Le Tribunal peut mesurer l'importance qu'anrait pour la Repub- 
 lique Mexicaine une decision qui sanctionnerait les pretentions de 
 l'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Californie, car il ne saurait echapper 
 a, [sa haute penetration qu'il y a au Mexique un grand nombre d'en- 
 treprises montees par des compagnies etrangeres, et que chacune se 
 jugerait autorisee a s'exonerer de l'obeissance aux lois du pays, en 
 invoquant simplement sa nationality. C'est ainsi que dans le territoire 
 Mexicain meme s'erigerait une foule d'Etats dans l'Etat, chacun ayant 
 son regime propre, et exigeant chacun que les lois de son pays lui 
 soient seules applicables, et non les lois Mexicaines. Une pretention 
 aussi exhorbitanfce serait insoutenable, et c'est cependant ce que l'Eglise 
 Catholique de Californie cherche a, faire triompher devant ce Tribunal. 
 
 92. Et puisque je m'occupe des lois constitutionelles mexicaines, 
 que l'on me permette d'expliquer maintenant l'oppoitunite des dispo- 
 sitions de la loi du 14 decembre, 1874, presentee au nombre des 
 annexes de la reponse du Mexique a, la demande des venerables 
 eveques de la Haute Californie. 
 
 93. Cette loi, entre autres choses, 6tabli les seuls droits correspond- 
 ants aux associations religieuses du Mexique, et comme parmi ces 
 droits ne figure pas celui d'avoir une personnalite civile pour exiger 
 l'execution d'obligations d'un accomplissement futur, et que d'autre 
 part, ces obligations sont declares nulles et d'aucune valeur, il est evi- 
 dent que l'Eglise Catholique de la Haute Californie manque de per- 
 sonnalita, aux yeux de la legislation constitutionnelle Mexicaine, et elle 
 ne peut rien reclamer a la Republique. 
 
 94. L'exception derivee de la loi constitutionnelle a laquelle je me 
 refere ne put etre ni allegu^e ni decidee par la Commission Mixte, 
 simplement parce que la loi da 14 decembre 1874 est posterieure a la 
 reclamation dont connut cette Commission. C'est done une defense 
 subsequente qui ne pourrait pas etre soumise a la res judicata alleguee 
 avec tant denergie par nos honorables adversaires. 
 
 95. Et c'est en vain que l'on dirait que cette loi, posterieure de 
 plusieurs annees a l'annexion de la Haute Californie aux Etats-Unis, 
 est inapplicable a l'Eglise Catholique de cet Etat de l'Union Ameri- 
 caine parce que, bien qu'il s'agit d'une corporation Etrangere, il est 
 question des droits des associations religieuses au Mexique, et qu'il 
 est evident que pour apprecier ces droits et la capacite des personnalit^s 
 qui les exercent, il faut ne"cessairement recourir aux lois du Mexique. 
 Autrement ce serait vouloir attribuer un effet extraterritorial aux lois 
 nord-americaines sur des relations de droit, nees au Mexique, sur des 
 choses existant au Mexique, et qui imposent des obligations a un 
 Gouvernement etabli au Mexique. 
 
 96. II est facile de se faire une idee des abus auxquels preterait la 
 sanction des principes contraires a, ceux que je defends, et pour n'en 
 presenter qu'un exemple il me suffira de supposer que, afin d'eluder le 
 
764 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 droit public de mon pays, les associations religieuses qui y sont e"tablies, 
 obtinssent leur incorporation d'apres la loi de quelqu'un des Etats de 
 l'Union Americaine. A l'ombre de cette incorporation qui leur donne- 
 rait une personnalite" civile aux Etats-Unis, elles parviendraient sans 
 difficulte a eliuder l'application des lois mexicaines qui interdisent aux 
 associations perpetuelles et ind&inies, l'acquisition de biens immobiliers 
 et de droits r^els, et la mainmorte regnerait de nouveau au Mexique 
 avec tout son cortege d'inconvenients politiques et economiques, sans 
 que le Gouvernement put apporter un remede au mal, parce qu'en face 
 de lui se dresserait l'infranchissable obstacle de la nationalise" ameri- 
 caine de la corporation. 
 
 XI. 97. Abordant le detail de la reclamation, et en prevision, con- 
 trairement a tout ce que l'on doit attendre, on viendrait a declarer que 
 le Mexique est debiteur des sommes qui lui sont re"clamees. Mr. 
 Mariscal au nom de Gouvernement, se plaint des exaggerations de la 
 demande et au nombre d'entre elles specifie l'exigence au paiement en 
 or. Cette question a deja, ete traitee par les distingues avocats du 
 Mexique et je ne compte pas ajouter a leurs observations. Cependant 
 il n'est pas inutile d'attirer l'attention sur les bases sur lesquelles 
 repose une pretention si peu motivee. Elles se reduisent a ceci: Le 
 Mexique est trustee du Fonds Pie, ou plutot des interets a 6 pet. qui 
 sont objet de la demande. En cette qualite, il devait les payer aux 
 dates convenues. II ne l'a pas fait, il doit en supporter les conse- 
 quences, et parmi elles, celle d'avoir a payer en or au moment ou sa 
 monnaie celle en laquelle il recut le produit de la vente des biens 
 formant ledit Fonds, et la mtkne en laquelle, selon qu'on le pretend, i! 
 s'obligea a payer les interets reclames, souffre une depreciation con- 
 siderable. Deux choses seraient n^cessaires a l'efficacite, apparente au 
 moins, de l'argument. D'abord que le non accomplissement suppose 
 du paiement de certains revenus promis en argent, eut pu causer la 
 novation de l'obligation primitive en transformant en un engagement 
 de payer en or l'obligation de payer en argent. Ensuite, que la de- 
 mande eut compris en plus de la prestation principale: le paiement 
 des interets Melius, l'indemnisation des dommages. Or, le non accom- 
 plissement d'une obligation n'en modifie point la modalite ni les con- 
 ditions, et la reclamation, de son cote, n'enibrasse pas la reparation des 
 dommages. Done, la pretention dont je parle est a tous points de vue 
 denuee de fondement. 
 
 98. D'autre part, en pretendant au paiement en or des sommes 
 demandees, on perd de vue qu'il est dans les principes du droit civil 
 que le debiteur doit payer avec 1'espece de monnaie dans laquelle 
 il s'est engage a le faire de telle sorte que si elle a souffert une depre- 
 ciation, le creancier doit la supporter, de meme qu'il profiterait de 
 l'augmentation de la valeur si le cas contraire se realisait. Que l'on 
 suppose que l'argent, comme il arriva en 1859, fit prime sur l'or, la 
 pretention de Mexique a payer en or seraitelle fondee? Non, et pour 
 la m6me raison on ne peut Pobliger a, remplir l'engagement dont on 
 le suppose responsable en payant en or, sous pretexte que sa monnaie 
 a subi une depreciation. 
 
 XII. 99. Je suis oblige de faire constater que les reclamants n'ontpas 
 compris la portee de la defense subsidiairement alleguee par le Mexi- 
 que, en invoquant la sentence rendue dans le prices Rada, dont le tri- 
 bunal a d6ja tant entendu parler. On a crue que cette exception se 
 rattache a l'embargo de PHacienda Cienega del Pastor, dont le surarbitre 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 765 
 
 de la Commission Mixte d^duisit la valeur, a cause du sequestre dont 
 elle fut Pobjet en raison de l'execution d'une sentence qui ne fut pas 
 dictee par le Supreme Conseil des Indes royal, et dont Pexecutoire est 
 le fondement de l'exception, mais par un tribunal de District du Mexi- 
 que, plusieurs annees apres l'independance. Les reclamants disent 
 qu'on allegue en vain la defense dont il est question, parce qu'il est 
 constate que malgre Pembargo de l'Hacienda Cienega del Pastor, cette 
 propritjte fut vendue par le Gouvernement du Mexique qui en recut le 
 prix de sorte que sa dette ne peut en etre diminuee. L'exception sub- 
 siste meme en supposant f ondee cette obligation parce qu'elle se fonde 
 sur le fait parfaitement demontre par l'a sentence du Conseil des Indes, 
 que Padjudication faite a la Marquise de Kada, des biens provenant de 
 la succession du marquis, fut declaree nulle et sans valeur. C'est a ces 
 biens que se r^fere la donation qui a 6te considere comme l'origine du 
 Fonds Pie. II est done manif este que si la marquise, en vertu de la 
 sentence executoire dont nous parlons, n'acquit pas la propriety des 
 biens qu'elle donna plus tard a la Campagnie de J6sus, elle ne put pas 
 non plus en transmettre la propriety aux donataires; et par consequent 
 il y a a deduire du Fonds Pie tous les biens appartenant a la donation 
 Rada. 
 
 100. Pour se soustraire a la consequence que je viens de deduire de 
 la sentence dictee par le Conseil des Indes, les reclamants disent que 
 dans ce jugement le droit de la Marquise de las Torres de Rada et de 
 ses heritiers aux proprietes dont elle fit don aux Jesuites, ne fut pas 
 attaque et que tout ce que decida le Supreme Conseil des Indes, se 
 reduisit Ji certaines declarations sur les charges de chancellerie, qui 
 etaient attachees au titre du Marquis de las Torres de Rada, et sur les 
 revenus de ces charges. 
 
 101. II faut done avoir recours a la sentence invoquee pour demontrer 
 l'erreur dans laquelle, de bonne foi assurement, se trouvent nos honor- 
 ables adversaires. " Nous decretons — disent les magistrats du Conseil 
 supreme des Indes — et nous declarons nuls et de nulle valeur et nul 
 effet, les inventaires et evaluations des biens qui resterent a la niort du 
 Marquis de las Torres de Rada; et Padjudication qui en a ete faite a la 
 marquise; et nous reservons leurs droits aux heritiers de celle-ci et a 
 Don Joseph de Rada et ses colitigeants, pour qu'ils en usent comme il 
 leur convient, sur les droits respectifs de'duits dans l'Audience ou ils 
 devront l'executer. " Suivent les declarations relatives a la transmission 
 de la propriete civile et naturelle du titre et de la dignite de Marquis 
 et des charges de chancelier et contr61eur. II est done indubitable 
 que Padjudication faite en faveur de la marquise des biens de la suc- 
 cession du Marquis de Rada, fut annulee. Comme ces biens — je dois 
 le repeter — etaient ceux qui furent donnas aux je"suites, il est clair 
 que cette donation resta necessairement annulee a Pinstant meme oule 
 fut le titre de la donatrice, car nul ne peut transmettre plus de droit 
 qu'il ne possede, et la Marquise de las Torres de Rada ne fut jamais 
 propri^taire des biens en question. Ces explications permettront 
 d'apprecier la valeur du systeme employe par les reclamants pour 
 combattre l'exception dont je m'occupe. La question relative aux 
 charges jointes au Marquisat de las Torres de Rada et a leurs emolu- 
 ments, est independante de celle qui se rapporte a la nullite" de 
 Padjudication faite en faveur de la Marquise, des biens de la succession 
 de son second mari, quoique les deux points aient 6te decides dans la 
 m§me sentence. 
 
766 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 102. Dans l'6tat actuel des choses, comme il n'apparait nulle part 
 
 ^ue la susdite Marquise ait et6 remise en possession des biens dont le 
 ionseil des Indes annula l'adjudication, la veritable chose jugee est que 
 les biens donnes par cette dame aux jesuites, ne lui appartenaient pas 
 et que, par la meme, elle ne put transmettre une propri^t^ qui n'^tait 
 pas la sienne. 
 
 103. II est bien sur que cet etat de choses n'a pas change, puisque 
 encore vers le milieu du dernier siecle, la sentence du Conseil des 
 Indes etait en voie d'execution en ce qui touchait les emoluments des 
 charges de Chancelier et de Controleur appartenant au Marquisat de 
 las Torres de Rada. On ne connait pas avec certitude, malgre* les 
 efforts dont le dossier de la Commission Mixte fait foi, quel fut le 
 denouement du litige relativement a ces emoluments, bien que l'on 
 sache de facon certaine que, quoique en consequence de ce proces, 
 l'hacienda de Cienega del Pastor fut l'objet d'une. saisie, le Gouverne- 
 ment du Mexique aliena cette propriete*. 
 
 104. La justice exige que si, comme le pretendent les ev^ques de la 
 Haute Californie, on doit aj outer le prix de l'hacienda Cienega del Pas- 
 tor a revaluation du Fonds Pie, en tout cas soit d^duit de cette Evalua- 
 tion, le montant capitalise des proprietes donnees par la Marquise de 
 las Torres de Rada, qui n'avait pu les transmettre, etant donne qu'elles 
 ne lui appartenaient pas. Le Gouvernement Mexicain es responsable 
 de la valeur de ces proprietes vis-a-vis des heritiers du Marquis de las 
 Torres. Si ces heritiers se presentaient pour les revendiquer, les pos- 
 sesseurs actuels des proprietes auraient a s'adresser au Gouvernement 
 qui, en definitive est seul responsable, en sa quality de successeur des 
 Jesuites et le proprietaire des biens qui formerent le Fonds Pie de 
 Californie. 
 
 105. En raison de ces considerations, la soussigne" a 1'honneur de 
 demander au Tribunal de declarer justifies les moyens de defense 
 invoques -par le representant du Gouvernement Mexicain, dans sa 
 reponse a la demande presentee au nom de l'Eglise Catholique de la 
 Haute Californie. 
 
 M. le President. La reponse des Etats-Unis Mexicains est finie; 
 nous passons done aux repliques. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. With the permission of M. Descamps, and with the 
 permission of the court, I desire to present for a moment a printed 
 copy of the deposition of Mr. John T. Doyle, together with the exhibits 
 that accompany it, and further, with the permission of my friends upon 
 the other side of the room, I should like to make one or two brief 
 observations as to some points which have been cited by them, calling 
 attention merely to one or two little errors of fact into which I think 
 they have fallen and without desiring to present any argument. 
 
 M. Beernaert. ' Messieurs, on me communique a l'instant un nouveau 
 document considerable dont nous ne savons pas le premier mot et qui 
 parait complete par de nouvelles annexes. Je ne veux pas faire de 
 procedure, et si malgre la decision que la Cour a prise de ne plus 
 admetre de nouvelles pieces a, ce moment du debat, elle veut bien 
 recevoir celle-la, je n'y fais pas d'objection. Seulement il est evident 
 que nous devons avoir le droit et le temps d'examiner ce document et 
 d'y repondre. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I think, Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, 
 that M. Beernaert has fallen into a slight error. The document pre- 
 sented has been in the hands of the secretary-general for some time, 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 767 
 
 perhaps ten days, and we have only just had an opportunity to print 
 it. So this is not a new document, but there is one new authority to 
 which I shall desire to refer. 
 
 M. lb Secretaire General. Ce document est depose" depuis dix 
 jours. 
 
 M. Beernaert. On nous le remet a l'instant. 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Vous auriez pu le consulter avant; il 
 est au greffe depuis dix jours. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Nous en ignorions le dep6t. 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Le dossier est a votre disposition 
 depuis 15 jours, vous pouvie? l'examiner. 
 
 M. Beernaert. Quand nous avons vu le dossier, ce document n'y 
 6tait pas. 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. II y 6tait il y a dix jours. 
 
 M. Beernaert. C'est pour nous un document nouveau et je demande 
 la permisson de le lire. Nous avons pris communication du dossier 
 des que la Cour nous y a autoris^s, et certainement a ce moment ce 
 document n'y 6tait pas. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. If Mr. Beernaert will allow me, the filing of the 
 original deposition of Mr. Doyle was brought to the attention of the 
 court in open session about ten days ago, but it probably slipped M. 
 Beernaert's attention at the time. 
 
 Secretary-General. What day did you give it? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. About ten days ago, I think. 
 
 M. Asser. M. le Secretaire General a-t-il mentionne le de"p6t de ce 
 document? 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Evidemment, il doit etre mentionne. 
 
 M. Asser. Est-ce que le proces-verbal le mentionne ? 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Nous allons examiner les proces- 
 verbaux. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. The proces-verbaux will not show the date, but our 
 stenographer's report will show the exact date. 
 
 Sir Edward Frye. Will you show us in the notes what the date is ? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. A little index was handed to the court the other day, 
 and that will show the exact time. 
 
 (Mr. Ralston examines the stenographic report.) 
 
 M. Beernaert. 11 est facheux qu'on ne nous l'ait pas distribue. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, it was 
 deposited with this court, and the attention of the court was directed 
 to it, on the 15th of September, as appears on page 6 of the printed 
 report. 
 
 M. Delacroix. C'est un document dont on nous a refuse l'ouver- 
 ture. Certains documents etaient scelles, fen ai demande l'ouverture, 
 on m'a repondu qu'on n'avait pas le droit de les ouvrir. 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Le 15 septembre, ces deux documents 
 dtaient dans des enveloppes scell^es. M. le President, apres la seance 
 du 15, les a ouvertes et a pris connaissance des documents. J'ai alors 
 adresse" une lettre a l'agent des Etats-Unis mexicains lui disant que 
 "tous les documents, sans reserve et sans exception" (souligne) e"taient 
 a sa disposition. 
 
 M. Descamps. C'est clair! 
 
 M. de Martens. C'est clair, n'est-ce pas: c'^tait a, la disposition de 
 la partie. 
 
 M. Delacroix. On nous avait dit qu'ils etaient a la disposition, et je 
 
768 PIOUS FUND OF the califoknias. 
 
 crois me souvenir que nous avions recu cette lettre avant que je sois 
 venu, du moins si mes souvenh-s me servent bien. Quand nous nous 
 sommes prejsentes, nous avons recu communication du dossier. On 
 nous a montre certaines lettres qui etaient scellees, j'ai demand^ qu'elles 
 fussent ouvertes et M. le Secretaire General m'a repondu qu'il ne 
 pouvait pas ouvrir ces documents. Nous en sommes restes la, sup- 
 po.sant que ce document, qui etait scelle et qui 6tait indique comme 
 etant le temoignage de M. Doyle etait precisement celui qui se trouvait 
 dans le livre rouge. Nous n'avions pas besoin des lors de f aire desceller 
 cette enveloppe mysterieuse, puisque nous pensions que le document 
 6tait dans le livre rouge. Aujourd'hui nous apprenons que c'etait 
 autre chose. Je n'y insiste pas autrement, seulement nous demandons 
 le temps de le lire et d'y repondre. 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Quand l'honorable conseil des Etats- 
 Unis Mexicains s'est presente, je n'avais pas encore adresse ma lettre a 
 l'agent, lui disant que le Tribunal mettait le dossier sans exception 
 aucune a sa disposition. C'est une beure apres que M. le President a 
 ouvert ces enveloppes; ma lettre est partie quelques heures apres pour 
 M. l'agent du Mexique lui disant que tout le dossier etait de 10 heures 
 a midi et de 2 heures a, 4 heures a sa disposition, sans exception aucune. 
 Je ne sais pas jusqu'aquel point ces Messieurs n'ontpas juge utile d'en 
 user. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Je viens d'en donner la raison. 
 
 M. de Martens. Mais, la lettre existe ? 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. La lettre existe. 
 
 M. Descamps. C'est absolument clair et absolument correct, jetiens 
 a le constater. 
 
 Mr. Ealston. I regret very much the misunderstanding on the part 
 of my friends on the other side. 
 
 M. le President. II n'y a pas de doute la-dessus. La lettre sera 
 incorporee au dossier. M. l'agent des Etats-Unis d'Amerique du Nord 
 a-t-il encore quel que chose a d^poser? 
 
 Mr. Ealston. No; I think not, except for the convenience of the 
 court I would like to present one thing more. I should have 
 brought it this morning, but it was overlooked. It is an official 
 map of the United States, which shows upon it the various reserva- 
 tions apportioned to the different Indian tribes. It is not a matter of 
 great importance, but I should like, with the permission of niy friends, 
 that the court should see it, to give the court a better idea of the 
 situation. 
 
 M. de Martens. I think you have already announced your inten- 
 tion to present it a week or ten days ago. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes; 1 have. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Before you go on I should like to ask you this 
 question: Our attention has been drawn to the fact that in the pre- 
 vious proceedings there were three bishops named and it is said there 
 are only two now. I desire to call your attention to it early, so that 
 if there is any error it may be corrected. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I thank your honor. We are in a position to correct 
 it. From our point of view there was none, but we have a complete 
 power of attorney from the third bishop. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. He undertakes to be bound by the proceedings? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Yes, sir; and he authorizes Archbishop Riordan to 
 duly represent him. But I perhaps should add, my attention having 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIA9. 769 
 
 been called to it, that we are to-day copying it with a view to present- 
 ing it to the court, the court having indicated a disposition to receive 
 it. There are one or two further points which I believe it would be 
 in the interest of correctness and speed to speak of for about five 
 minutes. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis d'Am6- 
 rique, M. Descamps. 
 
 M. Descamps. M. Ralston demande que je lui cede la parole pendant 
 cinq minutes, si le Tribunal veut bien la lui accorder. 
 
 M. de Maktens. Ce serait une replique nouvelle. Le tribunal a 
 decide" que vous prendriez la parole apres M. Pardo. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I will not insist upon it, but there are one or two 
 points that 1 would like to explain to the court. 
 
 M. Descamps. Messieurs les Arbitres, appele" au grand honneur de 
 defendre la cause des Etats-Unis d'AmeVique devant une juridiction 
 arbitrale internationale, et de plaider cette cause devant vous, qui con- 
 stituez si dignement le premier tribunal d'arbitrage etabli conform6- 
 ment a, la Convention de La Haye, je viens vous demander en ordre 
 principal de consacrer en notre faveur le respect de la chose jugee, et 
 en ordre subsidiaire d'assurer le respect de ce que nous considerons 
 comme des engagements inviolables. C'est sous l'egide de ces deux 
 grandes maximes fondamentales du droit: Res judicata, Veritas inter 
 partes — Pacta servanda — que je place les considerations que je vais 
 essayer de developper devant vous. 
 
 J'estime, Messieurs, que dans une affaire aussi compliqu^e et au 
 point ou en sont arrives les debats, il est necessaire d'eviter ce que l'on ' 
 a appele tout a l'heure "les digressions inopportunes." II importe de 
 s'attacher aux questions maitresses. L'histoire des colonies en general 
 et celle des reductions en particuUer est interesante sans doute, et 
 peut-etre n'aurais-je pas trop de peine d'en parler, cette histoire rent- 
 rant dans le cadre de mon enseignement universitaire. Les faits et 
 gestes de la Revolution francaise sont un objet d'etudes curieuses et de 
 controverses incessantes, mais je ne vois pas la n^cessite" de m'en 
 occuper presentement, sauf pour faire mes reserves concernant cer- 
 taines deductions et applications developpees par mes honoris contra- 
 dicteurs. Le r6cit des trois manages de la Marquise de Villapuente 
 peut presenter des aspects piquants, bien que le mobile qui a deter- 
 mine" notre confrere a ornementer et a dramatiser ce recit ne me 
 paraisse pas bien louable: il n'y a pas lieu, ce semble, de discr^diter les 
 fondations californiennes. Et moi aussi, si je recherchais l'anecdote, 
 je pourrais rappeler certains incidents des correspondances diploma- 
 tiques entre les deux gouvernements en cause, ou j'aurais beau jeu . . . 
 et peut §tre les rieurs de mon c5te. Mais a quoi bon tant cela? 
 Attachons nous aux elements pertinents de la cause et tachons de cir- 
 conscrire le debat au lieu de l'etendre et de l'egarer. 
 
 Avant d'entrer au coeur du debat, je dois faire une rectification con- 
 cernant certaines allegations de M. Beernaert. Mon illustre adversaire 
 a savoure" longuement dans son discours le silence et comme 1'iDSOuci- 
 ance des ayants droits a faire valoir leurs revendications. II a tenu a 
 rappeler ce passage de la decision du premier arbitre, ou l'on suppose 
 que les reclamations et les reponses a l'origine furent simplement ver- 
 bales. Aucune trace de reclamation 6crite, nous a-t-on dit. C'est une 
 erreur complete et il existe au dossieur une piece qui coupe court au- 
 jourd'hui aces hypotheses. Nous n'avons pas, il est vrai, la reclamation 
 
 S. Doc. 28 49 
 
770 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 de l'archev^que de San Francisco. Nous avons mieux: la reponse 
 officielle du gouvernement mexicain constatant la demande 6crite et 
 s'excusant du retard apporte" a, y repondre a, raison de la n^cessite de 
 consulter les retroactes et des documents anciens. Cette piece ayant 
 6chappe a notre honore" contradicteur, j'en tiens une copie a sa dispo- 
 sition. Elle date du 29 septein bre 1852. Le Gouvernement mexicain 
 refuse de faire droit a, la demande, en alleguant que c'est lui est le 
 successeur des missionnaires, ajoutant qu'il lui serait d'autre part bien 
 difficile de venir en aide aux chefs de l'Eglise de la Haute-Californie, 
 les missions de la Basse-Californie etant dans une profonde detresse 
 et le tresor mexicain etant, de notoriete, mis a mal (por lapenuria con- 
 ocida del Erario publico). 
 
 M. de Martens. Ou est cette piece ? 
 
 M. Desoamps. Elle estau dossier de M. Doyle, et voici la traduction 
 anglaise du passage que je viens deciter: " On account of the well-known 
 penury of the public treasury and on account of the state of poverty and 
 backwardness m which the missions under its protection in the territory 
 of the Republic are found." 
 
 Le ref us oppose a la demande etait, comme on le voit, cat^gorique 
 et constatait meme une impossibilite physique de temoigner quelque 
 bon vouloir, vu 1'etat facheux de la caisse de la Republique. 
 
 En ce qui concerne un autre point sur lequel M. Beernaert a aussi 
 insiste et qui concerne les reclamations posterieures au jugement arbi- 
 tral de 1875, voici exactement ce qui s'est passe". Le premier paye- 
 .ment du Mexique condamne a solder sa dette, fut fait le 31 Janvier 
 1877, le second, le 31 Janvier 1878. II y a eu treize payements par- 
 tiels, et le dernier porte la date du 21 Janvier 1890. Aussit6t apres cette 
 apuration, des le ler mars 1890, nous constatons que M. le se*nateur 
 Stewart addressa une demande d'intervention au Gouvernement des 
 Etats-Unis dans le but d'obtenir du Gouvernement mexicain le paye- 
 ment des interets echus depuis 1869. Et le 17 aout 1891 M. Ryan, 
 ministre des Etats-Unis a Mexico, formula une reclamation diplomatique 
 en regie. 
 
 Cette reclamation portait: 
 
 Mon gouvernement est d'avis que la decision de l'arbitre a £tabli en force de chose 
 jug£e: 
 
 1°. La debition du Gouvernement mexicain envers L'Eglise catholique romain de 
 Californie, de la part revenant a celle-ci dans la revenu annuel dudit fonds charitable; 
 
 2°. Le montant annuel de cette part; 
 
 3°. Que les archeveque et ev6ques de cette eglise sont les titulaires du droit de la 
 reclamer et de la recevoir; 
 
 4°. Que la partie demanderesse est une corporation de citoyens americains (Etats- 
 Unis) ; 
 
 5°. Que la cause comporte proprement I' intervention diplomatique du gouvernement 
 des Elats- Unis. 
 
 Et voici la conclusion : 
 
 J'ai ordre d'exprimer respectueusement a Votre Excellence l'espoir de mon Gouv- 
 ernement d'obtenir prompt et satisfaisant acquiescement a cette demande. 
 
 Un autre point sur lequel je dois revenir aussi, bien qu'a regret, ce 
 sont les plaintes constantes des d^fendeurs concernant l'Stat de notre 
 dossier documentaire. L'honorable M. Beernaert nous disait r6cem- 
 ment encore : ' ' Nous sommes a cet egard dans une situation lamentable 1" 
 Mais, Messieurs, a qui la faute? Et en toute justice est-ce que le 
 Gouvernement des Etats-Unis n'a pas fait, au point de vue des com- 
 munications, cent fois plus que le Gouvernement mexicain et son agent? 
 
PIOUS FUKD OF THE OALIFOENIAS. , 771 
 
 Un mot maintenant du memoire que vient de lire S. Exc. M. Pardo. 
 M. le ministre du Mexique, si je l'ai bien compris a premiere audition, 
 se place sur un terrain assez singulier. Selon lui, le tribunal actuel 
 ne serait un tribunal international que pour la forme. En realite, il 
 faut le considerer comme un tribunal mexicain charge d'appliquer 
 exclusivement les Ibis du Mexique, lesquelles devraient avoir en tout 
 cas et sans conteste une valeur absolue. Ce point de vue ne me parait 
 pas exact. 
 
 II y a d'abord au-dessus des lois mexicaines et du droit mexicain un 
 droit international public en conformite duquel toutes les nations doi- 
 vent se conduire et qui, notamment en matiere d'obligations pecuni- 
 airies contractuellement assumees, ne permet pas a chaque Etat d'en 
 agir toujours a sa guise, ces obligations iussent-elles contractus envers 
 des particuliers etrangers. Tous les actes qu'il peut plaire a un Etat 
 de faire a l'egard des ressortissants Strangers ne sont pas des actes 
 licites selon le droit international public. 
 
 II y a aussi un droit international prive" qui suppose la coordination 
 des lois des divers pays suivant une regie de justice, laquelle ne permet 
 pas toujours a un Etat de n'avoir 6gard qu'a ses propres lois, par 
 exemple en ce qui concerne l'etat et la capacity des personnes, soit 
 physiques, soit morales. On peut, ici encore, se trouver en presence 
 de nombreuses et importantes questions qui ne relevent pas exclusive- 
 ment d'une seule souverainete. 
 
 L'eminent organe du Gouvernement mexicain pretend encore que 
 le Tribunal arbitral doit " fermer l'oreille a nos appels a P6quite\" 
 
 Mais ceci ne pourrait etre 6tabli qu'apres un exanien particuliere- 
 ment attentif des termes du compromis, qui sont loin d'enjoindre au 
 
 J resent tribunal de statuer exclusivement d'apres les lois mexicaines. 
 e comprends cependant l'empressement du Mexique a demander au 
 Tribunal arbitral de fermer l'oreille a, l'equite, lorsqu'il soutient des 
 theses comme celles que nous avons entendu developper tout a l'heure 
 et ou j'ai cru relever cette conclusion: si la creance r^clamee n'avait 
 pas e"te garantie par moi sur le revenu des tabacs, je ne pourrais pas la 
 confisquer; mais comme je l'ai garantie, elledevient pour moi matiere 
 a confiscation. Sans compter qu'il n'est pas commode en droit de 
 soutenir que le principal suit la loi de l'accessoire et qu'uoe creance 
 change de nature parce qu'une garantie — le revenu des tabacs erige en 
 immeuble — vient s'y annexer. 
 
 Le Mexique pretend que, dans le compromis, il n'a pas entendu 
 renoncer a, l'empire absolu de ses lois. Mais les Etats-Unis ne sont pas 
 apparemment de cet avis, et c'est le tribunal arbitral qui, aux termes de 
 Particle 48 de PActe de la conference de La Haye, "est autorise" a 
 determiner sa competence en inteipretant le compromis, ainsi que les 
 autres traites qui peuvent &tre invoques en la matiere et en appliquant 
 les principes du droit international." 
 
 Tels sont les pouvoirs de la Cour et il est peut-Stre bon de le rappe- 
 ler. Le Mexique a conteste" fort tard la competence de la jurisdiction 
 arbitrale del868. II peut soulever devant la juridiction de 1892 telle 
 exception qui lui agree, mais la regie concernant les exceptions 
 d'incompetence visant le compromis est celle-la. 
 
 Apres s'etre places sur un terrain peu solide, selon nous, et avoir 
 reclame Papplication absolue et exclusive des lois mexicaines dans la 
 presente cause, les defenseurs du Mexique nous font connaitre les lois 
 dont ils entendent revendiquer Papplication. 
 
772 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA S. 
 
 lis nous signalent d'abord une se"rie de dispositions constitutionnelles 
 et legislatives concernant les institutions religieuses et les biens ecclE- 
 siastiques. Mais il y a lieu d' observer d'abord que toutes ces dispo- 
 sitions, y compris la derniere loi citde, celle de 1874, sont anterieures 
 a la premiere decision arbitrale 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. Non. 
 
 M. Descamps. Je parle des lois de proscription et non des lois de 
 prescription; en leur qualitede simples moyens de preuve, fussent-ils 
 nouveaux, les textes invoques ne peuvent infirmer la chose jugee. 
 
 La question de la condition des personnes morales Etrangeres dans 
 leurs rapports eVentuels avec les divers pays est, au demeurant, une 
 question fort delicate, dont la solution n'est pas aussi facile et ne peut 
 etre aussi unilaterale que semble le penser l'honorable organe du 
 Mexique. 
 
 Si le Mexique entend que ses ressortissants §. l'e"tranger benEficient 
 de leur loi nationale quant a leur etat et a leur capacite, on concoit 
 que les autres Etats ne soient pas precisement depourvus de titres & 
 revendiquer vis-a-vis de l'Etat du Mexique l'application de leur loi a 
 eux quant a l'etat et a la capacite des personnes. Et il y a IS, plus 
 qu'une simple question de reciprocite; il y a une question de coordi- 
 nation ne"cessaire suivant une loi gEnerale de justice. 11 est juste que 
 les nations n'empietent pas sur leur competence respective en ce qui 
 concerne la determination des droit de leurs ressortissants, sous la 
 reserve des exigences propres de l'ordre public chez elles. Or com- 
 ment, en verite, considerer comme contraire & un tel ordre le simple 
 acquittement d'une dette en numeraire assumee par contract envers 
 des ressortissant etrangers qui n'habitent pas le territoire et n'y exer- 
 cent aucune action ou influence? 
 
 Et en ce qui concerne les fondations etrangeres de nature diverse 
 existant dans tant de pays, est-ce, done, par des lois de confiscation 
 pure et simple que les Etats se croient autorises a proceder, et ne 
 voyons-nous pas, au contraire, des interventions diplomatiques 
 assurer des respects ntjeessaires ou aboutir a des reglementations 
 equitables ? 
 
 Dans le cas present, qui peut soutenir un seul instant que le fait de 
 payer la dette qu'on reclame ait un rapport quelconque avec le 
 maintien de l'ordre public international ou national au Mexique ? Le 
 tresor seul peut en ressentir quelque atteinte, et combien legere en 
 presence de l'etat florissant actuel des finances mexicaines. Car il est 
 bon de le constater, et je suis heureux de rendre ici cet hommage a, 
 l'Etat mexicain: ses finances sont aujpurd'hui tres prosperes et le sac- 
 rifice d'argent qui lui est demande n'a rien pour lui d'exorbitant ni 
 d'inquietant. 
 
 On le voit, la question de la confiscation des f ondation Etrangeres 
 dans un pays, celle de la situation des personnes morales Etrangeres en 
 rapport de simple debition de sommes contractuellement promises et 
 garanties, ne sont pas de celles qui se tranchent ad libitum, sans 
 soulever des questions d'equite et de justice internationale et sans 
 provoquer de legitimes interventions diplomatiques. 
 
 Mais voici une autre serie de lois mises en avant par nos adversaires, 
 ce sont des lois de decheance radicale attachees au nonaccomplissement 
 de telle ou telle formality. Nos adversaires invoquent dans cet ordre 
 deux lois: celle de 1885, qui n'est point pertinente puisqu'elle ne ren- 
 ferme qu'une invitation a un acte volontaire, et celle de 1894 stipulant 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 773 
 
 que la non production des cre"ances a charge de l'Etat Mexicain, dans 
 un deiai de quelques mois, devant un bureau institue pour en juger la 
 realite, aura pour consequence une decheance definitive. 
 
 Mais il y a lieu d' observer que la rente due aux chefs de l'Eglise 
 catholique en Calif ornie avait et6 l'objetd'une reclamation diplomatique 
 en regie en date du 17 aout 1891 et que nous avons deja fait connaitre. 
 Cette reclamation anterieure et officielle equivalait manifestement a la 
 production demandee; et en tout cas, lorsque des creances ou des droits 
 sont l'objet d'un recours diplomatique le droit international public 
 autorise-t-il a decreter a leur egard des decheances radicales du chef 
 de simple inaccomplissement de telle ou telle formalite - sans raison 
 d'etre dans l'espece, et traitant la reclamation diplomatique comme si 
 elle n'existait pas? Nous nous permettons de repondre negativement. 
 
 J'arrive a une troisieme serie de lois invoquees contre nous, les lois 
 etablissant une prescription et specialement une c'ourte prescription — 
 cinq ans — en ce qui concerne les inter&ts echus des rentes. 
 
 Je n'entends pas repeter ici ce qui a deja ete dit sur ce point par mes 
 confreres americains, mais je voudrais demander une explication a S. 
 Exc. M. le Ministre du Mexique. Les conclusions de MM. Beernaert 
 et Delacroix parlent d'un Code civil federal. Or je n'ai pas connais- 
 sance d'un tel Code; et aux termes de Particle 72 X, de la Constitution 
 mexicaine, modifie par la loi du 14 decembre 1883, le Congres n'a com- 
 petence pour faire des codes obligatoires dans toute la republique 
 qu'en ce qui concerne les mines et le commerce, en y comprenant les 
 institutions debanque. Je connais les codes particuliers de differents 
 Etats de la Confederation mexicaine. Dans les documents fournis par 
 nos adversaires je trouve le Code civil du district federal .et du terri- 
 toire de la Basse-Calif ornie. Est-ce ce Code que l'on entend appliquer 
 aux relations entre less ressortissants etrangers et le Gouvernement 
 mexicain dans l'ordre des dettes contractees par ce dernier a l'egard 
 des premiers ? 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. II est bien vrai que les Etats-Unis mexicains 
 reconnaissent a, chaque Etat le droit de legiferer sur les matieres civiles 
 et penales; mais il y a des lois qui sont obligatoires dans toute la 
 Federation, comme, par exemple, les lois relatives a la propriete 
 miniere et au commerce. II est bien entendu par la Cour mexicaine 
 que dans les rapports du Gouvernement federal avec Les particuliers, 
 nationaux ou etrangers, les interesses sont soumis au Code du district 
 federal. Quoique ce soit le Code special du district federal, c'est la 
 loi a laquelle la Federation est assujettie dans les relations avec les 
 particuliers. 
 
 M. Descamps. S. Exc. M. Pardo nous dit qu'il a ete entendu que 
 le Code special en question s'applique aux rapports du Gouvernement 
 federal avec les particuliers nationaux ou etrangers. Je n'entends pas 
 me prononcer a l'instant sur cette question. Je ne veux pas davan- 
 tage revenir sur les observations developpees par mes confreres ameri- 
 cains touchant l'inapplicabilite au cas present des dispositions que 
 l'on invoque, specialement en ce qui concerne la prescription des 
 intents par cinq ans. Mais je tiens a faire observer combien il serait 
 exorbitant et injustifie de tenter de transformer le temps laisse au 
 Gouvernement mexicain pour solder un arriere d'interet qu'il a obtenu 
 de ne payer que par acomptes, en moyen de prescription des interets 
 en cours pendant cette periode. 
 
 Ce serait faire tourner le service au detriment de celui qui l'a rendu 
 
774 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 non pas certes en vue de ruiner le debiteur par une reclamation 
 ulterieure d'inte"rets accumules, mais en vue de lui faciliter le moyen 
 d'apurer un arriere de compte qui devait naturelleraent §tre liquide" 
 avant le payement d'autres charges, et cela non seulement de l'accord 
 tacite, mais en vertu d'un accord expres des parties. II ne faut pas 
 oublier, en effetque dans la convention intervenue apres la decision du 
 surarbitre, — convention du 29 avril 1876 art. Ill, — le Mexique a it^ra- 
 tivement sollicite et obtenu, vu l'etat obere de ses finances, de ne 
 payer aucune annuite excedant 300,000 pesos en or ou en equivalent 
 jusqu'a ce que le total des condamnations a liquider par lui fut couvert. 
 Et il convient d' observer que ce benefice du terme a si bien et6 entendu 
 ainsi, que moins de quarante jours apres l'apurement de l'arriere" solde 
 en treize annees, les aj T ants droit formulerent leur demande. Tout 
 cela est d'une correction manifeste et parfaite. 
 
 Au demeurant, il'resulte a l'evidence de la correspondance diploma- 
 tique echangee entre les deux Gouvernements, les 21 novembre, 4 et 
 8 decembre 1876, qu'a la suite d'une tentative malheureuse f aite par le 
 Gouvernement mexicain pour obtenir une interpretation authentique, 
 fort erronee selon nous, de la sentence arbitrale, et de la protestation 
 des Etats-Unis, les deux parties sont convenues — tous droits reserves— 
 de s'abstenir de soulever entre elles des diffieultes ou competitions 
 nouvelles relativement a l'affaire sur laquelle avait prononce l'arbitre 
 avant la complete execution de la sentence arbitrale. C'est ce qui a 
 et6 fait des deux parts, mais c'est ce qui s'oppose en mSme temps a ce 
 que le silence des demandeurs puisse etre invoque* conime servant de 
 point de depart a une prescription quelconque. 
 
 II ne me.reste que quelques instants avant la suspension de la seance. 
 Je demande a, MM. les arbitres de vouloir bien m'autoriser a ne traiter 
 qu'a la reprise de nos debats la question capitale de la chose jug£e. 
 
 M. le President. Vous continuerez votre discours a l'ouverture de 
 l'audience. Avant d'ajourner le Tribunal je donne la parole a, M. le 
 Secretaire General pour la lecture de la lettre qu'il a adressee a M. 
 Pardo pour lui dire que le dossier americain, sans aucune exception, 
 etait mis a sa disposition tous les jours de 2 heures a 5 heures" de 
 1'api'es-midi. 
 
 M. le Secretaire General. Voici la lettre que j'ai adressee a M. 
 Pardo le 15 septembre 1902: 
 
 Monsiexje: J'ai l'honneur de porter a votre connaissance que le dossier qni a &t& 
 soumis par l'Agent des Etats-Unis d'Amenque au Tribunal d' Arbitrage institue' en 
 vertu du traite conclu a Washington le 22 mai 1902 entre les Etats-Unis d'Am^rique 
 et les Etats-Unis Mexicains, se trouve d^pos^ au greffe dudit Tribunal, 71 Prinse- 
 gracht, ou Votre Excellence ou bien telle autre personne qu'elle d&ignera a cet effet 
 pourra en prendre connaissance. 
 
 J'ajouterai que tous les documents, sans aucune exception, sont compris dans le 
 dossier et qu'ils peuvent 6tre examines demain 16 septembre et tous autres jours 
 suivants de 2 heures a 5 heures. 
 
 M. le President. Cet incident est clos. 
 
 (A midi la stance est suspendue jusqu'a 2| heures.) 
 
 QUINZIEME SEANCE. 
 
 29 septembre 1902 (apres-micti). 
 
 L'audience est ouverte a 2 h. £, sous la pre^idence de M. Matzen. 
 M. le President. La parole est continuee a M. le Conseil des 
 Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 775 
 
 M. Descamps. Messieurs les arbitres, une question domine ce debat 
 et lui donne une physionomie particuliere entre tous les arbitrage, 
 c'est la question de la chose jugee. 
 
 Elle est capitale au point de que de la solution du present litige. 
 
 Peut-^tre est-elle aussi capitale au point de vue de l'avenir des.juri- 
 dictions arbitrales. Je n'aurai pas trop de peine a d^montrer, je 
 pense, quel trouble ebranlernent profond pourrait apporter dans le 
 ronctionnement normal et pacificateus de ces juridictions le systeme 
 qu'essayent de faire preValoir, — mais vainement, j'en ai la confiance, — 
 les defenseurs du Gouvernement mexicain. 
 
 Cette question, Messieurs, presente encore un autre caractere: elle 
 doit etre resolue absolument et en premiere ligne. Toutes les autres 
 questions — combien multiples et compliquees — viennent en ordre 
 eventuel et subsidiaire; elles ne doivent etre resolues que s'il est decide 
 que la chose jugee n'a point ici de puissance regulatrice, " 'if 'not" 
 suivant l'expression du compromis. 
 
 Le probleme doit done etre aborde de front et mis, autant que 
 possible, en toute lumiere. 
 
 Cela est d'autant pins necessaire qu'une confusion assez Strange a 
 ete" faite, au moins au debut, par nos adversaires. La trace de cette 
 confusion se retrouve non seulement dans la correspondance diplo- 
 matique de S. Exc. M. Mariscal, ministre des affaires etrang&res du 
 Mexique, mais dans diverses notes publie"es de puis par la defense et 
 notamment dans la reponse du Gouvernement mexicain a I'Expose de la 
 revendication des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Cette confusion nous parait 
 tenir surtout a l'application indistincte et assez equivoque du terme 
 "autorite" a, la chose jugee entre parties et aux precedents judiciaires 
 en g4n6ral. II serait plus exact, ce semble, de parler de Yavtorite de la 
 chose jug6e et de la valeur des precedents judiciaires. La puissance 
 publique, par des raisons de haute sagesse attache aux jugements 
 devenues definitifs entre les plaideurs une souveraine presomption de 
 verite, en vue de ne pas eterniser les proces et d'assurer aux decisions 
 de justice une efficacite legitime. Cette verite presumee est relative 
 sans doute en ce sens qu'elle ne lie que les parties en cause ou leurs 
 ayant droit, mais elle est intangible pour elles et se trouve, dans ce 
 cercle, elevee a la hauteur d'une norme regulatrice de leur droit. C'est 
 pourquoi l'on peut dire, en parlant d'elle, l'autorite de la chose jugee. 
 
 Les precedents judiciaires, au contraire, ont une valeur ge"nerale 
 qui permet de les invoquer dans tous les cas semblables, sans distinc- 
 tion des parties qui furent en cause et des juges qui rendirent la 
 sentence. Mais cette valeur — abstraction faite de la fonction coutu- 
 miere de la jurisprudence comme instrument de cristallisation du 
 droit — n'est qu'une valeur de raison toujours soumise ou contrfile 
 d'une raison plus 6clairee. Les decisions d'un magistrat, commes 
 telles, ne lient pas les autres magistrats: elles ne lient meme pas le 
 magistrat qui les a rendues dans les causes ulterieures qui peuvent lui 
 6tre soumises: car il peut reconnaitre qu'il s'est trompe" et reformer sa 
 premiere jurisprudence. 
 
 S'il ne s'agissait que de faire ressortir la valeur de la decision arbi- 
 trate de 1875 comme pr6c6dent judiciaire par rapport a la presente 
 cause, a coup sur on pourrait elever cette valeur a la plus haute puis- 
 sance: car les cas ne sont pas seulement semblables, ils sont absolu- 
 ment, identiques, ce quji est rare en jurisprudence, 6tant donne 
 l'infinie diversite* des faits avec lesquel le juge se trouve journellement 
 aux prises. 
 
776 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Mais ce n'est pas la le seul avantage que nous nous croyions autorisfe 
 a revendiquer. Nous estimons et nous croyons pouvoir d^montrer a 
 1'eVidence que la decision rendue en 1875 constitue chose jug^e dans 
 des proportions qui rendent ne"cessairement triomphante pour nous la 
 cause d'aujourd'hui. 
 
 Nos adversaries ne meconnaissent pas, a, la verite, le principe de la 
 chose jugee, bien que l'on puisse constater dans le developpement de 
 leurs moyens certaine trace de distinctions regrettables, par exemple, 
 entre les jugements ordinaires et les jugements arbitraux, certaines 
 expressions inexactes, comme celle de "quasi-arbitrage," et meme 
 quelque tendance a parler ici de matiere controversable — d'ou pourrait 
 resulter une impression f acheuse, n'etaient les declarations categoriques 
 ulterieures. Messieurs, l'arbitre est juge etses decisions sont inviola- 
 bles. La justice internationale, par cela meme que ses moyens d'exe- 
 cution peuvent Stredans certains cas plus pr^caires, abesoin, pour son 
 fonctionnement normal, de l'armure juridique de l'inviolabilite. Plus " 
 que toute autre elle doit se mouvoir dans une sphere qui la mette a, 
 l'abri des retours offensifs de nature a compromettre son caractere 
 intangible et sacre. II importe de veiller avec un soin jaloux a ce que 
 rien n'ebranle, rien ne dtjfigure la chose juge"e en droit international. 
 
 Nous sommes tous d'accord sur le principe. Nous admettons tous 
 
 egalement que la chose jugee peut etre invoqu^e par le demandeur 
 
 comme elle peut 1' 6tre par le defendeur, par celui qui a gagne" son 
 
 ' proces et par celui qui l'a perdu, celui-ci pouvant y chercher un abri 
 
 contre une condamnation plus onereuse. 
 
 II semble bien que nous devions egalement reconnaitre tous que la 
 chose jugee est appelee a remplir une double fonction: l'une negative, 
 ou l'on invoque l'existence d'un jugement anterieur pour exclure le 
 renouvellement du meme proces; l'autre positive, ou l'on fait valoir 
 la teneur du jugement anterieur comme norme r^gulatrice permanente 
 entre les parties dans leurs autres differends. Ne pas admettre cette 
 seconde fonction serait, ou peu s'en faut, retourner au droit romain 
 de la periode primitive, ou l'on admettait uniquement que Paction 
 etait consommee par le fait de l'intenter ou tout au moins par le 
 jugement rendu sur elle. C'etait le simple non Ms in idem; ce n'6tait 
 pas la Veritas inter partes. 
 
 Les divergences de vues deviennent plus serieuses lorsqu'il s'agit de 
 determiner ce qui, dans les jugements considered au point de vue de la 
 diversite des elements qui peuvent y etre renfermes ou rattaches, doit 
 constituer la chose jugee. 
 
 Une reponse adequate et lumineuse se pr&ente pourtant a l'esprit: 
 l'autorite de la chose jugee s'etend a ce qui a ete reellement statue par 
 le juge. Le statut reel du juge clans l'integralite des elements que le 
 constituent organiquement et necessairement: voila" bien, ce semble, le 
 terrain d'application de la chose jugee. Que la chose soit explicite- 
 ment ou implicitement, mais reellement decidee, cela tient a, la forme 
 externe du ]ugement et n'affecte pas son contenu veritable. II en est 
 ici du jugement comme de la loi: c'est la volonte vraie du pouvoir qui 
 est regulatrice, peu importe que la manifestation de volonte revete une 
 forme explicite ou implicite, du moment qu'elle est re"elle et certaine. 
 
 La place materielle qu'occupe le statut du juge dans Vinstrumentum 
 judicii n'est pas davantage absolument decisive en soi. Dans certains 
 pays, on accentue la distinction formelle entre ce qu'on appelle le dis- 
 positif et les motifs. Dans d'autres, on suit moins rigoureusement ce 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 777 
 
 formalisme. II est certain, en tout cas, qu'en droit des gens, les juge- 
 ments ne sont pas soumis a, des formes sacramentelles, qu'il faut par- 
 tant s'attacher a la r^alite des choses et se demander, en se placant a, 
 ce point de vue, quel est le veritable statut dy juge. 
 
 Si dans l'instrument qu'il redige, le juge se bornait a formuler 
 uniquement ce statut, la question se resoudrait toujours d'ellememe. 
 Mais il se fait qu'ordinairement — et obligatoirement dans beaucoup de 
 pays — le juge, en l'acquit de sa mission et pour degager sa responsa- 
 hilite\ consigne dans Vinstrumentum judicu des elements expositoires 
 indiquant comment il a 6te ameme a etablir son statut quelles sont les 
 considerations de fait ou de droit qui l'ont achemine a sa sentence. 
 Ni en eux-memes, ni dans sa pense"e, ces elements expositoires ne con- 
 stituent son statut: ils enoncent de simples motifs de sa conviction. Et 
 ici se pose la question: comment discerner, dans ce melange eventuel 
 d'elements divers, ce qui constitue le veritable statut du juge et ce qui 
 forme une simple exposition des motifs de ce statut? Comment; le faire 
 alors surtout que, comme en droit des gens, il n'y a pas de formalisme 
 demarcateur. 
 
 11 semble, a premiere vue, que la solution du probleme ne soit pas 
 bien difficile dans les pays ou la distinction formelle entre le dispositif 
 et les motifs est methodique. Ne suffit-il pas de considerer le disposi- 
 tif comme contenant integralement et exclusivement le statut du juge, 
 et ce qu'on appelle les motifs ou considerants comme n'en faisant point 
 partie? II est certain, que lorsqu'on admet pa? 1 definition que le dispo- 
 sitif est la partie du jugement qui, seule, contient le statut du juge, on 
 en peut conclure que le statut du juge est proprement contenu dans le 
 dipositif. Mais il suffit de jeter un coup d'oeil sur les grands recueils 
 d'arrets des pays dont nous parlons, pour saisir bientot que tout est loin 
 d'etre re"solu par cette tautologie ou par la distinction formelle invoquee. 
 D'une part, on est oblige de reconnaitre, comme l'a fait M. Beernaert, 
 qu'il peut se glisser dans le dispositif des elements manifestement 
 expositoires et qui, ne participant pas du veritable statut du juge, 
 garderont un caractere different, malgre leur place. D'autre part, 
 on est amene pratiment a, reconnaitre a certains elements qui ne sont 
 pas dans le dispositif, tant6t un pouvoir elucidateur necessaire quant 
 au sens du dispositif, tan tot un lien tellement intime avec celui-ci qu'ils 
 apparaissent comme etant ses fondements essentiels, inseparables. 
 C'est ainsi que, meme dans les pays dont nous parlons, on en revient 
 par un detour & rechercher quel est au fond et dans sa realite" le veri- 
 table statut du juge, en reconnissant que la distinction purement for- 
 melle ne fournit pas toujours les elements d'une solution adequate et 
 suffisante. 
 
 En ce qui concerne le droit international, nous l'avons observes, la 
 question se pose dans des conditions qui ne permettent pas de la 
 trancher par une distinction purement formelle. 
 
 Suivant nos adversaires, il ne faudrait considerer comme chose 
 jugee que le resultat immediatement pratique de la sentence, par 
 exemple, la condamnation du d^fendeur a payer telle somme au 
 demandeur. C'est ce que l'on appelle l'ordre, le mandatum propre- 
 ment dit, en rapport immediat avec les mesures d'execution. 
 
 Laissons de c6te cette observation — elle a peut-Stre cependant son 
 importance — qu'il y a des jugements dont l'essence n'est pas a propre- 
 ment parler un commandement ou une defense, mais qui sont simple- 
 ment declaratif s. Prenons la these de nos adversaires comme si elle 
 
778 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. . 
 
 6tait sans reproche a ce premier point de vue. Ce sera done le resultat 
 irnm^diatement pratique en connexion avec les mesures d'ex6cution, 
 qui ne pourra plus etre remis en question : le reste derneure motifs de 
 decision et n'a rien a, voir avec la chose jugee. 
 
 Cette these est inadmissible. Non seulement elle reduirait la chose 
 jugee & des proportions derisoires, mais elle la ramenerait souvent a 
 des elements completement inintelligibles. Soutiendra-t-on, par exem- 
 ple, dans lecas present, que le defend eur a et& simpleraent condamne 
 a payer au demandeur telle somme numeriquement specifie, et que la 
 chose jugee interdit seulement a celui-ci de r^clamer encore une somme 
 numeriquement la m§me, bien qu'elle soit tout autre dans sa caracter- 
 istique individuelle ou par sa cause de debition. Ce serait absurde. 
 
 Entendre ainsi la chose juge"e non seulement conduirait a l'absurde, 
 mais aboufirait a m^connaitre la nature du pouvoir judiciaire en tant 
 en tant que pouvoir charge de dire le droit, jus dicer e. Place" en face 
 du litige qu'il est appele a resoudre dans l'accomplissement de sa mis- 
 sion, le juge ne le tranche pas, comme on semble le croire, par un 
 ordre pure et simple. II ne cree pas le droit; il declare, dans un cas 
 donne, le droit des parties en cause d'une maniere obligatoire pour 
 Delles-ci. Sans doute, toutes raisons. qu'il est amene a formuler dans 
 Vinstrumentwm judieii en vue d'expliquer sa decision et de mettre sa 
 responsabilite a couvert ne doivent pas etre confondues avec le statut 
 judiciaire proprement dit; mais ce statut ne doit pas, d'autre part, 
 etre mutile, artificiellement tronqu6, de maniere a denaturer l'oeuvre 
 de juge. Pour demeurer ce qu'elle doit §tre, cette ceuvre doit con- 
 sister essentiellement dans la declaration du droit des parties, dans ses 
 elements caracteristiques et essentiels, avec les consequences pratiques 
 qui en decoulent. 
 
 Admettre la theorie de nos adversaires, ce ne serait pas seulement, 
 denaturer la mission du pouvoir judiciare, ce serait aussi denaturer 
 l'intention reele, commune, constante des parties. Que demandent les 
 parties, dans une instance judiciaire? QueJe juge declare qui a le droit 
 pour lui et tire les consequences pratiques obligatoires de cette consta- 
 tion. Lorsque les parties se presentent devant le juge, elles ne le 
 sollicitent pas de rendre un ordre executoire en blanc, sans plus. Elles 
 lui demandendent de dire leurs droits respectifs d'une maniere obliga- 
 toire et d'allouer, comme consequence, les re"sultats pratiques qui en 
 decoulant. 
 
 Keduire le statut du juge a la determination pure et simple de 
 rfeultats, e'est prendre la partie pour le tout. C'est transformer Ve\6- 
 ment consecutif de statut en element exclusif. C'est donner le plus 
 souvent au jugement une physionomie impenetrable, source d'inex- 
 tricables embarras. 
 
 II faut done reconnaitre que dans la decision du juge sainement 
 entendue il y a plus que le resultat immediatement pratique, corre- 
 spondant aux besoins de l'ex^cution : il y a la reconnaisance du f onde- 
 ment essentiel sur lequel le resultat repose et qui fait corps avec 
 celui-ci dans le statut. La condamnation a payer tant d'annees d'int6s§ts 
 d'une rente determinee impliqne l'existence de cette rente. 
 
 Examinons a la lumiere de ces observations qui me paraissent claires, 
 le cas qui se presente aujourd'hui devant nous. 
 
 Et d'abord dissipons une equivoque. Nous ne disons pas que nous 
 r^clamons aujourd'hui les inteVets que nous avons deja reclames 
 autrefois. Nous ne disons pas que l'on ne puisse soutenir que les 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 779 
 
 inte"r§ts que nous r^clamons ne sont pas dus pour telle ou telle cause 
 qui ne porte pas atteinte a, la chose ant£rieurement jugee; par exemple, 
 que i'on a reinbourse - la rente ou qu'on a paye integralement les 
 interets. Tout cela ne parte pas atteinte au premier jugement. 
 
 Mais ce que nous vous demandons, Messieurs, les arbitres, c'est de 
 constater que le premier arbitre a declare que l'Etat du Mexique 6tait 
 redevable aux chefs de l'Eglise catholique en Californie d'une rente 
 annuelle, caract6ris6e dans ses elements essentiels, a concurrence des 
 annuites 6chues et non payees. Nous vous demandons de reconnaitre 
 qu'il s'agit bien aujourd'hui de la meme rente reclamee du m§ine chef 
 entre les memes parties. Et nous vous demandons tenir compte de la 
 premiere decision, de nous allouer les interets maintenant e"chus et non 
 payes, en respectant le statut ant^rieur dans ce qu'il a necessairement 
 et incontestablement r6solu. 
 
 Nos adversaires, au contraire, veulent tout remettre en question, 
 jusqu'a, l'existence m^nie de la rente dont ils ont £te* condamnes a payer 
 vingt et une annees d'int^ret. 
 
 Vainement leur disons-nous qu'en soutenant cette these ils se contre- 
 disent eux-memes: car enfin, d'une part, ils soutiennent que la cause 
 du payement des interets ne peut rentrer dans >les elements constitutif s 
 de la chose jugee et, d'autre part, ils indiquent comme element essen- 
 tiel des verifications a etablir pour constater la chose jugee, l'identite" 
 de cause. 
 
 Vainement encore leur faisons-nous remarquer que suivant leur sys- 
 teme et dans l'hypothese ou leurs pretentions dans le litige: actuel 
 seraient accueillies, il y aurait en realite contradiction absolue, com- 
 plete, saisissante, entre le jugement ant^rieur et le jugement d'au- 
 jourd'hui. 
 
 Nous avons beau leur faire observer que leur maniere de voir non 
 seulement aboutit a, Peffacement de la chose jug6e, mais ruine fonda- 
 mentalement l'economie meme de son institution et contrecarre les 
 deux fins poursuivies dans cet ordre par la puissance publique: ne pas 
 £terniser les proces et assurer entre parties aux decisions de justice 
 une efficacite permanente. Car la sentence du premier juge dans sa 
 teneur essentielle et inseparable du resultat pratique attache il ella sera 
 aneantie, et le proces pourra indefinement recommencer. II tombe 
 sous le sens, en effet, que dans le cas present, s'il n'y a pas chose jugee 
 pour le Mexique, il n'y a pas chose jug6e pour les Etats-Unis, et qu'a 
 l'echeance de chaque annee d'int^rets, le litige pourra recommencer sur 
 nouveaux frais et sur toute la ligne. Ingenieux systeme sans doute 
 pour assurer toujours de la besogne st la Cour permanente d'arbitrage, 
 mais auquel il est permis, il coup sur, de preferer d'autres moyens de 
 realiser le m§me but! 
 
 Pour toute r^ponse, nos adversaires nous disent: Vous ne reclamez 
 pas le' m§mes interets qu'autrefois: la demande est differente: vous 
 n'6tes plus dans les conditions d'application de la chose jugee. Mais 
 nul ne soutient que l'indentite de demande ou d'instance soit n6ces- 
 saire. Les loi parlent de l'indentite de l'object, du point contests : ce 
 qui n'est pas pr^cisement la m^me chose. La question n'est done pas 
 ou on la place. II s'agit simplement de savoir si le juge dans son pre- 
 mier statut n'a pas compris et du comprendre les f ondements essentiels 
 de decision — qu'on les appelle motifs objectifs ou qu'on leur donne 
 une autre denomination, peu importe — et si l'on est autorise a^eliminer 
 de la sentence des elements dont la separation ne se concoit point, 
 
780 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 pour faire 6chec a la volonte patente, consciente, indiscutable du pre- 
 mier juge. 
 
 Et c'est allors que nos adversaires en viennent a soutenir cette these 
 invraisemblable qu'en matiere d'existence d'une rente, on ne peut 
 jamais arriver a la chose jug6e, et cela parce que l'inexigibilite" du ca- 
 pital briserait foncierement Punite" de l'obligation et que — suivant une 
 vieille tbeorie qui n'est plus, que nous sachions, def endue par personne 
 aujourd'hui — nous serions en presence d'une succession d'obligations 
 sans aucun lien entre elles! 
 
 M. Bebrnaert. C'est l'opinion d^fendue par votre partie. 
 
 M. Desoamps. Elle est votre et son application vous revient. Ainsi 
 ce n'est pas le 23 octobre 1842 qu'est nee pour le Gouvernement mex- 
 icain l'obligation de servir une rente annuelle dont la presentation 
 devient exigible a chaque ech^ance, mais c'est chaque annee qu'il nait 
 une obligation solitaire completement independante des autres! Mais 
 ici nos adversaires se divisent, et c'est M. le Ministre du Mexique qui 
 va faciliter ma tache en donnant la replique a, M. Beernaert, avec une 
 vigueur dont je lui laisse l'honneur et la responsibility : 
 
 On tente de s^parer la prestation demanded, c'est-a dire une s^rie d'annuites d'in- 
 ter§ts, de l'obligation g6n£rale de les payer, comme si c'etait la deux choses differen- 
 tes et susceptibles d'exister l'une sans 1' autre. Quiconque prendra la peine d' exa- 
 miner froidement la situation le verra: l'obligation de payer un intent periodique est 
 une seule; c'est celle que contracte un d^biteur en s'en imposant la charge; les 
 6cheances de cette obligation sont les difftirents et les successifs. On ne peut dire 
 raisonnablement qu'il y ait autant d'obligations que d'echeances periodiques des 
 interSts. Le lien juridique est unique, mais avec cette modality que les prestations 
 auxquelles s' oblige le d^biteur n'ont pas a 6tre accomplies en une seule fois, mais a 
 des epoques cons^cutives. A chacune de ces ech&nces convenues, on peut exiger 
 l'accomplissement de l'obligation primitive, et c'est la seule exigible. 
 
 Au demeurant, M. Beernaert abandonne parfois son opinion pour 
 abonder dans les idees de M. Pardo. C'est ainsi qu'on peut lire a la 
 page 6, ligne 11, des conclusions deposees par lui, a propos de la rente 
 representative du Fonds des Californies: "Le droit aux inteYets pre- 
 suppose un droit de creance." C'est precisement ce que dit M. Pardo, 
 interpretant le droit mexicain. 
 
 La distinction entre les elements additionnels, ajoutes a, Ymstrumen- 
 tumjudicii comme simples moyens d'exposer ou d'expliquer la statut 
 du juge, et les elements essentiels qui font inseparablement et organ- 
 iquement partie integrante de la sentence, et qui ne se r^duisent pas 
 aux resultats immediatement pratiques de celle-ci, est necessaire, juste, 
 pratique. On peut la mal interpreter, on ne la supprimera pas. 
 
 Les plus illustres commentateurs du droit romain l'ont mise en 
 lumiere et elle est, peut-on-dire, de jurisprudence mondiale. 
 
 En ce qui concerne le droit romain, auquel les interpretes du droit 
 des gens recourent volontiers a titre de ratio scripta, Pautorite" de 
 M. de Savigny a fortement embarrasse M. Beernaert. Apres avoir 
 rendu un sincere et eloquent hommage au grand romaniste que fut son 
 ancien maitre, M. Beernaert Pa neanmoins jete par-dessus bord en 
 declarant que son opinion etait "isolee." Que notre illustre contra- 
 
 qualifier l'opinion de Savigny d' opinion dominante: 
 Ansichte." Et cela est important a, signaler ici parce que, comme Pa 
 fait observer M. Ralston, l'eminent agent des Etats-Unis, Savigny n'a 
 pas seulement Justine sa doctrine par des raisons lumineuses; il Pa pr6- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOENIAS. 781 
 
 sement appliquee au cas qui nous occupe dans les termes suivants: 
 Quand le d6f endeur a et& condamne" a payer les interets d'un creance 
 u les arrerages d'une rente, apres avoir contests le droit du deman- 
 eur au capital ou a la rente, ee droit se trouve investi de l'autorite de 
 i chose jug^e par la condamnation." Et cette solution est aussi justi- 
 able en raison que fondee sur la realite des choses. II n'y a pas de 
 eneration spontanea d'interets. La debition d'arrerages 6ch u 
 nplique l'existence de la rente. Le juge est tenu. a raison meme de 
 i demande de paiement des arre*rages, de s'occuper aussi de l'existence 
 e la rente. II doit examiner cette question completement, la discuter 
 t la decider. Ce n'est done pas sans raison que la puissance publique 
 ttachera a son statut sur ce point l'autorite de la chose jugee pourra, 
 omme Veritas inter partes reconnue par le pouvoir, servir de fonde- 
 aent a des demandes ult6rieures. 
 
 Penetrons-nous bien de la realite des choses et observons d'autre 
 lart le point de vue immediat auquel se place le juge lorsqu'il redige 
 a sentence. En r^digeant souvent dans une courte formule le resultat 
 mmediatement pratique de son statut, le juge n'entend pas necessaire- 
 aent pour cela, reduire ce statut a ce seul point; mais il porte a bon 
 iscient son attention speciale sur les exigences d'execution qui vont 
 uivre sa sentence. C'est ainsi, qu'il d'eterminera en ce qui concerne 
 me dette dont les interets sont reclames, ce qui est liquide et immedi- 
 ,tement sujet a execution. Est-ce a dire que l'existence de la dette 
 oit etrangere a, son statut? C'est la base substantielle et inseparable 
 le sa decision, ou plutot c'est la decision essentielle a laquelle s'attache 
 e resultat imm^diatement pratique comme corollaire de liquidation et 
 I'execution. 
 
 L'opinion que nous soutenons ici est en harmonie avec les grands 
 ;ourants de la jurisprudence dans les deux mondes. Mes confreres 
 imericains ont mis ce point en lumiere non seulement pour la sphere 
 mglo-americaine mais encore pour les autres parties du rnonde juridique. 
 
 II faut bien reconnaitre que sous cette denomination: les motifs, on 
 aeut dans la realite" comprendre deux choses tres distinctes: de simples 
 ilements d'ordre explicatif et les bases substantielles de la decision. 
 Jelles-ci constituent avec les resultats immediatement pratiques les 
 ilements constutitifs essentiels et veritables du statut, et forment le 
 errain d'application de la chose jug6e. 
 
 En tout cas il importe de se rappeler que la question ne se pose pas 
 jrecisement en droit international comme dans le droit positif de tel 
 >u tel Etat. Sur le terrain ou nous discutons presentement, il n'y a 
 )as de formes sacramentelles: la reality, le bon sens, la bonne foi nous 
 :onduissent seuls & determiner dans tel cas donne le veritable statut du 
 uge, et a dire: a ce statut, l'on ne touchera point par des retours 
 >ffensifs. 
 
 Apres avoir essaye de mettre en lumiere la consistance juridique de 
 a chose jugee. considered dans elements naturels, attachons-nous a 
 errer d'aussi pres que possible les faits de la cause: nous y trouverons 
 ine 6clatante confirmation de la these que nous de'fendons. 
 
 Et d'abord examinons la sentence meme, rendue par Sir Edward 
 Thornton en 1875. 
 
 On a 6t6 dur, Messieurs, pour le surarbitre: on a dit qu'il n'etait 
 >as jurisconsulte, que sa decision manquait de clarte, qu'elle avait 6t6 
 ■endue "sans examen, ou du moins sans grand examen" . . . 
 
 M. Beernaert. Des chiffres! 
 
782 PIOUS FUND OF THE CAUFOKNIAS. 
 
 M. Desoamps. Soit, ils ont ici leur importance. On a dit aussi que 
 la question n'ayent pas ete plaidee devant lui comme elle l'est devant 
 la Cour actuelle, il 6tait bon de n'accepter que sous caution cette pre- 
 miere sentence. On a 6te plus loin encore dans la correspondance 
 diplomatique. 
 
 Pour moi, je le dis en toute sincerity, j'ai ete frappe" de la maniere 
 dont le surarbitre, en si peu de mots, a si nettement elucide tant de 
 questions qui se rattachent au present litige. La sentence du surarbi- 
 tre occupe a peine quatre pages du Memorial qui nous a ete distribue 
 par les soins des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Combien lumineuse et sub- 
 stantielle a, la fois nous apparait la decision arbitrale! Et combien 
 consciencieuse l'investigation de l'arbitre! 
 
 11 y a, Messieurs, encore aujourd'hui, dans la cite" de Londres un 
 homme qui a et6 investi par son Gouvernement des plus hautes fonc- 
 tions publiques; il a et^ nomine" ministre d'Angleterre a Washington. 
 Cet homme a 6t6 eleve" a une dignite plus haute encore a certains egards: 
 celle d'arbitre international, comme le sont les juges que j'ai devant 
 moi. Et cet homme, apr&s avoir tout examine, tout 6tudi6, s'est 
 recueilli dans sa conscience; puis, au moment de prononcer son statut, 
 avec une modestie qui nous emeut, il s'est exprime" en ces termes: 
 
 Dans le cas de Thaddee Amat, evfique de Monterey, et de Joseph S. Alemany, 
 archev6que de San Francisco, contre de Mexique, n°. 493, il ne sera pas possible au 
 surarbitre de discuter ici la vari^te des arguments qui ont ete produits des deux cotes. 
 II ne pourra qu'6tablir les conclusions (to state the conclusions) auxquelles il est arrive 
 apres une soigneuse et longue 6tude de tous les documents qui lui ont <5t£ soumis. 
 
 Eemarquez, Messieurs, les mots: to state the conclusians. En nous 
 tenant strictement a la these du Gouvernement mexicain, suivaut 
 laquelle la "partie conclusive" de l'oeuvredu juge aurait force de chose 
 jugee, nous serions amenes a, englober tout l'instrument de Sir Edward 
 Thornton dans son statut proprement dit. Nous n'irons pas j usque-la, 
 et en verifce, cela n'est pas necessaire. 
 
 Le surarbitre continue en declarant qu'il va "rendre sa decision 
 avec un profond sentiment de l'importance de l'affaire, conform6ment 
 a ce qu'il considere comme juste et equitable, dans la mesure ou il 
 peut faire fond sur son jugement et sur sa conscience." 
 
 Voila, messieurs, en quels termes s'est exprime en commencant le 
 surarbitre dont on vous demande de reviser aujourd'hui radicalement 
 la sentence, rendue, dit-on, "sans examen ou du moins sans grand 
 examen." Sentence vraiment remarquable de precision et de raison, 
 ou sont tranchees comme par leur racine toutes les questions si longue- 
 ment agitees devant lui, si longuement debattues encore devant vous. 
 
 Et voyez ! Voici d'abord comment il fixe la nationalite des deman- 
 deurs et determine le moment ou PEglise catholique de la Haute-Cali- 
 fornie est entree dans l'allegiance des Etats-Unis. 
 
 La premiere question a considerer est la nationality des demandeurs. 
 
 Sur ce point le surarbitre estime que l'Eglise catholique romaine de la Haute-Cali- 
 fornie devint une corporation de citoyens des Etats-Unis, le 30 mai 1848, le jour ou 
 fut ratine 1 le traits de Guadalupe-Hidalgo. 
 
 Voici comment le surarbitre tranche la question de sa competence 
 au point de vue du compromis et du traite de Guadalupe-Hidalgo. 
 
 Pour toute reclamation dont le fait determinateur serait anterieur a la date du traite" 
 de Guadalupe-Hidalgo, les demandeurs ne seraient pas autoris<5s il comparaitre devant 
 la commission mixte institute par la Convention du 4 juillet 1868; mais une reclama- 
 tion dont le fait determinateur est posteneur a cette date rentre dans la competence 
 de la Commission. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 783 
 
 La question de la nationality des demandeurs et celle de la compe- 
 tence de la Commission etant ainsi tranches, le surarbitre arrive au 
 coeur du litige: il s'agit de 1'int^rSt du fonds appele " Fonds pie des 
 Californie," de la de'bition de la rente, du droit des eVSques de la Haute 
 Californie comme successeurs de Diego. Et voici comme il 6tablit 
 dans le chef des ayants-droit actuels le titre a exiger le paiement de 
 1'interSt annuel autrefois paye" a Diego: 
 
 S'il est vrai que cet int6r§t eut &£ pay6 au TrSs ReVSrend Francois-Garcia Diego, 
 evfique de Californie avant la separation de la Californie de la Republique du Mexique, 
 il appert au surarbitre qu'une bonne part doit en etre payee maintenant et depuis 
 le 30 mai 1848 aux demandeurs qui, selon lui, sont les successeurs directs de cet 
 eVeque, en tant qu'il s'agit de la Haute-Californie. 
 
 En d'autres termes, si l'obligation de payer la rente a existe envers 
 Diego, elle doit persister envers ses successeurs dans la mesure ou. ils 
 sont en effet ses successeurs. 
 
 On a discute & perte de vue sur le caractere propre du Fonds des 
 Californies, sur le but essentiel, soit religieux, soit national qu'il faut 
 lui attribuer. Le surarbitre traite ce point en ces termes: " Le Fonds 
 pie des Californies a ete le r^sultat de donations faites par plusieurs 
 personnes privees dans le but d'etablir, d'aider et de maintenir les 
 missions catholiques romaines en Californie et de convertir a cette 
 religion catholique les paiens de cette region." "L'objectif des dona- 
 tears, ajoute-t-il, e*tait sans aucun doute principalement l'avancement 
 de la religion catholique romaine." "L'on comprend aisement, dit-il 
 encore que le Gouvernement espagnol fut heureux de profiter des 
 sentiments religieux de ses sujets et vit avec grande satisfaction que 
 leurs donations contribueraient beaucoup a la conquete politique des 
 Californies, mais le but des donateurs etait seulement la conquete 
 religieuse, bien qu'eux aussi aieut ressenti quelque fierte", sachant 
 qu'ils contribueraient en meme temps a l'extension des possessions de 
 l'Espagne." 
 
 La parte a attribuer aux demandeurs dans la rente est ensuite flxee 
 par le surarbitre & la "juste nioiti6": c'est la base generalement 
 adoptee dans les partages k defaut d'autre criterium de repartition 
 nettement admissible. Le montant annuel a 6choir est alors determine 
 en consequence. Et la somme d'ensemble a payer pour vingt et un 
 ans echus et non paye"s est additionne - pour etre adjugee, sans int^ret 
 des interets toutefois. 
 
 Tel est le statut arbitral dans l'ensemble des elements qui le compo- 
 sent et l'eclairent. II fait lumineusement justice de tout ce qui, dans 
 les pretentions des d^fendeurs, pourrait tendre a" l'ebranler, k 1'enever 
 ou a le defigurer. 
 
 Non, ce n'est pas simplement une somme numerique que le sur- 
 arbitre a declare nous etre due, c'est bien une rente annuelle, a con- 
 currence de vingt et une annees 6chues et impayees, une rente f ormant 
 la juste moite des produits du Fonds Californies, capitalise a 6 pour 
 cent et dont l'arbitre a determine le montant suivant de probantes 
 donnees et conf ormement §, l'^quite. La defense a critique ces donnees 
 avec une extreme vivacite" et beaucoup de fantaisie. Car elle est 
 arrivee & conclure quece que M. Mariscal lui-meme a appele" un "don 
 magnifique " etait un simple trompe-l'ceil, quelque chose comme un bilan 
 vereux. C'est trop demontrer pour prouver quelque chose, et le pro- 
 cede de demonstration etait d'ailleurs trop elementaire: biffer ce qui 
 ne convient pas et rompre ainsi la balance de l'actif et du passif . II y 
 
784 PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 a, Messieurs, une partie du jugement arbitral que je ne vous ai point 
 lue et que ces attaques m'amenent a vous lire. Voici ce que dit l'ar- 
 bitre en appreciant l'attitude prise par le Mexique concernant la ten- 
 eur du Fonds des Calif or nies: 
 
 II n'y a pas de doute que le Gouvernement mexicain ne doive avoir en sa posses- 
 sion tous les comtes et documents relatifs a la vente des biens fonciers appartenant 
 au Fond pie et aux produits; eependant, ils n'ont pas et^ fournis et la seule conclu- 
 sion que l'on puisse tirer du silence sur ce point est que le montant des produits 
 actuellement recus par le Tresor n'etait, tout au moins, pas infeneur a celui qu'alleg- 
 uent les demandeurs. 
 
 Si le Gouvernement mexicain critique aujourd'hui — de bonne foi, 
 je n'en doute pas, mais sans grand succes de lumiere, puisqu'il alle- 
 gue surtout la destruction accidentelle de documents — le montant du 
 Fonds fixe par le premier arbitre, il faut reconnaitre qu'il y a eu f aute 
 initiale de son cote et il semble juste des lors de lui appliquer la max- 
 ime usuelle: "Adscribat sibi!" 
 
 J'ai tenu, Messieurs les Arbitres, a relever dans leur texte, en les 
 accompagnant d'un bref commentaire, les points saillants du jugement 
 arbitral de 1875. Les decisions du surarbitre concernant les demandes 
 en revision de la sentence introduites par le Mexique et specialement 
 la derniere decision (24 octobre, 1876), rectifiant une erreur d'arithm6- 
 tique et fixant a nouveau et le total du fonds (1,135,033 dollars), et la 
 moitie* de FinterSt de cette somme a 6 p. c. (43,050.99) et, en conse- 
 quence, la somme des interets dus pour vingt et un ans (904,070.29), 
 meritent egalement d'etre signales. 
 
 Je crois avoir demontre que le premier arbitre a statue en realite, et 
 n'aurait pas pu faire autrement que de statuer sur la d^bition de la 
 rente annuelle, fondement juridique essentiel et inseparable de l'attri- 
 bution de vingt et une annees d'arrerages Melius et non payes. 
 
 Mais voici l'objection de nos adversaires: dans ce cas, disent-ils, l'ar- 
 bitre a statue" ultra jpetita, car l'objet de la demande etait seulement les 
 arrerages de quelques annees. Mais comment soutenir un seul instant, 
 apres lecture des m^moires des deux parties devant les commissaires, 
 des opinions formulees par ceux-ci, notamment par le commissaire 
 mexicain, des nouveaux memoires presented par les avocats du Mexique 
 au surarbitre apres le disaccord des commissaires, que l'existence de 
 la rente n'a pas fait l'objet des debats et des conclusions des parties. 
 
 L'existence _ou 1'inexistence de l'obligation de payer une rente 
 annuelle! Mais les parties n'ont ent quelque sorte, discute que cela; 
 car le fait du non-payement des arrerages a concurrence de vingt et 
 une annees n'etait pas conteste. 
 
 Les consequences du statut du juge sur ce point comme norme des 
 decisions de l'avenir! Mais elles ont ete nettement saisies et iterative- 
 ment signalees par les organes autorises de Fopinion du Gouvernement 
 du Mexique et par le membre mexicain de la Commission mixte. 
 
 Ecoutez Avila, le plus advise defenseur du Mexique: 
 
 II serait curieux de nous voir payer un tribut perpetuel au profit des Etats-Unis et 
 d'une secte religieuse. (Memorial, p. 551.) 
 
 Ecoutez Zamacona, le commissaire mexicain: 
 
 Voici que les reclamants veulent changer la situation, et obliger le Mexique a payer 
 le tribut perpituel d'une rente a certaines corporations amdricaines. (M., p. 543.) 
 
 Les defenseurs du Mexique avaient done la parfaite clairvoyance 
 des consequences d'un jugement arbitral eventuellement defavorable 
 a leur cause. Et eux-memes donnaient de la rente annuelle dont les 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 785 
 
 demandeurs sollicitaient la reconnaissance a leur profit cette definition: 
 "C'est une rente perpetuelle." En cela ils ne se trompaient point 
 et 6taient d'avance d'accord avec les maitres de la science du droit 
 definissant pr^cisement ainsi les rentes perp^tuelles. ' ' Les rentes per- 
 petuelles sont celles dont le service n'est pas limite a une duree 
 determined." Le service des arrerages, disent-ils encore, est 
 l'execution de l'obligation et non sa cause generatrice. Nous emprun- 
 tons ces lignes a MM. Aubry et Rau sur Zacharie. 
 
 Je voudrais maintenant signaler un fait sur lequel j'ai le devoir 
 d'appeler l'attention toute speciale de la Cour parce que je le considere 
 comme decisif contre toute tentative que pourrait faire presentement 
 le Mexique de restreindre la ported de la decision arbitrate de 1875 a 
 un simple statut sur des interets sans lien avec la reconnaissance de 
 l'obligation m§me concernant la rente. Non seulement le Mexique a 
 sollicite de l'arbitre une decision sur ce point, mais il a voulu obtenir 
 . a cet egard, en sa faveur, une interpretation authentique iu statut 
 arbitral dans des conditions vraiment singulieres. 
 
 Voici quelques extraits de la correspondance diplomatique qui a eu 
 lieu immediatement apres la decision arbitrale definitive. 
 
 Nous lisons dans la note adress^e par Avila a M. Mariscal, en date 
 du 21 novembre 1876: 
 
 Dans la reunion que les agents et les secretaires de la Commission ont tenue hier 
 pour publier les dernieres decisions de l'arbitre, j'ai presents par ecrit certains 
 exposis dans le but d' obtenir leur insertion dans le registre des deliberations de ce 
 jour, mais je n'obtins point cette insertion, parce que 1' agent et le secretaire des 
 Etats-Unis estimerent que cela ne devait pas 6tre. 
 
 Et voici le point dont Avila demandait l'insertion : 
 
 Que la reclamation concernant le Fonds pie fut consideree comme finalement 
 -reglee in toto et que toute autre nouvelle reclamation quant au capital du dit fonds ou 
 A ses interests accrus ou d, accroitre dut etre consideree comme inadmissible pour 
 toujours. 
 
 C'est-a-dire qu' Avila, conformement aux instructions du Gouverne- 
 ment mexicain, demandait une interpretation officielle et authentique 
 de la sentence rendue, constatant qu'elle impliquait decision concernant 
 le sort de la rente elle-melne et des interets a echoir comme des 
 inteVets echus. 
 
 Et voici comment repondit M. Hamilton Fish a la communication 
 que lui fit M. Mariscal de la note d'Avila: 
 
 . Vous apprecierez de suite mon extreme aversion, au moment ou l'obligation de 
 chaque Gouvernement de considerer le r^sultat dans chaque case comme absolument 
 final et concluant devient parfaite, en voyant que le Gouvernement du Mexique a 
 fait ou se propose de faire des demarches qui altereraient cette obligation. 
 
 M. Mariscal se tira d'affaire comme il pouvait en repondant a la date 
 du 3 decembre: 
 
 Senor Avila a voulu seulement exprimer l'opinion de son Gouvernement quant a 
 1'impossibilite' de reclamer dans l'avenir le capital du Fond pieux dont l'inter6t 
 accumuM sera maintenant pay*; conformement au jugement. II s'efforce d'eViter si 
 possible une reclamation future des parties interessees par Pintermediaire des Etats- 
 Unis, mais il ne pretend pas mettre en doute la presente decision. 
 
 II est inutile d'insister sur la difference entre la premiere suggestion 
 d'Avila et l'explication ulterieure de ses intentions apres la reponse 
 des Etats-Unis. Ce que nous avons tenu a mettre en relief, c'est 
 Pinstruction donnee par le Gouvernement mexicain a ses agents d'ob- 
 tenir une interpretation de la sentence arbitrale impliquant statut sur 
 
 ft. Hnr>. 98 SO 
 
786 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 l'existence m&me de la rente: ce qui ne lui permet guere, se semble, 
 de soutenir le contraire sans se mettre en f&cheuse posture. Ce qu'il 
 est peut-e"tre bon aussi de constater, c'est l'accord tacite des deux 
 Gouvernements, a la suite de cet incident, pour ne plus soulever de 
 complications entre eux concernant leFonds Calif ornienavaht l'accom- 
 plissement complet des obligations contenues dans la sentence. Et 
 ceci n'est pas sans importance: car, d'une part, il explique l'absence 
 de reclamations avant cet accomplissement et, d'autre parte, il met en 
 relief l'impossibilite de transformer ce silence en moyen de prescrip- 
 tion pourle Gouvernement mexicain. 
 
 Ainsi, en resume, non seulement le premier arbitre a statue mani- 
 festement sur l'existence de la rente annuelle, non seulement les 
 demandeurs et les defendeurs ont debattu &, fond ce point et adopte" 
 des conclusions opposes, mais le Gouvernement mexicain a sollicite* 
 une interpretation authentique du jugement impliquant statut sur le 
 meme point essentiel. Comment ce Gouvernement pourrait-il aujourd'- 
 hui avec quelque succes soutenir une these differente? 
 
 Je voudrais maintenant essayer de montrer a quel point le systeme 
 defendu par nos adversaires est contraire non seulement a l'esprit, mais 
 aux dispositions formelles d'un Acte que la premiere Cour d'arbitrage 
 siegeant a La Haye ne reniera certainement pas: la Convention pour 
 le reglement pacifique des conflits internationaux. 
 
 La Conference de La Haye s'est occupee a trois reprises de la chose 
 jugee et elle l'a fait dans des conditions que j'ai le devoir de rappeler 
 brievement ici. 
 
 A l'article 18 la Convention, — a laquelle ont souscrit les deux par- 
 ties aujourd'hui en litige, — elle s'exprime comme suit: 
 
 La convention d'arbitrage implique 1' engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi a la 
 sentence arbitrate. 
 
 Et le commentaire du rapporteur est significatif : 
 
 Le trait caracteVistique de 1' arbitrage est pr^cisement la soumission convenue des 
 Etats a un juge de leur choix, avec 1' engagement qui en decoule naturellement de se 
 conformer loyalement a la sentence. 
 
 Oui, se conformer, c'est-a-dire non seulement executer, mais tenir 
 d'une maniere permanente la sentence pour norme regulatrice des rap- 
 ports juridiques, en un mot, la considerer comme Veritas inter partes, 
 et tout cela de bonne foi, sans subterfuge ni retour offensif. A coup 
 sur, toutes les intentions demeurent sauves, mais les faits doivent d'au- 
 tre part etre constates dans leur teneur objective. 
 
 La conference s'est occupee une seconde fois de la chose jugee & 
 l'article 55, k propos de la question de savoir si et dans quelle mesure 
 il fallait admettre une procedure sp^ciale en revision. Elle a declare 
 que les parties pouvaient se reserver dans le compromis cette faculte* 
 et elle a organise, en vue de cette hypothese, le systeme d'une revision, 
 strictement limitee quant a la juridiction appelee k en connaitre, quant 
 aux faits qui peuvent la motiver et quant au delai dans lequel elle serait 
 recevable. 
 
 Voici le texte de l'article 55: 
 
 Les parties peuvent se reserver dans le compromis de demander la revision de la 
 sentence arbitrate. 
 
 Dans ce cas et sauf convention contraire, la demande doit 6tre adress^e au tribunal 
 qui a rendu la sentence. Elle ne peut etre motivee que par la decouverte d'un fait 
 nouveau qui eut ete" de nature a exercer une influence decisive sur la sentence et qui, 
 lors de la cteture des debate, <§tait inconnu du tribunal lui-m6me et de la partie qui 
 a demand^ la revision. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 787 
 
 La procedure de revision ne peut etre ouverte que par une decision du tribunal 
 constatent express^ment 1' existence du fait nouveau, lui reconnaissant les caracteres 
 prevus par le paragraphe precedent et" declarant & ce titre la demands recevable. 
 
 Le compromis determine le delai dans lequel la demande de revision doit etre 
 formed. 
 
 On voit combien la Conference a ete pen^tree de la ne*cessite de 
 terminer definitivement les litiges defer^s a la justice arbitrale et de 
 ne pas ebranler l'atorite des sentences rendues par les arbitres. Mais 
 il y a dans la Convention de la Haye un article plus interessant encore, 
 et qui accuse clairement, avec la volonte de la Conference de sauve- 
 garder en tout cas l'autorite de la chose jugee, son dessein d'en e^endre 
 les effets r^gulateurs et pacificateurs non seulement a des points de fait, 
 mais a des points de droit servant de bases aux jugements, non seule- 
 mente entre les parties imm^diatement en cause, mais entre toutes les 
 parties eVentuellement interessees. L'initiative de cette proposition 
 ingenieuse revient a M. Asser. Voici son economic La chose jugee 
 n'est obligatoire qu'entre parties. Mais en droit international, sp^ciale- 
 nient dans les conventions appeMes unions universelles, il y a de tres 
 nombreuses parties, souvent interessees egalement a la solution de tel 
 litige. Par exemple tel Etat a parcu la taxe postale de telle facon; 
 un autre lui conteste cette maniere de proceder. II faut recourir a un 
 arbitre. Mais la decision, quelle qu'elle. soit, ne constituera chose 
 jugee qu'entre parties. Cela peut etre regrettable. De la l'organisa- 
 tion d'un systeme de mise en cause de tous les Etats participants a une 
 mSrne convention en vue d'obtenir une decision judiciaire qui les liera 
 tous. 
 
 Voici le texte de l'article 56. 
 
 La sentence arbitrale n'est obligatoire que pour les parties qui ont conclu le 
 compromis. 
 
 Lorsqu'il s'agit de 1' interpretation d'une convention jt laquelle ont participS d'autres 
 Puissances que les Parties en litige, celles-ci notifient aux premieres le compromis 
 qu'elles ont conclu. Chacune de ces Puissances a le droit d'intervenir au proces. 
 Si une ou plusieurs d' entre elles ont profits de cette faculty, 1' interpretation contenue 
 dans la sentence est Egalement obligatoire a leur egard. 
 
 Voila comment la Conference de La Haye a temoigne de sa volonte 
 de consolider et d'etendre l'autorite de la chose jugee. 
 
 Au contraire — et c'est la, a mon sens, une remarque d'importance 
 capitale,— la th&se soutenue par nos adversaires tend a rendre impos- 
 sible, sauf dans des proportions derisoires, l'existence mSme d'une 
 chose jugee et le fonctionnement n^cessaire de son autorite dans d'im- 
 menses domaines du monde juridique pratique. En effet, pour toutes 
 les obligations dont l'execution est successive, impossibilite radicale* 
 d'arriver a la chose jugee. Vous reclamez les elements exigibles, les 
 termes echus d'une creeance dont la capital ne peut, pour le moment, 
 6tre reclame? Impossibilite radicale d'arriver a la chose jugee en cette 
 matiere. Chaque ann6e, bien qu'il ait 6t6 etabli par le ]uge que la 
 creance etait dueet qu'il n'ait fait que liquider les interets exigibles en 
 consequence, la controverse pourra reprendre a fond et donner lieu a 
 des jugements successivement contradictoires. 
 
 Dans le cas present, ou l'on ne conteste nullement — le compromis 
 en contient l'aveu formel — que les arrerages de la rente n'ont pas 
 6te payes depuis trente et un ans et ou la contestation porte et a 
 toujours porte en realite sous l'existence ou la non-existence d'un 
 droit a la rente annuelle, c'est precisement sur ce point que la chose 
 jugee devrait etre ecartee. Si les Etats-Unis ont gain de cause dans 
 
788 PIOUS FUND OV THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 le present litige, le Mexique pourra, dans un an, eI la premiere 
 ^che'ance, recommencer le proces a fond et sur toute la ligne; et>si le 
 Mexique triomphe, les Etats-Unis pourront faire de meme. Est-ce 
 admissible? 
 
 Et en supposant meme que cela fut possible dans le droit strict de 
 tel ou tel pays, est-ce admissible en droit international ou dominent 
 ces deux grands principes: — le principe de bonne foi qui 6carte les 
 solutions de strict droit reposant soit sur un formalisme outre, soit 
 de purs expedients de procedure, — le principe de la necessite imp^- 
 rieuse de terminer les conflits au lieu perpetuer et de les multiplier. 
 
 Et ceci me conduit a presenter k la Cour une observation dont la 
 portee ne lui echappera point. Cette observation n'est pas de moi; 
 elle m'a 6t6 faite par un de mes e*minents collegues de l'Institut de 
 Droit international, dont je suis autorise a citer le nom, mais qu'il me 
 parait inutile de meler a ce de"bat, la valeur objective de l'observation 
 etant suffisante. Voici done ce qu'il me disait: "Quelque controverse 
 que l'on puisse soulever dans les diverse pays, quelque subtilite" que 
 l'on puisse invoquer, la presomption dans les arbitrages internationeaux 
 doit toujours etre que les Etats en cause ont engage la question et que 
 le juge l'a resolue dans des conditions qui permettent d'en finir. 
 Toute autre supposition est inadmissible en matiere de procedure 
 arbitrate internationale." 
 
 On peut ajouter qu'elle est le plus souvent et tres expresse'ment 
 contre dite par le libelle meme des compromis d'arbitrage, lesquels 
 d^clarent vouloir regler d'une maniere concluante les diff£rends en 
 question, et non les eterniser et less envenimer par d'incessantes 
 revisions k perspectives contradictoires. 
 
 Je viens de citer l'opinion d'un de mes collegues de l'Institut de 
 droit international. Si je l'ai fait, e'est surtout pour montrer qu'il ne 
 f aut pas toujours conclure du national a, l'international, et que certaines 
 questions posees sur le terrain du droit des gens peuvent se colorer de 
 teinte particuliere, dont il est juste et necessaire de tenir compte. 
 
 Mais, au fond, dans cette affaile, la question qui se debat est moins 
 une question de haute science qu'une question generate de bon sens et 
 de bonne foi. Que l'on enfasse l'experience. Que Ton expose au pre- 
 mier venu qu'un differend s'est eleve entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique 
 concernant le paiement d'une rente de 43,000 dollars environ; que les 
 deux Etats sont convenus en 1868 de recourir a une juridiction arbi- 
 trale, que l'arbitre a condamne le Mexique, a payer aux Etats-Unis 
 vingt et une annees d'arr^rages — vingt et une fois 43,000 dollars, — 
 pour les annees 6chues et de la rente. Si l'on ajoute que le Mexique, 
 depuis la sentence de l'arbitre, a refuse de payer annuellement les 43,000 
 dollars et allegue aujourd'hui que la rente n'existe pas et n'a jamais 
 existe, l'interlocuteur repondra invariablement: 
 
 O'est une chose jug6e, cela: le premier juge a manifeatement deadS le contraire. , 
 Aussi ce que le Mexique a de mieux a faire, ce semble, e'est de payer volontairement 
 les arrerages actuels afin de ne pas etre condamne' judiciairement, comme pr<§c6dem- 
 ment, a payer les arrerages en souffrance. 
 
 C'est un peu ce qu'ont repondu les fitats-Unis au Mexique lorsque 
 celui-ci, apres avoir refuse" de liquider l'arriere d^clarait qu'il n'y avait 
 qu'une seule voie pour terminer le differend: le recours aux tribunaux 
 mexicains interpretant souverainement la sentence du premier arbitre 
 international. Vous ne voyez qu'une voie, ont repondu les Etats- 
 Unis et nous nous en voyons trois autres: payer, transiger, plaider 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 789 
 
 devant une juridiction arbitrale internationale. Celle-ci est l'organe 
 naturellement appele dans le cas present a decider si et dans quelle 
 mesure la premiere sentence arbitrale doit garder l'ineffacable empreinte 
 de la chose jugee et demeurer la norme regularisatrice de notre diffe- 
 rend. C'est ainsi que nous avons 6te amenes aujourd'hui devant la Cour 
 d'arbitrage de La Haye a discuter a fond la grande question qui donne 
 a cette arbitrage une physionomie distinct entre tous les autres. 
 
 Permettez moi, Messieurs, en terminant l'examen de cette question, 
 de rappeler un souvenir qui se rattache a l'epoque ou le Mexique conquit 
 son independance. A cette epoque trouble, alors que les passions 
 s'agitaient encore — et la passion est parfois mauvaise conseilliere non 
 seulement pour les individus, mais pour les peuples — l'Etat mexicain 
 n'hesita pas a, prendre une resolution qui honore aujourd'hui encore 
 son Gouvernement. Cette resolution est consignee dans le Decret du 
 28 juin 1824, lequel porte ce qui suit: 
 
 Le Congres souverain des Etats-Unis mexicains, voulant donner un temoignage de 
 son respect pour la foi publique et de son observation rigoureuse des principes de 
 justice, ayant en vue l'etablissement sur des bases solides du credit national, dlcrete-: 
 
 Sont recofinues les dettes contractees dans la nation mexicaine par le Gouvernement 
 des Yice-Rois. 
 
 Parmi les charges du passe, il en est une qui a un caractere que 
 j'appellerai intangible: c'est celle qui se rattache au Fonds des Cali- 
 fornies et a sa contre-valeur representee par la rente annuelle dont 
 nous reclaraons la prestation. Les sanctions geminees de la religion 
 et de la legislation ont mis cette charge a l'abri des mainmises con- 
 traires a sa destination. 
 
 De bonne foi, le Gouvernement mexicain a soutenu devant la pre 
 miere juridiction arbitrale qu'il n'etait pas oblige a payer cette dette 
 aux ayants droit. La decision arbitrale de 1875 lui a prouve qu'il la 
 devait. 
 
 De bonne foi, le Gouvernement mexicain, apres la premiere sentence 
 a demande la revision de la decision arbitrale. Sauf rectification d'une 
 erreur mathematique, cette revision ne lui a pas ete aceordee. 
 
 En toute bonne foi, le Gouvernement mexicain soutient actuellement 
 et de nouveau la meme these qu'autrefois. Je ne doute pas, quant a 
 moi, que la juridiction arbitrale de 1892, en accord avec celle de 1875, 
 ne prouve a, l'Etat du Mexique qu'il eut bien fait de liquider les termes 
 echus d'une obligation de rente dont 1' existence a ete constatee par le 
 premier juge. 
 
 A quelque chose, toutefois, erreur peut etre bonne. J'ai la con 
 fiance que des deliberations actuelles de la Cour sortira une sentence 
 qui, loin d'ebranler ou de defigurer la chose jugee, la consacrera pour 
 l'ordre international dans ses elements essentiels, dans sa portee veri- 
 table, dans des conditions ou elle puisse remplir efncacement sa haute 
 mission: terminer les differends internationaux, assurer au contenu 
 des statuts des arbitres une valeur permanente entre les parties et 
 prevenir des retours offensifs qui compromettraient l'inviolabilite" 
 souveraine de la justice arbitrale. 
 
 Je prie le Tribunal de vouloir bien me permettre de continuer ma 
 pladoirie demain matin, me sentant un peu fatigue. 
 
 M. le President. Est-ce que ' l'autre conseil des Etats-Unis 
 d'Amerique, M. Penfield, ne pourrait pas parler main tenant? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. Penfield is not here at the present time, because 
 he had anticipated that M. Descamps would require the rest of the 
 
790 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 afternoon, and he had some final work to do. I could communicate 
 with him, perhaps, but I believe it would be a saving of time not to 
 ask him to break in at this moment. 
 
 M. le President. On pourrait lui t&ephoner. 
 
 Mr. Ealston. I can telephone for him immediately, but I think I 
 could assure the members of the court, if it would affect their judg- 
 ment, that Judge Penfield when he commences will not take more 
 than two hours. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Then he would get through half the speech 
 to-day. 
 
 M.'Asser. One hour to-day and one hour to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. That to a degree destroys the continuity of his 
 speech. The judge has been very solicitous that he should have an 
 opportunity of speaking straight ahead, and I feel therefore bound to 
 make that statement to the court. He has mentioned the matter to 
 me heretofore. 
 
 M. le President. II est desirable d'en finir; a la demande du conseil 
 des Etats-Unis le Tribunal s'ajourne a demain matin 9 h. f . 
 
 (Le Tribunal s'ajourne a mardi le 30 septembre 9f heures du matin.) 
 
 SEIZIEME SEANCE. 
 
 SO septembre 1902 (matin). 
 
 Le Tribunal se reunit a 9f heures du matin, tous les Arbitres e"tant 
 presents. 
 
 M. le President. Je declare que maintenant les seances contin- 
 ueront sans interruption, dans les heures fixees. De plus, le Tribunal 
 sans vouloir en aucune maniere enchainer la liberte" des orateurs et tout 
 en respectant leur liberty, exprime le d&ir que les conseils veuillent 
 bien dans leurs discours eViter autant que possible des repetitions 
 inutiles. 
 
 La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis d'Amerique M. Descamps. 
 
 M. Descamps. Messieurs les arbitres, je ne prolongerai pas — autant 
 que je le pourrais faire — le debat concernant l'autorite de la chose 
 jugee en produisant de nombreuses citations et de longues analyses 
 des jugements rendus dans les divers pays. Je me borne a renvoyer 
 aux ouvrages qui ont ete signales par mes confreres americains^ et 
 dont les extraits principaux ont &t& reproduits specialement par M. 
 Ralston. J'y ajouterai, en ce qui concerne la France et la Belgique, 
 deux grands recueils: les Pandectes franQaises et les Pandectes beiges, 
 dans lesquels l'orientation est facile et qui donnent un aspect d'en- 
 semble de la jurisprudence de ces pays. 
 
 Je me permets de relever dans les Pandectes beiges v°, Chose jugee 
 n° 169, le passage suivant, "La chose jugee peut done re"sulter d'une 
 decision simplement implicite, e'est-a-dire d'une consequence neces- 
 saire mais non formulee, d'une disposition expresse." De m6me en 
 effect que la volonte du legislateur peut etre constatee reelle et cer- 
 taine, sous une forme implicite comme sousune forme explicite; ainsi 
 e'est a la volonte reelle et certaine du juge, et non exclusivement a la 
 forme explicite ou implicite de sa manifestation, qu'il importe de 
 s'attacher la these contraire aboutirait souvent a des consequences 
 aussi Granges qu'injustifi^es. La volonte reelle du juge, comme la 
 volonte reelle du legislateur: voila le point de mire des investigations 
 de l'interprete. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 791 
 
 Le § 425 des Pandectes francaises f ormule une regie semblable h, 
 celle du n° 169 Pandectes oelges et le § 449 s'attache a nous donner un 
 guide de nature a orienter le juge dans la solution de la question de 
 savoir si telle pretention des parties tombe ou ne tombe pas sous le 
 coup de la chose anterieurement jugee. Ce n'est au fond que l'appli- 
 cation du criterium de contradiction. 
 
 M. de Martens. Pouvons-nous profiter de ces deux volumes ? 
 
 M. Descamps. Evidemment. II y a la, comme dans tous les recueils 
 semblables des accumulations de documents qui ne sont pas toujours 
 en parfaite concordance, mais les materiaux n'en demeurent pas moins 
 precieux et signalent en tout cas tous les aspects de la question. 
 
 J'ai t&che" de me rendre un compte pratique des contradictions 
 eVentuelles qui pourraient survenir entre l'ancienne decision arbitrate 
 et la nouvelle, si les pretentions des defendeurs etaient admises: cette 
 comparaison est tres instructive. 
 
 J'ai aussi mis en regard des pretentions d'autrefois celles d'au- 
 jourd'hui, et sauf quelques moyens nouveaux qui, par cela merae qu'ils 
 ont la qualite de simples moyens, ne peuvent pas porter atteinte a la 
 chose jugee, j'ai constate que sur toute la ligne, on reproduisait les 
 memes arguments, dont le juge d'autrefois a fait bonne et definitive 
 justice. 
 
 Bonne et definite justice en effet: car api - es avoir montre" qu'il y a en 
 cette affaire chose jugee, je tiens a" prouver brievement qu'il y a aussi 
 chose bien jugee, en tenant compte de tous les elements dont le sur- 
 arbitre a dispose' lorsqu'il a rendu sa decision, et l'on ne peut demander 
 rien autre chose a un juge. 
 
 J'ai deja" signaM dans une courte analyse les points lumineux de la 
 premiere sentence arbitrale, ceux ou l'arbitare tranche, par des raisons 
 f rappantes, avec un grand sens de justice et au point de vue de la bonne 
 f oi, les difficultes accumulees comme a" plaisir dans cette affaire. 
 
 Sans relever ici toutes ces difficultes dont beaucoup ne sont point 
 pertinentes en la cause, je voudrais signaler et faire en quelque sorte 
 toucher du doigt les causes d'erreur qui vicient tout le systeme d'argu- 
 mentation de nos adversaires, et qui doivent, selon moi, detourner la 
 cour de tout ralliement a leurs conclusions. 
 
 I. Une premiere cause les erreurs ou versent nos contradicteurs — je 
 l'ai signalee dans une premiere plaidoirie, avant de traiter la question 
 de la chose jugee — c'est l'idee qu'ils se font de la preponderance 
 necessaire, absolue, exclusive des lois mexicaines en cette affaire. J'ai 
 montre qu'il n'etait pas possible de faire table rase a" ce point et du 
 droit international public et du droit international pfive et de l'equite 
 dont les arbitres sont aussi les ministres, selon les termes et l'esprit du 
 compromis. Je ne reviens pas sur ce point. 
 
 II. Dne seconde cause des erreurs que l'on peut constater dans 
 nombre de raisonnements de nos adversaires, c'est la notion inexacte 
 qu'ils se font du trust, qui est caracteristique des fondations califor- 
 niennes en litige. Le droit francais qui semble avoir servi de guide 
 exclusif a nos adversaires ignore presque entierement cette notion, ou 
 plutdt il l'insinue dans le cadre des donations sub modo. De la les 
 meprises que l'on peut constater au debut des conclusions deposees en 
 cours d'instance par MM. Beernaert et Delacroix. 
 
 Le trust anglais, la stiftung allemande, la fondation proprement dite 
 attachent une liberalite, un patrimoine a un office. II y a le trustee et 
 celmi qui trust. Faut-il proscrire cette forme de liberalite % Ne f aut-il 
 
792 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 pas plutot la reglementer de maniere a eviter les abus et a sauvegarder 
 t'ordre public? Ce que l'on appelle le domaine eminent de l'Etat sur 
 les trust va-t-il jusqu'a permettre a l'Etat de dire a chaque instant: 
 "Le trust, c'est moi?" Ce serait, la negation meme de la notion du 
 trust. 
 
 Le depot et l'administration du fonds qui compose le trust, le pouvoir 
 d'obtenir et de disposer des revenus qu'il produit ne doivent pas §tre 
 confondus. Ces attributs peuvent se rencontrer dans la meme main, 
 lis peuvent aussi etre separes et creer des droits respectifs fort distinct. 
 
 L'acte constitutif du trust peut reconnaitre a telle personne ou a tel 
 pouvoir le droit de pourvoir dans telle eventuallte a telle designation, 
 par exemple, a la designation de l'ayant droit aux revenus, sans con- 
 jurer pour cela a cette personne ou a ce pouvoir une faculte ad nutum, 
 ou le droit de disposer souverainement du trust et de ses revenus selon 
 le bon plaisir: ce qui serait encore une fois la negation du trust dans 
 sa destination propre liee a son essence. 
 
 II ne suffit pas d'ailleurs — et nous insisterons bient6t sur ce point — 
 il ne suffit pas a'affirmer que le souverain, en vertu de son domaine 
 eminent, aurait le droit de disposer, personnellement et a tous egards. 
 du trust pour prouver qu'il a use de ce droit et surtout qu'il en a use 
 au moment decisif en la cause, c'est-a-dire, dans le cas present, au 
 moment qui precede le d&nembrement des Californies. 
 
 La meconnaissance des divers points que nous venons de signaler se 
 manifeste dans un grand nombre de deductions de nos adversaires. 
 
 III. Une troisieme cause d'erreur chez eux est l'eloignement ou ils 
 se tiennent le plus souvent de ce que l'on peut appeler le cceur de la 
 
 Question, le propre siege de la matiere. A nos yeux, ce qu'il importe 
 e determiner pour la solution du litige actuel, ce sont ces deux points 
 f ondamentaux : 
 
 1°. Constater aussi nettement que possible la situation juridique, et 
 specialement l'attitude du pouvoir souverain, au moment qui a precede" 
 la separation des deux Californies; 
 
 2°. Fixer aussi exactement que possible les consequences juridiques 
 du demembrement de territoire survenu, pour un trust dont le champ 
 d'activite conforme a sa destination ce trouve manifestement coupe en 
 deux troncons, et dont l'organe agissant et ayant droit aux revenus se 
 trouve lui aussi scinde en deux organismes. C'est sur ces deux points 
 qu'il faut surtout faire la lumiere. 
 
 La plupart des autres questions peuvent sans doute edifier plus ou 
 moins le juge, mais ne fixeront point sa decision juridique. Les deve- 
 loppements qu'on leur consacre sont en quelque sorte des pr^ambules 
 quand ils ne sont pas des hors d'oeuvre. 
 
 IV. Une quatrieme cause des erreurs ou versent nos adversaires se 
 trouve dans la meconnaissance pratique de ce fait, qu'une loi, un d^cret, 
 n'est pas toujours exclusivement un acte de souverainete imposant 
 d'autorite des commandements ou des defenses; qu'ils peuvent au con- 
 traire renfermer des elements obligationnels dont l'acceptation ou la 
 ratification par les interesses aboutit a ] 'existence d'un veritable 
 contrat. 
 
 Et a ce point de vue il faut constater que Pinterpr6tation donnee 
 par nos contradicteurs au d^cret du 28 octobre 1842, qui est d'impor- 
 tance capitale dans la cause, est singulierement erron^e. 
 
 Ils y voient un acte de confiscation, alors que toute sa teneuf nous 
 demontre qu'il ne renferme qu'une transformation de valeurs, avan- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 793 
 
 tageuse pour l'Etat sans doute, mais que ne differe pas en soi des actes 
 commun^ment appeles remplois. 
 
 Et la combinaison recherchee — la combinazione, comme disent les 
 Italiens — n'est pas difficile a saisir: un Etat en besoin de ressources 
 imm^diates nous apparait comme transformant une valeur a realiser 
 immediatement a son profit en une valeur soldable a des echeances 
 futures bien echelonn^es. 
 
 Gr&ce &, cette combinaison, il devient proprietaire des immeubles et 
 valeurs du Fonds des Californies et ils les vendra pour disposer du 
 prix. Mais il n'entend aucunement s'approprier la contre-valeur qu'il 
 substitue immediatement a ces biens, c J est-a-dire la rente. 
 
 Ses declarations a ce sujet sont formelles, absolues. II declare 
 expressement " vouloir realiser en toute exactitude les buts chari tables 
 et nationaux que le fondateur s'est propose, sans la moindre perte des 
 Hens destines a cette institution.'''' 
 
 II caract^rise non moins nettement le moyen qu'il entend employer 
 a cet effet: " capitaliser les biens qui appartiennent enpropre au Fonds 
 fie en les placant a interet, en rentes, sous de dues gar an ties." 
 
 Et c'est ce qu'il fait — car les actes sont parfaitement d'accord ici avec 
 les declarations — par une double operation qui le rend, d'une part, 
 proprietaire a fin de vente, des proprietes rurales et urbaines et autres- 
 biens composant le Fond pie — qui le rend, d'autre part, debiteur d'une 
 rente annuelle egale au revenu a 6 p. c. du capital representatif des 
 biens vendus; ce qui simplifie et meme rend inutiles les fonctions 
 . d'administration. 
 
 Et l'Etat se constitue non seulement debiteur ordinaire, mais debi- 
 teur sous " due garantie," comme il l'a declare. A titre de garantie, 
 il afi'ecte specialement le revenu des tabacs au paiement de la rente 
 (alpago de los reditos correspondentes al capital del referido fundo de 
 Calif or nias). 
 
 Et il regie comme suit la delivrance des mandats de paiement. "La. 
 direction du Departement des finances prestera {entregara, delivrera, 
 remettra en main) les sommes necessaires pour remplir les objets 
 auxquels ce fonds est destine, et cela "sans aucune deduction pour 
 frais d'administration ou autres quelconques." 
 
 11 n'est pas necessaire d'avoir des connaissances approfondies en 
 langue espagnole pour savior que al pago signifie au payement et non k 
 la donation, et que entregar correspond au latin tradere, delivrer r 
 remettre dans la main, prester. En rapprochant ce dernier mot du 
 terme alpago, aucun doute ne peut subsister quant au sens du decret 
 de 1842. 
 
 Mais ce n'est pas assez: nous pouvons constater l'execution du decret 
 a l'egard des ayants droit par le Gouvernement d'une maniere conf orme 
 a la signification que nous venons d'etablir. Si en effet, nous lisons 
 la page 149 du Memorial, nous constaterons l'existence d'un ordre de 
 payement sur la douane maritime de Guyamos, paru au Diario de 
 Mexico sous la date du 23 avril 1844, et dont le titulaire est "Juan 
 Rodriguez de San Miguel comme repr^sentant du T. R. eveque des 
 Californies." 
 
 Voila pour la contre-valeur des biens vendues du "Fonds des Cali- 
 fornies." Quant aux biens in vendus au 3 avril 1845, le decret de cette 
 date ordonne leur restitution aux eveques de cette mitre et a ses succes 
 seurs. En presence de tels f aits, soutenir que les decrets de 1842 et de 
 1845 ne renferment aucune obligation veritable envers les eveques de 
 
794 
 
 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Californie, c'est — pour emprunter a S. E. M. Pardo une de ses expres- 
 sions— "fermer les yeux a la lumiere de 1'eVidence." 
 
 Pour nous, nous avons la claire vue de cette v^rite* juridique: au 
 moment ou allait se fixer par voie de separation les destinees politiques 
 des deux Californies, l'Etat mexicain se considerait comme le debiteur 
 de la contre-valeur des f ondations californiennes, fondations aliment^es 
 par la charite priv£e, pour etre appliquees a un but apostolique, dans 
 un champ particulier de travail (les deux Californies) par une organi- 
 sation religieuse particuliere non moins nettement determinee et 
 representee par 1'eVSque catholique des Californies. 
 
 On a soutenu qu'entre l'instant ou l'Eglise catholique est devenue la 
 ressortissante des Etats-Unis et le moment ou elle a pu regulariser sa 
 situation dans l'Etat de Californie, le Mexique a eu le pouvoir de faire 
 main-basse sur ses droits. Mais traiter ainsi toutes les situations qui 
 ont besoin d'un certain temps pour s'accommoder a un nouvel etat de 
 (h)ses serait souverainement inequitable et meme nettement injuste. 
 Ce n'est pas ainsi que le traite de Guadalupe-Hidalgo a regie ce genre 
 de situation transitoire et nous trouvons pr(3cis6ment dans ce traite un 
 article ainsi concu, concernant les Mexicains qui ne gardent pas le 
 caractere de citoyens du Mexiqui et qui ne sont pas encore admis a la 
 jouissance de tous les droits de citoyen des Etats-Unis. 
 
 Entre temps, ils seront maintenues et proteges dans la jouissance de leur liberty et 
 de leurs proprieties et garantis quant au libre exercice de leur religion, sans restric- 
 tion aucune. 
 
 IV. Mais j'arrive a signaler une nouvelle et quatrieme cause des 
 erreurs qui sont a la base des theses soutenues par nos adversaires: 
 c'est la m£connaissanee des consequences naturelles et juridiques du 
 demembrements des Etats. 
 
 Deux faits sont certains: 
 
 1°. Par la cession de la Haute Californie aux Etas-Unis, le champ 
 effectif d'operation des fondations californiennes a 6te scinde en deux 
 parties; 
 
 2°- Par cette meme cession, l'organe appele" a fonctionner sur ce 
 champ et ayant droit au payement de la rente representative des rev- 
 enus du trust s'est egalement trouve partage" en deux parties. 
 
 On affirme que le traite de Guadalupe-Hidalgo a resolu ce cas, mais 
 on est loin de le prouver, et le Mexique, dans nombre de conventions, 
 a reconnu la contraire, car ses allegations d'in competence ne datent 
 pas du premier compromis d'arbitrage, et le cas des eveques de la Haute 
 Californie 6tait depuis longtemps soumis a l'arbitrage aux dates ou le 
 compromis initial f ut a diverses reprises proroge par le Gouvernement 
 mexicain. 
 
 11 serait plus exact de dire que le traite" de Guadalupe-Hildalgo a 
 cree le cas sans le trancher. Et l'on sait de reste que dans les questions 
 de toute espSce si compliqu£es auxquelles peuvent donner lieu les 
 annexions, les instruments diplomatiques sont toujours imparfaits. II 
 faut regler selon la justice et l'£quite les situations nouvelles. 
 
 Le droit pour l'Eglise catholique de la Haute-Californie de r^clamer 
 une part de la contre-valeur, representative du Fonds des Californies 
 semble difficilement discutable. La quotite de cette part est plus deli- 
 cate a etablir.^ A defaut d'autre base de repartition pleinement satis- 
 faisante, la r&gle ^ordinaire communement recue et pratique^ est le 
 partage par moitie\ C'est une regie un peu grossiere si l'on veut mais 
 elle est dictee, en l'absence de norme meilleure, par le bon sens et 
 l'equite. C'est elle qu'a l'appliqu£e l'arbitre. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 795 
 
 V. Une cinquieme source des erreurs que l'on peut relever dans les 
 discours de nos adversaries reside dans une certaine tendance a ne pas 
 tenir un compte suffisant des faits, et a leur opposer des droits tn6- 
 oriques qui, eussent-ils existe avec le caractere et l'entendue qu'on leur 
 attribue, n'ont pas ete" exerc^s dans dans cette mesure. 
 
 II ne s'agit pas seulement de savoir ce que les Gouvernements suc- 
 cessifs avaient, en principe, le droit de faire quant aux fondations 
 californiennes. On peut soutenir, comme Pont fait nos adversaries, 
 qu'un souverain peut traiter selon son bon plaisir tous les trust de son 
 empire. 
 
 Nous pref 6rons admettre qu'il a le droit de les reglementer pour 
 eviter les abus et dans les limites des exigences de l'ordre public. 
 Mais la n'est pas la question. II s'agit de savoir non ce qu'on a pu 
 faire, mais ce que l'on a fait. 
 
 II arrive dans la destineede trust que des difficult^, des cas impreVus, 
 se pre"sentent, et alors on est amene" a appliquer cette sage maxime: 
 pofotis interpretandus est actus ut valeat quam ut per eat. 
 
 II se presente des situations que l'on peut appeler interimaires ou 
 d'attente; on pratique fr^quemment alors quant aux revenus ce que 
 l'on appelle le procede de la conservation. 
 
 II peut se faire que dans l'acte de fondation on prevoie certaines 
 eventualites extremes, par example l'extinction des successeurs regu- 
 liers des dispensateurs autorises des revenus, et que l'on autorise si. 
 pourvoir & la continuity de la succession. 
 
 Nous trouvons quelque chose de semblabl'e dans l'acte type des 
 fondations californiennes II est certain que le Gouverneirient espagnol 
 s'est considere comme autorise" a, designer, a defaut de la lignee primi- 
 tive de missionnaires-, lignee eteinte par suppression, une autre lignee 
 d'evang&isateurs. 
 
 II est non moins ave"re qu'il un moment donne" le chef des missions 
 californiennes, Diego, a ete, sl la demande du Gouvernement mexicain, 
 cr6e ev^que des Californies, et cela en connexion non douteuse avec la 
 realisation des intentions des fondateurs du "Fondopiedoso." 
 
 II est 6tabli que des obligations ont ete ulterieurement assum^es par 
 1'Etat mexicain, car il n'est pas possible de soutenir qu'il se soit simple- 
 ment engage a faire des payements d'un genre inconnu en droit; des 
 payements sans creancier ni debiteur. II est de toute evidence que 
 ces obligations ont 6t6 contractees, comme le rappelle le Decret de 
 1845, "envers les 6v§ques de cette mitre et leurs successeurs." 
 
 On peut critiquer cela, quoique bien a tort, au point de vue du 
 developpement des missions, ou si tel au tel point de vue. Mais l'Etat, 
 qui a sollicite" l'^tablissement de cette situation et qui l'a consacre" par 
 ses actes, est mal venu, ce semble, & s'en plaindre. Et on peut en tout 
 cas lui appliquer justement la maxime: patere legem quam ipsefeeisti! 
 
 C'est peut-§tre ce que nos contradicteurs ont trop oublie. 
 
 VI. Je me permets de signaler enfin une derniere source des erreurs 
 commises par eux. Elle tient & certains proce"des de negation, qui 
 depassent a notre sens la mesure. En entendant nos contradicteurs 
 nier jusqu'S, la re"alite du Fondo piedoso, nous nous sommes rappeles 
 ce nihilisme transcendental dont l'expression a etc" consignee, dit-on, 
 dans cette ceUebre constitution imagin^e en trois articles: Art. l er . II 
 n'y a plus rien. Art. 2. C'est tout. Art. 3. Nul n'est charge de 
 I'execution du present decret. 
 
 Et voyez la se"rie des negations dont on nous a gratifies 1 
 
796 PIOUS FUNB OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 II n'y a pas d'arbitrage international dans cette affaire. _ 
 
 II n'y a pas de droit international public ou prive limitant les lois 
 mexicaines. 
 
 II n'y a pas d'equite a invoquer. 
 
 II n'y a pas eu de Fonds des Californies s^rieusement existant. 
 
 II n'y a pas eu de rente. 
 
 II n'y a plus d'indiens. 
 
 II n'y a plus de missions. 
 
 II n'y a plus d'obligation. 
 
 II n'y a plus d'ayants droit. 
 
 II n'y a pas de chose jugee. 
 
 11 n'y a pas eu competence dans le chef de l'arbitre. 
 
 Enfin — comme conclusion derniere — nous ne devons rien. 
 
 C'est ce qui la cour aura a apprecier et a decider. Si elle aborde le 
 fond, elle constatera, je n'en doute pas, qu'il y a des Indiens, des mis- 
 sions, une rente et des ayants-droit. Mais a mon sens elle constatera 
 avant tout ceci, qui la dispense de revenir sur le fond: il y a chose 
 jug^e. 
 
 Un mot encore sur un point important: celui de la monnaie en 
 laquelle les annuites echues et non payees devront etre eventuellement 
 soldees. L'or et l'argent se disputent ici la palme, mais avec des 
 merites inegaux. 
 
 Voici les raisons qui doivent, selon moi, faire pencher la balance de 
 la justice du cote" de l'or. 
 
 1. La sentence du 24 octobre 1876 nous adjuge definitivement le 
 payement en or. La monnaie est une marchandise possedant un pou- 
 voir d'acheter determine. Changer cette marchandise serait changer 
 tres gravement ce qui nous a ete reellement adjuge, par le premier 
 arbitre. 
 
 Nos adversaires sont en disaccord avec nous sur l'etendue de la 
 chose jug6e, mais ils admettent tout au moins que la chose jugee s'^tend 
 & ce qui'ls appellent "les resultats immediatement pratiques de la 
 sentence." 
 
 Or le payement en or rentre precisement dans cette partie incon- 
 testee du premier jugement arbitral. 
 
 2. Nos contradieteurs alleguent, il est vrai, qu'au moment ou fut 
 rendue la premiere sentence la question de la monnaie en laquelle la 
 dette devait etre soldee n'avait aucune importance, les deux metaux 
 s'e"quilibrant comme valeur. Mais d'abord ils n'ont point fourni la 
 preuve exacte de ce fait, et nous remarquons, en tout cas, dans les 
 compromis la mention courante du payement " en or ou dans son equi- 
 valent:" ce qui ne laisse de place au payement en argent que sous reserve 
 de conserver le rapport des deux metaux en prenant pour base le paye- 
 ment en or. D'autre part, s'il est vrai, comme ils l'amrment que les 
 biens autrefois vendus leur ont ete payes en argent il est non vrai que 
 cet argent avaitalors un autre rapport avec l'or qu'aujourd'hui et qu'ils 
 sont mal venus a pr^tendre qu'aucun compte ne doive etre tenu de cette 
 difference. 
 
 3. La latitude du payement en argent laissee a nos adversaires serait 
 contraire au principe juridique universellement admis: Nemo ex sud 
 culpa commodum acquirere debet. En effet, le fait de n'avoir point 
 paye les annuites au moment ou ils auraient du les paver deviendrait, 
 un titre pour s'acquitter dans une monnaie deprecile." Tout ce qu'ils 
 pourraient pretendre a leur point de vue, ce serait de payer chaque 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 797 
 
 anne"e suivant le rapport existant alors entre l'or et l'argent: ce rapport 
 n'est pas difficile a constater. 
 
 4. Nous ne sommes pas ici sur le terrain des simples conventions de 
 droit prive" ou 1'on peut essayer de faire preValoir une solution exclu- 
 sivement favorable au debiteur: il s'agit d'une dette cre^e par la loi. 
 Or le decret de 1842, soit que l'on considere son texte, soit que l'on 
 consulte son esprit, n'est pas favorable a la pretention de nos 
 adversaires. 
 
 Aux termes de ce decret, l'annuite" doit nous 6tre remise dans la 
 main, c'est le sens du mot entregar de l'article 3 du decret. La dette 
 est done portable, et non querable. Et apres le demembrement, con- 
 venu par traite, des Californies, notre partde dette exigible est devenue 
 regulierement payable dans notre pays. L'importance de cette obser- 
 vation n'echappera point a ceux qui estiment que la loi du lieu ou 
 i'obligation doit etre executee est regulatrice des modalitfo de 
 l'ex<jcution. • 
 
 D'autre part, il suffit de lire le decret de 1842 pour saisir que l'inten- 
 tion formelle du legislateur de cette epoque a 6te" de nous assurer une 
 contre-valeur integrate des biens vendus, il a voulu que nous ne 
 subissions aucune perte, meme du chef des frais d'administration et a 
 fortiori du chef d'une monnaie de"preciee. II a voulu nous assurer un 
 situation in integrum. 
 
 Certes, nous ne pouvons etre a l'abri de toutes les causes qui peuvent 
 influer dans un pays sur la valeur relative des choses. Nous estimons 
 simplement que nous n'avons pas a supporter celle qui se rattache a la 
 depreciation d'un des mtjtaux, instrument des ^changes. Une chose 
 est certaine, c'est que si le Fonds pieux nous eut ete laisse* dans sa 
 constitution propre, on eut, dans les baux par exemple, stipule un 
 chiffre sup^rieur pour le payement en monnaie depreci^e que pour le 
 payement en monnaie non depreciee. 
 
 5. L'or est l'instrument general des payments internationaux. . . . 
 M. Pakdo. Ah! 
 
 M. Descamps. L'or lingot et l'or monnaie ne sont guere differents 
 de valeur et ainsi on a toujours de la marchandise pour sa valeur reelle. 
 Par suite du traite de ddmembrement, la dette ayant pris un caractere 
 international implicitement consacre, il y a lieu de la payer en or. 
 
 On est en effet geneValement d'accord, tout au moins dans les liqui- 
 dations de comptes d'ordre international, qu'un Etat ne peut se lib^rer 
 par exemple, en papier-monnaie de son cru. Or lorsqu'il attribue k 
 tel metal, chez lui, une valeur superieure de pres de moitie k sa valeur 
 comme marchandise, ce metal est dans cette mesure un veritable 
 papier-monnaie qu'il n'est ni Equitable ni juste d' essayer d'imposer k 
 sa valeur nominale comme liberation de paiements internationaux. 
 
 6. Enfin, en 6quite, il ne serait pas juste ne nous faire subir ce 
 double dommage: 
 
 1°. Celui du non-payment des interets des interSts; 
 
 2°. Celui du payement dans une monnaie d^pre'eie'e. 
 
 Et cela d'autant plus qu'aucune des deux raisons pour lesquelles l'ar- 
 bitre ne nous a pas accorde" les interets des interests, ne demeure debout 
 aujourd'hui. 
 
 Nous avons reconnu loyalement que cette circonstance, sur le terrain 
 de la chose jugee, n'est par relevante pour nous. Mais si nous sommes 
 condamnes a perdre sur ce terrain le benefice des pieces nouvelles pro- 
 duites par nous, c'est une raison pour que nous ne perdions pas d'autre 
 
798 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 part le benefice d'une situation acquise consacr^e par le dictum de l'ar- 
 bitre. 
 
 Car il faut en revenir la. II y a dans cette affaire une position que 
 nous avons le droit de ne pas abandonner. Nous avons de 1868 a 1875 
 lutte sur la haute mer pour arriver enfin a ce port abrite contre le flot 
 des arguments juridiques: la chose jugee. II est peu d'arbitrages qui 
 aient e"te plus longs, plus disputes, plus mouvement^s: opinions des 
 d^fenseurs des deux parts, opinions des commissaires, nouvelles 
 instances des defenseurs, statut du surarbitre, petition de revision avec 
 amplification, double decision nouvelle de surarbitre: rien n'a manque" 
 a cette procedure arbitrale espacee sur sept annees. 
 
 Aujourd'hui nous n'avons pas, certes, refuse de nous livrer a un 
 nouveau combat sur la haute mer et nous avons a bon escient augmente 
 nos engins de lutte; mais c'est en conservant toujours le droit de retour 
 a, notre port d'attache. lei nous ne demandons que le respect de la 
 chose jugee. La-bas nous insistons pour que sanction soit donnee dans 
 la plus large mesure a des engagements dont nous nous efforcons, a 
 l'aide de moyens nouveaux, de marquer la portee et les consequences. 
 
 La Cour appreciera l'un et l'autre de ces proc^des, dont le premier 
 garde un caractere principal et dont le second demeure subsidiaire. 
 
 Un dernier mot. On dit qu'un riche citoyen de la nation, pour 
 laquelle j'ai l'honneur de parler en ce moment, s'apprete a doter la 
 Cour arbitrale d'un magnifique Paleis. Si ce magnanime dessein se 
 realise, peut-etra n'est-il point de plus belle devise a mettre au fronton 
 de cet eaifice que celle de la l'Institut de Droit international — Justitid 
 et Pace: car ce sera bien la, que la Justice et la Paix s'embrasseront 
 d'une f raternelle 6treinte. Et si le palais, comme je l'espere, s'agrandit 
 dans l'avenir, si de nouvelles ailes s'y deploient, et que de nouveaux 
 frontons reclament de nouvelles devises je ne vois point d'inscriptions 
 plus lumineusement expressives des exigences f ondamentales de l'brdre 
 juridique international que ces deux maximes, ou j'ai essaye de resumer 
 ma pensee en comniencant cette plaidoirie: Pacta servanda! Pes 
 judicata Veritas inter partes! 
 > M. le President. La parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis d'Ame- 
 rique M. Penfield. 
 
 Mr. Penfield. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: Inclosing 
 the argument on the part of the United States, it will not be expected 
 that I should attempt to do more than briefly to restate and accentuate 
 the principal contentions of associate counsel who have preceded me 
 and to make suitable reply to the arguments of those speaking on 
 behalf of the Eepublic of Mexico. In the course of my argument, 
 therefore, I shall seek only to refer to established facts and to settled 
 principles, simply in order to illustrate our theme and to reinforce the 
 position of the United States — a position which has been frankly dis- 
 closed in the diplomatic correspondence without concealments, without 
 evasion, and with that spirit of fairness and candor worthy of a great* 
 State. 
 
 The prime motive which inspired the formation of the Hague Con- 
 vention was to secure the establishment of international justice. One 
 of its chief objects was to afford sure redress for whatever injury may 
 be arbitrarily inflicted by the government of one State upon the sub- 
 jects of another. Unfortunately, the juridical fact has sometimes been 
 momentarily overlooked or forgotten, that the supreme authority of the 
 State which arbitrarily injures the property right of the subject of 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA9. 799 
 
 another State incurs the just obligation of fulfilling the duties thereby 
 entailed. 
 
 It is these arbitrary injuries to private right which constitute, un- 
 happily, the long list of grievances which in the past have been pre- 
 ferred by governments on behalf of their subjects against offending 
 States. These grievances have been summarily settled sometimes by 
 the strong arm of the government acting on behalf of its injured 
 subjects; and this has given rise to grave complaints by the distin- 
 guished publicist, Mr. Calvo, of the forcible collection of exorbitant 
 indemnities. 
 
 The States of the Western Hemisphere recently held an international 
 conference at the City of Mexico, with a view to find some just and 
 satisfactory solution of this grave problem; and the result was that 
 the project of a treaty was signed by the delegates of the States there 
 assembled, under which such controversies between those States are to 
 be tentatively referred, for a period of five years, to the permanent 
 court provided by the Hague Convention. 
 
 Without exaggeration, therefore, I may say that the eyes of the 
 western world are now turned toward this judicatory; for the sessions 
 now held by this high court and its determinations, of vast moment as 
 they are to the nations of the Old World, are even more so, if that 
 were possible, to those of the Western Hemisphere. The decision, 
 which will make for the reign of law and justice among nations, and 
 for law and justice between the State and the humblest individual, will 
 by its benign influence and beneficent example, tend to increase respect 
 for private right and to put an end to the mutual grievances complained 
 of in the past, of arbitrary acts of the State with respect to vested 
 right on the one hand, and on the other, to the collection of indemni- 
 ties by military execution — complaints which have in the past sorely 
 perplexed the diplomacy and sometimes imperiled the relations of 
 otherwise friendly States. 
 
 I hope I do not trespass too far upon your indulgent consideration 
 if I say that upon this tribunal is therefore cast a most solemn respon- 
 sibility — weighty as regards the litigant States who are parties to this 
 controversy, and of incalculable importance by the lasting impression 
 its determinations will produce upon the States of the Old World 
 and upon the sense of law and justice among the peoples of the west- 
 ern world. The high precedent now set by your decision will live in 
 its effects upon social order in the Western Hemisphere and will live 
 in its influence upon the cause of international arbitration. 
 
 On this occasion of the sitting of the first court organized under The 
 Hague Convention, we owe a passing tribute to His Imperial Majesty 
 the Czar of Eussia for the lofty conception and initiative which has 
 finally led to the creation of the present tribunal, and to the additional 
 security provided for the judicial protection of private right and for 
 the preservation of the pacific relations of States. 
 
 Not less honor does the world owe to the memory of Her Majesty 
 the late Queen and Empress for the generous response of the British 
 Government to the magnanimous views of the Czar. 
 
 Equal honor is due to the sympathetic action of His Majesty the 
 King of Denmark— the land whose folk and speech have left their 
 beneficent and enduring impress upon the civilization of the United 
 States; and honor too, in overflowing measure, to Her Majesty the most 
 gracious Queen of the Fatherland, whose race has given two Presidents 
 
800 PIOUS FUND 01* THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 to tbe United States, for the generous support of the project by her 
 Government and for the hospitality we enjoy in a land distinguished 
 by equal laws, whose prophetic spirit was expressed by the pen of 
 Grotius in the Common Law of Nations. 
 
 Fortunate are the States who appear before a tribunal thus consti- 
 tuted and inspired with the spirit of these mighty traditions, which 
 are summed up in the single idea of international justice, unfettered 
 by the narrow technicalities of procedure, and by tbe summum jus, 
 the summa injuria of literal constructions; an idea which was formu- 
 lated in the immortal words of Justinian: "Justice is the constant and 
 perpetual will to render to every one his due." That justice we here 
 invoke. 
 
 It would be futile and, therefore, an unpardonable breach of the 
 sorely taxed patience of this tribunal to dwell in detail upon all the 
 particular statements and arguments of counsel for Mexico, or to 
 review at length the history of the Pious Fund of the Californias. I 
 shall only attempt to reply to Mexico's principal contentions which 
 seem to merit some observation. 
 
 As the basis of the reply, I beg leave briefly to restate the founda- 
 tion facts of our case. 
 
 The militant spirit of the Roman Catholic religion doubtless inspired 
 the zeal of its votaries in their contribution of munificent donations, 
 in their unselfish devotion and infinite labors to propagate the truths 
 of the Evangel, under the auspices of the Pope. His power was then 
 both spiritual and temporal, and the primary object of all the religious 
 orders was to extend this spiritual dominion of the Vicar of Christ. And 
 it is contrary to the expressed will of the donors of the benefactions; it 
 is contrary to the evidence before the tribunal and contrary to historical 
 truth to assume that the object of the donations was national or politi- 
 cal, or to contend that the Catholic Church was not, in the understand- 
 ing of all its members and orders, the church universal. The King 
 of Spain was His Catholic Majesty. He did not hold the keys of St. 
 Peter — he was a son of the church, and in respect of matters spirit- 
 ual was loyal to the church. Whatever motives actuated him in the 
 expulsion of the Jesuits and in the sequestration of their property, it 
 would be inconsistent with the conspicuous loyalty of his religious 
 character and with the tenor and spirit of his decree of expulsion to 
 suppose that he did not, after having dispossessed the Jesuits and after 
 the Pope, through his influence, had suppressed the order, which was 
 thereby disabled to exercise the functions of the trust — it would be 
 an unwarranted reproach upon his memory to assume that he did not 
 propose and undertake to administer the trust in the spirit of its 
 founders. These observations equally apply to the Government of 
 Mexico down to 1845, except during the presidency of Santa Anna, 
 whose hand of spoliation was restrained by the conscience of his peo- 
 ple and was marked by what was, in effect, a solemn acknowledgment 
 of the arbitrary character of his act by the engagement, binding upon 
 the nation, that 6 per cent interest should be paid upon the capital of 
 the fund and devoted to the pious uses to which the properties had 
 been dedicated. 
 
 Among those who contributed to promote the work of evangeliza- 
 tion, which was carried on in all parts of the world, and notably in 
 the unexplored regions of the New World, were the donors of the 
 estates which were especially devoted to the objects and uses generic- 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 801 
 
 ally described in the term "the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias." The 
 leading object of the benefactions was declared in the deed made by 
 the Marquis de Villapuente and the Marquesa de las Torres de Rada, 
 in 1735, of the vast estates which were expressly granted to the 
 Society of Jesus "for the missions founded and hereafter founded in 
 the Calif ornias," so that all the rents and profits thereof should "be 
 applied to the purposes and objects herein specified, namely, the prop- 
 agation of our holy Catholic faith." 
 
 This was the cardinal object of the numerous donations made during 
 the period of 1697 to 1768, and which, as shown by the evidence, 
 aggregated a sum of over $1,700,000. And this sum is found not in 
 fictitious, exaggerated, and unsupported statements of counsel, but 
 from the historical evidences preserved in the archives of the Repub- 
 lic of Mexico. 
 
 It not infrequently happens that lapse of time and changed circum- 
 stances make it impossible to execute a trust, or some of its incidents, 
 through the instrumentalities contemplated by its founder; but always, 
 through whatever change of time and circumstance, it has been the just 
 and wise policy of the State, in favor of charitable uses, to provide 
 through some of its organs, administrative or judicial, for the faithful 
 execution of the fundamental object of the trust. Ar.d it is to the 
 honor of the Spanish and Mexican Governments that whatever national 
 or political motive inspired the sequestration of the Pious Fund, they 
 have always recognized in their decrees and laws the leading object of 
 the benefactions. 
 
 Thus, during a period of one hundred and thirty -five years a prac- 
 tical and substantially uniform construction has been placed on the 
 donations by the supreme authorities of Spain and of Mexico, and on 
 the obligation devolved upon the Government, resulting from the 
 siezure by the State of the property which had been irrevocably and 
 inalienably dedicated by the founders to pious uses. 
 
 Thus, it is a conceded fact, which does not admit of discussion, that 
 the Crown of Spain, from 1767 to the date of the independence of 
 Mexico, recognized the sacred obligation which devolved upon the 
 Government from the sequestration of the property. 
 
 It is also shown by its decrees and legislation that the Government 
 of Mexico, after her independence was achieved, succeeded to the pos- 
 session and administration of the trust, and solemnly enacted that its 
 income, firstly, in the form of rents, and secondly, in the form of 
 interest, should be devoted to the uses destined by the donors; declar- 
 ing in the law of 1832 that the proceeds of the leased properties 
 should be "solely and exclusively destined to the missions of the Cali- 
 fornias;" declaring in the law of 1836 that " the property belonging 
 to the Pious Fund of the Calif ornias" shall be by the newly created 
 bishop of the two Californias and his* successors "managed and 
 employed for its objects or other similar ones, always respecting the 
 wishes of the founders of the fund;'''' providing by the law of April 1, 
 1837, for the negotiation of a loan by the Government from the Pious 
 Fund, pledging the maritime customs to secure the payment thereof, 
 and moreover mortgaging said fund, "coming upon this point to an 
 agreement with the ecclesiastical authorhty;" thereby recognizing in 
 1837 the ownership of the fund by the ecclesiastical authorities; 
 declaring by the decree of February 8, 1842, that the fund should be 
 administered by the Government "for the purpose of carrying out 
 
 S. Doc. 28 51 
 
802 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 the intention of the donor in the civilization and conversion of the 
 savages;" and reaffirming in the decrees of 1842, 1844, and 1845 the 
 trust character in which the property or fund was held by the Govern- 
 ment, in accordance with the object to which it had been devoted by 
 the founders. 
 
 Finally, after the question has been under agitation during a period 
 of forty years; after it has been the subject of one arbitration and is 
 now the subject of another, the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, 
 Mr. Mariscal, makes answer, in this case, solemnly admitting that the 
 Jesuits were the original trustees of the Pious Fund; that after the 
 expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767 the Spanish Crown took possession of 
 and administered the properties which constituted the Pious Fund 
 until the independence of Mexico was achieved; and that the Mexican 
 Government succeeded the Spanish Government as trustee of the fund 
 with all the rights granted to the missionaries by the founders. 
 
 Inasmuch as neither Spain nor Mexico ever asserted or exercised a 
 discretionary right of disposition, and inasmuch as such right was 
 personal to the Jesuits who had been incapacitated from exercising the 
 right by the act of the Pope suppressing the order in 1773, rendering 
 such personal disposition impossible, it follows that if Mexico took the 
 properties charged with the subsisting rights of the Jesuits, it was 
 charged with the duties which correspond to the rights of the bene- 
 ficiaries of the trust. 
 
 In declaring the legal consequences attached to the action of the 
 Spanish and Mexican Governments the question is not important 
 whether that action was taken in the exercise of one or another preroga- 
 tive of sovereignty — whether in the exercise of the despotic power of 
 Nero, of life and death, and of uncompensated confiscation of the 
 property of his subject, or the legitimate power of eminent domain — 
 the regulated power of the sovereign to expropriate, upon reasonable 
 compensation to be made therefor, the property of the subject to the 
 uses of the States. But Mexico disavowed any purpose of confisca- 
 tion, and it is not in this presence that the exercise of either power 
 could be successfnlly vindicated as lawful and right. And our honor- 
 able opponents, in that spirit which has at all times done honor to the 
 character of the jurisconsult — our opponents admit that the action of 
 the Mexican Government in the sequestration of the properties of the 
 Pious Fund was wrong; yet, if I understand their position, they ask 
 this honorable tribunal to consecrate another wrong of the same char- 
 acter by an award legalizing the refusal of Mexico to mitigate the con- 
 sequences of that wrong by the payment of interest on the capital of the 
 fund. The initial wrong was consummated in 1842; the subsidiary 
 wrong, of which we'now complain, dates from 1870 and continues opera- 
 tive to this moment. But it is this latter wrong— that is to say, a wrong 
 committed since the making of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo— 
 that we have a legal right to complain of. In the international forum 
 the Government of the United States has no locus standi to complain 
 of legal wrongs committed by Mexico prior to the treaty of peace. It 
 can not lawfully make reclamation for indemnity for the act of the 
 state against its own subjects; and even if these subjects became, sub- 
 sequent to the commission of the wrong, citizens of the United States 
 the Government of the latter can not lawfully espouse their grievance 
 committed by their Government before they were denationalized. 
 The reasons on which this familiar distinction of international law and 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 803 
 
 practice are founded are so notorious that I beg the indulgence of the 
 honorable tribunal for adverting to the subject. My apology is that 
 it has been the repeated signal for the clashing of shields by our 
 honorable opponents. 
 
 The distinguished counsel for Mexico, M. Beernaert, argued that 
 the principle or legal conception embodied in the term " chose juge'e" 
 or res judicata, is a presumption, a fiction; but then he adds that it is 
 a necessary fiction. A principle which is confessedly necessary is, 
 humanly speaking, an inexorable rule of conduct, and is therefore to 
 be judicially observed. The necessity of the rule is its own sufficient 
 justification. 
 
 The principal argument of our honorable opponent is predicated on 
 three propositions: First, that the particular instalments of interest 
 demanded in this case have not been adjudicated; second, that the 
 object of the demand to-day is materially different from the object 
 of the former demand, and that between the two there is wanting 
 identity of cause or object, because, it is argued, rights or claims of 
 interest maturing each year are successively violated, and that these 
 violations constitute injuries to different and successive rights. 
 
 Rights spring out of obligations. They are correlative terms. The 
 right of the beneficiaries to claim the interest in this case is founded 
 in the identical obligation which became res judicata by the award of 
 the mixed commission in 1875. We assert the continued existence of 
 the obligation of Mexico which was thus adjudicated, and the exact 
 reciprocal of that obligation is the right of the beneficiaries, which is, 
 therefore, included in res judicata. Hence the premises on which the 
 argument of the learned counsel was based, being themselves falla- 
 cious, the conclusion deduced from them must fail. One can not deny 
 the right of the United States to claim this interest without attacking 
 and denying the obligation which was solemnly adjudged, and you 
 can not attack and deny the obligation without impeaching, reopening, 
 rehearing, overruling, and reversing the former judgment. If one 
 sues to recover rents, there is the premise that the plaintiff owns 
 the house which has been let to the defendant and on which rents 
 accrue from month to month; if one sues to recover the annual inter- 
 est falling due on a mortgage, the action is based on the premise that 
 there is a capital or principal, the amount of which must be judicially 
 ascertained by the judgment as one of its indispensable bases. 
 
 The learned counsel also contended that it is impossible to attribute 
 to the award of 1875 the effects of res judicata, because the conditions 
 are subject to necessary and inevitable fluctuations. The argument 
 was that the beneficiaries of. the Pious Fund may at some future period 
 cease to exist, and that hence the doctrine of res judicata is necessarily 
 inapplicable. 
 
 In this transitory sphere of existence the Government and the people 
 of Mexico may cease to exist; the Government and the people of the 
 United States may disappear from the face of the earth, and so may 
 the beneficiaries of the Pious Fund cease to exist at some period in the 
 far distant future. But the two Governments and peoples do now 
 exist; the beneficiaries do now exist, even in larger numbers in the 
 United States than in Mexico; and the decision of the honorable tri- 
 bunal is to be rendered not on the supposed facts of an imaginary case, 
 but on the concrete facts of the case now to be decided. But such are 
 the inconsistencies of fundamental error of reasoning inevitably 
 
804 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 involved in the position of the Mexican Government, that while 
 the learned counsel is denying the force of res judicata in favor of the 
 United States in this case, he reaffirms the position of Mr. Avila and 
 invokes the doctrine of res judicata in favor of Mexico urged by the 
 declaration in Mr. Avila's note to the Mexican minister, which was 
 communicated by him to the Secretary of State, that the effect of the 
 award of the mixed commission was to adjudge and settle forever all 
 question of the obligation of Mexico to pay interests accrued and to 
 accrue, and affirming that the debate was finally closed. Thus in the 
 same breath in which our honorable opponents attack the doctrine 
 of res judicata they uphold and advance the doctrine of res judicata. 
 
 I quite concur with Monsieur Beernaert that there is a considerable 
 difference in the formal parts of judgments rendered by the courts 
 which administer the civil law, and those which administer the law in 
 Great Britain and the United States. But the difference is only for- 
 mal and superficial. In England and the United States a judgment 
 formally consists, first, of the findings of -the facts in issue between 
 the parties; second, of the statement of the court applying the law to 
 the facts; and third, of the final sentence or dispository part of the 
 judgment. In the civil law judgment, the statements of law and fact 
 are combined in the considerations which are followed by the final 
 sentence. It is therefore exact to say that between the judgments 
 rendered by the civil and common law courts, there is only a formal 
 difference, a formal division between the grounds or "objective 
 motives" of the decision and the dispository part of the judgment. 
 But it is not the forms but the essence of things which the court con- 
 siders. In both systems the maxim, which expresses the vitalizing 
 reason of the rule of res judicata, is the same — namely, that it is to the 
 interest of the commonwealth that there should be an end of litigation. 
 
 I beg pardon of the learned arbitrators if I add that what are styled 
 "the "objective motives" or grounds of the judgment include the 
 decisive facts in the given case, and the judicial application of the law 
 to the facts; the two forming the premises of the syllogism, the con- 
 clusion deduced from which is stated in the dispository part of the 
 final sentence. These "objective motives" form an integral part of 
 the judgment and they are included in the res judicata, irrespective 
 of whether the judge was right or wrong, in finding the facts and in 
 applying the law. 
 
 But in the common law system, the judge in the course of his opinion 
 sometimes turns aside from the direct consideration of the case in 
 hand, and reviews cases and precedents more or less analogous, and 
 utters opinions, more or less relevant; but inasmuch as those opinions 
 are given for illustration merely and are not germane to the decision, 
 they are styled mere dicta and are without binding force either as res 
 judicata or as precedents. As I understand the text writers, these 
 dicta correspond to the " subjective motives " of the civil law. Mon- 
 sieur Beernaert traces one by one the successive steps of the court 
 sitting in judgment and argues that it is only when the final stage is 
 reached, in the rendition of the final sentence, that the judge has 
 passed to the height of public power; but, as we understand it, the 
 judge is clothed with public power to find the decisive facts and to 
 apply the law; he is clothed with public power to pronounce the final 
 sentence; and therefore, to quote the language of the learned counsel, 
 Monsieur Beernaert, " When the judge has passed to this height of 
 public power his judgment is absolutely obligatory." 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 805 
 
 If in atta-.king the juridical effects of res judicata a distinction is 
 to be made between judgments rendered by courts of civil law and of 
 common law, I beg leave to observe that the majority decision of the 
 mixed commission was rendered first by the American commissioner, 
 Mr. Wadsworth, and then by the umpire, Sir Edward Thornton, not 
 merely in the approved form of the common-law judgment, but in 
 the usual form of an international award, and that if the contention of 
 our honorable opponent is sustained it would render the doctrine of 
 res judicata absolutely inapplicable to international awards, which, in 
 view of the susceptibilities of the contending parties, are frequently 
 limited to the dispository part of the judgment. 
 
 In the course of his argument the learned counsel, referring to the 
 former arbitration, said: '"Show us the conclusions or memorial in 
 which you have said, I demand not interest for twenty-one years, but 
 forever! Show us how it could have been possible for the judge to 
 decide upon this demand which you have never made." 
 
 The obligation of Mexico to pay interest is evidenced and declared 
 by her own laws. It was so adjudged by the commission. Then, I 
 answer, show us how and when that obligation to pay annual interest 
 was ever extinguished. Will our honorable opponents plead and 
 attempt to vindicate before this tribunal any subsequent act of 
 confiscation ? 
 
 I beg the indulgence of the court while I suggest "a subjective 
 motive," an individual opinion of my own, a reason why that obliga- 
 tion to pay annual interest has not been extinguished. On February 
 17, 1834, a convention was celebrated between Spain and the United 
 States whereby the United States agreed to cancel the claims of its 
 citizens for injuries sustained from the captures and condemnations of 
 their vessels and cargoes by the agents of the Spanish Government 
 during the wars growing out of the insurrection of its American colo- 
 nies. It was agreed that the claims amounted in value to $600,000, 
 and it was further agreed that Spain, instead of paying the amount of 
 the claims, should inscribe the same upon the great book of the con- 
 solidated debt of Spain and pay perpetual rents thereon at the rate of 
 five per cent per annum, and that the Government of the United States 
 should make distribution of the rents thus paid among its citizens equi- 
 tably entitled thereto. Instead of making compensation in money for 
 the confiscation of property, Spain undertook to pay perpetual rents 
 thereon. If during the period of twenty-one years following the date 
 of that treaty the Spanish Government had refused to pay those rents 
 and the question of its obligation to do so had been submitted to an 
 international tribunal which had awarded the payment of those rents 
 during the twenty-one years, would it be argued that upon a subsequent 
 default and submission of the case to international arbitration, the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States would be compelled to try anew the whole 
 transaction? Or could it not properly invoke the application of the 
 principle of res judicata, the obligation which had been adjudicated in 
 the one case being precisely the same obligation which gave rise to the 
 claim sued on in the second case? I suggest this case as an illustration, 
 as a "subjective motive," and not as an "objective motive" for the 
 decision of the case now before this tribunal. 
 
 Finally the learned counsel frankly admits that the motives or 
 grounds of the decision do have a certain importance, and may be con- 
 sidered in order to determine the meaning of the dispository part of 
 
806 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 the judgment and to give to it its veritable consequence. The 
 language thus used appears vague. It is necessary to define. What 
 is meant by " giving to the judgment its veritable- consequence ? " I 
 regret that the learned counsel fails to illustrate with the light of his 
 clear mind the scope or meaning of the phrase — the veritable effects of 
 the judgment. The judgment arid the meaning of the judgment are 
 one and the same thing. What party should inquire as to the mean- 
 ing of the judgment? Why ask the question? For what purpose? 
 Qui bono ? To ask the question is to answer it. 
 
 But in the armor of Achilles was found one vulnerable point ; and 
 the keen eye of the honorable counsel has detected one, just one point, 
 which he finds vulnerable in the armor of chose jugee. The point is 
 said to consist in the absence of identity of objects of the two suits ; 
 and this armor is said to be open because the first suit was for twent} r - 
 one annuities and the present suit is for thirty -three annuities ; or in 
 other words, because the former judgment failed to decree the per- 
 petuity of the right, so as to include, as parts of one whole, the interest 
 already accrued and the interest not yet accrued and not yet demandable. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Is it not 33 years, Mr. Solicitor ? 
 
 Mr. McEnerny. Thirty -three years is right. 
 
 Mr. Penfield. I am quoting from Mr. Beernaert, if the honoraWe 
 arbitrator please, and he said the first suit was for 21 annuities and 
 the present suit is for 32 annuities. In fact it is for 33, but of course 
 it is unimportant. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Yes, it is unimportant, but I thought it was 33. 
 
 Mr. Penfield. It is unimportant for the purposes of the argument. 
 
 With respect to this statement of the honorable counsel there 
 appears to be a want of precision in point of fact and a misconception 
 in point of law. 
 
 The memorial in the former case charged that "in pursuance of the 
 decree for the sale and capitalization of the property made by the pro- 
 visional president of said Republic, dated October 24, 1842, the said 
 Republic of Mexico by the same decree undertook and promised to 
 pay interest on said capital at the rate of six per cent per annum, 
 thenceforth;''' 1 this is the language of the memorial; and the word 
 "thenceforth" unqualified and unlimited, includes all time and asserts 
 the perpetuity of the obligation. The umpire, in his decision (Tran- 
 script, pages 607, 608), decided that the Spanish Government became 
 the trustee of the fund, avowedly with all the duties and obligations 
 attached to it; that Mexico succeeded to the trust and declared that 
 the assumption by the Government of the care and administration of 
 the Pious Fund was for the express purpose of scrupulously carrying 
 •out the objects proposed by the founders, and those objects were eternal 
 in their nature. In point of fact then this question was submitted and 
 it was adjudged by the umpire that the obligation was perpetual in its 
 nature. In this connection I would refer also to the brief of Mr. Doyle 
 on p. 14 and to Mr. Avila's statement (Transcript, p. 640, section 156). 
 
 In point of law, a judgment for the recovery of installments of inter- 
 est or of rents due has the effect of establishing the right of recovery 
 of subsequent rents or interests falling due on the obligation, the 
 existence, nature, and amount of the obligation having been judicially 
 established. The actions may be successive and multiple in form, but 
 they are not different in their essential juridical character, for each 
 and every such right of action successively sued on is dependent on 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIA8, 807 
 
 the same obligation and there is therefore absolute identity of objects 
 in the successive suits. 
 
 In this connection, I cite Chand on "Res Judicata," section 28, 
 page 40, which says that "the identity of the matter at issue will apply 
 even when the subject-matter, the object, the relief, and the cause of 
 action are different." And he says, on page 46, that if the claimant is 
 defeated by a judgment which negatives his title, he "can not reagi- 
 tate the same question of title by suing to obtain relief for a subse- 
 quent item of the obligation." On pages 50 and 51, the text is to the 
 effect that res judicata is not defeated by a change in the form of the 
 action; and at the foot of page 55, he states that res judicata covers 
 points which are essential to the former judgment. 
 
 Our opponents have exclaimed with some vehemence against what 
 they denominate "perpetual rents, perpetual servitude of Mexico — the 
 shirt of Nessus, which can not be divested." Thus their minds, like 
 Mr. Avila's, confess the veritable effects of the judgment while their 
 words combat their inmost thought. The. diplomatic correspondenpe 
 (appendix to transcript, p. 50) shows that the United States ambas- 
 sador to Mexico was instructed July 18, 1901, by Secretary Hay, to 
 suggest, or bring about, an offer to settle the matter by a compromise 
 once for all of the entire claim. The door has been open for a final 
 compromise and settlement of the annual interests or perpetual rents, 
 as our honorable opponents style them, and Mexico has never responded 
 in any sense to the offer. The Government of the United States has 
 not only been just, but it has even been generous, to Mexico, as is 
 demonstrated by its action in the "W eil and La Abra cases. Is this the 
 shirt of Nessus? 
 
 1 lay down on this branch of the argument in reply the following 
 propositions: 
 
 First: An international award has the force of res judicata. 
 
 Second:- It includes all the objective motives or grounds on which 
 the final sentence is predicated. Thus it includes as many distinct 
 judgments as there are essential bases of law and fact which are implied 
 in the final sentence, just as the conclusion of a syllogism impliedly and 
 necessarily includes the major and minor premises. In reaching a 
 judgment we must reason, and we can reason only according to the 
 forms and laws of thought. We therefore proceed step by step, from 
 premise to premise, of fact and law, to the conclusion, which is the 
 formal statement of the ultimate truth deduced from the premises, both 
 of which must be true. The judgment, therefore, includes the decisory 
 part and all the organic parts, and constitutes in fact so many distinct 
 judgments which are summed up and denominated judgment just as all 
 races of men are summed up and denominated in a single word, "man." 
 
 In support of these propositions I refer to the authorities cited in 
 the memorandum filed on behalf of the United States, pages 49-54, 
 and to the replication, page 4, and notes on page 7. 
 
 In the light of the foregoing propositions, what was adjudged, what 
 was established by the award of the Mixed Commission? 
 
 First, that in point of fact the Mexican Government in 1842 had in 
 its possession a certain sum of money, the amount of which was fixed 
 by the award. Second, that, as a mixed question of law and fact, 
 Mexico was under an obligation to pay annual interest thenceforth on 
 said sum at the rate of six per cent. Third, that in point of fact, the 
 instalments of interest accruing from 1848 to 1869 were due and 
 
808 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 unpaid by the Government of Mexico. Fourth, that in point of fact, 
 the Government of the United States had sued Mexico, demanding 
 the payment of this interest which had accrued; and that as a mixed 
 question of law and fact, the former Government had been injured by 
 the nonpayment of that interest, and so was entitled to claim it for the 
 use of its injured citizens, whose cause it had espoused and made 
 its own. 
 
 All the constituent elements of the judgment, all the "identities" 
 mentioned by Monsieur Beernaert, are here, namely, identity of 
 parties and of capacities in which the parties sue and are sued, namely, 
 the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico; 
 identity of the cause, that is to say, of the obligation of Mexico to 
 give to the United States for its citizens the enjoyment of their with- 
 held property rights; and identity of demand and decision, namely, 
 for the amount due and unpaid, which results from a mere arithmet- 
 ical computation, all the elements of which are included in the judg- 
 ment. Id certum est quod reddi certum potest. Therefore the bases 
 of the present claim were judicially considered and determined; not 
 less so than if the mixed commission had formally so adjudged on 
 each particular proposition. The mixed commission in 1875 could 
 not have rendered the final award it did, unless the Government of the 
 United States had sued the Government of Mexico, and unless the 
 commission had adjudged that the United States had been injured by 
 Mexico. The mixed commission could not have adjudged that injury 
 and the extent of that injury without adjudging the perpetual obliga- 
 tion and the amount of interest falling due each year and the aggre- 
 gate amount thereof accrued and unpaid from 1848 to 1869; and it 
 could not have adjudged the amount of interest falling due each year 
 without ascertaining and adjudging the amount of the capital and the 
 rate of interest it bore. 
 
 As to the effects of each of these particular judgments we invoke 
 the application of the principle of res judicata. As between the two 
 Governments the question of the amount of the capital, the rate of 
 interest it bears, the amount of the instalment falling due annually, and 
 the obligation of the Mexican Government to pay, and the right of the 
 United States Government to claim it, are judicially settled forever. 
 
 In the "Conclusions'" filed on behalf of Mexico by MM. Beernaert 
 and Delacroix it is alleged that the principle of res judicata can not be 
 applied in this case, because the award in 1875 emanated from a mixed 
 commission, clothed only with an arbitral authority, and that the 
 power of the arbitrators, proceeding only from the consent of the par- 
 ties, is limited by the private mandate from which it emanates, and 
 therefore can not constitute a former adjudication. 
 
 The effect of this contention is, in short, to deny to the principle of 
 res judicata any application whatever to international arbitration; and, 
 as has been shown by Mr. Kalston, it is in conflict with the general con- 
 sensus of opinion of publicists of recognized authority. The denial of 
 the application of the doctrine to international awards would indeed 
 deprive the law of nations of one of its most fruitful and beneficent 
 principles and would be most detrimental to the development of that 
 law, and to the fostering and preservation of the peaceful relations of 
 States which that law is intended to promote. 
 
 What, then, is implied by the submission of a case to international 
 arbitration? Are the parties at liberty to attack the award after they 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CAMFORNIAS. 809 
 
 have granted full jurisdiction to the tribunal to render it? Do they 
 not consent in advance to accept the award, and not merely to accept 
 it, but also to accept all the judicial consequences which attach to it? 
 Those consequences are as much a part of the award as are the funda- 
 mental bases on which it is predicated. The award, then, is to have its 
 complete juridical effects, and its payment is only one of these effects. 
 If the contention now under consideration should unfortunately be 
 upheld by this honorable tribunal, then it would logically follow that 
 if the Mixed Commission had decided in the former case against the 
 United States the latter would have been at once at liberty to bring 
 fresh suit for the very same interest which formed the subject of the 
 first litigation, and in the second litigation it could plead, if it had 
 already been announced, the principle which you are now asked by 
 Mexico to declare. 
 
 The application of the principle in this case is appropriate, and we 
 invoke it because you are expressly authorized to apply it, and 
 because it is just, and because the principle operates reciprocally, and 
 is equally binding upon each party, whether winning or losing. . I will 
 not trespass upon the indulgence of the honorable tribunal by restating 
 at length or reviewing the authorities already cited; but, in order to 
 illustrate the theme, let us suppose that the award of the umpire had 
 been in favor of Mexico and against the United States. The Govern- 
 ment of the United States would not again have presented that claim, 
 or the one now sued on, convinced that the question of liability was 
 settled by that decision; but, if we may suppose a case so highly 
 improbable as that the United States had again brought forward 
 the former claim or the present claim, and if it were submitted under 
 the present protocol, let us conceive what would be the position of the 
 Mexican Government. Would it not have contended that the ques- 
 tion of liability had been forever settled in favor of Mexico ? Would 
 it have contended that the matters then in issue and decided were open 
 for rehearing? If the present Mexican contention is valid it destroys 
 the vital principle of res judicata, or, rather, there is no such principle, 
 which is then reduced to the bare statement of the simple fact that it 
 was once adjudged that a certain sum of money was or was not owing 
 between certain parties. If the contention is valid the statements and 
 expositions of the principle contained in so many of the text-books 
 and decisions are simply meaningless verbiage. The judgment of a 
 court, like the conclusion of a syllogism, rests upon premises, without 
 which there can be no conclusion, and consequently no judgment. 
 The argument of our honorable opponents, therefore, proves too much, 
 since if it proves anything it is that no judgment was ever rendered. 
 The argument, however, when reduced to its last analysis, is simply in 
 effect a direct attack upon the award for alleged error of the umpire 
 in his appreciation of the law and the facts. 
 
 We invoke the application of the principle, therefore, even though, 
 as shown by the evidence now before the court, the award would be 
 for a less sum than we are justly entitled to recover. But it is vastly 
 more important in its influence upon international law, and therefore 
 upon the well-being of states, that upon this occasion, when this hon- 
 orable tribunal will, for the first time in the history of nations, sol- 
 emnly determine the judicial effects of an international award, that 
 the far-reaching decision should be in accord with sound academic 
 principles, illustrating not merely the maxim of the municipal courts 
 
810 PIOTJS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 that it is to the interest of the state that there should be an end of liti- 
 gation of the same questions, but that interest gentibus omnibus ut inter 
 cwitates omnes sit fin.is lit item — it is to the interest of the peace and 
 welfare of all races that between all nations there should be an end of 
 controversy. 
 
 In the eloquent plea of the counsel who opened the case for Mexico, 
 Monsieur Delacroix, it was said that "there are no missions, that there, 
 could not be any, on the free soil of America; no more in the United 
 States of America, where liberty of conscience is to-day complete and 
 entire, than in Mexico to-day would it be any longer possible to estab- 
 lish these works of reduction or of religious conquest than of political 
 conquest." 
 
 While I concur in the statement of the learned counsel that in the 
 United States of America liberty of conscience is complete, and that 
 there is entire freedom of religious faith and worship, the conclusion 
 deduced therefrom is in fact and in reason strangety at variance with 
 the large truth contained in the general proposition. For there the 
 Greek Catholic has consecrated his church; there the Mormon his tem- 
 ple; there the Anglican, the German Lutheran, the Dutch Reformed, 
 the Mennonite, the Presbyterian, and a multitude of other sects and 
 religions have consecrated places of worship of the Supreme Being; 
 and there each sect, according to its means and resources, is engaged 
 in the propagation of its faith; and there, in the complete separation 
 of church and state, flourishing and advancing, building new churches 
 and hospitals and schools, in which the teachings of the humanities are 
 tempered with the teachings of piety, the Roman Catholic Church 
 maintains its missions and founds new ones, not only in cities — in New 
 York, in Chicago, in San Francisco — but in the villages and pueblos 
 and among the aborigines in the wilderness. 
 
 We are not concerned here, as the honorable counsel has suggested, 
 with the question of the revision of history, but with its illuminating 
 instruction in the judicial interpretation of the decisive facts of this 
 case; and happily for mankind it is no longer possible to fan into 
 fresh flames the buried and extinct embers of the conflagration of the 
 passions which from the 16th to the 19th centuries spread over Western 
 Europe; and little could it enlighten the issues here to inquire whether 
 the Jesuits ought to have been maintained or expelled. 
 
 Far be it from us to stain the memory of the King of Spain by 
 ascribing to hiin greed for their riches as the motive for the expul- 
 sion of the Jesuits; least of all could such motive be justified in this 
 presence, in an age of equal laws, when the present and future pros- 
 perity and happiness of all peoples depend on the protection of 
 private right. 
 
 The expulsion of the Jesuits, as demonstrated by the decree of the 
 King of Spain, originated not in rapacity nor "in hostility to the 
 Roman Catholic religion, nor to the will of the founders of the mis- 
 sions. Political, not mercenary, the motives undoubtedly were; but 
 the final consequences of arbitrary injury inflicted upon private prop- 
 erty right are to be judged by the accomplished fact; and we are to 
 ascertain and interpret the juridical effects attached to the fact, and 
 which were acknowledged both by the Crown of Spain and by the 
 Government of Mexico. 
 
 It does not seem fitting before this tribunal to follow the eloquent 
 counsel in the discussion of the events which led up to and which sig- 
 nalized and followed the French Revolution and the Franco-Prussian 
 
PI0U9 FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 811 
 
 war. Such discussion would be barren here; and it does not seem 
 opportune to distract attention from the issues of the concrete case 
 before this honorable tribunal. 
 
 Every case is to be decided on its own facts, not upon the assumed 
 facts of an imaginary case called analogous. Does it accord with the 
 scientific spirit of research after truth to speak of a supposed analogy 
 as complete, without previous full investigation and an exact state- 
 ment of all the facts of the supposed case ? At the close of the Franco- 
 Prussian war a fine was imposed upon the losing party to meet the 
 costs of the victor. At the close of the Mexican war, not only was 
 no fine imposed, on the contrary, the United States paid to Mexico the 
 sum of $15,000,000 for the purchase of the ceded territory, and the 
 two States stipulated, in the last clause of Article 8 of the treaty 
 of peace, that "property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans 
 not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present 
 owners, (and) the heirs of these, shall enjoy with respect to it guaran- 
 ties equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United 
 States." 
 
 These persons are, therefore, entitled to claim all the guaranties of 
 the Federal Constitution. 
 
 In respect of their property rights, they were placed on a plane of 
 equality in all respects with native-born citizens of the United States. 
 
 And the high contracting parties further stipulate in article 9 of 
 the treaty that "the Mexicans who in the (ceded) territories afore- 
 said shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Repub- 
 ]j c )> * * * " s h a vi be incorporated into the Union of the United 
 States and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the 
 Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of 
 citizens of the United States according to the principles of the Consti- 
 tution; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in 
 the free enjoyment of their property." Our honorable opponents con- 
 tend that that meant property only situated within the territorial juris- 
 diction of the two States. On the contrary, the d u ty was imposed 
 upon the Government of the United States to protect all rights of 
 property of every description which might accrue to these denational- 
 ized Mexican citizens, and the benefit of the covenant runs not only 
 to those persons but to their heirs in the United States; if, therefore, 
 any foreign government not a party to the treaty should thereafter 
 injure any of the property rights of these citizens or of their succes- 
 sors in interest by denying to them the enjoyment of those rights by 
 withholding payment of an established fiduciary or pecuniary obliga- 
 tion, the Government of the United States is bound by that treaty to 
 protect and vindicate those rights. Is that engagement any less bind- 
 ing between the parties themselves ? Does it stipulate that Mexico 
 shall be at liberty to deny the enjoyment to those property rights by 
 withholding the property itself? If an exception is not contained in 
 the treaty, then, under the covenants of the treaty as well as upon the 
 principles of .international law, the Government of the United States 
 owes, in return for the duty of allegiance of its citizens, the reciprocal 
 duty of protection to the citizens and to their legitimate successors in 
 interest in respect to the denial of any right of enjoyment of property 
 that might thereafter be injuriously withheld from them. That it 
 owed that duty to the then bishops was solemnly adjudged by the 
 umpire. Does it not owe the same duty to their successors? 
 
 The honorable counsel for Mexico inquired: What is the law which 
 
812 PIOUS FOND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 it is necessary to apply in this case ? And the solution proposed for 
 this question was in effect this: 
 
 First. That this is not an international but a private arbitration 
 between citizens of the United States and the Government of Mexico, 
 because the Government of the United States sues simply in behalf of 
 the prelates of the church in California. 
 
 Second. That this honorable tribunal has been delegated, or substi- 
 tuted, to sit in the place and stead of the Mexican tribunals, adopting 
 the same rules and principles which would have go verned their decisions. 
 
 The character of this proposition, which I can not believe will find 
 acceptance, challenges a moment's consideration. If this rule were 
 adopted by international tribunals it would strike at the very root of 
 international arbitration, and would defeat one of the prime objects of 
 the Hague Convention. We complain here of a denial of justice. A 
 state may deny justice in many different modes to the subjects of 
 .another state. It may do so by the arbitrary imprisonment of their 
 persons or by the confiscation of their property. It may do so by the 
 final decision of a court of last resort. In short, a denial of justice 
 includes any arbitrarj r wrong or injury committed by the supreme 
 authorities of one state upon the personal or property rights of the 
 subject of another state. If the view put forward by M. Delacroix 
 were adopted in respect of denials of justice, resulting in international 
 intervention and arbitration, what would be the predicament of the 
 offended government and of its injured citizens if an arbitral tribunal 
 were simply substituted in place of the local tribunals which denied 
 justice? Is this honorable court bound to sit in the place and stead 
 of, and to adopt the same rules and principles as, the local tribunals 
 by which justice had been finally denied? If so, why should a gov- 
 ernment intervene in any case? Why arbitrate what has already 
 been conclusively determined? To state the question is to answer it. 
 
 The contention of the honorable counsel, moreover, does not appear 
 to be in harmony with the well settled principles of international law. 
 
 Vattel and the European publicists in general lay down the doctrine 
 that the State which intervenes in behalf of its injured subject makes 
 the cause its own, and the controversy is thereafter waged between 
 the offended and the offending States. This lawsuit is, therefore, one 
 between the United States and Mexico. It is the sovereign who sues, • 
 and he represents collectively all his subjects. The United States 
 Government has intervened and represents all its citizens who have 
 been injured by the non-payment of the debt sued for. A govern- 
 ment may intervene sua sponte, as governments have done in the past, 
 under circumstances of flagrant injury to its subjects and of offense 
 to the national honor. It may, without the petition or suggestion of 
 any of its citizens, demand immediate apology, reparation and com- 
 pensation in respect of those who have been injured. 
 
 The State, by its very act of intervention and submission of the 
 cause to arbitration, cancels the particular claim of any and of all of 
 its subjects against the offending State, for an injury committed; and 
 when the indemnity is collected, the sovereign, or, in this case, the 
 President, acting through the Secretary of State, will make the dis- 
 tribution in accordance with the principles of international law and 
 with the exalted spirit of equity, to whoever of its citizens may be 
 ultimately entitled. This was done with respect to the moneys paid 
 on the former award, the evidence of which is before the court. The 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 813 
 
 question, therefore, who or what claimant appeared before the Depart- 
 ment of State, or whether any claimant appeared at all or not, is not 
 a question before this court. If we establish by proofs the injury to 
 citizens of the United States and the Government of the United States 
 takes up that case as its own, you can only determine whether the 
 United States Government is entitled to a recovery in the suit. 
 
 This, then, is an international, not a private, arbitration. The whole 
 people of the United States, on the one hand, and of Mexico on the 
 other, represented by the agents of the sovereign authority, are before 
 the court; and unless, as we contend, the principle of res judicata 
 governs the decision, the court will have then to decide whether the 
 claim is valid upon principles of international law and of justice. 
 
 The view on which the contention of the learned counsel for Mexico 
 is based is announced in the work of a celebrated publicist, Mr. Charles 
 Calvo, a writer for whose great erudition and for whose large and valua- 
 ble compilation we are all greatly indebted, and of whom I could only 
 speak with the most profound respect before any tribunal. Mr. Calvo, 
 however, was born and reared in a State or continent whose contro- 
 versies have been the subject of serious consideration by the publicists, 
 and some of the principles declared by Mr. Calvo may properly be 
 considered in the light of the surroundings and environments in which 
 he was bred. He lays it down in substance as a principle that the 
 state is absolutely sovereign with respect to its internal affairs, and 
 that no other state has any right to intervene for any cause whatever. 
 In its aspect as a political maxim, it is not proper in this case and place 
 to consider it. But in its aspect as a declared principle of interna- 
 tional law, applicable to intervention for the protection of the right of 
 the injured subjects of a foreign state, most unfortunate would it be 
 for the cause of justice in the western world if that should be incorpo- 
 rated as a principle into the law of nations. If that contention is con- 
 secrated as a principle, it ends, once for all, all right of a state to 
 protect its subjects against denials of justice — of whatever kind — com- 
 mitted by one state upon the nationals of another state; and the 
 abandonment of the duty of protection of its subjects by the state 
 forfeits its right to their allegiance. 
 
 I have in mind, and with the indulgence of the court I will state, a 
 concrete case which strikingly illustrates the workings of the principle 
 underlying the contention of the honorable counsel, and which was 
 announced by Mr. Calvo. 
 
 A revolution had broken out in an American state. A military 
 chieftain, acting under the direction of the supreme authority of the 
 state, seized and confiscated the movables of a United States citizen, 
 not because the citizen had been guilty of lawless or unneutral conduct, 
 but solely and simply for military uses. The citizen appealed to his 
 government to secure an indemnity. A local law authorized the sei- 
 zure of the property and provided that the military commanders seiz- 
 ing property for such uses must give a voucher showing the property 
 taken, fixing its value, and that the claim for compensation therefor 
 must be presented, within a short period, before the local tribunals, 
 and that the local tribunals must take such voucher as conclusive proof 
 of the value of the property taken; and the law further provided that 
 the claimant who should refuse to accept the voucher tendered by the 
 military officer or should refuse to present his claim within the limited 
 time before the local tribunals should forfeit his claim. The officer 
 
814 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 was thus clothed with power of confiscation, and in the case now undet 
 mention he tendered a voucher to the citizen showing only one-fourth 
 of the fair market value of the property taken. The Secretary of 
 State presented the claim diplomatically and requested the payment of 
 a reasonable indemnity. Ihe request was refused, and the ground 
 put forward for the refusal was that the property had been taken under 
 the direction of the head of the state, and pursuant to local law; that 
 every state is absolutely sovereign with respect to its internal affairs, 
 and that a local law prohibited any foreigner from applying to his 
 government to intervene for his protection, and on these grounds it 
 was argued that the United States could not properly intervene, and 
 the claim was rejected. 
 
 If the contention made by the learned counsel for Mexico were to be 
 adopted and to govern the relations of the State to its subjects sojourn- 
 ing in a foreign land, then, in the words of a distinguished statesman, 
 the supreme authorities of one State may lawfully swing up by the 
 heels the innocent subject of another State and bastinado him as he 
 swings, and his Government is powerless to protect him. His only 
 recourse is to the local tribunals, whose rule of decision in denial of 
 justice has been prescribed in advance by the local laws. 
 
 In this connection another defence interposed by our honorable 
 opponents is that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. 
 
 In point of fact |his contention is by the terms of the protocol 
 excluded from your consideration. Our answer is that one State can 
 not by its statutes bind another State in denial of justice. It is the 
 State which sues here. If it had been contemplated to raise this 
 defence, then, on the principles which govern the relations of friendly 
 States, it should have been so expressed in the protocol. 
 
 Our position in respect to this contention is stated in Mr. McEner- 
 ney's brief, pages 56-58, to which I respectfully refer the honorable 
 court. 
 
 I beg leave, however, to add that the bringing forward of the con- 
 tention at the present stage of the case comes to us in the nature of a 
 surprise. It was not disclosed or even remotely suggested in the 
 course of the negotiations between the two Governments, as will 
 appear from the diplomatic correspondence. The only objections made 
 by Mr. Mariscal were that the case did not fall within the' governing 
 principle of res judicata and that the claim was not just. It was con- 
 templated between the two States that in the submission of the cause 
 to international arbitration, it should be lifted above all technicalities 
 and decided solely upon the ground, not whether the statute of lim- 
 itations can be pleaded against the juridical effects of a former judg- 
 ment, but upon the broad ground whether the adjudication of the 
 facts and liability in the former case was such as properly to control 
 the determination of the facts and liability in this case, and if not, 
 whether the claim be just. 
 
 Our honorable opponents lay stress on the decision made in the case 
 of Nobile vs. Redman. In our view, that decision can not determine the 
 present case, because. 
 
 First, the decision was rendered by an inferior court and the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, in another case, has held other- 
 wise. 
 
 Second, in the case now before this honorable tribunal, there is not 
 nvolved any question of the capacity of the claimants to sue; for the 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 815 
 
 Government of the United States represents here all its citizens, in all 
 of their legal capacities to sue; whether natural or juridical; whether 
 "corporations, public or private, lay or ecclesiastic. 
 
 I refer in this connection to Transcript, pages 589-593, 599 and 600. 
 
 The protocol submits to the determination of the honorable arbitra- 
 tors the decision of the question of the amount of the award and the 
 currency in which it should be payable. It is contended in the "con- 
 clusions" that the payment of the award in gold, formerly a matter of 
 indifference, would be to-day ruinous for Mexico; that the Mexican 
 standard is exclusively silver; that it was in this money that the State 
 received the proceeds of the sale; and that it should remit only a part 
 of what it has received and as it has received it. 
 
 If the whole case is not controlled by the force of the principles of 
 res judicata this question will then be determined by the honorable 
 tribunal in the light of those considerations which are just and equita- 
 ble between the parties, and consonant with the reputation, credit, and 
 dignity of the litigant States. In the absence of evidence showing in 
 what currency the proceeds of the sales were paid to Mexico by the 
 purchasers of the properties, we are not at liberty to assume whether 
 the payments were made in gold or silver, or both, but the deprecia- 
 tion of silver in comparison with gold during the last thirty years is a 
 matter of public notoriety, of which the court will take judicial notice. 
 
 It was indeed, as stated in the "conclusions," a matter of compara- 
 tive indifference whether the award of 1875 was payable in gold or 
 silver; but since that date the depreciation has been such that the 
 commercial value of silver has decreased comparatively to less than 
 one-half of its former value, and is now approximately only forty per 
 cent of what it was in 1870. This depreciation can not be imputed as 
 a fault to either Government, and is not, therefore, a consideration 
 which should properly influence the judgment of the court, by making 
 the nominal amount of the award worth 150 per cent more than its- 
 actual value in the money markets of the world. On the other hand, 
 the purchasing value of either a dollar of gold or of silver has greatly 
 depreciated during the last sixty years, and if measured by its pur- 
 chasing value, the capital of the Pious Fund, as actually realized by 
 Mexico, far exceeds its present nominal sum. 
 
 The generally accepted standard of exchange among the civilized 
 nations is gold, and in an international tribunal would, in the absence 
 of an expressed stipulation to the contrary, naturally be adopted as 
 the medium in which the award should be payable. Among the equi- 
 table considerations which may justly influence the judgment of the 
 court, it is not improper to refer to the precedent set by the action of 
 the Government of the United States, as indicating at least its concep- 
 tion of what is due to the national honor. And in this connection I 
 refer to the La Abra and Weil cases. 
 
 The Mixed Commission created under the convention of July 4, 
 1869, rendered awards in two cases known as the "Weil" and "La 
 Abra Silver Mining" claims, which together amounted to the sum of 
 11,130,506.55. Mexico petitioned the Government of the United 
 States to set aside those awards on the alleged ground that the Com- 
 mission had been wickedly deceived by fabricated and perjured testi- 
 mony adduced by the claimants. Upon strict principles of municipal 
 law, Mexico was not justified in asking for a reopening of the awards; 
 for she had not been free from laches in presenting to the tribunal even. 
 
816 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNTAS. 
 
 the evidence which she already had in her possession showing the fraud, 
 of which she had notice before the trials were closed; but immediately 
 following the rendition of the awards the Mexican Government, while 
 conceding their binding force, began a diplomatic attack on the justice 
 of the awards, and thereafter submitted a large volume of evidence 
 in support of her charges to the Secretary of State. 
 
 The President finally recommended to Congress the passage of a 
 law conferring upon the Court of Claims of the United States, sitting 
 in the District of Columbia, jurisdiction to hear and determine the 
 charges. Actions were brought before the court, were prosecuted by 
 official legal counsel employed by the Government of the United 
 States and wholly at its expense. The result was a decree in each 
 -case, sustaining the charges which had been preferred by the Mexican 
 Government, and the decisions rendered by the lower court were 
 affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Then, 
 without any request or suggestion on the part of Mexico, the United 
 States, sua sponte, refunded to the Mexican Government, in United 
 States gold, the total amount of the two awards, although there had 
 already been paid out and distributed by the United States Govern- 
 ment among the individual claimants under these awards a sum exceed- 
 ing a half a million dollars. Therefore the Government of the United 
 States stands to lose more than half a million dollars, which, having 
 been distributed twenty years ago among the claimants and their 
 attorneys, are beyond recovery in the courts on account of the death 
 of some of the claimants and the insolvency of their estates, and the 
 legal difficulties of recovering from the attorneys moneys paid to them 
 and honestly received by them, through their faith in the integrity of 
 their clients. 
 
 If the Government of the United States had seen fit to stand on nar- 
 row grounds, it might well have said, if it had adopted the view now 
 jDut forward in the "conclusions" that inasmuch as when the awards 
 were rendered it was a matter of comparative indifference to Mexico 
 whether she paid them in gold or silver; and inasmuch as during the 
 last thirty years there has been so great depreciation in silver, and 
 inasmuch as the United States has been an innocent loser in so large a 
 sum, and inasmuch as Mexico has adopted a silver standard, the United 
 •States ma}' and will refund to Mexico in the standard of her own cur- 
 rency. If the contention made in the ' ' conclusions " is to be sustained, 
 then the United States Government, having refunded to Mexico in 
 United States gold, has refunded a sum amounting to nearly 13,000,000, 
 measured by the standard of the Mexican currency ; and thus Mexico 
 on the face of her own contention has accepted more than she would 
 be thereon entitled to receive by nearly two millions of dollars, while 
 on the other hand, she is asking this honorable tribunal to award to 
 the United States less than one-half of what Mexico owes. 
 
 I now conclude my argument with the final proposition that the con- 
 tention now brought forward by Mexico that the claim under consid- 
 eration is barred by the statute of limitations; the contention that the 
 claimants ought to have resorted to the local tribunals; the contention 
 that the numbers of the beneficiaries of the Pious Fund are varying 
 from year to year; the contention that the award of Sir Edward Thorn- 
 ton was erroneous; the contention that the doctrine of res judicata can 
 not be invoked against a sovereign, all these and all similar contentions 
 of Mexico have been excluded from your consideration by the terms 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIA8. 817 
 
 of the protocol, namely, is the case within the governing principle of 
 res judicata; if not, is the claim just. 
 
 The justice of a decision is tried, not merely by the language and 
 reasons of the opinion given, but by the effect of the decree. Does 
 it do justice in the case between the parties; and does it also tend to 
 exalt the general principle of justice? 
 
 Mexico, upon the facts taken from her own records, has appro- 
 priated a fund, the principal of which amounts to more than $1,700,000. 
 It can not be shown, upon the careful reading and interpretation of any 
 treaty stipulation, that Mexico has ever been discharged or released 
 from the obligation to pay the interest which has accrued since 1869. 
 National obligations, whether acknowledged by statute or presidential 
 decree, or by a written promise to pay, are, in the last analysis, 
 reduced to the same juristic term. It is a difference of formula not 
 of things. And whether evidenced by its bonds, by its statutes or 
 decrees, or under whatever other solemn form, the duty of the State 
 to discharge its obligations, fiduciary and pecuniary, to the subjects 
 of another State, is settled by the law and practice of nations. The 
 fact that the obligation may have inured, in part, to beneficiaries in 
 the Republic of Mexico, and in part to those in the United States, 
 subsequent to the treaty of 1848 between the two States, could not 
 affect the validity of the obligation, the payment of whch is asked by 
 the United States, simply because it is just and because in this presence, 
 where all nations stand equal, that nation alone is mighty which is 
 superior by its moral right. 
 
 In closing, I beg to express our grateful appreciation for the most 
 patient and indulgent attention which the representatives of the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States, the claimants, and their counsel have 
 received from the honorable tribunal, as well as for the many valued 
 services and courtesies rendered by the distinguished secretary -general, 
 the first secretary, and the other officers of the court; and also to 
 express our sense of the kindly consideration which we have all 
 received at the hands of the distinguished representatives and counsel 
 of the Republic of Mexico. 
 
 Although they are momentary adversaries before this tribunal, 
 yet through the solution of the controversy afforded by the recourse to 
 this high court, the friendly relations that unite the two litigant States 
 remain undisturbed and have even been strengthened by the mutual 
 forbearance, courtesy, and respect shown throughout all their negotia- 
 tions; and it is the ardent hope and firm belief of the United States 
 that the two nations will continue to be united hy the close and endur- 
 ing ties of common sympathies and reciprocal friendship. 
 
 M. Beeknaert. Messieurs, M. Penfield vient de me faire l'honneur 
 d'une replique, qui, je n'en doute pas, est extrSmement serieuse, mais 
 qu'a raison de ma connaissance imparfaitede la langue anglaise je n'ai 
 que tres insuffisamment saisie. II est de mon devoir d'y repondre. 
 Je ne pourrai le faire qu'en me f aisant rendre compte d'apres la steno- 
 graphic de ce que je n'ai pas saisi. Je prie done la cour de bien vou- 
 loir remettre les repliques a demain; tres probablement M. Descamps 
 et moi pourrons nous contenter de deux a trois heures et par conse- 
 quent d'une seule audience. 
 
 Judge Penfield. At the request of Mr. Ralston I desire to reserve 
 five minutes this afternoon. 
 
 S. Doc. 28 52 
 
818 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. We will ourselves be ready to proceed by half-past 
 two. 
 
 M. le President. Le tribunal, apres avoir delibe"re\ a d^cidd de 
 continuer ses seances. 
 
 M. Beebnaert. La cour me permettra de lui faire remarquer que 
 dans ce cas une bonne partie de ce qu'a dit M. Penfield demeurera 
 necessairement sans reponse. Qu'elle me permette de lui faire remar- 
 quer qu'il y a la un precedent important au point de vue de cette juris- 
 diction internationale: du moment que l'on autorise l'emploi de 
 differentes langues, il est indispensable que les avocats des deux parties 
 puissent se comprendre. J e demande une remise & demain, qui ne 
 prolongera assurement pas les debats puisque je viens de dire que nous 
 serons assez brefs l'un et l'autre. 
 
 (Le tribunal se retire pour deliberer.) 
 
 M. le President. Le tribunal, ensuite de la promesse formelle 
 des conseils des Etats- Unis du Mexique de finir leurs dupliques demain 
 mercredi, s'ajourne a demain 10 heures du matin. Le tribunal decide 
 en outre que M. Penfield peut faire tout de suite les observations qu'il 
 a a presenter au nom de M. Ralston. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. I do not think Mr. Penfield has understood what was 
 said (in French). 
 
 M. de Martens. Mr. Penfield may make observations in the name 
 of Mr. Ralston. He may make these observations now. 
 
 Mr. Penfield. In the course of his speech M. Delacroix said, 
 referring to the opinion of the umpire, and to be found at page 606 
 of the transcript: 
 
 This honorable umpire said in commencing, I can not examine all these argu- 
 ments. Perhaps, adds Mr. Delacroix, he was not a jurisconsult. I am ignorant 
 of the fact, but at all events he has not examined the arguments, but he goes on to 
 tell us upon what he has founded his conviction. 
 
 M. Beernaert, in his turn, said, referring to the umpire, that his 
 decision was scarcely juridical; that it was scarcely complete; that the 
 sentence opens by this : He recognizes that he is not a jurisconsult. He 
 declares himself powerless to discuss and to examine the considera- 
 tions which have been submitted to him, and then he judges according 
 to his personal appreciation of them and to his conscience. 
 
 Both of the gentlemen have fallen into a great error, caused by 
 apparent misunderstanding of the true meaning of the language used 
 by the umpire. The umpire simply stated that it was impossible for 
 him to discuss the various arguments which had been put forward on 
 each side, and in effect said that he could only give the conclusions at 
 which he had arrived after a careful and lengthy study of the docu- 
 ments submitted to him. (In respect of arguments, I am afraid that 
 this court will be in a worse predicament than the umpire. We have 
 been talking away now for ten days.) These documents, of course, 
 included the arguments. He did not for a moment say that he was 
 not a jurisconsult. He was, as we understand it, a publicist. Such 
 a statement would have been superfluous, and, as we all know, in addi- 
 tion, would have been erroneous, as he was a jurisconsult of acknowl- 
 edged ability and celebrity. The simple fact was that there had been 
 submitted to him in all for decision about one thousand cases, many of 
 them involving intricate questions of law and fact, and from the very 
 pressure of time he was unable to present the details of the reasons or 
 "motifs" of his decisions, and only gave in his opinion in this case, as 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 819 
 
 well as in many others, what might fairly be regarded as the "dis- 
 positif ;" that is to say, the conclusions at which he had arrived, based 
 upon a lengthy consideration of the "motifs" or reasons adduced 
 before him. 
 
 Moreover, the representatives of Mexico have fallen into a serious 
 error in their understanding of the statement made by Messrs. Ralston 
 and Siddons, and to be found at length on page 32 of the replication 
 and page 52 of the Diplomatic Correspondence. This error was 
 undoubtedly occasioned by the fact that or. Mariscal only quoted in 
 the answer of Mexico disconnected sentences. Examination of the 
 full citation will show that the contention of Messrs. Ralston and 
 Siddons simply amounted to this: That the fund had always been in 
 the hands of trustess, first, the Jesuits, next the Spanish Crown, then 
 the Government of Mexico, then the bishop under the law of 1836, 
 then again in the Mexican Republic; that the change of trusteeship 
 was in every case accomplished by the act of the sovereign, and not 
 that the sovereign had a right to, or had, in fact, confiscated for its 
 own benefit the fund itself. It is a well-known principle in English 
 and American law that the appointment and removal of trustees' is 
 within the power of the sovereign, this power ordinarily being 
 exercised through the courts, but not necessarily so. There has, 
 therefore, been no recognition of any sovereign right to confiscate the 
 proceeds of the fund, but merely a recognition of the right of the sov- 
 ereign to change the trustee, the trustee in the present case being 
 changed by the sovereign itself assuming that position. 
 
 (Le tribunal s'ajourne a, mercredi le 1 octobre a 10 heures.) 
 
 DIX-SEPTIEME SEANCE. 
 
 1 octobre 1902 (matin). 
 
 Le tribunal se reunit a 10 heures du matin, tous les arbitres 6tant 
 presents. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est a l'agent des Etats-Unis de l'Ame- 
 rique du Nord. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. President and gentlemen, there are some mat- 
 ters of no great moment, but which I desire to present to the court in 
 order to entirely, as we say, round up the case — end the little details. 
 
 The first is the filing of powers of attorney from the bishops of 
 Sacramento and Monterey to the archbishop of San Francisco, author- 
 izing the full prosecution by him of the proceeding which is now 
 pending before this honorable tribunal. 
 
 Then, the second is a copy of a call from Mexico upon the United 
 States for discovery as to certain facts, and an additional affidavit of 
 the Most Reverend Patrick W. Riordan as to the discovery called for, 
 and call for discovery, copy of which has heretofore been filed. And 
 I may explain briefly that Mexico has served two calls for discovery 
 upon us; one relating to the number of Indians and their christianiza- 
 tion, and the other relating to the disposition of the former award. 
 I have wanted to make categorically the discoveries asked for by 
 Mexico, and I think with the filing of these papers I have done so. 
 
 The third is a paper, which we expect from the printer immediately, 
 a copy of the papal bull, authorizing the formation of the diocese of 
 Monterey and of California, by virtue of which Diego was appointed. 
 
820 PIOTJS FUND OE THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 The fourth is the affidavit of Archbishop Riordan, showing search 
 in Rome for correspondence between the Mexican ambassador and the 
 Holy See relative to erection of the bishopric of California, the same 
 occurring in 1840, and copy of letter sent by the Mexican ambassador 
 April 6, 1840, just received, with a translation of the same. We have 
 been making a search for weeks in Rome for a copy of a letter which 
 we believed must have existence, from Mexico to the Holy See, which 
 promised, as we interpret it, to Mexico the full control of the Pious 
 Fund. I should like to call that to the attention of the court and to 
 the other side as quickly as I have my copies from the printer, which 
 will be in the course of an hour. 
 
 Fifth. I have a telegram from the Secretary of State showing the 
 •date of the last payment to the bishops of California of the former 
 award. 1 do not suppose that there will be any question between us 
 about the correctness of i . a - telegram, but I should be glad if Mr. 
 Pardo would examine it and see if he is content with the statements 
 made in it. 
 
 The sixth is a telegram from the Secretary of State, showing dates 
 and amounts of payments under the Weil and La Abra claims. I 
 should like also to show that to Mr. Pardo. I do not think there is 
 any question of fact between us, and perhaps he will agree that the 
 statements made are correct. 
 
 In addition I want to address in open court an inquiry to the agent 
 of Mexic o. On August 28th I addressed a letter to His Excellency 
 Emilio Pardo, calling for certain discoveries from Mexico, to which 
 no categorical reply has been received. The letter has been acknowl- 
 edged, butbeyond that I have had no reply. The points upon which 
 evidence is desired are: 
 
 1. The amount of money paid to the Roman Catholic bishop of Cali- 
 fornia out of or chargeable against the income of the Pious Fund 
 from February 8, 1842, to February 2, 1848, and the amount of pay- 
 ments, if any, similarly made as against the principal thereof. 
 
 2. The amount of money paid out of or chargeable against the 
 ncome of the Pious Fund to the Roman Catholic bishop or bishops or 
 archbishops of either of the Californias from February 2, 1848, to the 
 present time, or of any similar payments from or chargeable against 
 the principal of said fund. 
 
 3. The amount of money paid from February 8, 1842, to February 2, 
 1848, chargeable, as above, against either the interest or principal of 
 the Pious Fund to any religious orders of the Catholic Church engaged 
 in work in either Upper or Lower California and for the purposes of 
 such work. 
 
 4. The amount of money paid, chargeable as above, between Feb- 
 ruary 2, 1848, and the present time to any of the religious orders of 
 the Roman Catholic Church for the benefit of work in Upper Cali- 
 fornia as ceded to the United States or in Lower California as remain- " 
 ing to Mexico. 
 
 5. The amount of money paid, chargeable as above, on any other 
 account and disbursed or intended to be disbursed for religious pur- 
 poses, in either of the Californias, in any manner other than as above 
 indicated between either of the periods above named. 
 
 I added that it is desired that the foregoing information should be 
 as specific as convenient with reference to payees, amounts, and dates 
 of payment, and, if it may be, that if the information in detail is not 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 821 
 
 contained in documentary or other printed f oi'm, then that any printed 
 official reports or other published papers showing the same in gross 
 should be produced. 
 
 Mr. Assek. Is this not before the court? 
 
 Mr. Ralston. No; if the court will excuse me. This is a demand 
 for discovery which we made on Mexico on August 28th, which is now 
 nearly five weeks ago, and. we have had no answer to it. I call the 
 court's attention to the fact that no answer has been received, although 
 we have desired to use the evidence, and I want to ask the agent for 
 Mexico when such answer may be expected. 
 
 M. lb President. La parole est a, l'agent des Etats-Unis mexicains. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Nous r^pondrons cet apres-midi a cette communi- 
 cation. 
 
 Sir Edward Fry. Quelle est la date sur laquelle on peut donner une 
 reponse? C'est tout ce qu'on a demande; il est tres facile de repondre. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. II faut que je voie la correspondance de mon 
 Gouvernement pour pouvoir donner une response precise. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Ne vaut-il pas mieux que nous repondions au com- 
 mencement de l'audience de l'apres-midi? 
 
 M. de Martens. Vous 6tes tout a fait libre d'accepter ou non; sans 
 votre consentement le Tribunal ne pourra recevoir aucun document, 
 aux termes des articles 42 et suivants de la Conference de La Haye. 
 
 M. le President. Nous deciderons suivant votre reponse. La 
 parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis mexicains. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Messieurs, la bienveillante attention que le Tribunal 
 a bien voulu nous accorder jusqu'ici ne nous permettra certes pas de 
 faire la moindre redite, et en ce qui me concerne je ne reviendrai sur 
 aucun des points que j'ai deja traites; je me bornerai a repondre aux 
 observations que ont ete presentees par mes deux honorables contra- 
 dicteurs, M. le Senateur Descamps et l'honorable M. Penfield. 
 
 M. le Chevalier Descamps a commence sa plaidoirie et l'a termine*e 
 en vous disant: Pacta servanda; j'etais heureux de cette indication, je 
 me disais que les adversaires allaient enfin descendre sur le terrain ou 
 nous les avons convies et qu'ils allaient nous dire quel est le pactum 
 intervenu entre d'une part l'Eglise catholique, et d'autre part les 
 Jesuites, le Roi d'Espagne, le gouvernement du Mexique, en un mot 
 nous montrer le titre de leur cre"ance. Mon honorable contradicteur 
 M. Descamps, apres avoir dit Pacta servanda, s'empressait d'ajouter 
 que ce qu'il reclamait au gouvernement mexicain c'etait le paiement 
 d'une creance; il confirmait done notre droit de reclamer l'exhibition 
 du pactum. 
 
 C'est une imprudence, je pense, qui a 6te commise par mon honor-, 
 able contradicteur, puisqu'apres avoir proclame" le principe que nous- 
 m^mes nous invoquons, il a ne'glige' de s'y conformer. 
 
 S'il y avait un adage qui pouvait §tre invoque de ce cote ci de la, 
 barre, c'etait bien celui-la. En effet, vous vous souvenez du traite de 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo intervenu entre le Mexique, d'une part, et les 
 Etats-Unis d'autre part; aux termes de ce traite, les deux Etats, qui 
 avaient a regler, comme le disait hier si justement M. Descamps, les 
 consequences du demembrement a donner la solution aux different* 
 problemes qui e l n etaient la consequence; aux termes de ce traite il a 
 6te" dit: De"charge r^ciproque est donn^e, non seulement d'un Etat a\ 
 l'autre, mais meme des citoyens americains vis-a-vis du Gouvernement 
 mexicain. Et l'honorable M. Penfield ajoutait que si des actes m§rae 
 
822 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 arbitraires avaient ete commis par le Gouvernement mexicain comme 
 tel vis-a-vis de ses sujets devenus depuis lors sujets am^ricains, les 
 Etats-Unis ne pouvaient pas en demander compte aujourd'hui au 
 Gouvernement de Mexico. De telle facon, messieurs, que le traite de 
 1848 contenait une d^charge absolue. 
 
 Le traite" du 4 juillet, 1868, confirmait ce caractere du traite" de 1848; 
 il disait que si une commission etait institute, e'etait uniquement pour 
 re^gler les "injuries," les dommages qui auraient pris naissance pos- 
 terieurement a ce traite de 1848. 
 
 Done, messieurs, s'il y a une des parties qui ait le droit de dire 
 "Pacta servanda," e'est assurement le Mexique, qui a traite, qui a 
 regie les consequences du demembrement, qui a fait le pacte devant, 
 dans la pensee des deux parties, §tre definitif , et sur lequel aujourd'hui 
 cependant on veut revenir. 
 
 II y a plus. Les demandeurs, apr&s le traite de 1848 et apres la 
 convention de 1868, lorsqu'ils ont voulu presenter leur reclamation 
 actuelle a la Commission, pour le rendre recevable, et pour ne pas se 
 heurter au texte de ces deux traites, ont du recourir a un expedient, 
 lis se trouvaient devant un traite" qui disait: decharge, quittance abso- 
 lue pour tous les faits anterieurs; aussi, alors qu'ils avaient presents 
 leur reclamation comme ayant pour objet un capital, e'est-a-dire le 
 Fonds de Californie, ils ont recouru ensuite a un expedient et ils ont 
 dit: nous ne demandons que des inter^ts; des interSts, e'est chose pos- 
 terieure au traite puisqu'ils sont echus posterieurement a 1848. 
 
 Le Mexique a repondu que e'etait la un expedient et que si on ne 
 reclamait plus que les intents, e'etait uniquement pour echapper aux 
 consequences du traite de 1848; des interets ne peuvent pas exister 
 sans un droit preexistant, sans un droit perpetuel. 
 
 Cette reponse, messieurs, se trouve dans le memoire de M. Aspiroz, 
 presente a" la Commission mixte en 1869 et relate dans le livre rouge. 
 
 Le surarbitre, l'honorable Sir Thornton, de meme que tous les con- 
 seils des parties adverses en 1869, se sont abstenus de demander la 
 consecration d'un droit preexistant et perpetuel, parce que e'etait se 
 heurter a cette fin de non recevoir resultant du traite de 1848 que 
 j'indiquais tout a 1'heure. Ils ont eu recours a cette habilite de for- 
 muler une demande d'interets en feignant de croire que cette demande 
 ne creait pas un droit preexistant. 
 
 Aujourd'hui cependant vous savez ce qu'on plaide; M. le Chevalier 
 Descamps vous, a dit & la precedente audience: des intents supposent 
 un droit preexistant, il^n'y a pas de generation spontanee d'interets; 
 et il en concluait que necessairement Sir Thornton avait du proclamer 
 le droit preexistant auquel les adversaires se defendaient de pretendre 
 en 1868. 
 
 Voila l'expedient qui a reussi en 1868; mais aujourd'hui lorsque — 
 si je puis me servir de cette expression— la meche est eventee, lorsque 
 nous voyons le moyen a l'aide duquel vous voulez echapper a la fin de 
 non recevoir resultant du traite de 1848, alors que vous disiez: "il n'y 
 a pas de droit preexistant" et qu'aujourd'hui vous venez dire repre- 
 nant notre objection d'alors: "s'il y a des interets il y a un droit pre- 
 existant et il y a chose jugee," n'avons-nous pas le droit de dire lorsque 
 nous montrons votre attitude: Pacta servanda? 
 
 Si mon honorable contradicteur, M. Descamps, a cite cette parole, 
 e'etait pour en arriver a dire qu'il invoquait la bonne foi. Je m'etais 
 propose de relever cette parole dont peut-etre la susceptibilite du. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIU'OHNIAS. 823 
 
 Gouvernement mexicain aurait pu se plaindre; mais le tres honorable 
 M. Penlield est venu a ce point de vue, par l'homrnage qu'il a rendu 
 au Gouvernement mexicain me dispenser de relever ce qui a ete dit a 
 ce sujet. 
 
 Messieurs, vous l'avez entendu, M. le Senateur Descamps ne veut 
 pas de l'Histoire. II nous a dit cependant, et nous le savions, qu'il 
 connait tres bien l'Histoire qui fait partie de son enseignement. 
 
 Or, nous demontrons que notre reclamation a pour elle le jugement 
 des siecles et de l'Histoire. Je croyais que c'etait un argument qui 
 avait quelque valeur. J'ai cite" ces faits precis, des dates, des eV6ne- 
 ments politiques, et mon honorable contradicteur, qui connait tres 
 bien tous ces faits, se borne a nous repondre: Ne parlons pas de l'His- 
 toire Je comprends. 
 
 M. Penfield, qui lui aussi connait l'Histoire, avait 6te" frappe d'une 
 sorte de defi, que je lui avais porte' au commencement de ces d6bats en 
 disant: n'oubliez pas que si la Cour d' Arbitrage allait adopter votre 
 theorie la situation serai t la meme en Prusse au sujet de 1' Alsace- 
 Lorraine; et j 'avais indique qu'a, mon sens cette comparaison murie 
 devait avoir son importance et constituait un argument. M. Penfield 
 nous dit: Ne melons pas des cas differents, ne faisons pas de com- 
 paraisons, chaque fait doit Stre examine' isole"ment. Et cependant, 
 messieurs, par ce qu'il dit dans la suite on constate qu'il a bien voulu 
 voir de pres quelle etait la valeur de cette comparaison; il nous dit: 
 Les cas ne sont pas les memes, il y a deux differences. La premiere 
 difference, dit-il, c'est que c'est la France, c'est-a-dire le pays a qui on 
 a enleve un territoire, qui a paye une indemnity de 5 milliards, tandis 
 que dans notre cas c'est le pays a qui on a enleve un territoire que 
 recoit une indemnite de 15 millions de dollars. 
 
 Qu'est-ce que cela fait? II y a eu un reglement financier entre les 
 deux Etats, ce reglement s'est termine par un deficit ou par le paiement 
 d'un exc^dent, qu'importe? 
 
 La seconde difference, dit-il, c'est que dans le traits de Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, dans le dernier article, il est dit que les deux nations respec- 
 teront les droits de propriete de leurs citoyens nouveaux, c'est-a-dire 
 que les Etats-Unis respecteront les proprietes des anciens citoyens 
 mexicains. 
 
 Eh bien, est-ce que par hasard l'Allemagne et la France avaient 
 besoin d'inscrire dans le traite qu'elles respecteraient les droits de 
 propriete des particuliers ? 
 
 Ce sont la toutes les differences que vous avez citees. Est-ce que 
 dans ces conditions je ne puis pas dire que la comparaison que j'avais 
 produite a toute sa force et toute sa valeur, et qu'apres ces debats il 
 est impossible que vous ne disiez pas: il y a eu en Alsace-Lorraine des 
 Jesuites, qui la n'avaient qu'une preoccupation religieuse, il y a eu 
 confiscation de leurs biens par Louis XV en 1863, les souverains ont 
 dit: nous confisquons, nous nous approprions, sous reserve des charges, 
 ou de l'entretien du culte, ou des obligations. 
 
 Jamais, malgre* cela l'Eglise n'a rien demande"; et aujourd'hui si les 
 eV&ques obtenaient leur jugement dans le sens qu'ils sollicitent, on 
 pourra dire: Mais l'Alsace-Lorraine a ete conquise, le Gouvernement 
 francais s'est approprie autrefois les fonds des communautes religieuses, 
 il y a la une situation identique, et cette comparaison avec des situations 
 qui nous sont plus familieres ne nous montre pas le caractere de la 
 pretention. 
 
824 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, si M. Descamps ne veut pas du jugement de l'His- 
 toire il ne veut pas davantage du droit. Le droit est une notion qui 
 lui est cependant tr§s familiere comme elle l'est a M. Penfield; cepen- 
 dant l'un et l'autre de mes honorables contradicteurs vont vous dire: 
 ne tenez pas compte du Droit. 
 
 M. Descamps vous dit: pas de droit, pas de loi positive, pas de loi 
 mexicaine, parce qu'il y a le droit international public et le droit inter- 
 national prive. 
 
 Tout d'abord, quelles sont les dispositions de droit - international 
 public ou de droit international prive qu'il faut appliquer? Ce n'eut 
 pas 6te" indiscret d'esperer qu'il nous l'eussent dit, parce que ce n'est 
 pas par des mots que l'on ecarte des arguments, et surtout des argu- 
 ments de cette valeur 
 
 M. Descamps. Le respect des contrats envers les Strangers. 
 
 M. Delacroix. Je vais y venir. 
 
 M. Descamps nous dit qu'il nous oppose le droit international public 
 et le droit international prive; permettez-moi de vous dire ceci: pas 
 l'un et l'autre, n'est-ce pas? l'un des deux! 
 
 M. Descamps. Si, si, les deux! 
 
 M. Delacroix. Les deux? 
 
 M. Descamps. Absolument! 
 
 M. Delacroix. Alors, vous allez done demander a la Cour de dire 
 a, la fois que les relations qui nous regissent sont des relations de droit 
 public, des relations de nation a, nation, des actes souverains que vous 
 allez appre"cier et viser, et en m§me temps que e'est une creance dont 
 vous reclamez le paiement, droit positif , droit civil ? 
 
 L'application du droit international public suppose un conflit entre 
 deux Etats, et une discusion d'actes souverains. C'est ce principe 
 qu'a developpe M. Penfield, je vais y venir, je ne demande pas mieux 
 que de vous suivre sur ce terrain et de demander a la Cour de regler 
 notrecas suivant les dispositions du droit international public. 
 
 Mais mon honorable contradicteur a ajout6: droit international prive; 
 et il devait le dire, puisqu'il demande le reglement d'une creance, d'un 
 droit civil. Comment des lors serait-il possible que vous fassiez appli- 
 cation du droit international public? 
 
 Mon adversaire dit done: droit international prive. Le droit inter- 
 national prive n'est pas un code universel, des regies uniformes pour 
 tous les citoyens de tous les Etats. Le droit international prive" est 
 charge de determiner quelle es la loi positive de chaque pays qui sera 
 applique"e a propos de chaque cas.' 
 
 Ainsi, messieurs, s'il s'agit de la forme de l'acte, le droit international 
 prive nous apprend que la loi appliquee est la loi ' ' locus regit actum," 
 la loi du lieu, c'est la loi nationale. S'il s'agit au contraire de la capa- 
 city, c'est le statut personnel, c'est la loi de la personne, avec certains 
 temperaments d'ordre public sur lesquels il y a de nombreuses contro- 
 verses et de nombreuses discussions. S'il s'agit d'immeubles, de biens 
 ou de droits immobiliers, c'est la loi du lieu ou se trouve 1'immeuble. 
 Voila ce que nous apprend le droit international prive\ 
 
 Par consequent, mon honore contradicteur, il ne suffisait pas de 
 nous jeter a la face les mots droit des gens, droit international public, 
 droit international prive, il fallait preuser quelle 6tait la disposition 
 legislative qui m'empechait de produire tel ou tel argument. 
 
 En realite", si Ton invoquait ces mots c'Stait pour vous dire qu'il n'y 
 avait pas de droit a appliquer, et Ton vous demandait de proclamer 
 
PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFOBNIAS. 825 
 
 dans la premiere sentence rendue par une Cour d'arbitrage que la 
 Cour d'arbitrage doit faire abstraction de l'existence d'une creance. 
 
 Ce que l'on vous demande, done, e'est de vous lancer dans l'arbitraire 
 auquel on donne le nom d'6quite. 
 
 M. Penfield a cru devoir, lui aussi, aborder cette question dont 
 l'importance n'a pas e*chappe a cet eminent jurisconsulte; il nous a dit: 
 il peut y avoir un conflifc entre un particulier et un Etat qui soit re"gi 
 par les r&gles du droit international public, parce que ce particulier 
 ayant subi un dommage de la part d'un Etat peut trouver bon de 
 s'adresser ei son Gouvernement et d'etre represente par lui. 
 
 La these ainsi formulae est absolument juridique et nous n'y con- 
 tredisons pas. L'exemple qu'a cite M. Penfield est parfaitement exact: 
 Voici qu'un chef militaire qui a la juridiction dans une colonie, 
 ordonne qu'il faut prendre ou decapiter un justiciable, alors que ces 
 procedes sont trop sommaires et que cette justice est trop expeditive; 
 cependant e'est la justice, e'est l'exercise du pouvoir souverain; le cas 
 s'est presente entre le Congo et l'Angleterre, a propos d'un officier 
 congolais, M. Lothaire, qui aurait rendu une justice un peu sommaire 
 vis-avis d'un suget anglais; le Gouvernement de l'Angleterre a dit: 
 e'est peut-etre un acte souverain, mais e'est un acte souverain a raison 
 duquel je demande une reparation. Messieurs, la reclamation 6tait: il 
 y avait la un acte souverain, dit arbitraire, contre lequel on s'elevait. 
 
 Cela peut se produire aussi meme a propos d'une loi. Je suppose 
 que dans un pays on prenne une loi arbitraire en vue de frapper un 
 etranger ou une cat%orie d'etrangers; le gouvernement, qui est pro- 
 pose a la defense de ses sujets, m§me residant dans un autre territoire, 
 pourra dire: e'est une loi arbitraire, et je soumets a un tribunal arbi- 
 tral la question de savoir si cette loi n'est pas arbitraire; dans ce cas 
 ce tribunal sera appele a juger un acte souverain. 
 
 Tout ce qu'a dit a ce point de vue mon honorable contradicteur, M. 
 Penfield, est parfaitement exact; seulement, comme il nous l'a si bien 
 appris, il ne suffit pas d'une theorie, il faut faire l'application au fait. 
 Qu'il nous dise done quelle est la loi, quel est le droit, quel est le code 
 mexicain qu'il taxerait d'arbitraire et dont il demanderait l'ecart des 
 documents de la cause, ou qu'il taxerait d'arbitraire! Assurement il 
 ne le dit pas! 
 
 Au contraire, Messieurs, maintenant que ces debats touchent a leur 
 fin, que vous connaissez l'affaire dans tous ses details, que vous con- 
 naissez la demande, vous savez que ce que l'on demande e'est la recon- 
 naissance de l'existence d'une creance, d'un droit prive, d'un droit 
 civil. Comment des lors peut-on invoquer un tel droit sans le faire 
 re"gler par le droit priv6. 
 
 Les demandeurs, ce sont les eVSques; tous les m^moires, tous les 
 documents que vous connaissez indiquent que les eveques sont les veri- 
 tables re"clamants, que le Gouvernement n'est la que pour les assister;. 
 et e'est par une erreur eVidente que mon honorable contradicteur, M. 
 Penfield, vous disait que ce sont les Etats-Unis qui plaideht. 
 
 Non, les Etats-Unis assistent les eVe'ques. Ce n'est pas un dommage 
 cause - a un citoyen, dont on demande reparation; ce ne sont pas des 
 dommages-interSts que l'on demande, ce sont les eveques, qui se croy- 
 ant fondes & rdclamer le remboursement d'une depense, le demandent 
 avec l'assistance et l'appui de leur Gouvernement. Le texte de la con- 
 vention de 1868 est decisif sur ce point. On nous dit: chose jugee 
 entre les memes parties; or, qui est-ce qui pouvait comparaitre en 
 
826 PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1F0RNIAS. 
 
 1869 devant la commission mixte? Sont-ce les deux Gouvernements? 
 Nullement! Le texte de la convention precise dans Particle l ar que la 
 commission mixte est institute pour ]uger les differends existants 
 entre de cito3'ens de l'un des Etats et le Gouvernement de l'autre Etat; 
 ce sont des reclamations de citoyens qui sont soumises a la commission 
 mixte; et s'il s'etait agi d'un conflit entre le Mexique et les Etats-Unis 
 la commission mixte de 1868 n'aurait pu en connaitre. 
 
 Si l'on invoque la chose jugee, on doit pretendre que le debat se 
 decide entre les m^mes parties. Ce sont les eVeques — et d'ailleurs 
 aucune demonstration n'est necessaire sur ce point — qui sont les deman- 
 deurs, et s'ils agissent comme creanciers c'est le droit international 
 prive qui doit les regir. 
 
 J'ai et6 assez surpris d'entendre mes honorables contradicteurs vous 
 dire en bloc: pas de loi mexicaine a. appliquer, pas de droit positif 
 inexicain. lis n'en veulent pas. D'autre part, lorsque nous leur 
 demandons: quel est votre titre? lis produisent des lois mexicaines, 
 des decrets mexicains de 1836 et de 1842! Et je ne pouvais pas 
 m'empecher d'esquisser un sourire bien vite reprime lorsque j'enten- 
 dais mes honorables contradicteurs vous dire: d'une part pas de loi 
 mexicaine, et d'autre... 
 
 M. Descamps. Pas d'empire absolu des lois mexicaines! 
 
 M. Delacroix. Pas de mots: des faits. Je vous re"ponds par un 
 exemple: nous avons invoque la loi de prescription quinquennale; c'est 
 une disposition inscrite, je crois pouvoir l'affirmer, dans toutes les 
 legislations; lorsqu'il s'agit de prestations periodiques, de sommes 
 dues par ann^e, le cre"ancier a le devoir de ne pas laisser s'ecouler 
 une periode de plus de cinq annees sans reclamer, sous peine de voir 
 son droit compromis. Je suis convaincu, bien que je ne la connaisse 
 pas, que cette disposition doit se trouver 6galement dans la legislation 
 des Etats-Unis; elle se troiive dans le Code mexicain de 1870 comme 
 dans le Code de 1895; c'est une disposition qui s'est trouvee dans le 
 Code du Mexique des qu'il en a eu un. 
 
 On nous a demande quel 6tait ce Code; nous avons repondu que 
 c'etait le Code du district federal de Mexico, parce que toutes les 
 reclamations adress^es a l'Etat sont jugees a Mexico et pas consequent,' 
 suivant la loi de ce district federal; nous avons ajoute que la Basse 
 Calif orniene constituant pas un Etat distinct se trouve n^cessairement 
 regie aussi par cette loi du district federal. Mes honorables contra- 
 dicteurs comprendront cela tres bien puisqu'ils ont la meme chose aux 
 Etats-Unis: il y a des territoires qui ne constituent pas des Etats dis- 
 tincts. La situation est la m£me dans la Basse Californie, et c'est 
 pourquoi les regies du district federal de Mexico lui sont applicables. 
 
 Je vous disais done que c'est un principe inscrit dans toutes les 
 legislations. II est juste d'ailleurs, et tous les auteurs, tous les com- 
 mentateurs vous disent que ce serait reserver au cre"ancier de ruiner 
 son debiteur si le creancier pouvait laisser son debiteur dans l'insou- 
 ciance, dans l'ignorance peut-.etre de son obligation, et si a, un jour 
 donne\ apres vingt ou trente ans il pouvait lui dire: vous me devez 
 des sommes considerables par Paccumulation des int^rets arrier^s. 
 
 Aussi, messieurs, toutes les legislations disent que le creancier doit 
 etre sufEsamment vigilant pour ne pas laisser accumuler plus de cinq 
 ans d'interets. C'est juste, c'est legitime, et c'est parce que c'est juste 
 et legitime que c'est inscrit dans le Code Mexicain. 
 
 Nous demandons Papplication de cette notion 61ementaire a la cause 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALTFOBNIAS. 82? 
 
 actuelle, nous disons: tout au moins depuis 1870 jusqu'a 1891 vous 
 n'avez rien reclame, des lors la prescription s'impose, elle s'impose 
 qu'il y ait ou non chose jug6e, puisque meme l'existence d'un titre 
 definitif n'empeche pas la prescription de s'operer. C'est une notion 
 elementaire. Lorsque nous en demandons l'application, M. le chevalier 
 Descamps nous repond: Pas de loi mexicaine, droit international. 
 
 Mais, ne sentez-vous pas que vous devriez, pour invoquer le droit 
 international, 6tablir que la loi dont je demande l'application est une 
 loi arbitraire, que cette loi a 6te" faite pour atteindre certains de vos 
 citoyens et qu'elle se trouve en conflit avec votre legislation ? Mais, 
 si elle est inscrite dans votre legislation comme dans celle de toutes les 
 nations, qu'est-ce qui vous autoriserait & dire qu'elle est arbitraire et 
 £i demander au nom du jus gentium, du droit international, qu'on 
 ecart&t l'application. 
 
 L'objection, la seule qui 6tait a faire, 6tait celle-ci: la prescription 
 a 6t6 interrompue et par consequent il y a une periode d'int^rets qui 
 est due malgre la prescription, on nous aurait dit: Notre Ministre 
 s'est adresse a votre Gouvernement par une lettre de 1891. Nous 
 vous aurions repondu en vous disant: l'article 1232 du Code dit com- 
 ment la prescription est interrompue: elle l'est par une demande 
 judiciare ou par une citation en conciliation, cela n'existe pas dans 
 l'espece, et par consequent a ce point de vue la prescription ne se 
 trouve pas atteinte. 
 
 II y a un autre exemple que je pourrais citer; je le puiserais dans ce 
 qu'on a appele la loi de prescription. Voici qu'en 1857 ou 1859 une 
 loi est prise par le Gouvernement mexicain, une loi radicale, une loi 
 qui interdit a toute autorite religieuse, soit seculiere soit reguliere, de 
 posseder sur son territoire, qui lui enleve toute notion de personality 
 civile. Vous pourriez dire: c'est trop radical; vous pourriez essayer 
 de demontrer que cette loi a ete~ prise en vue de f roisser les interets de 
 vos citoyens et en rejeter l'application au point de vue du droit inter- 
 national public. Mais si je vous demontre qu'elle a 6te prise en vue 
 de l'interet general, a raison des circonstances, de ce que l'on consi- 
 derait, comme l'ordre public au Mexique, est-ce que vous direz encore 
 que cette loi est arbitraire ? 
 
 Mais, vous ne l'alleguez m&me pas, vous ne le pr^tendez pas. La 
 loi a ete votee a une epoque ou votre reclamation n'etait pas encore 
 formulee et ou assurement le legislateur n'avait pas pu s'en preoccuper. 
 Done, elle n'est pas arbitraire. 
 
 Vous dites: droit international prive\ Ah! ici, vous auriez pu en 
 demander l'application, vous auriez pu dire: Mais cette loi regie la 
 capacite des personnes, et comme elle regie la capacite des personnes 
 elle ne peut pas nous §tre appliquee a nous etrangers. Alors, nous 
 aurions discerte au point de vue du droit international prive" si on peut 
 appliquer une loi de capacity aux etrangers lorsqu'elle affecte l'ordre 
 public national; nous aurions examine si par exemple lorsqu'en France 
 on eloigne les congregations religieuses il serait permis a une congre- 
 
 fation etrangere de s'y introduire en disant: C'est mon statut personnel 
 ont je demande l'application. Nous aurions vu que lorsqu'il s'agit 
 d'une disposition d'ordre public elle est applicable sur tout le territoire 
 aux etrangers comme aux nationaux. Mais on ne nous a rien precise" 
 a cet egard. 
 
 D'ailleurs c'est a ce point de vue que nous avons indique" que la pre- 
 tendue dette qui est reclamee avait une origine immobiliere, que e'etait 
 
828 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 la representation d'immeubles, representation ayant lieu dans la these 
 des adversaires par une rente hypothecate, garantie par le produit de 
 l'imp6t des tabacs. 
 
 - Des lors, d'apres le droit international prive", cette loi devait §tre 
 applicable, parce que ce que l'on demandait c'etait un droit r£el et un 
 droit reel est necessairement r^gi par le droit national. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, si mon honorable contradicteur M. Descamps, 
 n'aime pas l'Histoire, s'il ne veut pas du droit il ne veut pas davantage 
 de la jurisprudence. J'avais fait, et je m'en excuse, un peu de juris- 
 prudence, j'avais cite un jugement espagnol relatif a la succession 
 Arguelles; je vous avais montre" que la question posee a la Cour par 
 les demandeurs avait e"te r^solue contre eux sans protestation de l'Eglise 
 au siejcle precedent. Lorsque les Jesuites avaient 6te expulses, la 
 question de leur h^redite s'etait trouvee ouverte precisement k propos 
 d'une succession non encore liquidee dont l'attribution leur appartenait; 
 la question de savoir si c'etait l'Eglise ou l'Etat qui devait heriter d'eux 
 avait et6 soumise aux juridictions espagnoles d'alors et par une sen- 
 tence solennelle du Conseil des Indes du 4 juin 1783 on avait decide" 
 que le Roi y avait non seulement un droit trustee mais un pouvoir 
 discretionnaire. On decidait que ces biens seraient "a" son souverain 
 plaisir." 
 
 C'etait une jurisprudence qui meritait un peu d'attention; on a passe, 
 et consequentj l'argument conserve toute sa force. 
 
 Mais mon honorable contradicteur, M. Penfield, a estime qu'il etait 
 impossible qu'il ne vous dit pas un mot d'une autre jurisprudence que 
 j'ai citee: il s'agit du cas Nobile contre Redman. M. Penfield a dit: 
 Je fais une objection, vous invoquez une autorite americaine, une deci- 
 sion de la Cour Supreme de Californie, et vous venez dire que la ques- 
 tion actuelle a ete decidee par cette autorite respectable d'Amerique 
 contre nous. Mon objection, dit-il, est celle-ci: c'est que dans une 
 autre effaire le meme cas a ete soumis & la Cour Supreme des Etats- 
 Unis et a ete re"solu dans mon sens; par consequent il y a deux deci- 
 sions americaines et la Cour arbitrale est libre de choisir entre elles. 
 
 J'avais indique l'objection, mais que fallait-il repondre? Je me 
 trouvais devant deux decisions americaines d'une importance consi- 
 derable, je^ trouvais dans le pays de mon honorable contradicteur la 
 question resolue contre sa these; et puis je trouvais une decision en 
 sens contraire. J'ai fait alors ce que commandait la situation: j'ai 
 analyse la procedure des deux cas et j'ai demande a la Cour d'examiner 
 les raisons qui ont determine l'un et 1'autre juge; vous vous trouvez 
 devant deux jugements americains; il faut dire quel est le bon. 
 
 M. Penfield nous dit: le meilleur, c'est celui de la Cour Supreme des 
 Etats-Unis.^ Je pourrais lui repondre: le meilleur c'est celui de la 
 Cour Supreme de Californie, qui mieux que toute autre connait les 
 situations de fait et peut les apprecier. Mais je ne demande pas & la 
 Cour de peser ces deux autorites, je lui d&mande de scruter ces deux 
 decisions, de les lire et de voir celle dont la dialectique lui apparait 
 decisive, 
 
 Je vous avais dans ce but analyse dans une precedente audience le 
 memoire— ce que j'appellerais les conclusions— de celui qui defendait 
 alors la these que j'ai l'honneur de defendre aujourd'hui devant vous; 
 je vous ai montre par quel le serie de documents, de decrets successifs, 
 etabhssait que non seulement l'Eglise n'avait pas capacite de recevoir 
 et n'avait pas de droit, mais que d'autre part le souverain seul s'etait 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 829 
 
 toujours considere comme le maitre de ces biens. La conclusion me 
 paraissait decisive. 
 
 Aujourd'hui, je vous dis: faites le parallele, voyez l'autre decision; 
 elle se trouve reproduite dans le livre rouge a la page 586, elle se trouve 
 cit6e dans le memoire de M. Doyle, c'est l'affaire Terrett contre Taylor. 
 
 Je vous indique imm^diatement que dans ces decisions la question 
 qui a etc" examinee etait celle-ci: L'on ne discute plus, ou on nediscute 
 guere le point de savoir si l'Eglise a un droit, on le suppose, mais, 
 dit-on, le probleme a r^soudre est celui de savoir si un de"membrement, 
 une revolution, une dissolution d'Etat peut enlever le droit du prece- 
 dent proprietaire. Ainsi pos^e, messieurs, la question ne pouvait 
 avoir qu'une solution. On suppose que l'Eglise a un droit, et on se 
 dit: est-ce que le fait que la Californie, par consequent l'Eglise Cali- 
 fornienne, a ete demembree, divisee, cela lui enleve les droits qu'elle 
 pouvait avoir jadis ? Mais, il est evident que non. Je lis le finale de 
 cette decision qui se trouve a la page que je viens d'indiquer: 
 
 La dissolution de la forme du Gouvernement n'entraine pas la dissolution des 
 droits civils ou une abolition de la common law qui regit la 'question des heritages 
 dans chaque pays. L'Etat lui-mfime n'a fait que succ^der aux droits de la couronne. 
 On a affirm^ comme principe de common law que le partage d'un empire n'entraine 
 
 fas la ddcheance des droits de propri6t6 pr6c6demment acquis, et cette maxime est 
 galement concordante avec le bon sens de l'humanit6 et les maximes de la justice 
 4ternelle. 
 
 C'est evident, messieurs; mais nous ne discutons pas cette question 
 ici; nous n'avons iamais pr^tendu que l'Eglise, representee par mes 
 honorables contradicteurs, aurait perdu ses droits par la conqu^te; 
 l'autorite de la Cour Supreme est done entiere. Mais, ce qu'il aurait 
 fallu d^montrer, c'est que la Cour Supreme des Etats-Unis aurait ren- 
 contre les differents arguments qui ont £te developpes dans l'affaire 
 Nobile contre Redman et aurait combattu la solution donnee par la 
 Cour Supreme de Californie. Les questions resolues etaient differentes, 
 et par consequent notre argument capital consistant a dire que la these 
 presentee par les Etats-Unis a ete condamee, dans leur propre pays 
 par des Americains, par la justice americaine, conserve toute sa valeur 
 et n'6chappera pas assurement a l'attention de la Cour. 
 
 Dans le commentaire de cette decision de l'honorable M. Doyle 
 notamment aussi dans son memoire (page 90 du livre rouge) nous 
 trouvons cette idee: aucune conqu^te, aucune revolution, aucun acte 
 souverain n'a pu enlever a l'Eglise ce qui etait sa propriete. II posait 
 cette premisse: l'Eglise etait proprietaire. C'6tait sa premiere pr£- 
 misse; je ne pense pas qu'il l'ait d£montree, et sur ce point je m'en 
 re"fera a de precedentes explications. 
 
 Mais sa seconde premisse etait celle-ci: Si l'Eglise etait proprietaire, 
 ni une conquete, ni une revolution, ni un acte souverain n'a pu lui 
 enlever cette propriete, done elle 'la encore aujourd'hui. 
 
 Comme j'ai trouve cette notion indiquee egalement dans la plaidoirie 
 de l'honorable M. Descamps, je me permets d'y insister un moment. 
 
 Je raisonne d'abord en m'appuyant sur l'argumentation qui a ete 
 fournie par M. Penfield. M. Penfield sur ce point a victorieusement 
 combattu M. Descamps. D'apres M. Penfield Facte souverain accompli 
 par l'Etat mexicain vis-a-vis d'un citoyen mexicain, f ut-il arbitraire, 
 devrait encore imposer le respect de mes honorables contradicteurs. 
 Vous vous souvenez de cette parole de M. Penfield, elle est juste, elle 
 est juridique, et elle est importante parce qu'elle condamne tous les 
 
830 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 arguments qui ont ete presented de l'autre c6te" de la barre et notam- 
 ment ceux de M. Doyle. 
 
 Je suppose que M. le President Santa Anna, en 1842, a cette pe"riode 
 de revolution mexicaine, eut accompli un acte arbitraire, un acte 
 injuste, un acte de spoliation; je suppose qu'il ait enleve a l'Eglise, par 
 une haine clericale ou par d'autres considerations, ce qui 6tait son bien. 
 M. Doyle dit: l'acte est nul, l'usurpation ne peut pas enlever un droit. 
 Je reponds avec M. Penfield; si meme cela etait, comme ce serait un 
 acte souverain du Gouvernement mexicain vis-a-vis de sujets mexicains, 
 les ev@ques des Etats-Unis de 1848 ou de 1850 ne pourraient pas cri- 
 tiquer cet acte et en demander la reformation par un Tribunal inter- 
 national. II s'agit d'un acte souverain, accompli par un Etat souverain, 
 vis-a-vis de ses sujets, il n'y a pas a le discuter, il n'y a qu' a l'accepter. 
 
 Non seulement cette notion se trouvait dans la plaidoirie que vous 
 avez'entendue hier de M. Penfield, mais elle se trouve egalement dans 
 une des brochures de M. Ralston, cette notion ne peut pas etre con- 
 tested. 
 
 Je dois ajouter que je ne puis pas considerer comme un acte d'usur- 
 pation, de spoliation, l'acte qui aurait ete accompli dans les circon- 
 stances que je viens d'indiquer. 
 
 M. Descamps vous a dit que la these que j'avais pre"sent6e aurait eu 
 cette consequence de permettre a l'Etat de s'approprier tous les biens 
 des personnes civiles; il a dit que la these que j'avais deVeloppee 
 enlevait toute security aux personnes civiles. Vous me permettrez de 
 rectifier: Lorsqu'il s'agit d'une association commerciale, d'un etre 
 juridique compose de personnes qui apportent leurs droits individuels 
 pour les mettre en commun sous une fiction, sous une entite juridique 
 distincte, lorsque cette entity juridique vient a disparaitre, lorsque 
 l'Etat qui lui a donne naissance vient a lui enlever 1' existence, les biens 
 qui appartenaient a cette entite et qui avient leur support primitif dans 
 le chef d'individu doivent 6tre partage"s a la dissolution entre ceux qui 
 composaient cette association, et par consequent ces citoyens conservent 
 leurs droits. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, tout autre est le caractere d'une communaute 
 religieuse, d'une association de bienfaisance, ou d'un e"tablissernent 
 qui a un but de service public ou d'utilite publique. Lorsqu'on donne 
 pour une institution charitable, dans ce cas la disposition est faite a une 
 collectivite, c'est-a-dire a une partie de la nation c'est done toujours la 
 nation elle-meime que represente ce droit, qui en est le support primitif 
 et des lors lorsque ce corps special de la collectivite, cette emanation 
 de la nation a cesse" d'exister, c'est evidemment l'Etat souverain qui 
 reprend ce qu'il avait concede. 
 
 Done, messieurs, ici pas de spoliation, pas d'usurpation; y eut-il eu 
 meme spoliation, comme je l'ai dit, que ce ne serait pas critiquable. 
 Mais j'ai tenu a rectifier ce que m'avait impute Phonorable M. 
 Descamps. 
 
 Vous vous trouvez done devant des actes souverains et des apprecia- 
 tions souveraines de tribunaux americains; mes honorables contradic- 
 teurs ne pourront jamais en vouloir aux honorables membres de la 
 Cour d'arbitrage^ sj^ls n'adoj)tent pas leur maniere de voir puisque 
 e'etait celle qui 6tait p^artagee par leurs concitoyens et par ceux qui 
 sont appeles chez eux a rendre la justice et a dire le droit. 
 
 On a parle, messieurs, d'une notion dont on a abuse, et cependant 
 je n'y insisterai pas; on a dit que nous n'avions pas compris la signifi- 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 831 
 
 cation qu'eux-m6mes donnaient au mot trust, que c'etait une notion 
 qui nous echappait. 
 Messieurs, lorsque j'ai eu l'honneur d'etre charge de prendre la 
 
 f>arole devant votre" Cour, sachant que je pouvais avoir a discater des 
 egislations 6trangeres qui ne m'etaient pas familieres, je m'6tais 
 promis de ne pas abuser des mots, de rechercher plutot la notion 
 juridique que les qualifications juridiques qui peuvent varier d'Etat a 
 Etat. 
 
 Ici, je le demande a" mes honorables contradicteurs qui ont parle de 
 trust: au profit de qui le trust aurait-il ete constitue? Est-ce au profit 
 de l'Eglise ? Alors vous devez soutenir que l'Etat aurait 6te le trustee 
 de l'Eglise, que l'Etat au lendemain de la suppression des Jesuites 
 aurait occupe le bien pour l'Eglise. C'est une demonstration qui vous 
 reste a faire. 
 
 Mais, messieurs, en tout cas, est-ce que cela ne revient pas toujours 
 au raeme ? Les adversaries doivent 6tablir quel est leur droit, f ut-ce 
 le droit de trustee; il faut toujours que ce contrat, que nos l'appelons 
 mandat, trust ou propriete vous donne un titre, il faut toujours que 
 vous etablissiez votre titre, quel que soit le contrat que vous invoquiez. 
 
 J'ajoute, messieurs, que cette notion n'est pas exacte, parce que si 
 nous remontons a l'origine nous voyons que les donateurs disposent 
 d'une maniere absolue au profit des Je"suites ils leur donnent des 
 pouvois tels qu'ils n'auront a rendre compte qu'a Dieu. N'est-ce pas 
 au point de vue civil l'abandon le plus absolu ? Ne devoir rende compte 
 qu'a Dieu c'est le droit absolu de disposer sur terre, c'est ce que nous 
 appelons dans notre Code Civil le droit de propriete. 
 
 Nous aurions, nous Etat, succede aux Jesuites, et vous l'admettez: 
 nous aurions done succede dans ce que vous appelez un trust, 61argis- 
 sant singulierement la signification du terme; alors je dois avoir le 
 meme pouvoir. Et comment, si dans l'intention des donateurs primi- 
 tifs il n'y a pas a. cote des Jesuites quelqu'un qui puisse revendiquer 
 un droit civil a l'encontre du leur, comment existerait-il aujourd'hui 
 quelqu'un qui puisse revendiquer un droit civil a l'encontre de l'Etat? 
 
 Done, messieurs, cette notion n'a qu'une importance bien secondaire 
 et c'est a tort que M. le Chevalier Descamps nous a reproche de ne 
 l'avoir pas comprise. 
 
 Au point de vue de la jurisprudence, j'avais fait une troisieme cita- 
 tion, et ici les reproches qui m'ont ete adresses ont ete durs. J'avais 
 parle" du proces de la Marquise de la Torres del Rada; pourquoi en 
 avais-je parle? 
 
 Parce qu'il se fait que les demandeurs ne produisent qu'un seul 
 document en vue d'etablir leur droit au Fonds Pie de Californie. Ce 
 document est un acte de donation que aurait ete fait par le Marquis 
 de Villapuente en son nom et au nom de son Spouse, la Marquise de 
 la Torres del Rada, c'etait done le document capital. Et voici, mes- 
 sieurs, que dans le livre rouge nous trouvons qu'un premier jugement 
 de 1749, un second jugement de 1823, ont annule l'effet de cette dona- 
 tion dont ils se r^clament, et que ces decisions se trouvent passees en 
 force de chose jugee! 
 
 Des lors, il etait necessaire que vous connussiez la procedure qui 
 avait precede" ces jugements, ou que tout au moins vous eussiez une 
 notion du proces qui etait engage\ Ces decisions sapent par la basse 
 la reclamation faite de l'autre c6te de la barre. 
 
 II y avait un Fonds Pie dont on demande aujourd'hui la restitution. 
 
832 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Je vous ai dit que ce Fonds Pie se composait de deux parties, d'une 
 part, d'immeubles, de creances hypothecaires; d'autre part, de creances 
 chirographaires; je vous ai montre" que la premiere partie de ce Fonds 
 Pie 6tait productive d'interets et que la seconde ne l'6tait pas. J'ai sur 
 ce point fourni des indications qui e"taient appuy^es sur l'inventaire 
 fait par Don Kaminez elles n'ont pas 6te" rencontrees. Je m'attendais 
 a ce que mes honorables contradicteurs mettraient en rapport ce que 
 j'avais dit, les citations que j'avais prises dans l'inventaire Ramirez, 
 avec leur pretendu titre, c'est-a-dire avec les de'crets mexicains de 1836 
 a 1845. C'eut ete un travail interessant; mais puisqu'il n'a pas plu a 
 mes honores contradicteurs de le faire, comme ]e veux §tre complet, 
 la Cour me permettra de lui demander dix minutes de son attention 
 pour le faire. 
 
 Les demandeurs s'appuient principalement sur le decret du 24 octo- 
 bre 1842 pour y puiser un titre; ils vous disent que par ce decret 
 l'Etat mexicain aurait fait un abandon ou une reconnaissance a leur 
 profit, c'est-a-dire au profit de l'Eglise. Nous avons examine' ce point, 
 nous avons indique qu'il 6tait inconcevable que ce f fit precis^ment au 
 moment de la Revolution mexicaine que je caracterisais tout a i'heure 
 et qui avait 6te caracte"risee par M. Penfield avant moi, pendant cette 
 periode de trouble ou un vent anticlerical soufflait au Mexique, que 
 l'Etat souverain se fut depouille a a profit de l'Eglise, alors qu'il ne 
 l'avait pas fait jusque-la. 
 
 Mais vo3 r ons ce decret, il dit (page 469 du livre rouge): 
 
 Article ler: Les biens urbains et ruraux, les dettes et creances ainsi que toutes 
 autres proprie'tes appartenant au Fonds Pie de Californie sont incorpores au Tresor 
 public. 
 
 D6ja, il est assez bizarre de voir les demandeurs se fonder sur un 
 titre qui a precisement cet effet radical d'incorporer au Tresor les biens 
 urbains et ruraux, les dettes creances ainsi que toutes autres creances 
 et proprie'te's. 
 
 Continuons: 
 
 Le Ministere de la Tresorerie proc^dera la vente des biens urbains et ruraux et 
 autres propretes appartenant au Fonds Pie de Californie pour un capital repr6sent6 
 par un revenu annuel capitalist a 6 pour cent l'an. 
 
 Dans ce second article on ne repete plus les mots "dettes et creances" 
 qui se trouvaient dans le premier; dans ce second article, lorsqu'il 
 s'agit de dire ce qui va etre vendu on dit: les biens urbains et ruraux 
 et autres propriete"s. 
 
 Ce decret etant indique\ nous reprenons la division que je signalais 
 tout a I'heure. La premiere part, ce sont des immeubles, des creances 
 hypothecaires, c'est un produit annuel. Le decret dit: il faut les 
 vendre, le prix sera incorporS au Trevor et j'affecterai 6 pour cent a 
 des buts que je caracteriserai tout a I'heure. 
 
 Mais l'autre partie, les dettes d l'Etat' est-ce que le decret dit qu'il 
 faut les vendre ? Ou le voyez-vous ? Est-ce que vous concevez d'abord 
 cette notion d'un Etat qui est lui-meme debiteur et qui irait decider 
 qu'il faut mettre en vente sa proprc dette, qui irait dire qu'il ca payer 
 6 pour cent du produit de cette dette annuelle, c'est-a-dire que la 
 vendant il s'engagerait a payer 6 pour cent? 
 
 C'est une notion inadmissible de con ce voir que l'Etat aurait de*cr6td 
 qu'il fallait vendre sa propre creance; il 6tait a la fois le creancier et le 
 debiteur. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 833 
 
 Lorsque je vais vous indiquer les chiffres cela va vous paraitre encore 
 plus evident. 
 
 Le Fonds Pie, d'apres Don Ramirez, se composait d'abord d'un rev- 
 enu de 32,255 piasters, ce qui a 6 pour cent fait 537,000 piasters, dont 
 j'ai deduit les 145,000 piastres payees aux Philippines; il restait done 
 392,000 piastres. Voila ce qui etait la part immobili&re, la part 
 productive. 
 
 II y avait aussi la partie " cre"ances," qui repr^sente d'apres M. Doyle 
 (p. 493) — 1,100,000 piastres, dont moiti6— soit 550.000 piastres, est re- 
 presentee par des interns arrieres. Eh bien, voyez-vous l'Etat, qui 
 n'aurait pas paye ces interets arrieres decidant de mettre en vente 
 cette dette consistant en des interets arrieres pour en payer 6 pour 
 cent. 
 
 De telle facon, messieurs, qu'alors que Sir Thornton dit qu'on 
 ne peut pas reclamer les interets des interets, l'Etat se serait 
 engage a payer dans l'avenir 6 pour cent d'int6r§t sur les interets 
 arrieres! II faut avouer, messieurs, que e'eut ete une interpreta- 
 tion assez extraordinaire du decret, surtout si l'on songe qu'il emane 
 de quelqu'un qui n'avait pas de tendance a faire de tels cadeaux a 
 1'Eglise. 
 
 11 y a plus. II y avait de mauvaises dettes, vous en connaissez la 
 nomenclature; elles n'avaient jamais rien produit. Et l'Etat cependant 
 aurait decide non seulement de vendre ces mauvaises cr^ances, mais il 
 les aurait rachetees au pair, et il se serait engage lui Etat a payer 
 perpetuellement 6 pour cent sur ces mauvaises dettes qui ne valaient 
 rien, qui ne produisaient rien! 
 
 Messieurs, l'applicatiqn meme du titre qu'invoque mon honorable 
 contradicteur, e'est-a-dire du decret du 24 octobre 1842 a ce Fonds Pie, 
 demontre que son interpretation est absolument inadmisible. 
 
 L'Etat aurait pris l'engagement de payer perpetuellement 6 pour 
 cent d'un capital qui ne produisait rien, a concurrence de 1,100,000 
 piastres. Non, messieurs; je touche a la demonstration par l'absurde, 
 et j'aurais tort d'insister. 
 
 II faut cependant que l'on nous dise de plus pres comment les 
 demandeurs comprennent le decret de 1842. Vainement jusqu'ici nous 
 avons demande a sos honores contradicteurs de nous fournir une 
 indication nette, elle ne se trouve dans aucun de leurs nombreux docu- 
 ments, je vais vous dire pourquoi, et j'en arrive ainsi a, la lecture du 
 decret du 3 avril 1845. Ce decret dit: 
 
 Le,Congr6s a adopts et le pouvoir executif a ratifle ce qui suit: 
 Toutes les sommes dues et les autres proprietes appartenant au Fonds Pieux de 
 Califomie qui pourraient etre actuellement non vendues seront dorenavant restitutes 
 a l'6v§que de ce siege et a ses successeurs, pour realiser le but mentionne a J.'article 6 
 du decret du 19 septembre 1836. 
 
 Si ce decret doit etre interprete dans la vue d'une attribution des 
 creances aux evSques, ce sont les chances non vendues, qui leur sont 
 attribuees pour ce qu'elles valaient; et non pas un interet de 6 pour 
 cent; ces creances en capital vous les avez demandees 4'abord en 1859, 
 puis en 1870, mais lorsque vous avez senti que vous vous heuriiez a une 
 fin de non recevoir derivant du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo vous y 
 avez renonce, et aujourd'hui encore pour echapper a cette fin de non 
 recevoir vous ne demandez que des interets. 
 
 En supposant que le decret de 1845 ait voulu dire "En ce qui 
 concerne ks biens vendus je vous donnerai 6 pour cent et en ce qui 
 
 S. Doc. 28 53 
 
834 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENTAS. 
 
 concerne les biens non vendus je vous les donnerai," il n'a pu dire 
 qu'une chose: Je vous les donnerai tels qu'ils sont, je vous les donnerai 
 en capital. 
 
 Cela, vous n'osez pas le demander parce que vous vous heurtez au 
 traite" de Guadalupe Hidalgo dont le texte est formel. Vous voila done 
 enserr^s dans une argumentation dont je vous dene de sortir. Si votre 
 interpretation est exacte, vous ne pouvez jamais demander autre chose 
 que cette premiere partie du Fonds de Californie, la partie productive 
 qui aurait e'te' vendue pour §tre representee par un capital a 6 pour 
 cent; cette partie-la ce-sont les 392,000 piastres que vous connaissez, 
 dont il faut deduire le passif et specialement les consequences du 
 proces de la Torres del Rada. Done a ce point de voe il ne resterait rien. 
 
 II ne resterait alors que cette partie que vous qualifiez d'importante 
 du Fonds de Californie, composee de ces pretendues creances chirogra- 
 phaires; mais pour celles-la jamais l'Etat n'a dit: j'en paierai 6 pour 
 cent. II n'eut pas pu le dire, e'eut 6te absurde. 
 
 Done, si vous avez un droit vous n'avez et ne pouvez avoir qu'un 
 droit au capital, et ce droit au capital vous n'osez mSme pas le reven- 
 diquer parcequ'il se heurte a un prix de non recevoir absolu. 
 
 En ce qui concerne la composition du Fonds, on nous a dit aussi que 
 l'on devait aujourd'hui prendre pour base les chiffres fournis par Sir 
 Thornton, le sur-arbitre. 
 
 Je ne comprends pas le raisonnement: s'il n'y a pas chose jug6e — et 
 les adversaires ne peuvent discuter les chiffres que dans cett hypothese — 
 
 {>ourquoi prendre les chiffres de Sir Thornton ? II faut alors prendre 
 es chiffres de votre mandataire, du mandataire de l'eveque, Don 
 Ramirez, e'est ce qui doit servir de base, ou il faut la division que 
 j'indiquais tout & l'heure. 
 
 Vous dites: Nous allons prendre les chiffres de Sir Thornton et nous 
 allons ajouter 200,000 piastres comme 6tant le produit de la vente de 
 Cienega del Pastor. Pourquoi ? je vous le demande. Dans les chiffres 
 de Don Ramirez que je vous ai cites j'ai compris le revenu de la Cienega 
 del Pastor et je l'ai capitalise, cela se trouve dans mon chiffre de 392,000 
 piastres; pourquoi ajouter encore? 
 
 _ Votre point de depart est faux; vous auriez du, et e'est de bon sens, 
 si vous vouliez rdclamer le Fonds de Californie, prendre pour base 
 l'inventaire que j'ai analyst. 
 
 _ Messieurs,_puisque j'ai parle" du decret du 24 octobre 1842 je vous 
 signale combien la lecture des termes de ce decret est interessante; 
 Pexpose des motifs, ou plut6t le considerant qui fait partie de ce decret 
 dit ce qui soit: 
 
 Considerant que le decret du 8 feVrier de la prgsente ann6e, qui decide que 1' admin- 
 istration et le soin du Fonds Pie de Californie seront rendus et continues au gouverne- 
 ment comme cela eteit precedemment le cas, avait pour but de realiser le plus fidg- 
 lement possible les objets de bienfaisance et nationaux designed par les fondateurs, 
 sans diminuer en quoi que ce soit les propriety destinees a cette fin. . . . 
 
 Je demandais a mes honorables contradicteurs: $L qui l'Etat a-t-il 
 
 Sromis de payer 6 pour cent? L'on me repondait: a l'Eglise. Je 
 isais: mais l'Eglise, il n'en est pas question dans ce decret. J'ajoute: 
 le decret dit que ces 6 pour cent seront employes k des objets de bien- 
 faisance et nationaux. Et se concoit-il, messieurs qu'au jourd'hui une 
 6glise etrangere puisse trouver dans ce decret son titre, alors qu'il y 
 est dit que l'on emploiera ces 6 pour cent & des objets de bienfaisance 
 et nationaux? Ce n'est pas a des objet religieux, e'est a des objets de 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 835 
 
 bienfaisance etnationaux, ce qui est le contraire d'une Eglise e"trangere, 
 et a ce point de vue encore le decret ne peut pas avoir la portee qu'on 
 lui donna. 
 
 A une preceMente audience, discutant la composition du Fonds Pie, 
 je vous ai dit que lorsque le Roi d'Espagne s'etait trouve aux prises 
 avec des difficultes financiered resultant des velleites d'ind^pendance 
 de la Nouvelle Espagne, lorsqu'il entrevoyait que ses territoires colo- 
 niaux et notamment la Californie allaient lui 6chapper, il avait pu 
 recourir a un Fonds donne - pour la conquete spirituelle et temporelle 
 de la Californie. 
 
 Si plus tard le Gouverneuient mexicain devenu independant redout- 
 ant l'influence etrangere, l'intervention du voisin, sentant que la Cali- 
 fornie allait lui e'chapper, emploie le Fonds a la defense du territoire, 
 pourra-t-on dire que le decret du 24 octobre 1842, qui destinait ces 
 fonds a. des objets de bienfaisance et nationaux interdisait au pouvoir 
 souverain d'agir comme il l'a fait? Messieurs, est-ce possible? 
 
 Ce sont a certains moments des necessites urgentes, des necessity's 
 politiques qui ont pu determiner un gouvernement a puiser, pour le 
 bien de la nation, pour le bien de la Californie qui 6tait alors la nation, 
 dans ce Fonds Pie. Et qu'on nous montre done le decret qui donne 
 une arme a un etranger pour dire: vous allez me rendre 1' argent que 
 vous avez employe pour emp^cher la conquete! 
 
 Quant au decret de 1836, qui confie a l'eveque de Calif ornie l'admin- 
 istration du Fonds Pie, il n'est certes pas le titre des demandeurs ? II 
 est rapporte par le decret du 8 fevrier 1842, il n'existe plus. 
 
 J'entendais & l'audience de ce matin mon honorable contradicteur M. 
 Ralston, nous dire qu'il fournissait certains documents relatifs a l'in- 
 stitution par la fondation d'un eveche au Mexique: mais ce document 
 est sans importance s'il est anterieur a 1842, s'il a pour objet de regler 
 une situation anterieure a 1842 en conformite du decret de 1836, parce 
 que le decret du 8 fevrier 1842 supprime et abolit l'effet du decret de 
 1836. 
 
 Le chevalier Descamps nous a dit:. une loi n'a pas seulement un effet 
 'general, un effet politique, elle n'a pas pour objet de creer des obliga- 
 tions pour l'ensemble des citoyens, une loi peut creer une creance 
 civile dans le chef d'un particulier. 
 
 Malgre" l'autorite juridique de M. Descamps je dois avouer que cette 
 declaration est pour moi une revelation; je n'avais pas jusqu'ici concu 
 qu'une creance civile naquit d'une loi generale. Cela aurait peut-Stre 
 Justine - une demonstration, mais elle n'est pas venue. Le decret 
 stipule au profit de l'ev&que et de ses successeurs; quel est done ce 
 b^nificiaire? C'est l'eveque mexicain. Est-ce que ceux qui ont vottS 
 cette loi ont pu avoir en vue, comme je disais a une precedente audience, 
 d'alimenter perpe"tuellement le budget public, e'est-a-dire le budget des 
 cultes d'un Etat Stranger? Non, ils n'ont pu stipuler qu'en faveur de 
 1'EvSque mexican et de ses successeurs mexicains. Quand le Gouverne- 
 ment mexicain confie a tel evSque une administration, c'est a la condi- 
 tion qu'il soit son d^legue. 
 
 Mais concoit-on qu'une loi nationale puisse avoir cet effet de creer 
 une dette a charge de l'Etat au profit d'un fonctionnaire etranger? 
 
 Dans le meme decret l'Etat s'engage a payer a l'eveque un traite- 
 ment annuel de 6,000 dollars. Diriez-vous aussi que c'est une creance 
 civile! 
 
 En effet Messieurs c'est un engagement qui a 6te pris; et comment 
 
"836 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 allez-vous donner une application diff^rente au point de vue juridique 
 a l'engagement de payer 6,000 dollars et a l'engagement de confier 
 l'administration du Ponds Pie? 
 
 Messieurs, j'abuse de vos instants parce que, je vous l'ai dit, ce 
 d^cret est intervenu en 1836, et il est devenu sans valeur parce qu'un 
 autre lui a etc" substitue\ celui du 8 fevrier 1842, qui l'a aboli. 
 
 II est impossible que vous disiez qu'il a pu entrer dans l'esprit du 
 legislateur de 1842 oumemede celui de 1836 de confier l'administration 
 d'un revenu a quelqu'un pui n'aurait plus ete* sous la surveillance; il est 
 contraire a toute notion de droit politique, de droit public, de droit 
 civil, d'admettre qu'un Etat gratuitement, pour un service public, pour 
 un but d6termine\ donne a une personne l'administration, l'emploi d'un 
 revenu, sans stipuler une reserve; cela serait sans exemple, et ce 
 ■caractere exceptionnel ne pourrait pas se trouver dans la legislation 
 revolutionnaire de 1842. 
 
 M. Doyle, a la page 90 de son memoire, a donne* une definition des 
 biens eccl&iastiques; il y a, dit-il, les biens qui servent directement a 
 l'exon^ration du culte, par exemple les lieutenants et les ornements 
 necessaires au service divin; ce sont des biens qui ne produisent pas 
 de revenu et qui sont employes directement aux offices. 
 
 II y a alors des biens qui produisent des revenus et qui servent a 
 alimenter le primer service. Ce seront les terres, les vergers, qui 
 seront loues pour alimenter les ministres du culte. Voila ce qu'il dit. 
 
 Or, messieurs, est-ce que vous pourriez trouver dans un document 
 de la cause un titre qui fasse rentrer les biens du Fonds de Californie 
 dans cette seconde categorie? Est-ce que jamais il est dit que ces 
 biens seront employes a alimenter les ministres du culte ? Ou cela ce 
 trouve-t-il ? 
 
 Vous n'invoquez que le de*cret de 1842. Celui-la dit que le Gou- 
 vernement emploiera le revenu a des buts de bienfaisance et nationaux. 
 Ce n'est pas l'entretien des ministres du culte, cela. 
 
 ,Donc, messieurs, si vous prenez mgme la definition de M. Doyle 
 vous devez reconnaitre que les biens en question ne peuvent pas rentrer 
 dans la cate*gorie des biens eccl6siastiques. 
 
 M. McEnerney nous a dit que les biens avaient e"te* donnes aux 
 Je*suites et que par consequent ils devaient avoir etc" donnas pour le 
 but qui dominait les J&uites. Mais c'est la resoudre la question par 
 la question. II s'agit toujours de savoir si ces J6suites n'6taient pas 
 plut6t les delegues du Eoi que du Pape et si leur ceuvre n'6tait pas 
 plut6t patriotique et de conque"te qu'exclusivement religieuse. 
 
 On nous a dit que le Fonde Pie avait toujours eu une existence dis- 
 tincte, c'est a dire que lorsque le Eoi d'Espagne en 1767 s'6tait 
 approprie* ces biens il n'avait pas imm^diatement, comme l'a fait plus 
 tard le president Santa Anna, incorpore ces biens au Tre"sor, qu'il avait 
 toujours admis que ces biens devaient avoir une affectation sp^ciale de 
 bienfaisance et de piete. 
 
 Oui, nous pouvons l'admettre; mais il faut l'admettre en tenant 
 compte des faits, en voyant le caractere que le Roi a donni a* son acte. 
 Je vous ai cite* des documents 6tablissant que le Roi en avait toujours 
 dispose* sans contr61e et sans reserve, que le Roi avait toujours estimi— 
 comme apres lui le Gouvernement mexicain-^qu'en ce qui concernait 
 ces biens il en f aisait ce que lui dictait— suivant l'expression du Conseil 
 des Indes son bon plaisir, son caprice. 11 avait le droit d'en disposer, 
 il n'avait de compte a rendre qu'a Dieu Seul! 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 837 
 
 Les Kois, de droit divin, estiment qu'ils sont — si vous permettez 
 l'expression — trustees, du tresor national et qu'ils ne doivent compte 
 qu'a Dieu de l'eniploi qu'ils en font. Comme je vous l'ai deja dit, au 
 point de vue du droit civil c'est la propri^te absolue. Par consequent, 
 quand on dit que le Fonds Pie avait une destination distincte, je 
 responds: oui, mais avec ce caractere que l'ensemble des de"crets lui a 
 donne, c'est-a-dire le droit absolu du souverain d'en disposer. 
 
 D'ailleurs, a c6te* de ce caractere, il y a toujours une autre notion 
 qui echappe a mes honorables contradicteurs. lis devraient etablir 
 quel est celui qui a un droit en concurrence, en contradiction avec le 
 droit du souverain. C'est ici qu'ils devraient etablir le droit de l'Eglise 
 pendant cette longue periode; ils devraient . etablir 'que deja sous l'ad- 
 ministration des J esuites, surtout apres leur expulsion, l'Eglise aurait 
 acquis un droit privatif de celui du souverain. Eh bien, c'est ce droit 
 de concurrence avec le droit du souverain qu'ils n'ont jamais etabli, et 
 qui est d'ailleurs condamne par l'aveu de l'Eglise et par le jugement de 
 l'Histoire. Jamais l'Eglise n'a pretendu, non pas seulement a un droit 
 exclusif ou privatif de celui du souverain, mais meme a un droit indivis r 
 a un droit de surveillance, a un droit de contr61e. L'Etat a confisque, 
 l'Etat a dispose des biens, jamais l'Eglise n'a proteste! 
 
 Done, messieurs, j'ai le droit de dire a. mes honorables contra- 
 dicteurs: L'Eglise dit qu'elle est l'he'ritiere des Jesuites, j'ai demontr^ 
 qu'au moment ou cette her^dite s'ouvrait elle devait en faire la peti- 
 tion, et elle n'a rien dit pendant un siecle! 
 
 M. le chevalier Descamps a expose que le demembrement de 1848 
 avait cree" une question. Je lui ai repondu que le traite etait charge 
 de r^soudre les questions n£es du demembrement et qu'il les avait 
 resolues. Mais dans tous les cas, si meme on pouvait pr^tendre que 
 le traite de 1848 a laisse subsister un droit, il a du laisser subsister un 
 sujet de droit dont vous avez herite. Ce sujet de droit quel est-il? 
 
 Sont-ce les Etats-Unis? Non, on ne le pretend pas. Les citoyens 
 americains? Non, ils y renoncent, c'est dans le traite. Alors ce 
 devrait etre l'Eglise mexicaine subsistant sur le territoire etranger 
 avec sa personnalite civile? Mais c'est impossible! Concevez-vous. 
 L'Etat americain admettant sur son territoire une personne civile creee 
 par un Etat etranger ? Mais il n'en veut pas! 
 
 Precisement, messieurs, lorsque le Senat de Washington a modiiie 
 le texte primitif de Particle 9 du traite, e'etait pour qu'aucun doute 
 ne subsists a ce point de vue: il n'a pas voulu de droits a l'encontre 
 des siens; ne veut d'autre personne civile sur le territoire americain 
 que celles auxquelles le Gouvernement souverain americain aurait 
 donne l'existence. II n'y a done plus d'Eglise, ayant la personnalite 
 civile. 
 
 Mais je suppose qu'il y ait encore une collectivite de fideles, une col- 
 lectivite de chretiens, une collectivite d'anciens mexicains qui vont 
 devenir americains, qui ont des droits indetermines, mais qui enfin ont 
 encore des droits quelconques au Fonds de Californie. Vous dites 
 que vous en §tes les successeurs? Je vous demande qui est-ce qui les 
 representait en 1848, car si vous avez une ci^ance dont vous avez herite 
 il fallait un sujet de droit en 1848. Quel est-il? ^Si cette collectivite 
 de chretiens autrefois mexicaine aujourd'hui americaine existait, elle 
 n'avait pas encore la personnalite civile; et qui la representait? C'est 
 la nation americaine, c'est le Gouvernement americain qui, comme je 
 l'ai entendu maintes f ois dire au cours de ces debats, represente toutes 
 les collectivites. 
 
838 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 A partir du traits, lorsque la nation ame"ricaine prend la Californie, 
 les Californiens deviennent ses sujets; s'il y a une partie des sujets qui 
 constituent une collectivity non encore dot^e de la personnification 
 civile mais enfin qui existe avec des droits embryonnaires, eh bien, 
 c'est l'Etat qui les repre"sente. Et l'Etat donne quittance! Comment 
 des lors pouvez-vous vous dire les successeurs de ce personnage sujet 
 de droit? 
 
 Monsieur, je me suis demande": quelle aurait etc" la situation si les 
 Jesuites n'avaient pas 6te expulse*s? Deux hypotheses sont possibles: 
 ils seraient restes dans la Basse Californie ou ils etaient cantonn^s, 
 puisque toutes leurs Missions se trouvaient dans la Basse Californie. 
 Intervient le demembrement: est-ce que par hasard il y aura quel 
 qu'un pui pourra dire au nom du (xouvernement am^ricain ou au nom 
 des eveques de la Haute Californie: vous me devez une part du Fonds ? 
 Mais non, les Jesuites en disposent comme ils l'entendent, comme ils 
 veulent, ils ne sont pas expuls^s, ils continuent k vivre. Le Gouverne- 
 ment mexicain a succede au Roi d'Espagne, le demembrement se 
 produit, les Je"suites sont restes dans la Basse Californie, qui est-ce 
 qui demandera une part du Fonds Pie au nom de la Haute Californie? 
 
 Seconde bypothese: Je suppose, et ici voyez dans quel domaine des 
 hypotheses je vais suivre mes honorables contradicteurs, je suppose 
 que les Jesuites aient avance et aient etabli certaines missions dans la 
 Haute Californie; est-ce que quelqu'un, le demembrement s'e"tant 
 produit en 1848, pourra r^clamer et dire aux Jesuites: vous allez me 
 donner une part? 
 
 Mais absolument pas! D'abord les Jesuites auraient pu r^pondre: 
 11 ne nous plait pas de rester dans la libre Amerique, nous preferons 
 le pays des Bois espagnol ou le Mexique, nous nous retirons dans la 
 Basse Californie. Qu'est-ce qui aurait eu qualite" pour le leur deM: endre ? 
 
 Notez que le successeur des Jesuites dans l'hypothese meme des 
 adversaires, existe: 11 y a un eveque dans la Basse Californie. Par 
 consequent ce qu'auraient pu faire les Jesuites, leurs successeurs 
 peuvent le faire. 
 
 Quel est le droit civil que l'on aurait pu exercer contre les Jesuites — 
 qui ne devraient compte qu' k Dieu — devant n' importe quelle juridic- 
 tion internationale ? II n'y en a pas. 
 
 De facon, messieurs, que m§me en raisonnant dans l'hypothese la 
 plus favorable a, mes honorables contradicteurs, en supposant que 
 le Roi ne se soit pas approprie les biens des Jesuites, Taction man- 
 querait de base. 
 
 L'honorable M. Penfield n'a pas, je pense, bien saisi l'argument que 
 j'avais deduit de cette circonstance que les Missions, telles qu'elles ont 
 e"te concues dans la premiere moitie du 18e siecle, ne pourraient plus 
 exister en Amerique. II nous a dit: aux Etats-Unis la libertl de 
 conscience est absolue, il y a meme des presbyteriens, des mahometans, 
 qui peuvent se livrer a la propagation de leur foi. 
 
 Sans doute, mais sur ce territoire — et il ne me contredira pas — per- 
 sonne ne pourrait operer une ceuvre qui serait une ceuvre de reduction 
 comme l'etaient les Missions. 
 
 M. Descamps nous dit: C'est une question de forme . . . Pastantque 
 cela, mon honorable contradicteur; une question de forme quand il 
 s'agit de la liberte de conscience? une question de forme quand il s'agit 
 de convertir en subjuguant par les armes ? Alors que les Missionnaires 
 etaient assistes de troupes et qu'on ne concevait pas l'etablissement 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 839 
 
 religieux sans la caserne, des Missions de ce genre que 1'on appelait 
 alors des reductions seraient-elles possibles ? 
 
 Un dernier point. L'honorable M. Penfield vous a parle du paiement 
 en or. Deja M. le chevalier Descamps nous avait dit: la creance est 
 portable, vous vous 6tes engages a, me payer aux Etats-Unis, et comme 
 ma monnaie est l'or, il faut me payer en or. 
 
 Je responds: Vous avez dit vous meme que votre titre se trouvait 
 dansle d^cret de 1842. Ainsi done ce gouvernement reVolutionnaire 
 aurait prip non pas seulement l'engagement de payer 6 pour cent sur 
 de mauvaises creances, sur des dettes ddnt l'Etat ne payait plus l'in- 
 tercstdepuislongtemps, de payer 6 pour cent d'interet sur les inte're'ts, 
 mais il aurait pris l'engagement de payer en or son tribut a l'^trangert 
 . . . Non, messieurs, et je ne dois pas insister. 
 
 Mes honorables contradicteurs out ajout6: II y a eu un retard dans 
 le paiement et le retardataire ne peut be"neficier de ce retard; s'il avait 
 paye" a l'echeance il aurait paye sans que le change eut les consequences 
 qu'il a aujourd'hui. 
 
 Mais, permettez, si j'avais l'obligation de payer, vous aviez l'obli- 
 gation de demander, et vous n'avez pas demande. 
 
 M. Descamps. Nous avons demand^. 
 
 M. Delackoix. Vous n'avez pas demande; vous n'avez pas demande 
 en 1875 lors du reglement; il y a une correspondance que vous avez 
 mal interpreted, M. Beernaert en parlera tout a, l'heure; vous n'avez 
 demande" qu'en 1891, et par consequent, si votre reponse consiste dans 
 1'interruption que vous venez de me f aire je vous r^ponds que pendant 
 vingt ans vous n'avez pas reclame. 
 
 Messieurs, un fait est certain. Nous avons recu en argent le pro- 
 duit des realisations. Un autre fait est certain: e'est que l'etalon au 
 Mexique est l'etalon d'argent. Je vous ai cite la legislation sur ce 
 point: l'Etat a le droit de payer ses dettes en argent sauf stipulation 
 contraire, par ce que tous les Etats ont le droit de se liberer dans leur 
 monnaie nationale. Alors comment pourrait-on justifier qu'ayant 
 recu en argent nous dussions payer en or ? Cela doit se trouver dans 
 le titre; et ici encore je demande: est-ce que le decret de 1842, lorsqu'il 
 a stipule que l'Etat paierait un interSt de 6 pour cent — et vous en 
 etiez les beneficiaires, dites-vous — a dit qu'il paierait cet inter&t en 
 or? Et s'il ne l'a pas dit, est-ce que implicitement il ne promettait 
 pas de payer dans sa monnaie nationale ? 
 
 S'il y a une depreciation,- cette depreciation aurait pu se produire 
 sur les immeubles, elle est inherente a toute existence d'un fonds; et 
 vous voudriez nous la faire supporter exclusivement? 
 
 On nous a dit que l'or etait la monnaie des arbitrages et que les con- 
 damnations prononc^es par un tribunal international devraient §tre 
 executees en or. 
 
 Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un. domniage dont le tribunal fixe la reparation il 
 peut stipuler le paiement en or. Ce qu'il veut, e'est la reparation d'un 
 dommage, pour lui ce dommage represente une somme de X, il peut 
 la chiffrer comme il le veut, dans la monnaie qu'il choisit; mais quand 
 ils'agit non pas de dommages-interets, comme jel'ai deja dit, maisd'une 
 creance, le Tribunal qui reconnaitrait l'existence de la creance devrait 
 incontestablement trouver dans le titre la justification d'une condam- 
 nation ou decision, si e'est payement en or. Ici le titre est un decret 
 national mexicain; comment peut-on y puiser la justification de la pre- 
 tention au paiement en or? 
 
840 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 Sir Thornton n'a pas discute la question, d'abord parce qu'a ce 
 moment elle n'avait pas d'interet, et ensuite parce qu'elle ne lui a pas 
 e*te posee . . . il y a tant de questions qui ne lui ont pas e*te" poshes! . . . 
 Vous n'avez m§me pas demande" le paiement en or, cela n'a pas fait 
 l'objet d'une discussion quelconque; et vous nevez aujourd'hui dire que 
 c'est juge parce que Sir Thornton a dit que l'on paierait en or mexicain, 
 comme il aurait dit en argent parce qu'a ce moment c'etait la meme 
 chose. 
 
 M. Penfield vous a dit que lorsque le Mexique avait ete condamne" 
 par la Commission mixte a payer une certaine somme en or du chef 
 de reparations qui 6taient la consequence de deux proces, le Senat de 
 Washington avait decide que les sommes payees seraient restituees 
 parce que le jugement 6tait le r^sultat d'une erreur; on a trouve des 
 documents posterieurs 6tablissant que la Commission mixte s'etait 
 trompee: le Senat a reconnu que la somme devait etre restitute et 
 elle l'a 6t6 dans la monnaie ou elle avait ete" payee, c'est-a-dire en or. 
 
 Comment aujourd'hui peut-on argumenter de ce fait alors que la 
 solution doit se trouver dans le titre ae la creance ? 
 
 Messieurs, j'ai termine. Je suis rassure sur Tissue de ce proces; pour 
 que le Mexique succombat il faudrait, comme l'a fait le surarbitre Sir 
 Thornton, et comme vous a demande de le faire M. le chevalier 
 Descamps, f aire abstraction de ce qu'il a appele "cette montagne de 
 questions" que j'aurais agitees devant vous: il faudrait que vous sup- 
 posiez que tous les actes de donation, s'il y a eu, exprimaient les 
 monies intentions que l'acte de Villapuente; ce serait deJEi Mtir sur 
 hypothese; il faudrait ensuite dire que lorsque dans ces actes les dona- 
 teurs excluaient expressement l'autorite - ecclesiastique ils avaient en 
 vue de donner a l'Eglise; ce serait une interpretation assez nouvelle, 
 et c'est cependant ce qu'on vous demande! 
 
 Vous devriez dire ensuite que lorsque le Eoi d'Espagne s'est appro- 
 prie les biens des Jesuites, cet acte souverain qui a recu la consecra- 
 tion des siecles et de l'Eglise, qui a 6te respecte" par celle-ci, devrait 
 §tre consider e par vous comme non avenu; et vous devriez dire que 
 malgre cet acte de confiscation ou d'appropriation du pouvoir souverain, 
 alors que ces biens ont 6te" pendant un si&cle entre les mains du Eoi, 
 ils sont rested biens ecclesiastiques malgre la confiscation ant^rieure. 
 Est-ce possible ? 
 
 Vous devriez alors, messieurs, oublier que les Jesuites ne pouvaient 
 pas acquerir pour leurs fins spirituelles, et que s'iJs ont pu avoir des 
 biens c'etait necessairement comme delegues du Roi, en vue de l'ceuvre 
 qu'il desirait accomplir. 
 
 Vous devriez alors oublier cette s£rie de decisions, de d^crets, qui 
 ont determine" le jugement Nobile, ces decrets par lesquels le Roi 
 afBrme son pouvoir de disposer du Fonds Pie. Et surtout vous devriez 
 oublier ce d^cret du Roi d'Espagne de 1820, que j'ai cite" & une pre - ^- 
 dente audience et qui marquait l'incapacite de l'Eglise pour acquerir; 
 ce qui montre que les decrets de 1836, 1842 en 1845 ne pouvaient pas 
 avoir pour effet de conferer un droit a l'Eglise puisque la legislation 
 avait proclame qu'elle 6tait incapable de recevoir. 
 
 Vous devriez alors, messieurs, interpreter les decrets successifs que 
 vous connaissez, comme, 6tant des contrats donnant naissance .& des 
 obligations civiles, alors que jamais personne sur le sol mexicain pas 
 me'me l'Eglise mexicaine n'a formule" une telle pretention. 
 
 Vous devriez dire le d^cret du 24 octobre 1842 qui a pour objet 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 841 
 
 de nationaliser les Mens, de les incorporer au Tresor, avait pour but 
 de creer une qreance civile au profit de l'Eglise; vous devriez sup- 
 poser que le Gouvernement avait decide" de vendre toutes les creances, 
 m&me celles qui existaient a, charge de lui-memes et de payer non 
 seulement sut le capital de ces creances mais sur les interets des inter§ts 
 un inter&t perpetuel de 6 pour cent. 
 
 Voila tout ce que vous devriez dire. Et ce n'est pas encore tout: 
 vous devriez encore dire que le Gouvernement aurait decide de 
 racheter les mauvaises creances au pair avec les interets arrieres, et qu'il 
 se serait engage a, payer perp^tuellement 6 pour cent sur ces mauvaises 
 creances. Vous devriez dire que les lois inexicaines sont applicables 
 quand elles sont invoquees par nos honorables contradicteurs et qu'elles 
 ne le sont pas quand elles sont invoquees par nous-memes. 
 
 Vous devriez dire que la prescription qui existe dans toutes les 
 nations est un principe a rejeter de vos decisions et du droit interna- 
 tional. Vous devriez dire que cette loi de nationalization des biens 
 ecclesiastiques, qui devient d'ailleurs commune a, beaucoup de legisla- 
 tions, ne devrait pas recevoir son application. Tout cela, messieurs, 
 repugne a la conscience du jurisconsulte. 
 
 J'ai fini. Je vous remercie de la bienveillance avec laquelle vous 
 m'avez 6coute, comme je dis a, mes honorables contradicteurs : merci 
 pour les rapports cordiaux, corrects et courtois dont vous nous avez 
 honoris. 
 
 J'ai dit. 
 
 (La stance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures.) 
 
 DIX-HUITIEME STANCE. 
 
 1 octdbre WO® (apres-midi). 
 
 L'audience est ouverte a 2 h. % de l'apres-midi, sous la pre*sidence de 
 M. Matzen. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est a l'agent des Etats-Unis mexicains, 
 pour repondre a, la communication qui lui a ete* faite ce matin. 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. Messieurs, quand j'ai eu l'honneur de m'adresser 
 pour la premiere fois au Tribunal, j'ai commence* par faire laremarque 
 que mon gouvernement etait tout a fait dispose a ce que tous les docu- 
 ments pouvant etablir les f aits et illustrer la religion du Tribunal puis- 
 sent etre admis par celui-ci. D'accord avec cette declaration qui a ete* 
 faite au commencement des debats, je dois dire que de la part du Gouv- 
 ernement mexicain il n'y a pas de difficulte a ce que tous les do- 
 cuments que l'agent des Etats-Unis vientde deposer maintenant soient 
 admis pour proauire les effets qui leur appartiennent, c'est-a-dire que 
 jenem'oppose pas du tout a la production de ces documents au dossier; 
 mais il est bien entendu que toutes reserves sont faites en ce qui con- 
 cerne la validity et l'authenticite* des documents qui n'ont pas une 
 authenticity bien etablie. 
 
 Quant aux interpellations qui "m'ont ete adressees par Monsieur 
 l'agent des Etats-Unis, je dois dire qu'au sujet de certaines donnees 
 qui ont ete* demand^es a mon Gouvernement pour etablir quels etaient 
 les paiements faits par lui aux dates fixees dans le document lu par 
 M. Ralston anterieurement, je me suis empresse de transmettre a mon 
 Gouvernement cette requete, et j'ai fait connaitre a M. Ralston la 
 reponse que j'ai recue. M. Mariscal m'a dit que comme les donne*es 
 
842 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 
 
 demandees par M. Ralston e"taient assez compliquees et demandaient 
 des recherches assez delicates, recherches qui devaient &tre faites par 
 le Departement des Finances, on avait donne tous les ordres n6ces- 
 saires pour faire operer ces recherches. Jusqu'au moment ou j'ai 
 l'honneur d'adresser la parole au Tribunal les donnees demandees par 
 M. Ralston ne sont pas arrive'es encore; peut-§tre arriveront-elles 
 quand les audiences seront finies . . . Mais je dois faire constater 
 que cette requite a 6te adressee par M. Ralston peu de jours, je crois, 
 avant le commencement des audiences du Tribunal; il faut done tenir 
 compte du delai necessaire pour que la reponse et les communications 
 de mon Gouvernement arrivent ici. 
 
 M. Ralston a demande si j'admettais comme authentiques et bien 
 prouve les faits qui sont e'tablis par les documents dont le Tribunal a 
 eu connaissance. II s'agit d'abord de la date du dernier paiement fait 
 au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis en consequence de la decision rendue 
 par la Commission mixte en 1875. Le seul fait que je puisse affirmer, 
 e'est que mon Gouvernement a paye' tout ce qui lui incombait d'apres 
 la decision de 1875; quant a la date du dernier paiement, je ne suis pas 
 assez bien renseigne pour pouvoir la donner d'une fapon certaine. Je 
 crois aussi que le Gouvernement americain a paye ou restitue* a mon 
 Gouvernement les sommes qui avaient 6te percues en consequence des 
 deux decisions sur les cas de la Abra et de Weil; je crois, sans pouvoir 
 l'amrmer peremptoirement, qu'a ce sujet tous les comptes ont 6t6 
 regies entre les deux Gouvernements, mais je ne suis pas en mesure de 
 dire quelle est la date du dernier paiement. 
 
 J'ai ainsi repondu a toutes les questions qui m'ont ete posees par 
 M. Ralston, mais s'il desire une autre explication je suis tout a fait a 
 sa disposition pour lui repondre immediatement. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. President, I think perhaps the agent of Mexico 
 has fully responded to all of my suggestions of this morning, if I under- 
 stand his answer to refer as well to the letter addressed by the ambas- 
 sador of Mexico to the Holy See in April, 1840, as to the other matters 
 of which he has spoken; that is to say, that he makes all reservations 
 as to the authenticity of that document, reserving to himself the right 
 to attack the authenticity hereafter, if it should appear that there is 
 any reason to do so. Am I right? 
 
 M. Pakdo. That is right. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Then T think we are sufficiently in accord. I should 
 add that I have a telegram from the Secretary of State showing the 
 date of the last payment to the bishops of California of the award. 
 The honorable agent for Mexico has stated that he is without informa- 
 tion as to the correctness of that date, but knows that his Government 
 has made all the payments. I presume, however, there will be no dis- 
 pute upon that point. The Department of State telegraphs me that 
 the last payment was made January 20, 1890. The fact is not impor- 
 tant, except from our point of view in its relation to some subsequent 
 facts. 
 
 I neglected to say this morning that 1 also had ready to present to 
 the court a map showing the Indian reservations, and I have it with 
 me. I think, perhaps, I may have shown it already to the agent of 
 Mexico; if not, I will do it forthwith. I think there will be no ques- 
 tion as to its authenticity. It is certified to by the Government officials 
 as being a correct map. 
 
PIOtTS FOND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 843 
 
 M. le President. L'agent des Etats-Unis mexicains ne s'oppose 
 pas au depot des documents qui sont presented par l'agent des Etats- 
 Unis d'Ame'rique du Nord? 
 
 M. Emilio Pardo. Absolument pas. 
 
 M. le President. Alors le Tribunal prend acte de la declaration 
 des deux agents. 
 
 M. de Martens. Et avec les reserves qui ont ete faites. 
 
 M. le President. Absolument: avec les reserves. L'incident est 
 clos; la parole est au conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains M. Beernaert. 
 
 EEPLIQUE DE M. BEEBNAEET. 
 
 Messieurs, j'ai promis de ne pas retenir longtemps votre attention, 
 et je tiendrai parole. Je puis le faire d'autant plus aisenient que quant 
 a la question de chose jug6e, dont je me suis specialement charge, je 
 crois avoir dit ce qu'il y avait a dire. 
 
 Deux mots d'abord du debut du litige et de ce qu'a d'inexplicable le 
 silence prolonge des eVeques au sujet d'un droit qui d'apres eux serait 
 evident. 
 
 J'avais dit, avec la sentence de Sir Thornton, que depuis 1846 jusqu'en 
 1870, il n'y avait trace ecrite d'aucune reclamation, tout en estimant 
 avec lui qu'il f allait admettre 1'affirmation de Sa Grandeur l'eveque de 
 Monterey quant a une demarche faite par lui en 1852 aupres du 
 Gouvernement mexicain, de 1852, en suite de cette demarche, et l'on 
 voudrait en triompher un peu. 
 
 Nous estimons au contraire, que loin d'affaiblir notre these cette lettre 
 la fortifie. Elle repond porte-t-elle, a une demande de secours aux 
 Missions de l'eveche de Monterey sur le Fonds Pie de Calif ornie. Nous 
 n'avons pas la lettre de l'eveque, elle n'est ni dans les archives episco- 
 pales ni dans les archives mexicaines; mais on peut juger de sa teneur 
 par la reponse qu'elle a recue. Or, l'on voit ainsi que l'eveque de 
 Monterey n'a du faire ancune allusion a un droit quelconque de pro- 
 pri^te; il n'a revendique ni ce droit, ni quelque rente perp^tuelle qui 
 aurait remplace" le capital; il n'a pas demande le partage d'un fonds 
 indivis dans lequel il pr^tendait avoir une part; non, il a sollicite un 
 secours, et a" cette demande le Gouvernement repond par un ref us poli, 
 fonde sur la penurie de ses ressources. Mais, comme s'il avait 
 pressenti ce qui allait suivre, dans cette m§me lettre le Gouvernement 
 denie tout droit a l'Eglise de la Haute Calif ornie "d&ormais separee 
 de la nation." 
 
 Ce fait ne caracterise-t-il pas et n'aggrave-t-il pas le silence garde 
 par les ev^ques pendant de longues annees ? Voici done que, sans y 
 etre provoque, le Gouvernement mexicain affirme qu'ils ne pourraient 
 elever sur le Fonds Pie aucune pretention quelconque; n'etait-ce pas 
 pour les eveques une sorte de mise en demeure d'affirmer et de faire 
 valoir le droit dont ils se seraient crus investis; ne devaient-ils pas 
 tout au moins protester et faire des reserves? Eh bien, ils se taisent 
 et cela jusqu'en 1870. 
 
 Et cependant, messieurs, voyez la conclusion que l'on tire de cette 
 lettre de 1852; e'est le gouvernement mexicain qui se serait trouve 
 mis en demeure, et une demande de secours laissee sans aucune suite 
 serait le point de depart des interets que l'on reclame a charge du Gouv- 
 ernement du Mexique! 
 
844 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIJ'OENIAS. 
 
 Une autre raison encore aurait enleve a la lettre de 1852, si l'on 
 pouvait y voir une reclamation qui n'y 6tait pas, toute force juridique; 
 ]e l'ai fait valoir deja, mais il me semble que nos honorables contra- 
 dicteurs aient perdu de vue ce que j'ai dit a cet egard. C'est qu'a 
 cette epoque, l'Eglise de la Haute Californie n'avait qu'une existence 
 toute de fait; pour devenir "corporation," avec le droit de posse"der, 
 de recevoir, d'agir en justice, avec tous les effets que comporte la 
 personnalite moiale, il lui fallait remplir d'abord les formalites 
 prescrites par la legislation am^ricaine, et je ne vois nulle part que 
 cela aurait ete fait avant 1854, lorsque l'autorite" pontificale 6tant. 
 intervenue, la situation de l'Eglise de la Haute Californie se trouva 
 regularised par l'6tablissement de l'archevech^ de San Francisco et de 
 l'ev^che de Monterey. 
 
 Comment en 1852 Mgr. Alemany aurait-il pu reclamer un droit a- 
 titre de son eVSche" qui n'avait pas encore d'existence juridique, qui 
 n'6tait certainement pas alors personne morale, dont 1' existence n'avait 
 pas mene ete consacree par l'autorite" pontificale ? Comment aurait-il 
 pu agirau nom d'un estre inexistant? 
 
 Je sais, messieurs, que d'apres la sentence de Sir Thornton l'Eglise 
 de la Haute Californie serait devenue corporation americaine par 1& 
 fait meme du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo; Sir Thornton ne fait pas- 
 remonter sa personnification civile jusqu'a la date de la conquete, 
 Sx6e comme vous le savez aa 1 juillet 1846, mais d'apres lui a, la date 
 meme de la ratification du traite, c'est-a-dire le 30 mai 1848, ipso- 
 facto l'Eglise californienne serait devennue corporation de citoyens 
 des Etats-Unis, par cela seul qu elle n'aurait pas opte" pour la nation- 
 alite mexicaine. 
 
 Messieurs, la sentence de Sir Thornton constitue chose jugee: elle 
 devait etre obeie et elle l'a ete" pleinement. Mais aujourd'hui qu'on 
 veut faire produire a cette sentence des effets nouveaux et considera- 
 bles, nous avons pu je pense, sans manquer de convenance ou meme- 
 de courtoise, faire remarquer que Sir Thornton n'etai-t pas precise"ment 
 un jurisconsulte. 
 
 Nos honorables contradicteurs afHrment le contraire, en se fondant 
 sur ce qu'il a fait partie de la Commission mixte, et qu'il a eu de ce 
 chef beaucoup d'affaires a decider — c'est M. Ralston qui le dit dans une 
 de ses dernieies notes. 
 
 L'argument me parait insuffisant; et sans parler de ce que dit Sir- 
 Thornton au d^but de sa sentence, lorsqu'il declare qu'il n'est pas en 
 etat d' examiner et de discuter les nombreuses questions de droit qui 
 avaient 6t6 soulevees, il me semble que cette sentence meme marque 
 que ses oonnaissances juridiques etaient un peu superficielles. 
 
 Voici en effet une double erreur: D'apres Sir Thornton, l'Eglise de 
 la Haute Californie serait devenue personne morale le 30 mai 1848, sur 
 le champ, par cela seul qu'elle n'aurait pas opte pour son ancienne- 
 nationality. Cela semble a tous egards insoutenable. Dans les traite"s 
 qui regularisent un demembrement territorial ou une eonqueste, il est 
 de pratique pour ainsi dire constante que l'on reserve un droit d'option 
 aux citoyens du pays annexe^ on tient ainsi compte de leurs sentiments, 
 de leurs habitudes, de leurs affections; malgre" l'annexion de la contree 
 ou ils habitent, il leur est permis de ne pas changer de nationality. 
 Mais ou a-t-on vu accorder semblable droit non plus a des citoyens en 
 chair et en os, mais a des personnes morales ? Ou, quand,, dans quel 
 traite cela se trouverait-il ? 
 
PIOTTS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 845 
 
 Les personnes morales, la Cour le sait mieux que moi, sont des 
 ■creations de la loi, et elles ne pourraient exister en vertu d'une loi 
 etrangere. Si le pays change de maitre, elles doivent, si elles le peu- 
 vent, se soumettre a, la loi nouvelle et en remplir les conditions. Qui 
 eut admis qu'une commune, un bureau de bienfaisance, un seminaire, 
 je ne sais quel autre college, fut venu dire: mexicains hier, nous enten- 
 ■dons rester mexicains aujourd'hui. Comment le Gouvernement des 
 Etats-Unis aurait-il accueilli semblable pretention ? Et quelle legisla- 
 tion eut-il f allu appliquer a ces personnes morales etablies en Amerique, 
 mais demeur^es mexicaines? . 
 
 Dans l'espece, semblable these aurait d'autant moins pu se soutenir 
 que dans le traite - de Guadalupe Hidalgo le Mexique avait demande" 
 l'insertion d'une clause qui pouvait permettre jusqu'a un certain point 
 de consid£rer les corporations religieuses comme conservees dans la 
 limite ou elles existaient auparavant. C'etait un article 9 qui main- 
 tenait dans le pays annexe" les institutions religieuses et les relations 
 des catholiques avec leurs superieurs eccl^siastiques. Eh bien, cette 
 clause, si peu explicite, et qui assurement ne disait pas que de pareilles 
 corporations pourraient etre personnes morales en Amerique quoique 
 restant mexicaines, cette clause si simple, si anodine, a ete ecartee par 
 le S£nat des Etats-Unis; elle n'est pas au traite\ 
 
 Et si l'on consulte le texte de ce document, texte imprim6 par les 
 soins de nos honorables contradicteurs, que l'on voie done ce que porte 
 Particle 8. II donne le droit d'option aux citoyens Mexicains; et ce 
 sont si bien des citoyens que l'on a en vue qu'ils pourront aller, venir, 
 se deplacer changer de domicile, etc., toutes stipulations eVidemment 
 inapplicables & des personnes morales. C'est d£ja ce que faisait remar- 
 quer dans son memoire imprime au livre rouge (p. 396) M. Azpiroz. 
 
 II me parait done evident qu'a cet egard Sir Thornton a fait erreur; 
 1'Eglise de Californie n'a pu devenir personne morale americaine des 
 le 30 mai 1848, par cela seul qu'elle n'aurait pas declare opter pour la 
 nationality mexicaine. 
 
 Voici, messieurs, une seconde erreur non moins evidente. Je veux 
 supposer que 1'Eglise etablie en Californie eut eu ce droit etrange 
 d'opter comme si elle avait ete un citoyen ordinaire et de dire: J'entends 
 rester mexicaine; et je suppose encore, non moins gratuitement, que 
 comme telle, elle fut alors personne morale. Aurait-il vraiment appar- 
 tenu a cette Eglise de devenir ipso facto, par lefait seulde sa volonte, 
 personne morale americaine.? Sir Thornton le dit, mais^ il ne nous 
 montre aucun texte, soit de la legislation americaine g6n6rale soit de 
 la loi calif ornienne qui justifie semblable dire. 
 
 II n'y a pas un pays au monde ou une corperation puisse assumer la 
 personnalite morale sans avoir aucune formalite a remplir, et meme 
 sans devoir le dire. 
 
 Et vous avez dans le dossier la preuve que l'Am6rique ne fait pas 
 exception; le statut de Californie est publiei dans le livre rouge (p. 
 52), a la suite et comme annexe, comme complement du memoire 
 presents pour NN. SS. les eV6ques. Et l'on y voit que le statut de 
 Califoruie, qui a permis a, 1'Eglise catholique et aux autres Eglises de 
 s'eriger en personnes morales, n'a ete rendu obligatoire que le 13 mai 
 1854 et qu'il prescrit une declaration a faire devant l'autorite" com- 
 petente par le chef du diocese ou de l'eglise. C'est cette declaration 
 que nous voyons avoir ete faite par Mgr. Alemany; elle se trouve 
 dans le mSme document. 
 
846 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Done, seconde erreur qui ne parait pas moins indiscutable que la 
 premiere: l'Eglise mexicaine n'est pas devenue personne morale amer- 
 icaine le 30 mai 1848; nous estimons qu'elle ne constituait pas aupara- 
 vant une corporation legale, mais il est certain que des le 30 mai 1848 
 il n'y a plus eu d'Eglise mexicaine; l'Eglise am^ricaine de la Haute 
 Californie qui a pris sa place n'6tait qu'un etre de fait sans aucuns 
 droits comme personne morale; ces droits elle ne les a acquis, elle n'a 
 pu les acqu^rir que posterieurement a la loi du 13 mai 1854 et apres 
 l'accomplissement des formalites prescrites par la loi. 
 
 Et cependant a, cette Eglise qui n'existait pas on a reconnu le droit 
 de reclaimer et de recevoir depuis 1848 jusqu'en 1854. Mais, e'est la 
 chose jugee: peu importe l'erreur du juge, il n'y a pas a revenir 
 la-dessus, je le reconnais volontiers. 
 
 Je pense done, messieurs, que mes observations anterieures restent 
 debout et j'en viens a ce qui me reste a dire — e'est peu de chose — de 
 la question de la chose jugee. 
 
 Mais d'abord, j'ai a exprimer le vif regret de n'avoir pu, faute d'une 
 connaissance suffisante de la langue anglaise, gouter pleinement la 
 plaidoirie si nerveuse, si elegante de forme, si parfaitement courtoise 
 de M. Penfield; je le prie de croire que les sentiments qu'il a exprimes 
 a notre egard sont aussi et de tout point les miens. 
 
 Comme l'a etabli M. Delacroix, il ne pourrait en aucun cas y avoir 
 ici chose juge"e qu'au profit des eVeques, mais certainement pas au 
 profit des Etats-Unis, que 1'on cherche a, mettre en cause, et cela se 
 comprend. En effet, la Commission mixte, de qui emane la premiere 
 decision, n'avait incontestablement de competence qu'a l'egard des 
 reclamations que des citoyens des Etats-Onis pouvaient avoir envers 
 le Mexique ou des citoyens mexicains envers le gouvernemeut des 
 Etats-Unis. Le texte le dit, et il se comprend d'ailleurs que s'il y avait 
 eu quelque difKrend entre les deux gouvernments, ce n'eut pas ete a 
 une commission mixte qu'on aurait pu s'en remettre pour le resoudre. 
 
 Elle n'a d'ailleurs point juge quant aux Etats-Unis; le droit qu'elle 
 a reconnu est celui des ev&ques de la Haute-Californie; e'est a leur 
 profit qu'elle a condamne le gouvernement mexicain; elle n'alloue rien 
 et ne pouvait rien allouer aux Etats-Unis; jusqu'a ces derniers temps 
 ceux-ci avaient une attitude exclusivement diplomatique; ils pretaient 
 leurs bons offices a un de leurs citoyens, ils recommandaient ses pre- 
 tentions et y appelaient l'attention du gouvernement voisin; e'etait un 
 r61e gouvernemental, rien de plus. Ecoutez plut6t M. Clayton 6crivant 
 a M. Mariscal, le ler septembre 1897: 
 
 J'ai des instructions de mon gouvernement pour appeler l'attention de Votre Excel- 
 lence sur les reclamations de l'Eglise catholique romaine de Californie contre le 
 Gouvernement mexicain, au sujet du Fonds Pie de Californie. 
 
 Tous les autres documents de l'affaire sont concus dans le m§me 
 esprit. 
 
 Done, il ne pourrait y avoir chose jugee qu'au profit des eVeques. 
 Et meme si les Etats-Unis etaient aujourd'hui au proces, ils ne pour- 
 raient s'en prevaloir, puisqu'ils n'6taient certainement pas en cause lors 
 de la premiere procedure, et qu'il n'est ni contest^ ni contestable qu'il 
 n'y a chose jugee qu'entre parties. 
 
 C'est parce qu'il s'agit d'un conflit entre une personne morale, cor- 
 poration de citoyens ameVicains, et le Mexique, que nous estimons que, 
 sous la forme d'un arbitrage international, il s'agit en r^alite d'un 
 conflit de droit prive, et pour une question de droit civil, c'est a, la 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CAL1FORNIAS. 847 
 
 legislation mexicaine qu'il faut, selon nous, s'en rapporter; cette legis- 
 lation c'est le Code feaeral. Comme aux Etats-Unis d' AmeVique, au 
 Mexique chaque Etat a son droit propre, et il en est ainsi notamment 
 du district federal de Mexico, comme pour Washington aux Etats- 
 Unis. II regie tous les litiges qui concernent l'Etat, parce qu'il ne 
 peut §tre assigne qu'a Mexico, et comme vous le verrez par le Code 
 Civil que vous avez sous les yeux, une disposition expresse le rend 
 applicable au territoire de la Basse' Californie, simple territoire encore 
 et non un Etat. 
 
 En ce qui concerne la chose jugee, le droit mexicain est d'ailleurs con- 
 forme a l'ancien droit espagnol et a ce qu'on peut appeler le droit 
 europeen. 
 
 Parmi les points developpes ce matin, il en est un sur lequel il faut 
 que je revienne en quelques mots, parce qu'il est la base de notre 
 argumentation ; cependant il n'a pas ete touche, meme par un mot, dans 
 la premiere sentence, et l'on ne s'en est guere expliqu6 devant vous au 
 cours de ces longues plaidoiries: je veux parler de ce qui concerne le 
 traite de Guadalupe-Hidalgo. 
 
 Les Etats-Unis voulaient que ce traite, qui leur abandonnait la 
 moitie de la surface territoriale du Mexique, etablit desormais entre 
 les deux pays de bonnes relations: on voulait nettoyer le passe\ il ne 
 devait rester entre eux aucun differend, aucun sujet de conflit. Les 
 Etats-Unis et le Mexique se donnent reciproquement decharge com- 
 plete et absolue; c'est comme solde de compte toutes pretentions 
 reciproquement reglees, que le Mexique recoit des Etats-Unis une 
 indemnite de 15 millions de dollars. 
 
 On ecarte egalament toutes les pretentions, toutes les reclamations 
 pendantes ou que pourraient avoir a soulever contre le Mexique des 
 citoyens de l'autre pays, en tant qu'elles auraient pour base des faits 
 anterieurs, a la ratification du traite. Mais, comme on ne pouvait 
 ainsi disposer des droits d'autrui, ce sont les Etats-Unis qui s'en char- 
 gent, et ils recoivent a cet effet une somme a forfait de 4,250,000 dol- 
 lars. Si quelqu'un dans la grande Republique americaine pretend & 
 un droit a f aire valoir a charge du Mexique, c'est aux Etats-Unis desor- 
 mais qu'il doit s'adresser; et l'on constitue une commission — commis- 
 sion exclusivement americaine — chargee d'examiner le fondement des 
 reclamations de ce genre. 
 
 Ainsi, le traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo constitue une decharge absolue, 
 une quittance de Gouvernement a Gouvernement, et c'est aussi une 
 quittance donnee au nom des particuliers americains au Gouvernement 
 mexicain. A partir de ce moment-la tout est regie, tout est liquide, 
 les proces soumis aux tribunaux viennent a tomber, et on prohibe pour 
 l'avenir toute reclamation nouvelle pouvant prendre son origine dans 
 un fait de meme nature. 
 
 Sans doute, a, l'avenir, de nouveaux conflicts pourront surgir, de 
 nouvelles pretentions pourront etre elevees, soit entre les deux Etats, 
 soit de la part de citoyens, mais ces litiges devront trouver leur origine 
 et leur raison d'etre dans des faits posterieurs a la ratification du traite. 
 
 Je ne sais si j'ai bien compris la plaidoirie de M. Penfield, mais il 
 semble qu'il ait allegue a cot6 ou meme au-dessus du droit des eveques, 
 un droit pour la Republique elle-mSme. Ce serait de la part des Etats- 
 Unis une nouvelle affirmation de ce domaine Eminent, de ce droit sou- 
 verain que la plupart des Etats se sont arroge, sur les biens appartenant 
 aux personnes morales, et peut-^tre cette pretention serait-alle peu 
 
SiS PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 d'accord avec ce que l'on plaide ici. Je ne vois pas biennon plus ce 
 que deviendraient a ce compte les Missions, les Indiens, les intentions 
 du Marquis de Villapuente, celles des autres fondateurs. 
 
 Mais, au point de vue auquel je me place en ce moment, mon raisonne- 
 ment n'en serait que plus fort, puisqu'il est indiscutable qu'en pre- 
 cense des termes formels du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo toute 
 reclamation des Etats-Unis a charge du Mexique, fondee sur des faits 
 anterieurs a 1848, devrait e"tre 6ca'rt6e sans examen. 
 
 Cela n'est d'ailleurs pas moins vrai' pour les citoyens et pour les 
 personnes morales de l'Amerique; je ne dois pas y insister da vantage, 
 puisque nous avons ici l'autorite" de Sir Thornton qui devrait en tous 
 points valoir chose, jug^e. Kappelez-vous ses paroles: 
 
 Les reclamants ne peuvent avoir le droit de saisir la Commission 6tablie par la 
 convention du 4 juillet 1868 pour toutes les reclamations qui auraient pu etre pre- 
 senters avant cette date. 
 
 Et l'on se demande comment, le sens du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo 
 etant ainsi indiscutable et fixe par Sir Thornton lui-meme comme 
 ^cartant toute reclamation de principe, comment un capital dont il ne 
 peut plus etre question pourrait etre considdre" comme continuant k 
 engendrer des inteVets? 
 
 Messieurs, j'eprouve quelque embarras k vous reparler de la chose 
 jug£e, car vraiment le sujet a 6t6 epuise et je n'aime pas les redites. 
 Cependant, malgre tout ce qui a ete dit, ou peut-etre parce que l'on en 
 a trop parle, il semble qu'il regne dans la cause une certaine obscurite, 
 une certaine confusion, et je voudrais m'attacher une derniere fois a 
 les faire disparaitre. 
 
 Pour apporter ici un peu plus de lumiere, je crois ne pouvoir mieux 
 faire que d'analyser encore devant vous la marche de la procedure, car 
 ainsi du meme coup j'aurai l'avantage d'etablir que la chose juge*e ne 
 peut pas etre alleguee, et de demontrer que l'attitude du Gouvernement 
 mexicain dans ce differend a ete - absolument correcte, cpnforme k ses 
 devoirs internationaux, et fondee en droit. Cette justification sera a 
 peu pres toute ma plaidoirie. 
 
 En 1859, lorsque les ev^ques s'addressent pour la premiere fois aux 
 Etats-Unis, c'est une reclamation en capital qu'ils annoncent, ils ont 
 un droit a la propriety, ou du moins a une part de la propriete du 
 fonds, ce sont des capitaux que leur doit le Mexique et m§me dans 
 leur lettre de 1859 ils en fixent le chiffre, ils l'etablissent a 2,800,000 
 piastres; et ce document se trouve accompagne" d'une c^dule qui donne 
 le detail de cette somme. II est essentiel de ne pas oublier ce point de 
 depart. 
 
 La Cour sait que posterieurement a 1859, les ev^ques ont garde" le 
 silence jusqu'a la constitution de la Commission mixte, qu'alors la 
 campagne fut rouverte par la lettre du 13 mars 1870, et que Ik encore 
 c'est la propriety, c'est un capital que l'on reclame. C'est cette recla- 
 mation du 13 mars 1870 qui fut transmise a la Commission mixte. ' 
 Done, la situation est claire, les eVeques de la Haute Calif ornie disent 
 nettement et exactement ce qu'ils veulent: le Fonds Pie doit d'apres 
 <eux §tre partage" entre les deux Californies, ils demandent leur part. 
 
 Quelle est alors l'attitude du Mexique? Va-t-il, comme on le lui 
 reproche si injustement, contester en elle-meme la competence de cette 
 Commission mixte qi.'il a contribue a constituer? On I'a dit, mais il 
 n'y a pas un mot de cela: jamais le Mexique n'a contests cette compe- 
 tence; mais devant la Commission mixte il a invoque le traite" de 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo pour en de"duire qu'il s'agissait d'une reclamation 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CA.LIFOENIAS. 849 
 
 €teinte. Quel est done, disait-il, le droit que les evSques peuvent 
 invoquer, et comment pourrait-il, ne pas &tre ant^rieur a la ratification 
 du traits de Guadalupe Hidalgo? II serait impossible d'en imaginer 
 un autre. Si les eveques pretendent invoquer les titres originaires, l'acte 
 de donation du Marquis de Villapuente ou ceux que l'on ne connait pas 
 il n'jr a pas besoin d'6tablir qu'ils sont certainement anterieurs. Si 
 sans aller j usque-la ils font deriver l'origine de leur droit de la 
 suppression des J^suites ou des dispositions prises alors par le Roi 
 d'Espagne il en est de meme; et de meme encore si Ton arrive jusqu'aux 
 actes de la Republique mexicaine, au decret de 1842 ou a celui de 1846; 
 tous faits anterieurs et des lors, il s'agirait en tout cas d'un droit 6teint 
 que l'on ne peut plus faire valoir et a, propos duquel il n'y aurait plus 
 qu'un seul debiteur possible: les Etats-Unis contractuellement substi- 
 tues au Mexique moyennant une somme a forfait pour toutes les 
 creances dont justifieraient des citoyens americains. 
 
 Voila, messieurs, ce que disait le Gouvernement mexicain, et e'est 
 assurement ce qu'il aurait dit avec plus de force encore aux Etats-Unis 
 eux-memes si ceux-ci avaient cru pouvoir se mettre directement en 
 cause. 
 
 Eh bien, ce systeme de defense n'etait-il pas absolument correct 
 et juridique? Pretendre que le droit reclame" etait 6teint, ce n'etait 
 certainement pas meconnaitre la competence du juge a qui l'on disait: 
 la reclamation dont vous etes saisi n'est pas f ondee, voici ma quittance, 
 e'est une quittance internationale qui date du 30 mai 1848, il n'y a plus 
 de droits a ma charge. 
 
 Quoi de plus legitime que pareil argument? Et il faut supposer que 
 les defenseurs des eVtsques ont trouve l'objection du Mexique juste et 
 meme insurmontable, puisqu'on les vit alors changer completement 
 d'attitude, abandonner toute pretention a une part de propriete ou a 
 un capital et ne plus reclamer que les interets echus depuis 1848, en se 
 defendant meme de toute pretention a un capital. 
 
 Telle aussi fut la th&se de M. Ralston: on ne pouvait, dit-il, recla- 
 mer le capital puisqu'il avait ete" confisque, fait regrettable, injuste^ 
 mais procedant d'un acte souverain, et sur lequel il n'y avait pas a 
 revenir. Et on concluait de la qu'il n'y avait eu avant 1848 aucune 
 lesion de droits et qu'elle ne se serait produite qu'ensuite, d'annee en 
 annee par le fait du non-paiement des interets. 
 
 A ce nouveau systeme, mis en avant au nom des ev^ques^ que r^pon- 
 dirent les avocats du Mexique? Ce que disent aujourd'hui les avocats 
 americains, ce que plaidait l'autre jour M. Descamps, et §, peu pres 
 dans les memes termes, ils disaient: vous r^clamez des inte"rets, mais 
 des intergts supposent n^cessairement un titre, une oreance . . . et je 
 crois meme que e'est a l'un d'eux que M. Descamps empruntait ce^mot 
 qui n'est pas mal: "II n'y a pas de generation spontanee d'interets." 
 La consequence suppose un principe, et du moment ou la creance est 
 ccartee par le traite, comment serait-on recevable a demander des 
 
 interets? . 
 
 Par une provision assez naturelle de ce qui est arrive, lis ajoutaient: 
 ce que vous nous dites aujourd'hui de ces pretendues lesions de droits 
 posterieures a 1848 vous pourriez le dire demain a, propos de nouveaux 
 interets et continuant de la sorte vous arriveriez a ce resultat que, ne 
 pr^tendant rien au capital et vous inclinant devant l'acte souverain qui 
 Pa nationalise, vous en tireriez seuls tous les avantages jusqu'a la con- 
 sommation des siecles! 
 
 S. Doc. 28 54 
 
850 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Telle est, messieurs, la confusion qui est au fond de ce proces et qui 
 seule peut l'expliquer. 
 
 Vous pourrez lire la defense des avocats americains, notamment 
 dans le me"moire de M. Azpiroz du 24 avril 1871, on se demande com- 
 ment on pourrait la trouver irreguliere et contraire au compromis, ou 
 m§me, comme on a paru le dire, contraire a la bonne foi qui doit 
 regner dans les relations internationales plus encore que dans les rela- 
 tions entre particuliers. 
 
 Les objections du gouvernement mexicain demeurerent sans reponse, 
 ou du moins je n'en vois pas de trace dans le dossier. 
 
 Et c'est dans ces conditions qu'intervint la sentence de l'arbitre. 11 
 reconnait que d'apres le traite - de Guadalupe Hidalgo, les reclamations 
 pour faits anterieurs a 1848 ne peuvent pas etre rcues, puisqu'elles 
 sont £teintes; mais il en est autrement, dit-il, des reclamations d'origine 
 posterieure. 
 
 II ne nous dit pas quelle est cette origine posterieure, ni ce qu'elle 
 pourrait etre, ni d'ou le droit aux interets pourrait e'maner, et apres 
 avoir constate - que les reclamations posterieures a 1848 sont recevables, 
 il declare la pretention des eV§ques fondee, en allouant des interets 
 depuis le 30 mai "jusqu'si, ce jour." Puis, par le dispositif de la. 
 sentence, il fixe la somme k payer en piastres et en centavos. 
 
 Ainsi, le tiers-arbitre ne peut juger le fond, et d'ailleurs on ne le lui 
 demande pas, il le constate, mais il accorde en interets tout ce qu'on 
 demande. 
 
 Le Gouvernement mexicain s'incline devant la sentence et s'exe'cute; 
 mais alors se produit un dernier incident que je vous avais signale et 
 dont j'ai e"te surpris de voir nos honorables contradicteurs se prevaloir 
 a leur tour. Le Mexique avait done plaide, et a mon avis justement 
 plaide, qu'a raison du traite - de Guadalupe la demande n'etait pas plus 
 recevable quant aux inter&ts qu'elle ne 1'aurait ete en capital; que ces 
 inte'rets n'etaient que la consequence d'une demande principale aban- 
 donnee, supprimee, et devaient disparaitre avec elle; que peut-etre 
 enfin apres avoir demande certains interets on en demanderait d'autres. 
 On n'avait rien repondu. La sentence rendue, M. Avila conclut de ce 
 silence qu'on a demande tout ce qu'on croyait pouvoir obtenir, que la 
 sentence est definitive, qu'on ne cherchera pas a baser une seconde 
 action sur un principe aboli. II y a, dit-il, decision "in toto." II 
 ecrit cela a son gouvernement, et celui-ci communique immediatement 
 sa lettre aux Etats-Unis. 
 
 Vient alors la reponse des Etats-Unis, reponse que M. Descamps a 
 lnexactement analysee; le Gouvernement ne songe pas a se plaindre 
 des observations du gouvernement mexicain, et il ne repond pas a 
 l'interpretation ainsi donnee a la sentence par l'interpretation contraire; 
 dans le systeme plaide - aujourd'hui, il aurait du dire: comment! vous 
 pretendez ne plus rien devoir, mais le contraire est juge; la sentence 
 est une sentence definitive qui produira periodiquement ses effets, 
 indefiniment, et des a present il y a de nouveau cinq ann6es ^chues 
 que je vous invite a paver. 
 
 Eh bien, messieurs, pas un mot de tout cela, pas meme une reserve; 
 on se borne a dire en termes peu clairs: la sentence est ce qu'elle est, 
 ce n'est pas a nous en expliquer, on n'y peut toucher. Et l'on ajoute 
 seulement. 
 
 Veuillez ne pas consid6rer cette lettre comme pouvant 6tre interpr6t6e comme un 
 acquiescement a ce que vous dites. 
 
PIOUS FUND OK THE CALIPORNIAS. 851 
 
 Et void que les choses se passent comme le Gouvernement mexicain 
 l'avait apprehende; voici qu'apres un long et absolu silence il s'est 
 trouve saisi d'une demande de 32 annees d'interets, bien au-dela du 
 capital. 
 
 Sir Thornton a dit dans sa sentence qu'il allouait des intents deter- 
 mines, des interests " jusqu'a ce jour"; et on soutient qu'il faut lire qu'il 
 a reconnu un droit perp^tuel, une rente perpetuelle, dont les int^rets 
 courront toujours. 
 
 Mais alors c'est done bien un droit au capital qui aurait dte" reclame" 
 et prqclam.6, et la base de ce droit serait necessairement dans les faits 
 anterieurs au traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo! 
 
 On doit se prevaloir d'un pr&endue volonte de Sir Thornton, et il a 
 exprime la volonte contraire! II n'aurait pu, dit-il, statuer sur un 
 droit permanent, et sa sentence serait pour toujours res judicata! 
 
 H y a ici un dilemme que j'ai d6ja signale" et auquel on ne peut, semble- 
 t-il, 6chapper: Ou bien Sir Thornton n'a alloue que ce qu'il a dit 
 allouer, et alors il n'y a pas chose jugee, il a prononce" sur 21 annees 
 d'interets sans plus, ou bien, malgre les termes de sa sentence il a 
 voulu le contraire, il a entendu reconnaitre un droit perpetuel, et alors 
 la sentence tomberait devant les raisons que lui-meme a proclameSes et 
 qui devaient rendre la demande non recevable. 
 
 Je ne puis done voir ici qu'une simple habilite" d'attitude, qui ne peut 
 re°ussir. J'affirme, comme le gouvernement mexicain l'a fait des le 
 premier jour, que des interets ne peuvent etre dus la ou il n'y a pas de 
 cr^ance. Et comment concevoir qu'un traite international eut e"carte 
 un droit en permettant de tourner semblable stipulation par une recla- 
 mation annuelle qui en serait exactement le contre-pied? 
 
 En 1870, on n'a point conclu a la reconnaissance d'un droit perma- 
 nent, a des interets perpetuels, et c'est encore exactement ce que l'on 
 fait aujourd'hui: on demande 32 annees d'interets, sans plus; et M. 
 Descamps s'en etonnant, comme si ce n'etait pas le fait de sa partie, 
 disait; l'annee prochaine on pourra done encore recommencer! — Oui, 
 parce que vous le voulez bien, parce que vous n'osez pas invoquer un 
 droit d^fmitif. Le traite de Guadalupe n'est-il pas la? 
 
 Que s'ensuit-il ? C'est que ce qui est l'ame, ce qui forme le nceud de 
 la contestation, devrait rester en dehors de toute decision; il faudrait 
 consid^rer le litige au fond comme n'existant pas; ou vous devriez 
 partir de cette notion contraire aux faits que le droit au principal irait 
 de soi, serait reconnu ou etabli, et n'aurait pas meme besoin d'etre 
 juge\ Alors que c'est la toute la contestation et que toute action sur 
 le principal se trouverait irresistiblement repoussee par le traite" de 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo! 
 
 C'est tout ce que je voulais dire a ce sujet, et d^ja j'ai a m'excuser 
 de m'etre tant repete. 
 
 A la lumiere de ces observations, il ne me reste plus qu'a vous 
 rappeler rapidement les differents motifs juridiques que j'ai deVeloppes 
 pour ecarter la chose jugee. 
 
 II y a d'abord ce motif capital que la demande d'aujourd'hui n'est 
 pas la demande d'autrefois. Sir Thornton l'a dit, la reclamation se 
 bornait a 21 annees d'int^rets, et c'est pourquoi il l'a jugee recevable. 
 Aujourd'hui on demande 32 autres anne"es d'interets, et on ne peut dire 
 que les deux demandes sont identiques qu'en soutenant que l'une et 
 l'autre portent sur le fond . . . sans le dire, ce qui devrait les faire 
 ecarter. 
 
852 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORKIAS. 
 
 Cette objection, messieurs, est a mon sens la plus grave de celles 
 que je vous ai presenters. L'on n'y a pas r^pondu. 
 
 Difference complete done entre la demande d'autrefois et la demande 
 d'aujourd'hui, et l'on ne rneconnait pas que les juges ne peuvent jamais 
 statuer au-dela de la demande; le sens d'un jugemente se trouve n6ces- 
 sairement fixe par les conclusions de la demande, e'est une zone que le 
 juge ne peut depasser. 
 
 De la non-identite des deuxdemandes, resulte necessairement la non- 
 identity de la chose jugee. Et il en ressort aussi la non-identite de 
 1'objet: 21 annees d'interets determines d'un c6te, 32 annees d'int6r6ts 
 6galement determines de l'autre. Et ici comme toujours il n'est pos- 
 sible d'echapper a cette objection fondamentale qu'en pretendant voir 
 derriere ces deux objets apparents un autre objet cache, garde dans la 
 coulisse, mais qui devrait aller sans le dire: e'est le droit au Fonds. 
 
 Mais si le juge devait ici supplier au silence des parties, n'aurait-il 
 a tenir compte ni des faits anciens, ni du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
 ni de la decharge donnee au Mexique et de l'obligation conti'acte" par 
 les Etats-Unis de se charger de toutes les pretentions fondees des 
 citoyens de leur pays? . . . 
 
 Et meme sans cela, pourrait-on dire qu'il y a identite d'objet? Rap- 
 pelez-vous le cas traite par Savigny: les terres A et B d'un meme 
 domaine successivement reclamees dans les memes conditions pour la 
 m£me cause, entre les m§mes parties, sans autre difference que la topo- 
 graphie de tel lopin de terre et de tel autre lopin voisin. Rappelez- 
 vous encore la situation visee par nombre d'auteurs depuis le droit 
 romain: apres avoir reclame en vain quelques annees de loyer, on peut 
 en reclamer d'autres; les questions de principe, la validity du bail par 
 exemple, ont 6te" jugees la premiere fois; peu importe, on peut recom- 
 mencer le debat pour les annees suivantes: 1'objet de la demande n'est 
 pas le meme. 
 
 Je ne veux pas revenir sur d'autres exemples, parce que d6ja j'excede 
 les limites que je m'etais imposes. 
 
 Je disais done: pas d'identite" de demande, pas d'identite" de chose 
 jugee, pas d'identite" d'objet. 
 
 Et puis aussi, pas d'identite" de cause, dans le sens propre de ce 
 terme, puisque la cause de chacune de vos demandes est dans le non- 
 paiement successif d'annuit^s, causes successives et multiples. Com- 
 ment serait-ce la me"me. 
 
 Et puis, a chaque annuity, les circonstances ne sont-elles pas differ- 
 entes? Et n'y a-t-il pas chaque fois des justifications et d'autres justi- 
 fications a donner, ce que exclut la possibilite d'une decision anticipee, 
 qui devrait d'ailleurs s'appliquer a des choses futures? 
 
 L'honorable M. Penfield m'a repondu que sans doute les Etats-Unis 
 pouvaient disparaitre de la surface du globe, mais que cette Eventu- 
 ality etait peu vraisemblable. . . Ce n'est pas prewsement celle que 
 j'ai signage. J'ai dit qu'il s'agissait ici non d'un droit civil intangible* 
 comme l'est le droit de son essence, mais d'une part que r^clament les 
 eveques, dans une masse affectee a un service public. 
 
 Or, chaque ann^e, il y a a justifier de ce droit et de la quotite" de ce 
 droit. II faut d'abord verifier quelle est la loi de la Californie et a 
 quelles conditions elle soumet l'exercice des droits qu'elle reconnait. 
 La legislation des personnes morales, l'bistoire le prouve, est sujette a 
 changer, et la plaidoirie de M. Penfield pourrait faire croire qu'aux 
 Etats-Unis il y aurait peut-etre quelque arriere-pensee a ce sujet. Ou 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 853 
 
 trouyer la les elements d'une decision anticip^e? II faudrait d'autre 
 part justifier que l'on est en mesure d'affecter les fonds a, la destination 
 en vue de laquelle on les reclame. 
 
 U y a, dites-vous, encore quelques Indiens en Californie. Mettons 
 quil en soit ainsi, sera-ce vrai demain? On sait avet quelle rapidite 
 la population aborigene disparait aux Etats-Unis. 
 
 Et ces Indiens vivent-ils reunis? Sont-ils l'objet de Missions? Est- 
 ce & ces Missions que les fonds seraient consacres? 
 
 ^Puis, enfin, vous invoquez un droit relatif. II s'agit d'une masse 
 ou vous auriez un droit inddtermine a regler d'apres des circonstances 
 absolument mobiles et changeantes. 
 
 Dans ces conditions, comment admettre qu'il y ait un droit perpetuel? 
 Que Sir Thornton ait pu en 1875 juger d'avance et pour toujours que 
 vous auriez droit, sans autre explication, sans autre justification, a la 
 moitie du revenu suppose du capital que represente le Fonds Pie de 
 Californie ? 
 
 A cette observation, messieurs, vient s'en ajouter une autre que je 
 me borne egalement a rappeler: C'est que Sir Thornton aurait statue 
 sur choses futures, alors que la doctrine est unanime a enseigner que 
 tout jugement suppose l'appreciation de faits accomplis; pas de chose 
 jugee d'avance. II n'y a alors qu'une apparence de jugement, toujours 
 sujette a revision. 
 
 Nous avons enfin fait remarquer, messieurs, que ce qui prouve bien 
 qu'il n'y a pas ici de chose jugee, c'est que les eveques n'auraient eu, 
 meme vis-a-vis de simples particuliers, aucune voie d' execution; il leur 
 aurait ete impossible d'obtenir judiciairement l'execution de la sentence 
 Thornton telle qu'on veut l'interpreter. 
 
 En realite excusez encore cette repetition — le systeme de nos adver- 
 saires se reduit a, dire qu'il y aurait ici chose jug6e implibite, parce que 
 cela doit avoir 6t& la pensee du juge. 
 
 Pour cela, il faudrait d'abord que l'on put admettre que Sir Thorn- 
 ton a eu une volonte opposee a celle qu'il a exprim6e; et puis qu'il put 
 avoir semblable volonte, c'est-a-dire qu'il eut ete saisi de la demande 
 sur laquelle il aurait ainsi statue^ enfin il faudrait nous dire comment 
 dans ces conditions Sir Thornton aurait ecarte l'obstacle insurmontable, 
 infranchissable, du traite de Guadalupe Hidalgo. 
 
 M. Penfield disait hier qu'un syllogisme ne se comprend pas sans 
 premisses et que dans un jugement il faut completer le dispositif par 
 les motifs, en l'absence desquels il ne se comprendrait pas. Messieurs, 
 c'est supposer qu'un syllogisme est necessairement parfait et qu'un 
 jugement doit etre irr^prochable. Sans doute, d'apres nous, Sir 
 Thornton n'aurait pas du accorder les interets reclames, et il ne le pou- 
 vait pas parce qu'ils ne se comprenaient pas sans droit au principal; 
 mais enfin, c'est ce qu'il a fait; et conclure de ce qu'il a accorde des 
 interets a tort qu'il a du vouloir en outre, implicitement, contrairement 
 a ce qu'il disait, reconnaitre un droit au pricipal, c'est greffer une 
 erreur de principe sur l'erreur de la consequence. 
 
 L'un de nos honorables contradicteurs, M. Descamps a invoque" deux 
 recueils dont je veux dire quelques mots: ce sont les Pandectes Fran- 
 caises et les Pandectes Beiges. Ce sont avant tout des recueils analy- 
 tiques de jurisprudence, et vous savez qu'il est difficile d'apprecier des 
 analyses d'arrets quand on ne connait pas exactement les faits et l'objet 
 du litige. Mais quoi qu'il en soit, il faut voir ce que disent ces livres 
 de la question dans son ensemble. 
 
854 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 J'avais deja moi-mgme invoque" les Pandectes Beiges; au No. 144 V 
 Chose jugee la Cour verra que quant a, l'autorite" des jugements il n'y 
 a que le dispositif qui compte, les motifs n'ayant jamais la valeur de 
 chose jugee. 
 
 Du No. 144 au No. 169 ily a une longue s£rie de decisions judiciaires, 
 toutes bashes sur la regie que je viens de rappeler. Puis, vient le 
 passage cite par M. Descamps et que je lis: 
 
 La forme du dispositif n'etant pas prescrite, celui-ci ne doit pas etre expr&s, et l'on 
 peut done 1' interpreter pour dire ce qu'il y faut lire. 
 
 C'est ce que j'ai eu l'honneur de plaider; je vous ai dit que si les 
 motifs ne constituaient pas chose jugee, il 6tait de jurisprudence qu'il 
 fallait en tenir compte lorsque le dispositif lui-m^me etait sujet a inter- 
 pretation, et qu'en cas d'obscurite, on pouvait Feclairer en le mettant 
 en rapport avec les motifs. Les Pandectes Beiges ne disent pas autre 
 chose. 
 
 Les Pandectes Francaises s'expriment a peu pres de m§me; au mot 
 "Chose jugee," No 320, vous verrez affirmer aussi que le dispositif 
 seul constitue le jugement, l'autorite" de la chose jugee ne s'etendant 
 pas aux motifs. Et a la suite de cette declaration vous verrez 60 ou 70 
 arrets qui en ont ainsi juge. 
 
 Au No. 321 les Pandectes Francaises confirment une autre proposi- 
 tion que j'ai developpee devant vous: c'est que puisque les motifs ne 
 constituent pas la chose jugee, il n'est pas permis de se pourvoir en 
 Cassation contre les erreurs de droit qu'on y releve. 
 
 Au No. 322 se trouve la confirmation d'une autre proposition egale- 
 ment plaidee par moi: c'est que la contradiction qu'il peut y avoir 
 entre les motifs et le dispositif d'un jugement ne donne pas ouverture 
 a cassation. 
 
 Sous le No. 360, on lit comme dans les Pandectes Beiges que si le 
 dispositif est obscur on peut recourir aux motifs pour l'interpr^ter. 
 
 Arrive enfin le No. 425 qui a e"te invoque par M. Descamps et que 
 je lis: 
 
 L'autorite de la chose jug£e peut mgme s'attacher a une disposition implicite, au 
 moins dans le dispositif, quand elle est la consequence foreee d'une disposition expli- 
 citement formulae. 
 
 Et le No. 449 egalement cite qui reproduit quelques lignes de l'ou- 
 vrage de Griolet dont j'ai devant vous 6tudie" la doctrine. 
 
 Et voila tout. Quant a moi, messieurs, je n'ai garde de citer de 
 nouvelles autorite"s; mais que la Cour me permette de lui dire qu'a mon 
 avis ce qui a ete" ecrit de plus substantiel, de mieux raisonne" et de plus 
 concis sur cette question, c'est encore le Traite" des Obligations de 
 Pothier, le veritable auteur du code civil en cette matie"re. 
 
 J'ai dit de"ja qu'ici la chose jugee implicite que l'on allegue ne serait 
 en^realite" qu'un pr^juge, et que le prejuge ne lie pas meme le juge dont 
 il emane, fut-il absolument formel et explicite; c'est une opinion qu'la 
 exprime"e, et bien qu'il Fait ins^ree dans sa decision, rien ne l'emp^che 
 d'en changer. 
 
 Enfin, messieurs, je crois avoir demontre" qu'il ne pouvait 6tre ques- 
 tion de prejuge dans l'espece, par cela seul qu'il s'agit d'une sentence 
 arbitrale. Vous connaissez mes vues en cette matiere: contrairement 
 a ce que quelques-uns enseignent, l'arbitre est selon moi un juge, sa 
 sentence est bien un jugement, on doit lui attribuer l'autorite de la 
 chose jugee; mais avec une restriction que jecrois absolument juridique. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 855 
 
 L'arbitre n'est qu'un juge conventionnel dont l'autorite* re*sulte non de 
 la loi, mais du consentetnent des parties; elle procede d'un contrat; il 
 est juge dans les limites de ce contrat, il l'est completement, absolu- 
 ment, mais au-dela il n'est plus rien, car il n'est pas auto-rite" publique, 
 il n'est pas charge* de dire le droit; il a a juger un cas determine" en 
 vertu cf'une convention d^terminee; dans ces conditions, comment & 
 cote de ce qu'il juge, pourrait-il pr£juger? Ce serait contraire a 
 l'essence meme de sa mission. 
 
 M. Descamps a fait remarquer que nous n'avions pas cite* d'autorite"s 
 americaines ou mexicaines, et il en voulait conclure que nous abandon- 
 nions, sans les faire n6tres, les considerations developpees dans le 
 memoire de M. Mariscal, ministre des affaires etrangeres du Mexique. 
 Dois-je dire qu'il n'en est rien ? 
 
 Dans une affaire aussi touffue, aussi longue, aussi fatigante pour la 
 Cour — et je me permettrai d'ajouter un peu aussi pour les conseils — 
 il f allait chercher a eViter des redites, et c'est ce qui fait que nous avons, 
 cru pouvir ne plus rien dire de ce qui se trouvait dans le memoire de 
 M. Mariscal. Et precisement a, propos de l'arbitrage vous lirez ce qui 
 suit & la page 5 de ce travail: 
 
 L'inefricacite des decisions arbitrales du droit international, a servir pour la decision 
 des cas futurs, quoiqu'ils puissent 6tre analogues a, ceux d£ja juges, a ete express6- 
 ment reconnue par le Gouvernement des Etats-TJnis d'apr&s ce que l'on voit dans 
 l'ouvrage de "Moore:" "International Arbitrations," au sujet de la Commission 
 mixte, qui siegea a Halifax en vertu du traite de Washington, et qui condamna les 
 Etats-Unis a payer au Gouvernement Britannique cinq millions et demi de dollars a 
 titre de dommages et interfits pour le prejudice cause par des p6cheurs am^ricains, et, 
 dans 1'espSce de reclamation presentee par le Ministre d'Espagne, Senor Muruaga, le 
 motif en etait la confiscation de coton consider comme contrebande de guerre, dont 
 les sujets espagnols Murra et Larrache avaient souffert. Le Secretaire d' Etats-Unis, 
 T. P. Bayard, a dit dans sa communication du 3 decembre 1886: " Les decisions des 
 Commissions internationales . . . ne sont considerees comme ayant d'autoriteque sur 
 l'espSce particuliSre jug^e . . . d'aucune facon, elles ne lient les Etats-Unis, sauf dans 
 les cas ou elles furent appliques." (Papers relating to the For. Rel. of the U. S., year 
 1887, p. 1021.)' 
 
 Le meme honorable Secretaire disait dans le document precite' "Ces decisions 
 s'accordent avec la nature et les termes du traite d'arbitrage," tenant compte sans 
 doute que Omne tractatum ex comproniisso: nee enim aliud illi (arbitro) licebit 
 quam quod ibi ut afficere possit cautum est: non ergo qu6dlibet statuere arbiter 
 poterit, nee in que re libe nisi de qua re compromissum est. 
 
 Un peu plus haut, le Ministre invoque encore la loi romaine: 
 
 De his rebus et rationibus et controversiis judicare arbiter potest, quae ab initie 
 fuissent inter eos qui compromisserunt, non quae postea supervenerunt (L. 46 D. de 
 recept. qui arb.) d'apres laquelle l'erfet attribue' par le droit civil aux decisions 
 arbitrales etait si limite qu'il ne leur accordait pas de produire les effets de chose 
 jugee. La loi I du code de recept dit: Ex sententia arbitri ex compromisso jure 
 perfecto arbitri appellari non posse saepe receptum est; quia nee judicati actio inde 
 praestari potest. 
 
 Messieurs, un dernier mot. On allegue la chose jugee, mais s'il vous 
 f allait l'admettre votre conscience de juge serait-elle satisfaite? 
 
 De tres nombreuses questions de fait et de droit ont 6t6 plaide"es 
 devant vous et l'avaient ete d£ja devant la Commission mixte. Ont- 
 elles ete* re*solues? Savons-nous exactement pourquoi nous avons 6te 
 condamnfe, quel est le titre qui devrait faire admettre le droit des 
 EvSques et comment il aurait pu en aucun cas survivre au traite de 
 1848? 
 
 a Page 47, this volume. 
 
856 PIOUS FUND OF THE CAXIFORNTAS. 
 
 II y a d'autre part d'importantes questions de chiffres. Sir Thorn- 
 ton les a implicitement ecartees, mais comment? Peut-on dire que la 
 consistance du Fonds Pie a ete bien etablie, que la donation del Rada 
 en fait partie, qu'il faut debiter le gouvernement mexicain de toutes 
 les creances irrecouvrables, des intet'ets que le gouvernement espagnol 
 n'avait pas payees depuis longtemps, mais qu'il se devait a lui-meme 
 et qui etaient ainsi eteints par confusion? 
 
 Tenez, messieurs, laissez-moi vous rappeler un seul point. Vous 
 savez que les Missions des Philippines r^clamaient une partie du Fonds 
 et qu'elles l'ont recue. A-t-on du moins deduit cette somme de la 
 sommeainsi qu'il etait elementairedelefaire? Non, Sir Thornton parait 
 n'y avoir point songe\ Semblable calcul demeurerait-il acquis, malgre 
 l'erreur qui le vicie ? 
 
 Et que dire de ces interets accumulfe depuis des annees qui accrois- 
 sent le capital? Sir Thornton s'est refuse a allouer les interets des 
 interets, mais il l'a fait! Le capital dont il alloue les interets est 
 pour plus de la moitie une addition d'interets arrieres! Sur tout 
 cela y aurait-il vraiment chose jugee; aucun examen ne serait-il plus 
 admissible? 
 
 Autre point encore: la question de l'or. Jamais elle n'a ete discutee. 
 Si je ne me trompe, c'est dans le memoire de M. Doyle que le paiement 
 a ete demande sous cette forme, mais sans justification aucune. Cette 
 demande n'a pas ete contestee, et il n'y avait pus interet a le faire, car 
 a cette epoque il y avait parite de valeur entre les deux metaux, et 
 payer en or ou en argent etait chose indifferente. De son cote l'arbitre 
 dit que le paiement sera fait en or, mais sans dire pourquoi. 
 
 Or, aujourd'hui il resulterait de la pour le Mexique une aggravation 
 de charges de plus de moitie, et le rapport de l'or a l'argent dans 
 l'avenir s'aggraverait encore, il se reduirait au quart au lieu d'etre de 
 moins de moitie, qu'il devrait en etre ainsi indefiniment; chose jugee. 
 Eh bien, messieurs, je ne sais si je vois mal, mais voila des choses qui 
 me troublent, qui ne peuvent satisfaire ma conscience, et qui, me 
 semble-t-il, ne peuvent pas non plus satisfaire la votre. 
 
 Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a tout au moins une question qui n'est pas 
 jugee et qui ne pouvait l'etre. On a fait l'addition des interets courus 
 sans examiner s'ils etaient dus, ou si du moins ils n'etaient pas presents. 
 Soit! cela est juge, nous ne critiquons pas; mais a partir de la sentence 
 rien ne peut l'etre! 
 
 Rendue en 1875, elle alloue des interets jusqu'a, 1870. Et puis.vingt 
 annees se passent sans qu'on reclame rien, alors que la loi mexicaine 
 comme toutes les lois du monde, punit semblable negligence de la pre- 
 scription. On ne veut pas qu'un creancier puisse ruiner son debiteur 
 par de telles accumulations d'interets, et presque toutes les legislations 
 etablissent la prescription quinquennale. Or, sans qu'il y ait eu cita- 
 tion devant le juge, sans mise en demeure, sans meme de reclamation 
 ofEcieuse, nous aurions a payer 32 annees d'interets. Ici, messieurs, 
 du moins la sentence de Sir Thornton est indifferente et certainement 
 ces interets que nul n'a reclames ne sont plus dus. 
 
 C'est par cette derniere observation que je termine. Je vous avais 
 promis d'etre bref, je me suis efforce de l'etre; je veux meme vous 
 epargner l'ennui d'une peroraison qui me parait inutile; je puis du reste 
 prendre a mon compte celle de M. Descamps. II vous a propose une 
 fort belle devise pour le futur palais de la Cour d'arbitrage, je la 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 857 
 
 demande avec lui, et voila au moins un point sur lequel nous aurons 
 6te d'accord. 
 
 M. le President. Comme personne ne demande plus la parole, je 
 prononce la cloture des debats. Maintenant, le Tribunal deliberera et 
 votera; et quand la sentence sera redigee et signed, elie sera publi^e 
 dans une seance du Tribunal a laquelle les agents et les conseils des 
 parties seront dument appeles. 
 
 (A 4 h, { la seance est levee et le Tribunal s'ajourne sine die.) 
 
 DIX-NEUVIEME SEANCE. 
 
 14- ootobre 190% (apres-midi). 
 
 L'audience est ouverte a 5 heures de l'apres-midi, sous la pre"sidence 
 de M. Matzen. 
 
 M. le President. La parole est au Secretaire-General pour lire la 
 sentence arbitrate de Tribunal. 
 
 M. le Secretaire-General. Voici cette sentence; 
 
 Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage de La Haye. 
 
 Le Tribunal d'arbitrage, constitue' en vertu du traite conclu a Washington, le 22 
 mai 1902, entre les Etats-Unis d'Amerique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains; 
 
 Attendu que, par un compromis, redige sous forme de Protocole, entre les Etats- 
 TJnis d'Amerique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains, signe a Washington, le 22 mai 1902, il 
 a et6 convenu et regie que le differend, qui a surgi entre les Etats-Unis d'Amerique 
 et les Etats-Unis Mexicains, au sujet du "Fonds Pieux des Californies," dont les 
 annuites 6taient reclamees par les Etats-Unis d'Amerique, au profit de 1'Archeveque 
 de San Francisco et de l'Eveque de Monterey, au Gouvernement de la Republique 
 Mexicaine, serait sounds a un Tribunal 'd'arbitrage, constitu6 sur les bases de la 
 Convention pour le regie ment pacifique des conflits intemationav.r, signee a La Haye le 29 
 juillet 1899, qui serait compost de la maniere suivante, savoir: 
 
 Le President des Etats-Unis d'Amerique designerait deux Arbitres non-nationaux 
 et le President des Etats-Unis Mexicains egalement deux Arbitres non-nationaux. 
 Ces quatre Arbitres devraient se reunir le ler septembre 1902 a La Haye, afin de 
 nommer le Surarbitre qui, en meme temps, serait de droit le President du Tribunal 
 d' Arbitrage. 
 
 Attendu que le President des Etats-Unis d'Amerique a nomm6 comme arbitres: 
 
 Le tres honorable Sir Edward Fry, Docteur en droit, autrefois siegeant a la Cour 
 d'appel, Membre du Conseil Priv6 de Sa Majeste Britannique, Membre de la Cour 
 Permanente d' Arbitrage, et 
 
 Son Excellence Monsieur de Martens, Docteur en droit, Conseiller Priv6, Membre 
 du Conseil du Ministere Imperial des affaires Etrangeres de Russie, Membre de 
 l'lnstitut de France, Membre de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage; 
 
 Attendu que le President des Etats-Unis Mexicains a nomme comme Arbitres: 
 
 Monsi.eur T. M. C. Asser, Docteur en droit, Membre dii Conseil d'Etat des Pays- 
 Bas, ancien Professeur i l'UniversitS d'Amsterdam, Membre de la Cour Permanente 
 d' Arbitrage, et 
 
 Monsieur le Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin Lohman, Docteur en droit, ancien Ministre 
 de l'Interieur des Pays-bas, ancien Professeur a 1' University libre d'Amsterdam, 
 Membre de la Seconde Chambre des Etats-Generaux, Membre de la Cour Permanente 
 d' Arbitrage; 
 
 Lesquels Arbitres, dans leur reunion du ler septembre 1902, ont elu, conformement 
 aux articles 32-34 de la Convention de la Haye du 29 juillet 1899, comme Surarbitre 
 et President de droit du Tribunal d' Arbitrage: 
 
 Monsieur Henning Matzen, Docteur en droit, Professeur a, l'Universite de Copen- 
 hague, Conseiller extraordinaire a la Cour Supreme, President du Landsthing, 
 Membre de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage. 
 
 Et attendu qu'en vertu du Protocole de Washington du 22 mai 1902, les susnom- 
 mes Arbitres, reunis en Tribunal d' Arbitrage, devraient decider: 
 
 1°. Si la dite reclamation des Etats-Unis d'Amerique au profit de 1'ArchevSque de 
 San Francisco et de l'Evfique de Monterey est regie par le principe de la res judicata, 
 en vertu de la sentence arbitrate du 11 novembre 1875, prononcee par Sir Edward 
 Thornton, en qualite de Surarbitre; 
 
858 PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 2°. Si non, si la dite reclamation est juste, avec pouvoir de rendre tel jugement qui 
 leur semblera juste et equitable; 
 
 Attendu que les susnomme's Arbitres, ayant examine avec impartiality et soin tous 
 les documents et actes, presented au Tribunal d' Arbitrage par les Agents des Etats- 
 Unis d'Amerique et des Etats-Unis Mexicans, et ayant entendu avec la plus grande 
 attention les plaidoiries orales, presentees devant le Tribunal par les Agents et les 
 Conseils des duex Parties en litige; 
 
 Considerant que le litige, soumis a la decision du Tribunal d' Arbitrage, consiste 
 dans un conflit entre les Etats-Unis d'Amerique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains qui ne 
 saurait etre regie que sur la base des Trails internationaux et des principes du droit 
 international; 
 
 Considerant que les Traites internationaux, conclus depuis Pannee 1848 jusqu'au 
 compromis du 22 mai 1902, entre les deux Puissances en litige, constatent le caractere 
 eminemment international de ce conflit; 
 
 Considerant que toutes les parties d'un jugement ou d'un arret concernant les 
 points debattus au litige s'edairent et se completent mutuellement et qu'elles ser- 
 vent toutes a pretiser le sens et la portee du dispositif, a determiner les points sur 
 lesquels il y a chose jugee et qui partant ne peuvent Stre remis en question; 
 
 Considerant que cette regie ne s'applique pas seulement aux jugements des tri- 
 bunaux institues par l'Etat, mais 6galement aux sentences arbitrales, rendues dans 
 les limites de la competence, fixees par le compromis; 
 
 Considerant que ce meme principe doit a plus forte raison, etre applique aux 
 arbitrages internationaux; 
 
 Considerant que la Convention du 4 juillet 1868, conclue entre les deux Etats en 
 litige, avait accord^ aux Commissions Mixtes, nommes par ces Etats, ainsi qu'au 
 Surarbitre a designer 6ventuellement, le droit de statuer sur leur propre competence; 
 
 Considerant que dans le litige, soumis a la decision du Tribunal d' Arbitrage, en 
 vertu du compromis du 22 mai 1902, il y a, non seulement identity des parties en 
 litige, mais egalement identity de la matiere, jugee par la sentence arbitrale de Sir 
 Edward Thornton comme Surarbitre en 1875 et amendee par lui le 24 octobre 1876; 
 
 Considerant que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains a consciencieusement 
 execute la sentence arbitrale de 1875 et 1876, en payant les annuites adjugees par le 
 Surarbitre; 
 
 Considerant que, depuis 1869, trente-trois annuites n'ont pas ete payees par le 
 Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Ameri- 
 que et que les regies de la prescription, etant exclusivement du domaine du droit 
 civil, ne sauraient etre appliquees au present conflit entre les deux Etats en litige; 
 
 Considerant, en ce qui concerne la monnaie, dans laquelle le paiement de la rente 
 annuelle doit avoir lieu, que le dollar d'argent, ayant cours legal au Mexique, le 
 paiement en or ne-peut etre exige qu'en vertu d'une stipulation expresse; 
 
 Que, dans l'espece, telle stipulation n'existant pas, la Partie defenderesse a le droit 
 de se liberer en argent; 
 
 Que, par rapport a ce point, la sentence Sir Edward Thornton n'a pas autrement 
 force de chose jugee que pour les vingt et une annuites a l'egard desquelles le surar- 
 bitre a decide que le paiement devait avoir lieu en dollars d'or Mexicains, puisque la 
 question du mode de paiement ne concerne pas le fond du droit en litige mais seule- 
 ment 1' execution de la sentence; 
 
 Considerant, que d'apres Particle 10 du Protocole de Washington du 22 mai 1902, 
 le present Tribunal d' Arbitrage aura a statuer, en cas de condamnation de la R6pub- 
 lique du Mexique, dans quelle monnaie le paiement devra avoir lieu; 
 
 Par ces motifs: 
 
 Le Tribunal d' Arbitrage decide et prononce a Punanimite ce qui suit: 
 
 1°. Que la dite reclamation des Etats-Unis d'Amerique au profit de PArcheveque 
 de San Francisco et de PEvfique de Monterey est regie par le principe de la res judi- 
 cata, en vertu de la sentence arbitrale de Sir Edward Thornton du 11 novembre 1875 
 amendee par lui le 24 octobre 1876; 
 
 2°. Que, conformement a cette sentence arbitrale, le Gouvernement de la Eepub-, 
 lique des Etats-Unis Mexicains devra payer au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Ame- 
 rique la somme de un million quatre cent vingt mille six cent quatre-vingt-deux dollars du 
 Mexique et soixante-sepl cents (1,420,682.67/100 dollars du Mexique), en monnaie ayant 
 cours legal au Mexique, dans le deiai fixe par Particle 10 du protocole de Washington 
 du 22 mai 1902. 
 
 Cette somme d'un million quatre cent vingt mille six cent quatre- vingt-deux dol- 
 lars et soixante-sept cents (1,420,682.67/100 dollars) constituera le versement total 
 des annuites echues et non payees par le Gouvernement de la Republique Mexicaine, 
 savoir de la rente annuelle de quarante trois mille cinquante dollars du Mexique et quatre- 
 vingt-dix-neuf cents (43,050.99/100 dollars du Mexique) depuis le 2 fevrier 1869 jusqu'au 
 2 fevrier 1902; 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 859 
 
 3 °. Le Gouvernement de la Republique des Etats-Unis Mexicains paiera au Gouver- 
 nement des Etats-Unis d' Amerique le 2 fevrier 1903, et chaque ann6e suivante a cette 
 m6me date du 2 feVrier, a perp6tuit6, la rente annuelle de quarante trois mille cinquanle 
 dollars du Mexique et quatre-vingt-dix-neuf cents (43,050.99/100 dollars du Mexique) en 
 monnaie ayant cours legal au Mexique. 
 
 Fait a La Haye, dans l'H6tel de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage, en triple original, 
 le 14 octobre 1902. 
 
 (signi): Hbnning Matzen. 
 Edw. Fey. 
 Martens. 
 T. M. 0. Assee. 
 A. F. de Savoenin Lohman. 
 
 M. le President. Messieurs, Le Tribunal d' Arbitrage a tenu sa 
 premiere stance le 15 septembre, et la cloture des debats a ete pro- 
 noncee le ler octobre; aujourd'hui, 14 octobre, nous avons rendu la 
 sentence que M. le Secretaire-General vient de lire, et dont un exem- 
 plaire sera donne" a chaque Agent des Puissances en litige, en execu- 
 tion des dispositions du Traite, et dont le troisieme est destine a etre 
 depose dans les Archives du Bureau International de la Cour perma- 
 nente d' Arbitrage. 
 
 Le Tribunal d'arbitrage est done arrive a la fin de sa t&che, a moins 
 que les Parties, usant de la faculte que leur donne l'article 13 du pro- 
 tocole de Washington, conformement a, l'article 55 de la Convention 
 de La Haye, demandent la revision de la sentence arbitrale. Cette 
 revision ne peut §tre motived que par la decouverte d'un fait nouveau 
 qui eut ete de nature a, exercer une influence decisive sur la sentence 
 et qui lors de la cl6ture des debats 6tait inconnu du Tribunal lui-m^me 
 et de la Partie vui demande la revision. La procedure de revision ne 
 peut §tre ouverte que par une decision du Tribunal constatant expres- 
 sement l'existence du fait nouveau, lui reconnaissant le caractere prevu 
 par le paragraphe precedent et declarant a ce titre la demande recev- 
 able. Mais des maintenant, et jusqu'a ce qu'une telle demande soit 
 adressee au Tribunal et declaree recevable, les Hautes Parties ontcesse" 
 d'etre en litige et la mission qui lui a e"te confiee est regardee comme 
 remplie. 
 
 Je tiens, Messieurs, a vous adresser encore quelques mots. 
 
 S'il n'est donne a, aucun Tribunal humain de savoir ses sentences 
 infaillibles, nous emporterons du moins d'ici la ferme conviction 
 d'avoir recherche" la verite" de toutes nos forces, consciencieusement et 
 impartialement; et il me sera permis d'ajouter que l'unanimite avec 
 laquelle tous les Membres du Tribunal appartenant a differents pays 
 reunis ici a La Haye sont arrives, chacun pour soi et tous ensemble, 
 aux mgmes conclusions, me semble constituer une garantie de plus que 
 dans notre recherche" empresses de la verite nous n'avons pas fait 
 fausse route. 
 
 En repassant par m^moire le cours de nos travaux, e'est a Messieurs 
 les Agents, les intermediates entre les Parties et le Tribunal, que 
 celui-ci doit en premier lieu ses remerciements sinceres. Messieurs, 
 marquees au sceau de votre haute distinction, les relations avec le 
 Tribunal, etablies et maintenues par vous, ont ete" des plus excellentes 
 et des plus cordiales du premier jusqu'au dernier jour. 
 
 Nous remercions aussi chaleureusement Messieurs les Conseils des 
 deux Parties, qui nous ont secondes et qui ont rev^tu les debats des 
 formes Jes plus courtoises et d'une bonne grace incessante. 
 
 Une parfaite urbanite" dans les rapports mutuels a rendu la t&che du 
 
860 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 
 
 President aussi facile qu'agre"able. Lors de notre premiere reunion 
 j'ai dit que les Conseils etabliraient des bases pour les deliberations du 
 Tribunal; ils ont realise et bien au-dela cette prediction, ils ont guide* 
 le Tribunal en faisant jaillir sur tous les points en litige la lumiere de 
 leur haute erudition et du travail le plus approfondi. 
 
 Nous vous remercions, Monsieur le Secretaire-General, dont l'in- 
 fatigable assistance nous a prete - un precieux appui, ainsi que Messieurs 
 les Secretaires pour le soin avec lequel ils se sont acquittes de leur 
 tache. 
 
 Le tribut de notre reconnaissance est du aussi aux Membres du Con- 
 seil Administratif de la Cour Permanente, qui ont mis a notre disposi- 
 tion le confort et l'elegance des belles salles dans lesquelles nous avons 
 tenu nos reunions. 
 
 Sous l'impression de l'accueil si hospitalier qui lui a et6 fait dans ce 
 pays si riche en souvenirs de grands faits et de bienfaits dans l'histoire 
 du Droit et de l'Humanite, le Tribunal, siegeant sous les auspices de 
 Sa Majesty la Reine des Pays-bas, depose aux pieds de la Gracieuse 
 Souveraine l'hommage respectueux de sa profonde gratitude et ses 
 meilleurs voeux pour son bonheur et pour la prosperity de son Peuple. 
 
 La parole est a l'agent des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 
 
 Mr. Ralston. Mr. President and honorable arbitrators: 
 
 Now that the hour of adjournment approaches, it seems fitting that 
 some acknowledgment should be made on the part of the United States 
 and their representatives for courtesies extended, as well as for those 
 expressed in the speech just concluded. 
 
 We came strangers, and have met with only the most friendly 
 treatment from all. To you, Mr. President, and to all other members 
 of the court, we owe most hearty thanks for the kind and patient 
 hearing constantly afforded us. You have recognized the fact that sat- 
 isfaction to all litigants, whether successful or rejected, was only to 
 be given when all could feel that their arguments, sound or otherwise, 
 concise or repeated, had received all possible attention. 
 
 My duty at this point would be incomplete were I to overlook 
 acknowledgment of the unfailing courtesy to the parties litigant dis- 
 played by the officers of the court. Without their constant assistance 
 our proceedings must have been much less rapid and effective. 
 
 I desire to recognize the good faith and good temper at all times 
 displayed by our friends upon the other side of this dispute. While 
 they have ever loyally and ably maintained the cause of Mexico and 
 energetically sought to further her interests, never have any difficulties 
 of a personal character or controversies calculated to leave unpleasant 
 memories arisen between us. I also join with you, M. President, in 
 expressing the thanks of my country to the Permanent Administrative 
 Council for providing us with such pleasant quarters in which to meet 
 and adjust our difficulties. 
 
 We exchange the compliments appropriate to the time and circum- 
 stances, yet were there nothing more to be said our words might well 
 be counted as " sounding brass and tinkling cymbal," and our meeting 
 here as having only ephemeral value. 
 
 There has ]ust been determined at The Hague a controversy over 
 money — a thing which we are told has been " slave to thousands," and 
 the love of which is described as " the root of all evil." If a judg- 
 ment now meant nothing more than the transfer or non-transfer of 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 861 
 
 money from one party or the other, however interesting this might be 
 to those concerned, the world at large could look on with indifference. 
 
 'We believe, however, that a first step has been taken that will count 
 largely for the good of future generations; that following this primal 
 recognition of the existence of a court competent to settle disputes 
 between nations, will come general reference to it, not alone of differ- 
 ences similar to the present, but of other controversies involving 
 larger questions of individual rights and national privileges. We may 
 hope that precisely as questions formerly believed to involve individual 
 honor have in many countries entirely ceased and in others are ceasing 
 to be settled by formal exercise of force, the same revolution may 
 gradually be effected in the affairs of nations. The Permanent Court 
 of Arbitration, assisting this end, must tend to bring about that 
 "peace on earth, good will toward men" for which Christians hope. 
 
 Mr. President and honorable arbitrators, for good or for ill, our 
 task is accomplished. While we may be pardoned for indulging in 
 the expression of hope that, irrespective of the immediate effect of 
 your decision, good is to be anticipated from the labors of all of us, 
 yet whatever the future holds we must accept it. We have all done, 
 according to our several lights and abilities, the best we knew, and 
 quietly and philosophically, without exultation or depression, we 
 accept the result. 
 
 I may therefore recall to you in closing the promise of the old 
 "Mebelungen Lied:" 
 
 Wilt thou do the deed and regret it? 
 
 Thou hadst better never been born. 
 Wilt thou do the deed and proclaim it? 
 
 Then thy fame shall be outworn. 
 Thou shalt do the deed and abide it, 
 
 And from thy throne on high, 
 Look on to-day and to-morrow as those that never die. 
 
 M. l,e President. La parole est a l'agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains. 
 
 M. Emilio Pajrdo. Messieurs, Quand j'ai eu 1'honneur d'adresser 
 la parole pour la premiere fois a la Cour, le jour ou elle s'est installee, 
 j'ai commence i.ar exprimer au nom de mon Gouvernement sa deter- 
 mination de se soumettre fidelement et loyalement a la decision de cette 
 Cour. Je suis absolument sur que lorsque mon Gouvernement con- 
 naitra le jugement que la Cour vient de rendre il l'acceptera comme 
 l'expression du jugement et de la sagesse de cinq jurisconsultes dis- 
 tingu^s, de cinq honnetes hommes. Mais naturellement je dois reserver 
 & mon Gouvernement le droit de faire valoir tous les recours que le 
 protocole du 22 mai dernier accorde aux Parties. 
 
 Je ne veux pas abuser de la patience ni de l'attention du Tribunal. 
 Je re"itere la manifestation de gratitude que j'ai faite le jour de l'instal- 
 lation de la Cour pour le bon vouloir avec lequel Messieurs les Arbitres 
 ont eu la bonte d'assumer une tache lourde et penible qui a ete remplie 
 avec une si grande bonne volonte et avec un esprit d'impartialite" que 
 je me plais a reconnaitre. 
 
 Je profite de cette occasion pour adherer de tout mon coeur a la 
 manifestation qui vient d'etre faite par M. l'agent des Etats-Unis et 
 aux remerciements qu'il a adresses aux Membres du Conseil adminis- 
 tratif de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage pour leur bienveillante hos- 
 pitalite. II ne me reste plus qu'a vous dire encore UDe fois merci pour 
 
862 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 votre travail, pour votre bon vouloir, pour votre sagesse et pour votre 
 impartialite. 
 
 M. le President. Au nom du Tribunal, je remercie les Agents des 
 Hautes Parties pour les aimables et bienveillantes paroles qu'ils ont 
 bien voulu lui adresser. 
 
 (La stance est lev6e a 5 beures et demie.) 
 
 PROTOCOLES DES SEANCES DU TRIBUNAL D' ARBITRAGE CON- 
 STITU^ EN VERTU DU TRAIT*! DU 22 MAI 1902 SIGN*! A 
 WASHINGTON ENTRE LES GOUVERNEMENTS DES ETATS-UNIS 
 D'AMERIQUE ET DES ETATS-UNIS MEXICAINS. 
 
 PROTOCOLE I. 
 
 Seance du lundi 15 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni a Hi heures du matin a l'hotel de la Cour 
 Permanente d' Arbitrage, 71 Prinsegracht a La Haye. 
 
 Les Arbitres present 4taient: 
 
 M r . le Professeur H. Matzen, Docteur en droit, Professeur a l'Uni- 
 versite" de Copenhague, Conseiller Extraordinaire a la Cour Supreme, 
 President du Landsthing, Membre de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage, 
 Surarbitre et President du Tribunal; 
 
 Le Tres Honorable Sir Edward Fry, Docteur en droit, autrefois 
 siegeant a la Cour d'Appel, Membre du Conseil Prive" de Sa Majeste" 
 Britannique, Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, un des 
 Arbitres designes par les Etats-Unis d'Am^rique; 
 
 Son Excellence M r . de Martens, Conseiller Prive", Membre du Conseil 
 du Ministere Imperial des Affaires Etrangeres a St. Petersbourg, 
 Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, un des Arbitres designes 
 par les Etats-Unis d'Amerique; 
 
 M r . T. M. C. Asser, Docteur en droit, Membre du Conseil d'Etat 
 des Pays-Bas, ancien Professeur a l'Universite d'Amsterdam, Membre 
 de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, un des Arbitres designed par les 
 Etats-Unis Mexicains; 
 
 M r . le Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin Lohman, Docteur en droit, ancien 
 Ministre de l'Interieur des Pays-Bas, ancien Professeur a l'Universite" 
 libre d'Amsterdam, Membre de la Seconde Chambre des Etats-G6n- 
 6raux, Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, un des Arbitres 
 designes par les Etats-Unis Mexicains. 
 
 M r . Matzen prend place au fauteuil de la Pr&idence et prononce le 
 discours suivant: 
 
 "Excellences! Messieurs! Comme President du Tribunal d'Arbi- 
 trage, institue en vertu du traite conclu a Washington le 22 mai 1902 
 entre les Etats-Unis de l'Amerique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains, je 
 declare la premiere seance du Tribunal ouverte. 
 # C'est la premiere fois, qu'a 6te constitue" un Tribunal d'Arbitrage, 
 siegeant sous le regime de la Convention de la Haye sur 1'Arbitrage 
 International et compose de membres de la Cour Permanente d'Ar- 
 bitrage, cre^e par la Convention; et je remercie Vos Excellences ici 
 presentes, President et_ Membres du Conseil Administratis de la Cour 
 Permanente, d'avoir bien voulu nous faire l'honneur d'assister a la 
 premiere seance du premier Tribunal d'Arbitrage, e"mane de la Cour 
 Permanente. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFORNIAS. 863 
 
 Ce premier Tribunal est constitute grace a l'initiative de deux Grandes 
 Puissances du Nouveau Monde, qui animees du m§me sincere desir de 
 faire regler un differend survenu entre eux a l'amiable et d'une maniere 
 satisfaisante et juste, sont tombees d'accord de le soumettre a, un Arbi- 
 trage conforme dans son essence aux regies de la Convention de la 
 Haye. 
 
 Toutes les stipulations du traits susmentionne 1 relatives a la consti- 
 tution de ce Tribunal d' Arbitrage ont ete dument ececutees. 
 
 Les Membres du Tribunal ici presents sont prets a, remplir conscien- 
 cieusement la tache importante et honorable, qui leur a 6t6 confiee. 
 
 Les Arbitres, choisis par les puissances, brillent au premier rang des 
 jurisconsultes du monde et sont bien au-dessus de mes eloges. 
 
 Le fait d'avoir 6t& appele par leur vote, a presider leurs seances est 
 consider^ par moi comme un grand honneur illustrant toute mon exist- 
 ence, mais il serait de nature a, m'effrayer, si je n'avais pas la ferme 
 certitude de pouvoir compter sur leur constante et bienveillante col- 
 laboration. 
 
 Au nom du Tribunal je souhaite une respectueuse et cordiale bien- 
 venue aux illustres personnages representant les Puissances devant le 
 Tribunal et aux Conseils eminents, qui les assistent de leurs lumieres, 
 dont les savants discours elucideront les f aits et fixeront des bases pour 
 nos deliberations. 
 
 Au moment de l'ouverture des seances du Tribunal j'emets le vceu, 
 qu'il nous soit donne\ grace aussi au concours zele et a la collaboration 
 des Hautes Parties d'inaugurer les travaux des tribunaux d'arbitrage 
 de la Convention de la Haye d'une maniere conforme a la pensee sub- 
 lime qui l'a inspiree et au but glorieux, qu'elle est appelee a faciliter: 
 le reglement pacifique des litiges entre les Etats sur la seulebase solide, 
 la base du respect du droit. 
 
 Ensuite il donne successivement lecture des noms des Arbitres, 
 mentionn^s ci-dessus et ceux des Agents et Conseils des deux Parties, 
 savoir: 
 
 M r . Jackson Harvey Ealston, Agent pour le Etats-Unis d'Amerique; 
 Son Excellence M r . Emilio Pardo, Envoye Extraordinaire et Ministre 
 Plenipotentiaire du Mexique aupres de Sa Majesty la Reine des Pays- 
 Bas, Agent pour les Etats-Unis Mexicains; MM. William Laurence 
 Penfield, Juge; le Senateur W. M. Stewart; le Chevalier Descamps, 
 Senateur du Royaume de Belgique, Secretaire-General de " l'lnstitut 
 du Droit International," Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage; 
 Charles J. Kappler; W. T. S. Doyle; Garret W. McEnerney, Conseils 
 pour les Etats-Unis d'Amerique, et Son Excellence M r . Beernaert, 
 Ministre d'Etat, Membre de la Chambre des Representants de Belgi- 
 que, Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, et M r . Leon Dela- 
 croix, Avocat pres de la Cour d'Appel a Bruxelles, Conseils pour les 
 Etats-Unis Mexicains. 
 
 II invite ensuite M r . L. H. Ruyssenaers, Envoye Extraordinaire et 
 Ministre Plenipotentiaire de Sa Majeste la Reine des Pays-Bas, Secre- 
 taire-General de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage a remplir les^ fonc- 
 tions de Secretaire-General du Tribunal et nomme comme Secretaires 
 du Tribunal: , . 
 
 M r . Walter S. Penfield, M r . Luis Pardo, l 6r Secretaire de la Legation 
 du Mexique a La Haye, et M r . le Jonkheer W. Roell, l er Secretaire du 
 Bureau International de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage. 
 
 Quant a la question des langues le President declare que le Tribunal 
 
864 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 a decide que la langue f rancaise sera celle du Tribunal, sauf le droit 
 des Parties de parler aussi en anglais. 
 
 Le Secretariat est charge" de l'elaboration des proces-verbaux qui 
 seront rediges en francais et sous une forme concise. 
 
 Les Parties, desirant faire stenographier les comptes-rendus, pour- 
 ront prendre les mesures necessaires a cet egard. 
 
 Le President ajoute que le Tribunal, avec l'assentiment des Parties, 
 a decide que les debats seront publics, mais que, vu l'exiguite" de 
 l'espace qui pourrait etre reserve au public, celui-ci ne sera admis que 
 sur la presentation de cartes speciales a delivrer- par le Secretaire- 
 General de la Cour Permanente d 1 Arbitrage. 
 
 M r . Jackson Harvey Ralston, Agent des Etats-Unis d'Ame"rique, 
 prononce le discours suivant: 
 
 On behalf of the United States, it is my honor and pleasure to offer 
 a brief reply of thanks to the courteous sentiments of the distinguished 
 President of this Court. 
 
 At this moment, permit me to express my appreciation of the action 
 of the Netherland Government in extending many courtesies in con- 
 nection with the establishment of the Court of Arbitration, as well as 
 in facilitating the work of the first litigants, and furthermore to acknowl- 
 edge most heartily the compliment shown by the attendance on this 
 occasion of the members of the Administrative Council. 
 
 We who represent the United States esteem highly the opportunity 
 of presenting before this learned body a controversy involving the two 
 foremost nations of the North American continent. It is perhaps 
 natural that we should felicitate ourselves upon the fact that the first 
 nations to resort to this tribunal are of the Western hemisphere, and 
 are nations which may take pride in the fact that they are legitimate 
 offspring of the peoples of Europe, and as such, inheritors of centuries 
 of a common civilization, the most advanced that the world has ever 
 known. 
 
 We of the United States find satisfaction in the fact that the first 
 suggestion of arbitration of the question now offered for your consid- 
 eration was made by M r . Secretary Hay of the United States, whose 
 fame as a diplomatist and as a statesman knows no national bounds. 
 We congratulate our neighbours upon the other side that after this 
 suggestion M r . Hay and the distinguished Secretary of Foreign Affairs 
 of Mexico, M r . Mariscal, came to a speedy accord upon the proposi • 
 tion to refer the proposed arbitration for settlement under the pro- 
 visions of the Hague Peace Convention. 
 
 On May 22, 1902, the protocol was signed at Washington, and with- 
 out loss of any time the Mexican Senate, on May 30th, validated its 
 requirements by ratifying the instrument. 
 
 That the two countries should have been willing to arbitrate their 
 differences before five members of the Permanent Court of Arbitra- 
 tion, is, I venture to say, conclusive evidence of belief in the impar- ' 
 tiality and ability which would be displayed by those whom the 
 signatories of the Hague Convention had designated from among their 
 most eminent jurists and publicists.' 
 
 Inaugurating our proceedings under such circumstances, I may 
 assure you, M r . President and Honorable Arbitrators, that the determi- 
 nations of this Court, whatever they may be, will command and receive 
 the respect and unquestioned acquiescence of the United States. After 
 your award shall have been rendered, no matter what our previous 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOENIAS. 865 
 
 opinions may have been, we will remember the language of a distin- 
 guished English jurist, who, on the occasion of a famous international 
 arbitration said: 
 
 I hope that the English people will obey the decisions of the Judges with the 
 submission and respect due to the decision of a tribunal whose decree they have 
 freely agreed to accept. 
 
 I do not wish to take my seat without expressing the hope of my 
 country that the precedent of appealing to the judges forming the 
 Permanent Court of Arbitration may be followed with increasing fre- 
 quency as years go by. While the unique honor must remain to the 
 United States of America, and the United Mexican States of being the 
 first voluntarily to submit their differences to the jurisdiction of this 
 Court, it will be a source of the greatest satisfaction to my Govern- 
 ment if the action thus taken should pave the way to similar settle- 
 ments in the future, whereby in later cases misunderstandings which 
 might otherwise lead to conflicts between states may receive peaceable 
 adjustment, believing as it does that the most happy rivalry that can 
 possibly exist between nations is to be found in a common effort to 
 excel in whatever tends to bring about the contentment and well-being 
 of mankind. The good of humanity is an end to which the United 
 States steadily and consciously struggles, and toward the same end, 
 we believe, assuredly the formation and the extension of the employ- 
 ment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration must largely contribute. 
 
 In again thanking you, Mr. President, for j r our own expressions of 
 courtesy and good will, let me once more express the hope that our 
 labors may conduce towards the coming of the time, when, to para- 
 phrase the language of England's great poet: 
 
 The war drum throbs no longer, 
 
 And the battle flags are furled 
 In the parliament of man, 
 
 The Federation of the world. 
 
 Son Excellence M. Emilio Pardo, Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains, 
 prononce le discours suivant: 
 
 Messieurs! Au nom du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains, 
 je profite de cette occasion solennelle pour exprimer ses remercinients 
 tres sinceres et tres cordiaux aux eminents publicistes qui f orment la 
 Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, appelee a prononcer la derniere parole 
 sur le differend suscite entre les reprfeentants de PEglise Catholique 
 de la Haute Californie et mon Pays, au sujet de la reclamation desor- 
 mais celebre, du Fond Pie de Californie. 
 
 Je me fais un devoir de remercier egalement le Gouvernement des 
 Pays-Bas, pour l'hospitalite - si franche et si genereuse qu'il a bien 
 voulu nous accorder, et qui rentre si bien dans les traditions du peuple 
 Neerlandais, et je me permets de presenter la reconnaissance de mon 
 Pays et de son Gouvernement aux tres distingues membres du Corps 
 Diplomatique qui ont bien voulu honorer de leur presence, cette impo- 
 sante ceremonie. 
 
 La grande institution cr66e par le Congres de la Paix, est appelee 
 pour la premiere fois a rendre ses importants services a la cause du 
 Droit et de la Justice, et je m'empresse de faire profession puhlique 
 de la f oi du Gouvernement Mexicain en la sagesse, en la science et en 
 Pimpartialite" de la Cour qui vient d'etre installee. ; 
 
 S. Doc. 28 55 
 
866 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Quoiqu'il en soit pour nous du jugement de la Cour, nous pouvons 
 dire avec le plus legitime orgueil que, comnie le prouve la correspond- 
 ance diplomatique 6changee entre les deux Gouvernements en cause, 
 pour preparer la signature du Protocole du 22 mai dernier, le Mexique 
 fut le premier a proposer l'application de Parbitrage international 
 dtabli par la Convention du 29 juiliet 1899. 
 
 L'evenement, dont nous sommes les temoins, marquera, j'en suis sur, 
 une date inoubliable dans les fastes de l'histoire de l'arbitage interna- 
 tional, si modeste que soit le litige qui a motive la convocation de la 
 Cour, et nous devons esp6rer tous, les puissants et les faibles, tous egaux 
 devant la Justice, que l'example donne par les deux Republiques de 
 PAmerique du Nord ne restera pas infecond et isole\ 
 
 La seance est suspendue a midi et reprise a 2i heurs. 
 
 M r . Ruyssenaers, Secretaire-General du Tribunal, fait lecture des 
 communications qui lui ont 6te adressees par les Agents d'Amerique 
 et du Mexique aux fins d'etre soumises au Tribunal d' Arbitrage. 
 
 Sur la demande du President aux Parties si elles ont encore d'autres 
 actes ou documents a communiquer au Tribunal, M r . Delacroix declare 
 que P Agent du Mexique a effectivement cette intention, mais ne pourra 
 effectuer cette remise avant la prochaine stance. 
 
 M r . 1' Agent d'Amerique depose quelques nouvelles publications se 
 rapportant a la cause en litige. 
 
 Le President declare ensuite qu'il est bien entendu que le dossier 
 depose par l'Agent d : Am6rique est, de son consentement, a la disposi- 
 tion de la Partie defenderesse. 
 
 Apres un echange d'observations entre MM. les Agents d'Amerique 
 et du Mexique au sujet de la procedure et notamment sur la question 
 de savoir laquelle des deux Parties aura la parole en dernier lieu, le 
 President declare que le Tribunal deliberera sur les regies de pro- 
 cedure qu'il y aurait lieu de fixer par rapport aux questions soulevees. 
 
 Ensuite M r . Ralston declare que l'annexe de la reponse du gouverne- 
 ment Mexicain intitulee " Pleito de Rada" est acceptee par lui comme 
 authentique. 
 
 La parole est ensuite donnee a M r . le Senateur Stewart, qui com- 
 mence son discours. 
 
 A 4 heures la seance est levee et le Tribunal s'ajourne a mardi le 17 
 septembre a 9£ heures du matin. 
 
 Ainsi fait a la Haye, le 15 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 I? Agent des Etats- TJnis d'Amerique: Jackson H. Ralston. 
 JO Agent des Etats- TJnis Mexicains: E. Pakdo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Ruyssenaeks. 
 
 protocole II, 
 Seance du mercredi 17 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni a 10 heures, tous les Arbitres e"tant presents. 
 
 Sur Pinvitation du President, M. le Secretaire-General fait lecture 
 de la decision suivante du Tribunal, qui a ete notifiee le 15 septembre 
 a MM. les Agents des deux Parties: 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 867 
 
 "Le Tribunal, attendu que I' Agent' de la Partie defenderesse (Etats- 
 Unis Mexicains) a consenti a ce que la replique ecrite de la Partie 
 demanderesse (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) soit jointe au dossier, sous la 
 condition que la Partie defenderesse ait le droit d'y repondre par ecrit, 
 a decide que la dite replique sera acceptee par le Tribunal et que la 
 Partie defenderesse aura le droit d'y repondre par ecrit, pourvu que 
 cette reponse soit deposed au Greffe du Tribunal en manuscrit au plus 
 tard le 25 de ce mois et qu'au plus tard le mgme jour une copie en sat 
 remise a la Partie demanderesse." 
 
 Et ensuite des regies de procedure etablies par le Tribunal 
 d' Arbitrage: 
 
 "Le Tribunal, vu la necessite de fixer l'ordre des plaidoyers et, se 
 conformant au reglement de la procedure arbitrale, consigne dans la 
 Convention pour le reglement pacifique det couflits internationaux 
 conclue a la Haye le 29 juillet 1899 (art. 30 et suivants), a decide ce qui 
 suit: 
 
 " 1°- attendu que ce sont les Representants des Etats-Unis d'Amerique 
 qui ont ouvert les debats en leur qualite de Partie demanderesse, la 
 parole sera donnde aux Representants des Etats-Unis Mexicains comme 
 Partie defenderesse aussitdt que la Partie demanderesse aura termine 
 son plaidoyer. Ensuite les deux Parties, si elles le desirent, alterne- 
 ront encore une fois dans le m§me ordre: 
 
 "2°. les Parties ont le droit de faire parler tous leurs Conseils tant 
 pour le premier plaidoyer que pour la reponse. Pour la replique et 
 la duplique chaque Partie designera un seul de ses Conseils pour 
 prendre la parole, sauf le droit des autres Conseils d'intervenir pour 
 repondre aux objections qui concerneraient specialement le discours 
 qu'ils ont prononce." 
 
 M r . l'Agent d'Amerique remet a la Cour quelques documents. 
 
 M r . l'Agent du Mexique remet a la Cour la reponse de son Gou- 
 vernement avec les annexes. 
 
 M r le Senateur Stewart continue son discours, commence dans la 
 seance du 15 septembre, et le termine a Hi heures. 
 
 Le President declare que le Tribunal a l'intention d'ajourner ses 
 seances jusqu'a Lundi prochain, le 22 septembre et de sieger ensuite 
 tous les jours suivants. 
 
 M r . Beernaert, Conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains, prie le Tribunal 
 de bien vouloir sieger aussi cet apres-midi si c'est possible. 
 
 Le Tribunal se retire pour deUiberer. A la reprise de la seance le 
 President declare que le Tribunal siegera jusqu'& midi et que la seance 
 sera alors suspendue jusqu' a 2£ heures de l'apres-midi. 
 
 Mr. Garret W. McEnerney, Conseil des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, 
 adresse la parole au Tribunal. 
 
 La seance est suspendue a midi. 
 
 A la reprise de la seance a 2£ heures Mr. McEnerney continue son 
 discours jusqu'a 4£ heures. 
 
 La seance est levee et le Tribunal s'ajourne a, lundi le 22 septembre 
 a" 10 heures du matin. 
 
 Ainsi fait a, la Haye, le 17 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 JO 'Agent des Mats- Unis d'Ame'rigue: Jackson H. Ealston. 
 I? Agent des Etats- Unis Mexicains: E. Pardo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Ruyssenaers. 
 
868 PIOUS FUND -OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 PEOTOCOLE III. 
 
 Seance du lundi 22 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni a 10 heures, tous les Arbitres 6tants presents. 
 
 Le Secretaire-General fait lecture des proceVverbaux des seances 
 du 15 et 17 septembre. 
 
 M 1 '. Beernaert fait une remarque au sujet du dossier, depose" par 
 l'Agent d'Amerique et exprime l'opinion que le dossier doit §tre con- 
 siders" coinme un dossier commun. 
 
 M r . Garret W. McEnerney reprend son argumention du 17 sep- 
 tembre. 
 
 A midi la seance est suspendue jusqu'a 2 heures. 
 
 A la reprise de la seance MM. Ralston et Pardo echangent quelques 
 observations se rapportant a la question soulevee dans la seance du 
 matin par M r . Beernaert. 
 
 M r . l'Agent de l'Amerique dit que son Gouvernement se considerait 
 tenu a deposer l'ancien dossier, mais que les deux Parties devaient 
 presenter tous documents ou memoires qu'ils jugeraient necessaires et 
 qui constitueraient le nouveau dossier. Le Gouvernement Americain 
 a soumis l'ancien dossier, parcequ'il se trouvait de fait en possession. 
 
 Quant a la correspondance diplomatique, il estime que l'obligation 
 de faire les communications necessaires est absolument la meme pour 
 les deux Gouvernements. II ajoute que tout ce qui a e"te" soumis au 
 Tribunal par la partie demanderesse est mis, sans aucume reserve, a la 
 disposition de la partie adverse. 
 
 M r . l'Agent du Mexique r^pond que ce debat n'a qu'une importance 
 secondaire, attendu que tous les documents sont d£ja entre les mains 
 du Tribunal. Quant a la responsabilite" qui incomberait a son Gouv- 
 ernement, il fait observer que la response du Mexique, accompagn^e de 
 l'importante annexe intitulee "Pleito de Rada" a, conformement a 
 Particle VII du Protocole du 22 mai 1902, 6t& remise directement au 
 Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique et il s'etonne que cette 
 annexe ait 6te jointe au dossier, tandis que la reponse du Mexique ne 
 s'y trouvait point. 
 
 Le President dit qu'il sera pris acte des declarations des deux 
 Parties et qu'elles seront mentionnes dans le proces-verbal. 
 
 M r . Pardo fait encore observer qu'il existe un malentendu par rap- 
 port a sa situation personnelle. II desire constater qu'il est ici uni- 
 quement en qualite d'Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains et que ce n'est 
 point comme representant diplomatique du Mexique a la Haye qu'il 
 desire §tre consider^. 
 
 M r . Garret W. McEnerney continue son discours qu'il termine a 3f 
 heures. 
 
 M r . Ralston, Agent d'Amerique prend la parole. 
 
 La stance est lev£e a 5 heures et le Tribunal s'ajourne au lende- 
 main a 10 heures. 
 
 Ainsi fait a la Haye le 22 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 
 L ) Agent des Mats- JJnis d'Am.erique: Jackson H. Ralston. 
 
 E Agent des Mats- TJnis Mexicaans: E. Pardo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- Ge?ieral; L. H. Ruyssenaers. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 869 
 
 PEOTOCOLE IV. 
 
 Seance du mardi 23 septembre 1902. 
 
 La seance est ouverte a 10i heures du matin; tous les Arbitres etant 
 presents. 
 
 M r . Ruyssenaers, Secretaire-General du Tribunal fait lecture des 
 deux decisions suivantes du Tribunal. 
 
 Afin de garantir la marche reguliere et continue des debats, le Tri- 
 bunal decide ce qui suit: 
 
 1°. Les seances du Tribunal auront lieu tous les jours de 10 heures 
 a midi et de 2% heures a 5 heures, jusqu'a la fin des debats; 
 
 2°- Toute proposition ou demande des Parties en litige concernant 
 la marche de la procedure arbitrate ou ^interpretation des 
 regies etablies doit etre formulee par ecrit. 
 
 Ces decisions seront communiquees par ecrit aux deux Parties. 
 
 M r . Ealston dit qu'il vient de recevoir du Chevalier Descamps, 
 Conseil des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, qui se trouve a Bruxelles uu 
 te*legramme demandant l'autorisation de remettre son discours a lundi 
 le 29 septembre, afin de lui permettre d'assister aux ceremonies des 
 funerailles de Sa Majesty la Reine des Beiges. 
 
 M r . Beernaert fait une demande tendant a l'ajournement du Tri- 
 bunal les 25 et 26 septembre se declarant pret a revenir en temps utile 
 pour assister a la stance du 27 courant. 
 
 Le President rdpond que le Tribunal a decide" de sieger tous les 
 jours; M r . Ralston est invite" a en donner connaissance par telegramme 
 au Chevalier Descamps. 
 
 M r . Ralston continue son discours de la veille, qu'il termine a midi. 
 
 La stance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures. 
 
 A la reprise de la stance M r . Ralston remet au Tribunal d' Arbitrage 
 une demande (ecrite) tendant a permettre au Chevalier Descamps de 
 prendre la parole lundi prochain le 29 septembre au lieu d'aujourd'hui. 
 
 Le President repond que le Tribunal ne peut pas admettre cette 
 demande. 
 
 M r . Delacroix, Conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains, prend la parole. 
 
 La seance est levee a, 5 heures et le Tribunal s'ajourne au lendemain 
 a, 10 heures du matin. 
 
 Ainsi fait a la Haye, le 23 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 I? Agent des Mats- Unis d'Amerique: Jackson H. Ralston. 
 IS Agent des Etats- Unis ^lexicains: E. Pabdo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Ruyssenaers. 
 
 peotocole v. 
 
 Seance du mercredi 21/, septembre 1902. 
 
 La seance est ouverte a 10 heures du matin, tous les Arbitres e'tant 
 
 presents. .,,.■,, 
 
 M r . Delacroix reprend son argumentation de la veille. 
 A midi la stance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures. 
 
870 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNIAS. 
 
 A la reprise de la stance M r . Ralston, Agent des Etats-Unis d' Ameri-. 
 que donne, avecl'assentiment de la Partie defenderesse, quelques expli- 
 cations sur les anciennes frontieres de la Calif ornie et remet au Tribunal 
 des copies certifiers conformes des cartes officielles, annexees au traits 
 de Guadelupe-Hidalgo du 2 feVrier 1848 ou ces limites se trouvent 
 fixees. 
 
 M 1 '. Beernaert depose des conclusions imprimees pour la Partie 
 defenderesse et demande au Tribunal s'il serait possible de ne pas sieger 
 vendredi matin le 26 septembre a cause de la ceremonie des f une*railles 
 de Sa Majeste" la Reine des Beiges. 
 
 Le President repond que le Tribunal deferant a cette demande ne 
 siegera pas dans la matinee de vendredi prochain. 
 
 M 1 '. Delacroix continue son discours jusqu'a 4£ heures et le Tribunal 
 s'ajourne a vendredi a 2£ heures de relevee. 
 Ainsi fait a La Haye, le 24 septembi'e 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 H Agent des Mats- Unis d'Ameerique: Jackson H. Ralston. 
 I? Agent des Etats- Unis Mexicains: E. Pardo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Ruyssenaers. 
 
 protocole VI. 
 
 Seance du vendredi 26 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni a 2£ heures de l'apres-midi, tous les Arbitres 
 etant presents. 
 
 A l'ouverture de la stance M r . Ralston, Agent des Etats-Unis 
 d'Am^rique, remet au Tribunal, avec l'assentiment de la Partie d^f end- 
 eresse, un memoire du Gouvernement Americain fournissant des 
 donnees sur le nombre de catechumenes indiens elev^s dans les 6tab- 
 lissements catholiques de la Calif ornie et sur le nombre d'Indiens se 
 trouvant dans la Californie supe*rieure d'une part telle que cette con- 
 tr6e a 6te" limitee par le Traite" de Guadaloupe Hidalgo et d'autre part 
 telle qu'elle etait definie autrefois d'apres les pretentions du Gouverne- 
 ment Espagnol. 
 
 Le President invite le Secre"taire-G6neral ^ transmettre a 1' Agent des 
 Etats-Unis Mexicains un exemplaire du memoire imprime' susmen- 
 tionne\ 
 
 M r . Delacroix reprend son argumentation du 24 septembre qu'il 
 termine & 5 heures. 
 
 La stance est lev6e a 5 heures et le Tribunal s'ajourne au lendemain 
 a 10 heures. 
 
 Ainsi fait si La Haye, le 26 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 L Agent des Etats- Unis d'Amerique: Jackson H. Ralston. 
 X' Agent des Etats- Unis Mexicains: E. Pardo. ■• 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Ruyssenaers. 
 
 protocol vn. 
 
 Seance du samedi 27 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal se reunit a 10 heures, tous les Arbitres e"tants presents. 
 M r . Beernaert, Conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains, dit que Mr. Pardo 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 871 
 
 prendra la parole apres lui et qu'il a fait imprimer d'avance sa plai- 
 doirie, dont il se propose de remettre un exemplaire a chaque Membre 
 du Tribunal d' Arbitrage ainsi qu'a M r . l'Agent d'Arnexique. 
 
 M r . Ralston repond qu'il s'empressera d'en prendre connaissance. 
 
 Ensuite M r . Beernaert commence son argumentation. 
 
 A midi la seance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures. 
 
 A la reprise de la seance M r . Beernaert continue son discours, qu'il 
 termine a 3J heures. 
 
 M r . Pardo, Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains, commence son argu- 
 mentation apres avoir explique au Tribunal qu'il de'sirait Ure sa plai- 
 doirie et qu'il l'avait dans ce but fait imprimer d'avance. 
 
 A 4i heures l'Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains se sentant fatigue* 
 demande a se reposer. 
 
 Apres un echange d'observations entre le President et les Agents 
 d'Arne'rique et de Mexique, il est decide par le Tribunal, d'accord avec 
 les deux Parties, qu'un exemplaire imprime de la plaidoirie de M r . 
 Pardo sera remis au Tribunal at a la Partie demanderesse, avant que 
 M r . Descamps prenne la parole lundi prochain et que cette communi- 
 cation dispensera M r . l'Agent du Mexique de terminer la lecture de 
 cette partie de sa plaidoirie qu'il n'a pu finir dans la seance d'au- 
 jourd'hui. 
 
 M r . le Chevalier Descamps, Conseil des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, qui, 
 par suite de son absence a Bruxelles n'a pu assister a la stance du 23 
 septembre, ou il aurait du prendre la parole apres M r . Ralston, 
 demande au Tribunal l'autorisation d'etre encore admis a le faire lundi 
 prochain. 
 
 Le President declare que le premier plaidoyer et la reponse doivent 
 etre considered comme terminus, mais — qu'avec l'assentiment de la 
 Partie defenderesse — le Tribunal, deferant a la demande du Chevalier 
 Descamps, a decide que pour la replique et la duplique chaque Partie 
 pourra designer deux de ses Conseils pour prendre la parole au lieu 
 d'un seul, ainsi qu'il avait ete ordonne par le Tribunal et ainsi qu'il a 
 6te notifie au Parties le 15 septembre. 
 
 En consequence, le Chevalier Descamps sera admis a, prononcer son 
 discours dans la prochaine reunion du Tribunal. 
 
 La seance est lev6e a 4£ heures et le Tribunal s'ajourne a lundi le 
 29 septembre a 10 heures du matin. 
 
 Ainsi fait a La Haye, le 27 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 I? Agents des Etats- Uhis d'Amerique: Jackson H. Ralston. 
 L'Agent des Etats- TJnis Mexicains: E. Pardo. 
 
 Le /Secretaire- General: L. H. Ruyssenaers. 
 
 protocole vni. 
 
 Seance du lundi 29 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni a 10 heures, tous les Arbitres 4tant presents. 
 
 L'Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains, M r . Pardo, continue la lecture 
 de sa plaidoirie ecrite, l'impression de ce document n'ayant pu §tre 
 effectu^e en temps utile pour §tre communiqu^e au Tribunal et a la 
 Partie demanderesse, avant l'ouverture de la seance. 
 
872 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 A 11£ heures, apres que M r . Pardo a termine son plaidoyer M r . 
 Ralston offre au Tribunal ainsi qu'a la Partie defenderesse un exem- 
 plaire im.prvme de la deposition faite sous serment le 26 aout 1902 par 
 M r . John T. Doyle devant le notaire Jas. T. O'Keefe de San Francisco. 
 
 M r . Beernaert demande s'il s'agit dans l'espece d'un nmtveau docu- 
 ment. Dans ce cas il exprime le desir qu'il soit accorde" a la Partie 
 defenderesse le temps n^cessaire pour examiner cette nouvelle piece. 
 
 Le Secretaire-General fait observer qu'il ne s'agit nullement d'un 
 nouveau document mais simplement d'une piece figurant deja, au dos- 
 sier et dont la Partie defenderesse a pu prendre connaissance puisqu'il 
 a lui-meme addresse le 15 septembre a Monsieur l'Agent des Etats- 
 Unis Mexicains une lettre officielle lui faisant savoir que le dossier 
 americain depos6 au Greffe du Tribunal etait, sans exception aucwie, 
 mis a sa disposition. 
 
 Le Chevalier Descamps, Conseil des Etats-Unis d'Am^rique, prend 
 la parole. 
 
 A midi moins un quart, le Chevalier Descamps demande a suspendre 
 la stance et a continuer son discours a la reprise de la stance. Avant 
 la suspension de la seance le Secretaire-General donne lecture de la 
 lettre officielle susmentionnee, qu'il a adressee le 15 septembre a M r . 
 l'Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains et dont voici la teneur: 
 
 ' ' Monsieur, J'ai l'honneur de vous f aire savoir que le dossier qui a 
 6te* soumis par l'Agent des Etats-Unis d'Am^rique au Tribunal d' Arbi- 
 trage, constitue en vertu du traite conclu a Washington le 22 mai 1902 
 entre les Etats-Unis d'Am^rique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains, se trouve 
 depose au Greffe du dit Tribunal 71 Prinsegracht, ou Votre Excel- 
 lence, ou bien telle autre persoune qu'elle designera a cet effet, pourra 
 en prendre connaissance. 
 
 J'ajouterai que tous les documents, sans exception aucune, sont 
 compris dans ce dossier et qu'ils peuvent etre examines demain le 16 
 septembre ainsi que les jours suivants de 2 a 5 heures. 
 
 " Veuillez," etc., etc. 
 
 A midi la seance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures. 
 
 A la reprise de la seance l'Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains depose 
 sur la table du Tribunal un exemplaire du tome XI du Recueil des 
 lois Mexicains intitule: "Legislacion Mexicana 6 Coleccion completa 
 de las disposiciones legislativas expedidas desde la independencia de la 
 Republica ordenada por los licenciados Manuel Dublan y Jose Maria 
 Lozano, Edicion oficial ■ — 1879. • — 
 
 Ensuite le Chevalier Descamps continue son argumentation jusqu'a 
 4 heures. 
 
 A ce moment il se declare trop fatigue pour continuer et demande 
 a remettre la suite de sa plaidoirie a demain. 
 
 Le Tribunal s'ajourne a mardi le 30 septembre 9f heures du matin. 
 
 Ainsi fait a, La Haye, le 29 septembre 1902. « 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 I? Agent des Etats- JJnis d , Amerique: Jackson A. Ralston. 
 I? Agent des Etats- Unis Mexicains: E. Pardo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. A. Rutssenaebs. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNTAS. 87B 
 
 PKOTOCOLE IX. 
 
 Seance du mardi 30 septemhre 190%. 
 
 Le Tribunal se reuni't a 9| heures du matin, tous les Arbitres 6tant 
 presents. 
 
 Le President prononce quelques paroles pour recommander a MM. 
 les Conseils de bien vouloir eviter, autant que possible, toute repeti- 
 tion qui ne serait pas absolument indispensable. 
 
 Ensuite le Cbevalier Descamps, apres avoir depose" sur la table du 
 Tribunal un exemplaire d'un dictionnaire franco-espagnol intitule - : 
 "Nuevo diccionario frances-esp'anol y espaiiol-f ranees con la pronun- 
 ciation figurada en ambas lenguas arreglado con presencia de los mate- 
 riales reunidos para esta obra por D. Vicente Salva y constros sacados 
 de los diccionarios antiguos y modernos mas acreditados compuesto eon 
 mejor rnetodo, mas exacto correcto y completo que todos los publicados 
 hasta el dia por D. J. B. Guim, duodecima edicion, Paris 1889", con- 
 tinue son argumentation qu'il termine a, 10£ heures. 
 
 Le juge Penfield, Conseil des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, prend la parole 
 et prononce un discours qu'il termine a 12.35 heures. 
 
 M r . Beernaert, Conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains, adresse au Tribunal 
 une demande tendant a le remise de la seance a demain, afin de per- 
 mettre aux Conseils de la Partie defenderesse, qui n'ont pu suivre 
 qu'imparfaitement l'argumentation anglaise de M r . le juge Penfield, 
 d'eludier a tSte reposee le co'mpte-rendu stenographique de ce discours. 
 
 II ajoute que M r . Delacroix et lui-meme s'appliqueront a presenter 
 leurs observations aussi brievement que possible, afin de regagner 
 ainsi le temps perdu par la suspension de la seance qu'ils sollicitent et 
 il ne met pas en doute qu'il leur sera possible de finir leurs discours 
 de duplique dans la stance de demain. 
 
 Apres s'Stre retire pour en deliberer, le Tribunal decide ce que suit: 
 
 En vue de la promesse f ormelle de la part des Conseils du Mexique 
 de finir leur duplique demain mercredi le Tribunal s'ajourne a demain 
 a 10 heures. 
 
 Ainsi fait a La Haye, le 30 septembre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 
 I? Agent des Mats- Unis d'Amerique: Jackson H. Ealston. 
 
 L Agent des Mats- Unis du Mexique: E. Pardo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Kuyssenaeks. 
 
 PROTOCOLE X. 
 
 Seance du mercredi 1 octdbre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal se reunit a 10 heures du matin, tous les Arbitres e"tant 
 
 Pr M'. n Kalston demande a M r . Pardo s'il est en mesure de lui fournir 
 les renseignements qu'il lui a demanded par une lettre du 28 aout 1902, 
 au suiet des versements effectues par le Gouvernement Mexicain au 
 clerge de Calif ornie de sommes d'argent provenant du Fonds Pieux. 
 
874 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 L' Agent des Etats-Dnis Mexicains se reserve d'y r^pondre cet apr&s 
 midi. 
 
 M r . Delacroix, Conseil des Etats-Unis Mexicains, commence son 
 argumentation a 10£ heures et la termine k midi. 
 La stance est suspendue jusqu'a 2£ heures. 
 
 A la reprise de la seance M r . Ralston donne lecture de deux t616- 
 grammes du Gouvernement Americain donnant les dates et les chiffres 
 des paiements qui ont (Ste" faits dans l'affaire Weil et La Abra et des 
 derniers versements effeetues par le Gouvernement Mexicain au clerge* 
 de Calif ornie en consequence de la decision de la commission mixte, et 
 il remet ensuite au Tribunal les documents suivants: 
 1°- Papal Bulls with relation to California bishoprics; 
 2°. Powers of attorney from the Bishops of Sacramento and Mon- 
 terey to the Archbishop of San Francisco; 
 3°. Mexican call for discovery with supplemental affidavit of the 
 Most Reverend Patrick William Riordan, Archbishop of San 
 Francisco; 
 4°. Letter of the Mexican Legation at Rome to the Holy See, dated 
 April 6, 1840, and affidavit of Most Reverend Patrick William 
 Riordan, Archbishop of San Francisco; 
 5°. Map showing Indian reservations within the limits of the United 
 States compiled under the direction of the Hon. W. A. Jones, 
 Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1901. 
 M r . Pardo dit qu'il ne fait aucune objection contre le d£p6t de ces 
 pieces, qu'il suppose 6tre destinies a eclairer le Tribunal, mais il n'en 
 garantit nullement l'exactitude et il fait ses reserves a cet egard. 
 
 II ajoute qu'il n'a pas encore recu les informations demandees par 
 Mr. Ralston dans sa lettre du 28 aout dernier. Quant aux chiffres et 
 dates donnes par Mr. Ralston il n'est pas a meme de prononcer faute 
 de donnees sur ce point. 
 
 M r . Beernaert commence son discours a" 3 heures et le termine k 4i 
 heures. 
 
 Le president prononce la cloture des debats et declare que le Tri- 
 bunal delib^rera sur l'affaire en litige. La sentence sera lue dans une 
 seance publique, a" laquelle les Agents et Conseils des deux Parties 
 seront dument appeles. 
 A 4£ heures la seance est levee et le Tribunal s'ajourne sine die. 
 Ainsi fait k La Haye, le 1 octobre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 V Agent des Mats- Unis $ Amerique: Jackson 'H. Ralston. 
 1 , Agent des Etats- Unis Mexicains: E. Pardo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Rutssbnabes. 
 
 protocole XI. 
 Seance du mardi llf, octobre 1902. 
 
 Le Tribunal s'est reuni k 4 heures de l'apres-midi, k portes closes, 
 tous les Arbitres 6tant presents. 
 
 Les cinq Arbitres ont signe" la Sentence definitive du Tribunal en 
 trois exemplaires, dont un sera remis k chacune des Parties, en execu- 
 tion des dispositions du Traite, et dont le troisieme est destine" a fetre 
 
, PIOUS FUND OP THE CALIPOBNIAS. 875 
 
 depose dans les archives du Bureau International de la Cour perma- 
 nente d' Arbitrage. 
 
 A 5 heures, la stance a portes closes a pris fin et a ete immediate- 
 ment suivie d'une stance publique. 
 
 Tous les Arbitres etaient presents, ainsi que les Agents des Gou- 
 vernements des Etats-Unis d'Amerique et des Etats-Unis Mexicains. 
 
 Le President donne la parole a M 1 '. Ruyssenaers, Secretaire-General 
 de la Cour Permanent© d'Arbitrage pour lire la sentence arbitrale dont 
 void la teneur: 
 
 Le Tribunal d'Arbitrage, constitue en vertu du Traite conclu a, 
 Washington, le 22 mai 1902, entre les Etats-Unis d'Amerique et les 
 Etats-Unis Mexicains; 
 
 Attendu que, par un compromis, redige sous forme de JProtocole, 
 entre les Etats-Unis d'Amerique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains, signe a 
 Washington le 22 mai 1902, il a ete" convenu et regie que le differend, 
 qui a surgi 'entre les Etats-Unis d'Amerique et les Etats-Unis Mexi- 
 cains au sujet du '"JFbnds Pieux des California" dont les annuites 
 Etaient reclamees par les Etats-Unis d'Amerique, au profit de l'Arch- 
 ev^que de San Francisco et de l'Eveque de Monterey, au Gouvernement 
 dela Republique Mexicaine, serait soumis a un Tribunal d'Arbitrage, 
 constitue sur les bases de la Convention pour le reglement pacifique des 
 conflits international^}, signee a La Hayele 29 juillet 1899, qui serait 
 cothpose de la maniere suivante, savoir: 
 
 Le President des Etats-Unis d'Amerique designerait deux Arbitres 
 non-nationaux et le President des Etats-Unis Mexicains egalement deux 
 Arbitres non-nationaux Ce quatre Arbitres devraient se reunir le 1 
 set tembre 1902 a La Haye afin de nommer le Surarbitre qui, en meme 
 temps, serait de droit le President du Tribunal d'Arbitrage. 
 
 Attendu que le President des Etats-Unis d'Amerique a pomme" 
 comme Arbitres: 
 
 Le tres honorable Sir Edward Fry, Docteur en droit, autrefois 
 siegeant a la Cour d'Appel, Membre du Conseil Prive de Sa Majeste 
 Britannique, Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage et 
 
 Son Excellence Monsieur de Martens, Docteur en Droit, Conseiller 
 Prive, Membre du Conseil du Ministere Imperial des affaires Etran- 
 
 fei-es de Russie, Membre de l'Institut de France, Membre de la Cour 
 'ernoanente d'Arbitrage; 
 Attendu que le President des Etats-Unis Mexicains a nomme comme 
 
 Monsieur T. M. C. Asser, Docteur en Droit, Membre du Conseil 
 d'Etat des Pays-Bas, ancien Professeur a l'Universite d' Amsterdam, 
 Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage et 
 
 Monsieur le Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin Lohman, Docteur en Droit^ 
 antien Ministre de Plnterieur des Pays-Bas, ancien Professeur a 
 l'Universite libre d' Amsterdam, Membre de la Seconde Chambre des 
 Etats-Genera-ux, Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage; 
 
 Lesquels Arbitres, dans leur reunion du 1 septembre 1902, ont eiu, 
 conformement aux Articles XXXII— XXXIV dela Convention de La 
 H^ye du 29 Juillet 1899, comme Surarbitre, et President de droit du 
 Tribunal d'Arbitrage: v . 
 
 Monsieur Henning Matzen, Docteur en Droit, Professeur a 1 'Uni- 
 versite de Copenhague, Conseiller extraordinaire a la Cour Supreme, 
 President du Landsthing, Membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage. 
 
876 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOKNIAS. 
 
 Et attendu, qu'en vertu du Protocole de Washington du 22 mai li<*<2, 
 les susnommes Arbitres, reunis en Tribunal d'Arbitrage, devraient 
 decider. 
 
 1°. Si la dite reclamation des Etats-Unis d'Amerique au profit de 
 PArchevSque de San Francisco et de l'Eveque de Monterey est regie 
 par le principe de la res judicata, en vertu de la sentence arbitrale du 
 11 novembre 1875, prononc^e par Sir Edward Thornton, en qualite 
 de Surarbitre; 
 
 2°. Si non, si la dite reclamation est juste, avec pouvbir de rendra 
 tel jugement qui leur semblera juste et Equitable; 
 
 Attendu que les susnommes Arbitres, ayant examine" avec impartia- 
 lity et soin tous les documents et actes, pre'sentds au Tribunal d'Arbi- 
 trage par les Agents des Etats-Unis d'Amerique et des Etats Unis 
 Mexicains, et ayant entendu avec la plus grande attentiou les plaidoi- 
 ries orales, presentees devant le Tribunal par les Agents et les Conseils 
 des deux Parties en litige; 
 
 Considerant que le litige, soumis a la decision du Tribunal d'Arbi- 
 trage, consiste dans un conflit entre les Etats-Unis d'Amerique et les 
 Etats-Unis Mexicains qui ne saurait etre regie que sur la base des 
 traite"s internationaux et des principes du droit international ; 
 
 Considerant que les Traites internationaux, conclus depuis l'annee 
 1848 jusqu'au compromis du 22 mai 1902, entre les deux Puissances en 
 litige, constatent le caractere ^minemment international de ce conflit ; 
 
 Considerant que toutes les parties d'un jugement ou d'un arr^t 
 concern ant les points debattus au litige s'6clairent et ce completent 
 mutuellement et qu'elles servent toutes a preciser le sens et la ported 
 du dispositif, a determiner les points sur lesquels il y a chose jugee et 
 qui partant ne peuvent Stre remis en question ; 
 
 Considerant que cette regie ne s'applique pas seulement aux juge- 
 ments des tribunaux institues par l'Etat, mais egalement aux sentences 
 arbitrales, rendues dans les limites de la competence fixees par le com- 
 promis ; 
 
 Considerant que ce mSme principe doit a plus forte raison, etre 
 applique aux arbitrages internationaux ; 
 
 Considerant que la Convention du 4 juillet 1868, conclue entre les 
 deux Etats en litige, avait accord^ aux Commissions Mixtes, nommees 
 par ces Etats, ainsi qu'au Surarbitre a designer eVentuellement, le 
 droit de statuer sur leur propre competence ; 
 
 Considerant que dans le litige, soumis a la decision du Tribunal 
 d'Arbitrage, en vertu du compromis du 22 -mai 1902, il y a, non seule- 
 ment identity des parties en litige, mais egalement identity de la 
 matiere, jugee par la sentence arbitrale de Sir Edward Thornton 
 comme Surarbitre en 1875 et amended par lui le 24 octobre 1876; 
 
 Considerant que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains a con- 
 sciencieusement execute la sentence arbitrale de 1875 et 1876, en pay- 
 ant les annuites adjugees par le Surarbitre; 
 
 Considerant que, depuis 1869, trente-trois annuites n'ont pas ete 
 payees par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains au Gouverne- 
 ment des Etats-Unis d'Amerique et que les regies de la prescription, 
 etant exclusivement du domaine du droit civil, ne sauraient Stre appli- 
 quees au present conflit entre les deux Etats en litige; 
 
 Considerant, en ce qui concerne la monnaie, dans laquelle le paie- 
 ment de la rente annuelle doit avoir lieu, que le dollar d'argent, ayant 
 cours legal au Mexique, le paiement en or ne peut §tre exige" qu'en 
 vertu d'une stipulation expresse; 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFOBNTAS. 877 
 
 Que, dans l'espece, telle stipulation n'existant pas, la Partie d^fen- 
 deresse a le droit de se liberer en argent; 
 
 Que, par rapport a ce point, la sentence de Sir Edward Thornton 
 n'a pas autrement force de chose jugee que pour les vingt et une 
 annuites a l'egard desquelles le surarbitre a decide que le paiement 
 devait avoir lieu en dollars d'or Mexicains, puisque la question du 
 mode de paiement ne concerne pas le fond du droit en litige mais 
 seulement l'execution de la sentence; 
 
 Considerant, que d'aprfe l'Article X du Protocole de Washington 
 du 22 mai 1902, le present Tribunal d' Arbitrage aura a statuer, en cas 
 de condamnation de la Republique du Mexique, dans quelle monnaie 
 le paiement devra avoir lieu; 
 
 Par ces motifs le Tribunals d' Arbitrage decide et prononce a 
 l'unanimite ce qui suit: 
 
 1°. Que la dite reclamation des Etats-Unis d'Amerique au profit 
 
 de l'Archev^que de San Francisco et de 1'EvSque de Monterey est 
 
 regie par le principe de la res judicata, en vertu de la sentence arbitrate 
 
 de Sir Edward Thornton du 11 novembre 1875 amendee par lui le 24 
 
 . octobre 1876; 
 
 2°. Que, conformant a cette sentence arbitrale, le Gouvernement de 
 la Republique des Etats-Unis Mexicains devra payer au Gouvernement 
 des Etats-Unis d'Amerique la somme d?un million quatre cent vingt 
 mille six cent quatre-vingt-deux Dollars du Mexique et soixante-sept 
 cents (l,420,682 T yo Dollars du Mexique) en monnaie ayant cours legal 
 au Mexique, dans le delai fixe' par l'Article X du Protocole de Wash- 
 ington du 22 mai 1902. 
 
 Cette somme d'un million quatre cent vingt mille six cent quatre 
 vingt deux Dollars et soixante sept cents (l,420,682 I y 7r Dollars) con- 
 stituera le versement total des annuites echues et non payees par le 
 Gouvernement de la Republique Mexicaine, savoir de la rente annuele 
 de quarante trois mille cinquante Dollars du Mexique et quatre-vingt- 
 dix-neuf cents (43,050 T Vir Dollars du Mexique) depuis le 2 feVrier 1869 
 jusqu'au 2 feVrier 1902; 
 
 3°. Le Gouvernement de la Republique des Etats-Unis Mexicains 
 paiera au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique le 2 f eVrier 1903, 
 et chaque annee suivante a, cette memie date du feVrier, a perpetuite, 
 la rente annuelle de quarante trois mille cinquante Dollars du Mexique 
 et quatre-vingt-dix-neuf cents (43,050 T Vir Dollars du Mexique) en 
 monnaie ayant cours legal au Mexique. 
 
 Fait a La Have, dans 1'Hotel de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage, en 
 triple original, le 14 octobre 1902. 
 
 Hbnning Matzbn. 
 
 Edw. Fry. 
 
 Martens. 
 
 T. M. C. Asser. 
 
 A. F. de Savornin Lohman. 
 
 Le President prononce ensuite l'allocution suivante: 
 Messieurs, le Tribunal d' Arbitrage a tenu sa premiere stance le 15 
 septembre, et la cloture des debats a 6te prononcee le ler octobre; 
 aujourd'hui, 14 octobre, nous avons rendu la sentence que M. le Seci'e - - 
 taire-General vient de lire, et dont un exemplaire sera donne a chaque 
 Agent des Puissances en litige, en execution des dispositions du 
 Traite, et dont le troisieme est destine a etre depose dans les archives 
 du Bureau International de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage. 
 
878 PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 
 
 Le Tribunal d' Arbitrage est done arrive a la fin de sa t&che, a, moins 
 que les parties, usant de la faculte" que leur donne Particle 13 du pro- 
 tocole de Washington, conformement a Particle 55 de la Convention 
 de La Haye, demandent la revision de la sentence arbitral. Cette 
 revision ne peut etre motivee que par la decouverte d'un fait nouveau 
 qui eut ete de nature a exercer une influence decisive sur la senteijvce 
 et qui lors de la cl6ture des debats etait inconnu du Tribunal lui-rneme 
 et de la partie qui demande la revision. La procedure de revision ne 
 peut etre ouverte que par une decision du Tribunal constatant expresse- 
 ment Pexistence du fait nouveau, lui reconnaissant le caractere preyu 
 par le paragraphe precedent et declarant a ce titre la demande recevable. 
 Mais des maintenaht, et jusqu'a ce qu'une telle demande soit adressee 
 au Tribunal et declaree recevable, les Hautes Parties ont cesse d'etre 
 en litige et la mission qui lui a 6te confiee est regardee comme remplje. 
 
 Je tiens, Messieurs, & vous adresser encore quelques mots. 
 
 S'il n'est donne" a, aucun Tribunal humain de savoir ses sentences 
 infaillibles, nous emporterons du moins d'ici la ferme conviction 
 d'avoir recherche" la verite de toutes nos forces, consciencieusement et 
 impartialement; et il me sera permis d'ajouter que Punanimite avec , 
 laquelle tous les Membres du Tribunal appartenant a differents pays 
 reunis ici a La Haye sont arrives, chacun pour soi et tous ensemble, 
 aux memes conclusions, me semble constituer une garantie de plus que 
 dans notre recherche empressee de la ve"rite nous n'avons pas fait 
 fausse route. 
 
 En repassant par memoire le cours de nos travaux, e'est a Messieurs 
 les Agents, les intermediates entre les Parties et le Tribunal, que 
 celui-ci doit en premier lieu ses remerciements sinceres. Messieurs, 
 marquees au sceau de votre haute distinction, les relations avec le 
 Tribunal, etablies et maintenues par vous, ont 6te des plus excellentes 
 et des plus cordiales du premier jusqu'au dernier jour. 
 
 Nous remercions aussi chaleureusement Messieurs les Conseils des 
 deux Parties, qui nous ont secondes et que ont revStu les debats des 
 formes les plus courtoises et d'une bonne grace incessante. 
 
 Une parfaite urbanite dans les rapports mutuels a rendu la tache 
 du President aussi facile qu'agreable. Lors de notre premiere reunion 
 j'ai dit que les Conseils etabliraient des bases pour les deliberations 
 du Tribunal; ils ont realise et bien au-dela cette prediction, ils ont 
 guide le Tribunal en faisant jaillir sur tous les points en litige la 
 lumiere de leur haute erudition et du travail le plus approfondi. 
 
 Nous vous remercions, Monsieur le Secretaire-General, dont l'in- 
 fatigable assistance nous a prete un precieux appui, ainsi que Mes- 
 sieursles Secretaires pour le soin avec lequel ils se sont acquitted de 
 leur tache. 
 
 Le tribut de notre reconnaissance est du aussi aux Membres du Con- 
 seil Administratif de la Cour Permanente, qui ont mis a notre dispo- 
 sition le confort et 1 'elegance des belles salles dans lesquelles nous 
 av^ons tenu nos reunions. 
 
 Sous Pimpression de Paccueil si hospitalier qui lui a etc" fait dans ce 
 pays si riche en souvenirs de grands faits et de bienfaits dans Phistoire 
 du Droit et de PHumanite, le Tribunal, siegeant sous les auspices de 
 Sa Majeste la Reine des Pays-Bas, depose aux pieds de la Gracieuse 
 Souveraine Phommage respectueux de sa profonde gratitude, et ses 
 meilleurs vceux pour son bonheur et pour la prosperite de son Peuple. 
 
PIOUS FUND OF THE CALIFORNIAS. 879 
 
 M r . Ralston, Agent des Etats-Unis d'Am6rique demande la parole 
 et s'exprime en ces termes: 
 
 M 1 . President and honorable arbitrators: Now that the hour of 
 adjournment approaches, it seems fitting that some acknowledgment 
 should be made on the part of the United States and their representa- 
 tives for courtesies extended, as well as for those expressed in the 
 speech just concluded. 
 
 We came strangers, and have met with only the most friendly treat- 
 ment from all. To you, Mr. President, and to all other members of 
 the Court, we owe most hearty thanks for the kind and patient hear- 
 ing constantly afforded us. You have recognized the fact that satis- 
 faction to all litigants, whether successful or rejected, was only to be 
 given when all could feel that their arguments, sound or otherwise, 
 concise or repeated, had received all possible attention. 
 
 My duty at this point would be incomplete were I to overlook 
 acknowledgment of the unfailing courtesy and friendliness to the par- 
 ties litigant displayed by the officers of the Court. Without their con- 
 stant assistance, our proceedings must have been much less rapid and 
 effective. 
 
 I desire to recognize the good faith and good temper at all times dis- 
 played by our friends upon the other side of this dispute. While they 
 have ever lo3 T ally and ably maintained the cause of Mexico and ener- 
 getically sought to further her interests, never have any difficulties of 
 a personal character or controversies calculated to leave unpleasant 
 memories arisen between us. I also join with you, Mr. President, in 
 expressing the thanks of my country to the Permanent Administra- 
 tive Council for providing us with such pleasant quarters in which to 
 meet and adjust our difficulties. 
 
 We exchange the compliments appropriate to the time and circum- 
 stances, yet were there nothing more to be said, our words might well 
 be counted as " sounding brass and tinkling cymbal," and our meeting 
 here as having only ephemeral value. 
 
 There has just been determined at The Hague a controversy over 
 money,— a thing which we are told has been " slave to thousands," and 
 the love of which is described as "the root of all evil." If a judgment 
 now meant nothing more than the transfer or non-transfer of money 
 from one party or the other, however interesting this might be to those 
 concerned, the world at large could look on with indifference. 
 
 We believe, however, that a first step has been taken that will count 
 lai'gely for the good of future generations; that following this primal 
 recognition of the existence of a Court competent to settle disputes 
 between nations, will come general reference to it, not alone of 
 differences similar to the present, but of other controversies involv- 
 ing lai'ger questions of individual rights and national privileges. We 
 may hope that precisely as questions formerly believed to involve 
 individual honor have in many countries entirely ceased and in others 
 are ceasing to be settled by formal exercise of force, the same revolu- 
 tion may gradually be effected in the affairs of nations. The Perma- 
 nent Court of Arbitration, assisting this end, must tend to bring about 
 that "peace on earth, good will toward men," for which Christians 
 
 hope. 
 
 Mr. President and Honorable Arbitrators, for good or for ill our 
 task is accomplished. While we may be pardoned for indulging in 
 the expression of hope that, irrespective of the immediate effect of 
 
880 PIOUS FUND OF THE OALIFOENIAS. 
 
 your decision, good is to be anticipated from the labors of all of us, 
 yet whatever the future holds, we must accept it. We have all done, 
 according to our several lights and abilities, the best we knew, and 
 quietly and philosophically, without exultation or depression, we 
 accept the results. 
 
 I may therefore recall to you in closing the promise of the old 
 "Niebelungen Lied": 
 
 "Wilt thou do the deed and regret it? 
 
 Thou hadst better never been born. 
 Wilt thou do the deed and proclaim it? 
 
 Then thy fame shall be outworn. 
 Thou shalt do the deed and abide it, 
 
 And from thy throne on high, 
 Look on to-day and to-morrow as those that never die." 
 
 Mr. Paedo Agent des Etats-Unis Mexicains prononce ensuite lea 
 paroles suivantes: 
 
 Messieurs: Quand j'ai eu l'honneur d'adresser la parole pour la pre- 
 miere fois si la Cour, le jour ou elle s'est installee, j'ai commence" par 
 exprimer au nom de mon Gouvernement sa determination de se sou- 
 mettre fidelement et loyalement a la decision de cette Cour. Je suis 
 absolument sur que lorsque mon Gouvernement connaitra le jugement 
 que la Cour vient de rendre il l'acceptera comme l'expression du 
 jugement et de la sagesse de cinq jurisconsultes distingues, de cinq 
 honnetes hommes. Mais naturellement je dois r&erver a mon Gou- 
 vernement le droit de faire valoir tous les recours que le protocole du 
 22 mai dernier accorde au Parties. 
 
 Je ne veux pas abuser de la patience ni de l'attention du Tribunal. 
 Je reitere la manifestation de gratitude que j'ai faite le jour de l'in- 
 stallation de la Cour pour le bon vouloir avec lequel Messieurs les 
 Arbitres ont eu la bonte d'assumer une tache lourde et penible qui a 
 £te remplie avec une si grande bonne volonte" et avec un esprit 
 d'impartialite que je me plais §, reconnaitre. 
 
 Je profite de cette occasion pour adherer de tout mon coeur ill la 
 manifestation qui vient d'etre faite par M. 1' Agent des Etats-Unis et 
 aux remerciements qu'il a adressfe aux Membres du Conseil adminis- 
 tratif de la Cour Permanente d' Arbitrage pour leur bienveillante hos- 
 pitality. II ne me reste plus qu'a vous dire encore une fois merci pour 
 yotre travail, pour votre bon vouloir, pour votre sagesse et pour votre 
 impartialite. 
 
 Le President remercie Messieurs les Agents de leurs paroles cour- 
 toises et annonce que le Tribunal a termine ses traveaux. 
 
 La seance est levee a 5£ heures. 
 
 Fait k La Haye, le 14 octobre 1902. 
 
 Le President: H. Matzen. 
 E Agent des Mats- Unis d'Amerique: Jackson H. Ralston. 
 I? Agent des Mats- Unis Mexica%ns: E. Paedo. 
 
 Le Secretaire- General: L. H. Ruyssenaees. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Admission to tribunal by card 504 864 
 
 Alemany et al. v. Mexico, certified copies in the case of, presentation to 
 
 the tribunal 507 
 
 American agent. See Ralston, J. H. 
 
 Annex of the Mexican answer, Pleito de Rada, presentation to tribunal of.. 507 
 
 Answer of Mexico: 
 
 In Spanish 30 
 
 In French 43 
 
 In English 68 
 
 Delay in filing of 508 
 
 Presentation to tribunal of English translation of 508 
 
 Filing in Spanish and French promised by Mexican agent 523 
 
 In Spanish and French filed 867 
 
 See Mexico, Pleito de Rada and Pardo, Emilio. 
 Appendix to Record: 
 
 Treaties between United States and Mexico- 
 February 2, 1848 114 
 
 July 4, 1868 137 
 
 April 19, 1871 145 
 
 November 27, 1872 147 
 
 November 20, 1874 150 
 
 April 29, 1876 154 
 
 Protocol submitting "Pious Fund" claim 157 
 
 Regulations under convention of July 4, 1868 166 
 
 The Hague Peace Convention 169 
 
 Arguments. See Orders of court and Debates. 
 Asser, T. M. C. : 
 
 Appointment of, by Mexico as arbitrator 503, 862 
 
 Discussion as to filing American replication 513 
 
 Questions as to date of law of prescription '. . . . 687 
 
 Questions as to case of Nobile v. Redman 695 
 
 Avila, Eleuterio: 
 
 Argument for defense before umpire 450 
 
 Petition for rehearing 461 
 
 Argument for rehearing 467 
 
 Award, former, discovery asked by and granted to Mexico in regard to pro- 
 ceeds of 524,527 
 
 Telegram showing date of last payment on account thereof 820 
 
 Award of tribunal 857, 875 
 
 English translation of 15 
 
 K. 
 
 Beernaert, M.: 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel of Mexico 504, 863 
 
 Letter relating thereto 507 
 
 Comments as to character of dossier prepared in Washington 564 
 
 Remarks concerning postponement of M. Descamps's argument 611 
 
 ' ' Conclusions ' ' of Mexico presented to court by 668, 870 
 
 Argument, opening of (September 27, morning) 712, 871 
 
 Argument ( September 27, afternoon) 729, 871 
 
 Application for adjournment 818, 873 
 
 Replique (October 1, afternoon) 843, 874 
 
 S. Doc. 28 56 881 
 
882 index. 
 
 Briefs: 
 
 Statement and brief on behalf of the United States (J. H. Ralston and 
 
 W. L. Penfield) 197 
 
 Statement on behalf of the United States ( William M. Stewart and C. J. 
 
 Kappler) 245 
 
 Points submitted by Messrs. Doyle and Doyle 262 
 
 Supplemental brief on behalf of the United States (Mr. Garret W. Me- 
 
 Enerney) 283 
 
 Observations on answer of Mexico (Messrs. Doyle and Doyle) 335 
 
 Of agent and counsel of the United States, submission to tribunal of . . . 510 
 
 Of Doyle and Doyle, submission to tribunal of 510 
 
 Of William M. Stewart and C. J. Kappler, submission to tribunal of . . . 510 
 
 C. 
 
 Catholic Register, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 Certified copies of record in the case of Alemany et al. v. Mexico, presenta- 
 tion to tribunal of 507 
 
 Cienega del Pastor: 
 
 Copy of deed of 90 
 
 Presentation to tribunal of certified copy of deed of, and printed copy. . 507, 509 
 
 D. 
 
 Order for publicity of 504,864 
 
 Order of, discussion in regard to 752, 871 
 
 Announcement of order of speeches on behalf of the United States 523 
 
 Closing of 857,874 
 
 See Orders of tribunal. 
 
 Delacroix, M. : 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel for Mexico 863 
 
 Delay in presentation of documents asked by •. . . 508 
 
 Commencement of argument of (September 23, afternoon) 628, 869 
 
 Continuation of argument of (September 24, morning) 647, 869 
 
 Continuation of argument of (September 24, afternoon) 668, 870 
 
 Conclusion of argument of (September 26, afternoon) 688, 870 
 
 Replique (October 1, morning) 821, 874 
 
 Descamps, M. le Chevalier: 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel of the United States 504, 863 
 
 Letter relating thereto 507 
 
 Application on behalf of, for delay in argument 611 
 
 Application for leave to address the court in closing for the United 
 
 States, and permission therefor 752, 871 
 
 Argument of (September 29, morning) 769, 872 
 
 Continuation of argument of (September 29, afternoon) 775, 872 
 
 Conclusion of argument of (September 30, morning) 790, 873 
 
 Deposits with tribunal Salva's French-Spanish Dictionary 873 
 
 Diplomatic correspondence, presentation of 507 
 
 Discovery by Mexico: 
 
 Demand by American agent for 508 
 
 Inquiry by American agent, in open court, as to reply to demand for . .* 820, 873 
 Reply thereto by Mexican agent 841 874 
 
 Discovery by United States: 
 
 As to Indian population of California and christianized Indians 425 
 
 Made as to disposition of former award 524 527 
 
 As to christianized Indians in California 688' 870 
 
 Affidavit of Rev. P. W. Riordan relating to discoveries 433, 819' 874 
 
 Documents, Mexico's delay in presentation to tribunal of (gee Evidence) . . .' ' 508 
 
 Dossier filed by United States declared open to defendant 866 
 
 Doyle and Doyle, submission to tribunal of brief of . 510 
 
 Doyle, John T.: 
 
 Deposition of, with exhibits 399 
 
 Presentation to tribunal of deposition of " 507 
 
 Presentation to tribunal of printed copy of deposition of, with exhibits! 766 
 
 Discussion as to right to present same _ 7g<j 757 
 
 See Evidence. ' 
 
 Doyle, W. T. S. 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel of the United States S04 868 
 
 Letter relating thereto '....' ' SOf 
 
INDEX. 883 
 
 E.' Page. 
 
 Escritura de venta, copy of 90 
 
 Demand made for production of 508 
 
 English language, use of, permitted 504, 864 
 
 Evidence: 
 
 Annex of Mexican answer, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 Catholic register, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 Certified copies in case of Alemany et al. v. Mexico, presentation to tri- 
 bunal of 507 
 
 Certified copies of diplomatic correspondence, presentation to tribunal of . 507 
 
 Succession of bishops of California, presentation of proofs of 507 
 
 Testimony of Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of San Fran- 
 cisco, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 Doyle, John T. , presentation to tribunal of deposition of 507 
 
 Extracts, sworn, from "Noticias de la Provincia de Calif ornias," presen- 
 tation to tribunal of 507 
 
 Extracts, sworn, in regard to the case, presentation to the tribunal of.. 507 
 . Letter of American agent of September 3, 1902, in regard to volume con- 
 taining record in the case of Alemany et al. v. Mexico, presentation to 
 
 tribunal of 507 
 
 Letter of Mexican agent of September 3, 1902, with an English transla- 
 tion of the reply of Mexico of August 6, 1902, presentation to tri- 
 bunal of 507 
 
 Testimonio de la escritura de venta de Ciehega del Pastor, presentation 
 
 to tribunal of 507 
 
 Treaty of May 22, 1902, presentation to the tribunal of certified copies of. 507 
 
 Ciehega del Pastor, production of deed of 507, 509 
 
 Lower California, exhibit in regard to Indian population of 509 
 
 Mexico, laws of, in regard to Pious Fund, presentation to tribunal of.. 509 
 
 Pleito de Rada, presentation to tribunal of resume of 509 
 
 Annex of Mexican answer, acceptance by United States as authentic . . 512, 866 
 Extracts from Spanish works, presentation to tribunal of, promised by 
 
 American agent 515 
 
 Award, former, discovery asked by and given to Mexico in regard to 
 
 proceeds of 524, 527 
 
 Extracts from original record, presentation to tribunal by American 
 
 agent of English translation of - - 524 
 
 Pious Fund, presentation to tribunal of pontifical decree, directing dis- 
 tribution of former award derived from 524, 527 
 
 Certified copy of map accompanying treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 667, 870 
 
 Map, showing limits of various acquisitions of territory by the United 
 
 States.... 667,870 
 
 Christianized Indians in California, discovery as to 688-870 
 
 Printed copy of deposition of John T. Doyle, with exhibits, presented 
 
 by the American agent 766-872 
 
 Affidavit of Most Rev. P.W. Riordan 819,874 
 
 Papal bulls with relation to California bishoprics 439, 819, 874 
 
 Powers of attorney from bishops of Sacramento and Monterey to the 
 
 archbishop of San Francisco 819> 8 ? 4 
 
 Affidavit of Most Rev. P. W. Riordan, and letter from Mexican ambas- 
 sador to Holy See, April 6, 1840 819,874 
 
 Extracts: „.. 
 
 Translations from original record 349 
 
 From "Noticias de Californias," etc - 448 
 
 Sworn, in relation to the case, presentation to the tribunal of 507 
 
 Sworn, from "Noticias de la Provincia de Californias," presentation to 
 
 tribunal of : - - - - 507 
 
 From original record, presentation to tribunal by American agent of 
 
 English translation of 524 
 
 F. 
 
 French, selection of, as official language - - 504, 864 
 
 Fry, Sir Edward: . 
 
 Appointment of, by United States as arbitrator - - - - olw, sw 
 
 Discussion by, with relation to presentation of American replication ... 513 
 
 Discussion by, in regard to foundation deed 518, 567 
 
 Questions as to date of origin of claim «" 
 
 As to Mexico's right of withdrawal from old case we 
 
884 INDEX. 
 
 Fry, Sir Edward— Continued. f age- 
 As to succession of bishops 624 
 
 As to presence of bishop of Grass Valley 768 
 
 H. 
 Hague Peace Convention 169 
 
 I. 
 
 Indian population of Lower California, exhibit in regard to 90 
 
 Presentation of 688 
 
 Indian reservations, map showing bounds of, presentation by American agent 
 of 768,842,874 
 
 Indians, Christianized, in California, discovery as to 688, 870 
 
 See Discovery by United States and Evidence. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kappler, C. J.: 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel of the United States 504, 863 
 
 Letter relating thereto 507 
 
 Submission to tribunal of brief of 510 
 
 L. 
 
 'Letters: 
 
 From American agent of September 12, 1902, in regard to examination 
 by Mexican agent of documents deposited with secretary-general, 
 presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 From American agent of September 13, 1902, giving names of counsel 
 for United States, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 From American charg6 d'affaires in regard to appointment of J. H. 
 
 Ealston as agent of the United States, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 From American charge d'affaires in regard to appointment of W. L. 
 
 Penfield as counsel of United States, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 From American minister of September 12, 1902, transmitting deposition 
 of J. T. Doyle, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 From secretary-general of September 12, 1902, giving names of counsel 
 for Mexico, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 From American agent of September 3, 1902, in regard to volume con- 
 taining record in case of Alemany v. Mexico, presentation to tribunal 
 of 507 
 
 From American agent of September 4, 1902, in regard to the argument 
 of Senator Stewart, presentation to tribunal of 507 
 
 From Mexican agent of September 3, 1902, with an English translation 
 of the reply of Mexico of August 6, 1902, presentation to tribunal of. 507 
 
 From Becretary-general to M. Pardo relative to deposit of dossier 774, 872 
 
 Lohman, J. S. de Savornin, appointment of, by Mexico as arbitrator 504, 862 
 
 •Lower California, exhibit in regard to Indian population of 90 
 
 Presentation of 509 
 
 van Lynden, Baron Melvil, address of welcome 501 
 
 M. 
 
 •de Martens, Mr. : 
 
 Appointment of, by United States as arbitrator 5C3, 862 
 
 Discussion by, with regard to presentation of replication 513 
 
 Presentation of replication by the United States,«discussion in regard to. 514 
 
 Inquiries as to Mexico's position before mixed commission of 1868 605 
 
 Questions raised by Alabama arbitrations 608 
 
 Questions as to submission of Mexico to mixed commission of right to 
 entertain claim '. 685 
 
 Matzen, H.: 
 
 Reply to address of welcome 502 
 
 Opening address of 502, 862 
 
 Selection of, as president 503, 862 
 
 Closing address of 859, 877 
 
 McEnerney, G. W.: 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel of ttie United States 504, 863 
 
 Letter relative thereto ' 507 
 
INDEX. 885 
 
 McEnerney, G. W.— Continued. Page. 
 
 Commencement of argument of (September 17, morning) 541 867 
 
 Continuation of argument of (September 17, afternoon) .'..'..'.. 545' 867 
 
 Continuation of argument of (September 22, morning) '. 564' 868 
 
 Conclusion of argument of (September 22, afternoon) 586' 868 
 
 Memorial of the United States * ' 21 
 
 ' ' Conclusions " of, filing with secretary-general of '.'.'.'.".','.'.'. 507 
 
 Mexican agent. See Pardo, Emilio. ' 
 
 Mexico: 
 
 Answer of Spanish 30 
 
 French , " " " 43 
 
 English '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'." """*"" 68 
 
 "Conclusions" of 102 
 
 Compliance by United States promised to demands "for discovery by "I 508 
 
 Delay in filing answer of 508 
 
 Presentation to tribunal of English translation of '.'."'. 508 
 
 Laws of, in relation to Pious Fund 343 
 
 Presentation to tribunal of 509 
 
 Question in regard to presentation to tribunal of answer of 510 
 
 Discussion by Mexican agent in regard to presentation of new docu- 
 ments by 511 
 
 Discussion by Mexican agent in regard to response of 510, 511 
 
 Reservation of right to present new documents by Mexican agent 512 
 
 Discussion by American agent in regard to presentation of reply by. 508, 512, 583 
 
 Answer of in Spanish and French promised by 523 
 
 Discovery asked by and granted to in regard to proceeds of former award 
 
 against 524, 527 
 
 Consent given by Mexican agent to United States to file replication 513 
 
 "Conclusions" of, filed 668,870 
 
 Filing of answer with annexes 867 
 
 See Pardo, Emilio, and Answer of Mexico. 
 Montgomery, George, bishop of Monterey: 
 
 Proof of succession of J 387 
 
 ST. 
 
 Notes, stenographic, taking of, in English and French 504, 864 
 
 Noticias de la Provincia de Californias, sworn copies of, presentation to tri- 
 bunal of 507 
 
 O. 
 
 Orders of tribunal: 
 
 Appointing secret? rii s 504, 863 
 
 As to publicity of debates 504, 864 
 
 Admission to tribunal by card 504, 864 
 
 Authorization of employment of French and English, but French official 
 
 language 504, 864 
 
 As to duty of secretaries 504, 864 
 
 As to stenographic reports 504, 864 
 
 As to course of discussion 523, 867 
 
 Permission to Mexico to respond to replication within ten days 523, 867 
 
 As to hours of session 610, 869 
 
 As to written demands by the parties concerning the progress of pro- 
 cedure or interpretation of rules 610, 869 
 
 Refusing written application for delay of argument of M. Descamps 
 
 Allowing two counsel to reply and rejoin 752, 871 
 
 As to adjournment over 
 
 Closing debates 857, 874 
 
 P. 
 
 Pardo, Emilio: 
 
 Appointment of, as agent of Mexico 504, 863 
 
 Opening address of 506, 865 
 
 Letter relating to appointment of, as agent of Mexico 507 
 
 Discussion in regard to presentation of new documents by 511 
 
 Discussions in regard to response of Mexico by 510, 584 
 
 Discussion as to order of arguments 515 
 
886 INDEX. 
 
 Pardo, Emilio— Continued. Pa ? e - 
 
 Promise to furnish Mexican answer in Spanish and French 523 
 
 Filing of Mexican answer, discussion of duty of United States as to ... .' 584 
 Discussion of position as minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraor- 
 dinary from the Mexican Republic ., 585, 868 
 
 Commencement of argument of (September 27, afternoon) 737, 871 
 
 Conclusion of argument of (September 29, morning) 753, 871 
 
 Statement as to effect of code of federal district 773 
 
 Letter to, from the secretary-general, relating to deposit of documents. 774, 872 
 Inquiry in open court, addressed by American agent, as to reply to de- 
 mand for discovery - 820, 873 
 
 Eeply as to inquiry with relation to demand for discovery 841, 874 
 
 Reply to closing address of president 861, 880 
 
 Deposit with tribunal of Volume XI of Legislacion Mexicans 872 
 
 Papal bulls with relation to California bishoprics 439, 874 
 
 Pardo, L. , appointment of, as Mexican secretary 504, 863 
 
 Penfield, W. L. : 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel of United States 504, 863 
 
 Letters relating thereto 507 
 
 Address of (September 30, morning) 798, 873 
 
 Presents observations in name of Mr. Ralston 818 
 
 Penfield, W. S. , appointment of, as American secretary 504, 863 
 
 Pious Fund, translation of extracts relating thereto 349 
 
 Papal decree dividing former award to 424 
 
 Distribution of award, affidavit of Archbishop Riordan as to 433 
 
 Pleadings: 
 
 Memorial of United States 21 
 
 Answer of Mexico — Spanish 30 
 
 French '. 43 
 
 English 68 
 
 Replication of United States : 56 
 
 Conclusions of Mexico 102 
 
 Pleito de Rada: 
 
 Resume 1 of 83 
 
 Presentation of, as annex to Mexican answer 507 
 
 Agreement as to authenticity of 511, 512, 866 
 
 Presentation to tribunal of resume' of 509 
 
 Protocol submitting "Pious Fund" claim to arbitration. See Appendix to 
 Record. 
 
 E. 
 
 Ralston, J. H.: 
 
 Report of 9 
 
 Appointment of, as agent of the United States 504, 863 
 
 Opening address of 504, 864 
 
 Letter relative to appointment of, as agent of the United States 507 
 
 Demand for discovery by Mexico made by 508 
 
 Discussion as to filing of Mexican answer 508, 512, 583, 868 
 
 Presents replication of United States 509 
 
 Brief of, presented to tribunal 510 
 
 Admission of authenticity of Pleito de Rada 512 
 
 Discussion as to admission of replication 513 
 
 Application to tribunal to settle order of discussion 515 
 
 Presents translation of extracts in case of Alemany v. Mexico 524 
 
 Presents answer to application for discovery as to proceeds of former 
 
 award 524, 527 
 
 Commencement of argument of (September 22, afternoon) 598, 868 
 
 Application on behalf of M. Descamps to fix later time for his argument. 611, 869 
 
 Continuation of argument of (September 23, morning) 612, 869 
 
 Application in writing for delay of argument of M. Descamps 627,' 869 
 
 Presents certified copy of map accompanying treaty of Guadalupe 
 
 Hidalgo i 667,870 
 
 Presents map showing limits of various acquisitions of territory by the 
 
 United States gg7 
 
 Presents discovery as to Christianized Indians in the State of Calif ornia! 688, 870 
 Presents printed copy of deposition of John T. Doyle, with exhibits 766, 872 
 
INDEX. 887 
 
 Ralston, J. H. — Continued. Page. 
 
 Presents map showing Indian reservations 842, 874 
 
 Presentation of observations of, by Judge Penfield 818 
 
 Presents powers of attorney from the bishops of San Francisco and Mon- 
 terey to the archbishop of San Francisco 819, 874 
 
 Presents affidavit of Most Eev. P. W. Kiordan 819, 874 
 
 Inquiry by, in open court as to reply to demand for discovery 820, 873 
 
 Presents papal bulls with relation to California bishoprics 819, 874 
 
 Presents affidavit of Archbishop Riordan and letter from Mexican am- 
 bassador to Holy See, April 6, 1840 820,874 
 
 Presents telegram showing date of last payment upon former award ... 820 
 
 Reply to closing address of president 860, 879 
 
 See Letters. 
 
 Replication of United States 57 
 
 Submission to tribunal of 509 
 
 Riordan, Most Rev. Patrick W., archbishop of San Francisco: 
 
 Powers of attorney to -. 374 
 
 Proof of succession of 377 
 
 Deposition of, dated July 24, 1902 398 
 
 Affidavit of, dated September 16, 1902 421 
 
 Supplemental of affidavit as to distribution of Pious Fund award, dated 
 
 September 30, 1902 433, 819, 874 
 
 Presentation to court of testimony of 819, 874 
 
 Presentation to court of affidavits of 819, 820, 874 
 
 Presentation to court of powers of attorney to 819, 874 
 
 Roell, J. M., appointment of, as assistant secretary 504, 863 
 
 Ruyssenaers, L. H.: 
 
 Appointment of, as secretary-general 504, 863 
 
 Letter to Emilio Pardo relating to deposit of documents 774, 872 
 
 Session of September 15, morning, opening of 502,862 
 
 Session of September 15, afternoon, opening of 506, 866 
 
 Session of September 17, morning, opening of 523, 866 
 
 Session of September 17, afternoon, opening of 545, 867 
 
 Session of September 22, morning, opening of 563, 868 
 
 Session of September 22, afternoon, opening of 583, 868 
 
 Session of September 23, morning, opening of 610, 869 
 
 Session of September 23, afternoon, opening of 627, 869 
 
 Session of September 24, morning, opening of 647, 869 
 
 Session of September 24, afternoon, opening of 667, 870 
 
 Session of September 26, afternoon, opening of 688, 870 
 
 Session of September 27, morning, opening of 712, 870 
 
 Session of September 27, afternoon, opening of 729, 871 
 
 Session of September 29, morning, opening of 753, 871 
 
 Session of September 29, afternoon, opening of 774, 872 
 
 Session of September 30, morning, opening of 790, 873 
 
 Session of October 1, morning, opening of 819, 873 
 
 Session of October 1, afternoon, opening of 841,874 
 
 Session of October 14, afternoon, opening of 857, 874 
 
 Secretary-general, presentation to tribunal of documents by 507 
 
 See Ruyssenaers, L. H. 
 
 Speeches of American counsel, order of 523-866 
 
 Speeches of counsel, decision by tribunal in regard to order of 523, 867 
 
 See Debates and orders of tribunal. 
 Stewart, William M. : 
 
 Appointment of, as counsel of United States 504, 863 
 
 Letter relating thereto 507 
 
 Submission to tribunal of brief of 510 
 
 Commencement of argument of (September 15, afternoon) 516, 866 
 
 Conclusion of argument of (September 17, morning) 525, 867 
 
 T. 
 
 Testimonio de la escritura de venta, presentation to tribunal of 507, 509 
 
 Treaties between United States and Mexico. See Appendix to Record. 
 Treaty of Washington of May 22, 1902, piesentation to the tribunal of certi- 
 fied copies of ■ 507 
 
 See Appendix to Record. 
 
888 INDEX. 
 
 u. 
 
 United States: Page. 
 
 Compliance by, with demands of Mexico for discovery . . ! 508, 819 
 
 Filing with secretary-general of memorial of 508, 
 
 Submission to tribunal of replication of 509 
 
 Discussion by Sir Edward Fry in regard to presentation of replication by- 513 
 
 Discussion by M. Beernaert in regard to presentation of replication by . 513 
 
 Discussion by M. Descamps in regard to presentation of replication by . 514 
 
 Discussion by M. de Martens in regard to presentation of replication by 513 
 
 Discussion by M. Asser in regard to presentation of replication by ". 513 
 
 Order of speeches of counsel of 523 
 
 Consent of Mexico given to replication of 513 
 
 See Evidence, and Ealston, J. H. 
 
TABLE OF CITATIONS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Allgemeine Gesichtsordnung, of Germany 721 
 
 American and English Encyclopaedia of Law : 
 
 Volume 2, page 794 617 
 
 Volume 2, page 795 606, 616 
 
 Volume 2, page 805 617 
 
 Volume 17, page 1055 220 
 
 Volume 21, page 128 212 
 
 Arntz (Droit Civil) tome 3, page 404 720 
 
 Aubry & Rau (Sur Zacharie) 785 
 
 B. 
 
 Bank of Hindustan, Allison's Case, L. R., Ch. App. Cases, vol. 9, p. 1 231 
 
 Beard v. Federy (-3 Wall., 479) 573 
 
 Bel den v. Mexico 592 
 
 Beige: 
 
 Code Civil 718,719 
 
 Code de Procedure 724 
 
 Pandectes 720,790,854 
 
 Pandectes ( Note) . . 721 
 
 Belgique, cour de cassation de (decision July 18, 1901) (Note) . . 722 
 
 Black Biver Savings Bank v. Edwards, 10 Gray, 387 235 
 
 Bohmer 723 
 
 Bonflls (Droit Int. Pub.).. 216,223,613 
 
 Boston Water Power Co. v. Gray, 6 Metcalf, 131 220 
 
 Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Kawle's Ed. ) 534 
 
 Buchka (from Savigny) 729 
 
 C. 
 
 Calvin's case (7 Co., 27) 575 
 
 Calvo (Droit International) 215,217,609,613,614 
 
 Chand on Res Judicata 591,592,593,617,620 
 
 Civil Code of Spain -■ 37 
 
 Cleveland v. Creviston (Chand on Res Judicata, p. 47) 620 
 
 Code Civil du District Federal du Mexique 750, 773 
 
 Code Civil, Francais 212,601 
 
 Code de Procedure, Beige 724 
 
 Code de Procedure, Francais 265, 724 
 
 Conference de la Haye (1899) 617,786 
 
 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (p. 47) 235 
 
 Cour de cassation de Belgique 721, 722 
 
 Courdecassationd'sFrance(Feb.8, Aug.8,1837; Mar.12,1838; Junel0,1856). 722 
 
 Cour de cassation de France 721,722,723 
 
 Cromwell v. County of Sac (4 Otto, 351) 231 
 
 Cujas - 718 
 
 D. 
 
 Dalloz (Chose Jugee) 232 
 
 Dalloz (Jugements) 719 
 
 889 
 
890 TABLE OF CITATIONS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Darras De Certains Dangers de 1' Arbitrage 224 
 
 Deurwaarder's Maanblad 60 
 
 Dernburg 780 
 
 Descamps (Essai sur organisation de Parbitrage international) 217, 614 
 
 Eeport on Arbitration 221 
 
 Dictionnaire General de Droit et de Jurisprudence 233 
 
 Doty ti. Brown (4 New York, 71) 231 
 
 Drydock, etc., R. R. Co. v. N. & A. R. R. Co. (22 N. Y. Supp.,556) 235 
 
 Duchess of Kingston's Case (20 Howell's State Trials) 232 
 
 Dundasv. Waddell (5 App. Cases, 263) 229 
 
 l 
 
 E. 
 
 Edgelli'. Sigerson (26 Bio., 583) 234 
 
 Empire State Nail Co. v. Am. Solid Leather Button Co. (74 Federal, 864) ... 235 
 
 F. 
 
 Ferand-Geraud, Traits d' Arbitrage 224 
 
 Foreign Relations, United States (1887) 35, 47, 74, 855 
 
 France, Code de Procedure 265, 724 
 
 France, cour de cassation (Feb. 11, 1807; Jan. 9, 1839; July 23, 1839; May 3, 
 
 1893; June 10, 1856) 723 
 
 France, cour de cassation (Feb. 8, 1837; Aug. 8, 1837; Mar. 12, 1838) 723 
 
 France, Pandects of 791 
 
 Freeman on Judgments, sec. 256 230 
 
 Freeman on Judgments, sec. 258 231 
 
 G. 
 
 Gardner v. Buckbee (Chand on Res Judicata, p. 47) 620 
 
 Geff cken 224 
 
 Goldschmidt (Revue de Droit Int., 1874) 219, 226, 609 
 
 Goldschmidt (Revue de Droit Int., 1872) 215 
 
 Griolet (Chose Jugee) 33,34,46,47,59,621,721,734,735 
 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo, treaty of 747, 811 
 
 Guereta. Andoury (62 Law Journal, 633) 218 
 
 II. 
 
 Hague Convention. See Conference de la Haye 617 
 
 Hall's International Law 217, 224 
 
 Halleck's International Law 225 
 
 Haye, Conference de la (1899) 617,786 
 
 Heffter's Droit International 224 
 
 Henderson v. Henderson (3 Hare, 100) 231 
 
 Herbert's Law of Prescription 567 
 
 Histoire du.Pontiflcat de Clement XIV 638 
 
 Hobbolsonu. Sherman (10 Jones & S., 477) 234 
 
 Jackson v. Lunn (3 John C, 109) 575 
 
 K. 
 
 Kamarowsky (p. 355) ., 225 
 
 Kelly v. Harrison (2 John C, 29) 575 
 
 Kelsey v. Ward (38 New York, 83) 234 
 
 Keown v. Murdock (10 Ohio State, 606) 231 
 
 Lacombe (de 1' Autorite' de la Chose Jugee) 622 
 
 Lambermont, Baron 217 
 
 Larombiere (Traits des obligations) 720, 723 
 
 Laurent (Principes du droit civil frangais) 232, 618, 720, 724, 729 
 
 Lassepas, Baja California 735 ; 736 
 
 Loveu. Waltz (7 California, 250) 234 
 
TABLE OP CITATIONS. 891 
 
 M. Page. 
 
 Manufacturing Co. v. Walker (114 N. Y., 7) 231 
 
 Meiers v. Purrier (21 111. App., 551) """""!!""*! 234 
 
 Merignhac, la Conference Internationale de la Paix (p. 296) 221 
 
 MeYignhac's Traits de 1' Arbitrage 222 
 
 Mexico, Civil Code of Federal District of '. 750,772 
 
 Moore's International Arbitrations 214, 315, 319, 586, 606 
 
 Morse's Report, Venezuela Arbitration 215 
 
 N". 
 
 Netherland Civil Law (part 3, edition of 1874) 60 
 
 New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank (167 U.S., 371) 235 
 
 Nobilew. Redman (VI Cal., 325) 689,695,696,697 
 
 O. 
 
 Opzoomer, C. W 60, 623 
 
 Outramw. More wood. (3 T. R., 346) 592 
 
 P. 
 
 Pandects ( Belgian) 720, 790, 854 
 
 Pandects (Belgian) (Note) 721 
 
 Pandects ( French) 791 
 
 Pantoja 33,46,73 
 
 Pasicrisie 723, 736, 854 
 
 Phillimore 224 
 
 Pradier-Fodere (Traite de Droit Int. Pub. ) 215, 219, 226, 609 
 
 Prescription, Law of (Herbert) 567 
 
 E. 
 
 Repertoire Gengrale AlphaMtique du Droit Francais 213, 214, 233, 235 
 
 Repertoire Generate de Jurisprudence 217, 218, 220, 606, 614, 616 
 
 Repertoire universelle, etc. , de jurisprudence 265 
 
 Revue de Droit International (1875) 222,223 
 
 See Goldschmidt and Rolin-Jaequemyns. 
 
 Revue General de Droit International 215 
 
 Reynolds v. Mandel (73 111. App., 379) 231 
 
 Rivier (Principes du Droit des Gens) 216, 223 
 
 Rolin-Jacquemyns (Revue de Droit Int. ) 218, 219, 615 
 
 S. 
 
 Sala. Dro. Real de Espafia 37 
 
 Savigny (Droit Romain) 33,34,46,57,58,72,73,621,733 
 
 Sirey (Note) 721 
 
 T. 
 
 Taylor's International Public Law (page 379) 223 
 
 Terretv. Taylor (9 Cranch U. S., 43) 310,574 
 
 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 747-748,794 
 
 Tyseni). Tompkins (10 Daly, 244) 234 
 
 V. 
 
 Van Dolsen v. Abendroth (Chand on Res Judicata, 47) 620 
 
 Vattel 225 
 
 W. 
 Wharton's International Law Digest 215 
 
 Y. 
 
 Young tf. Brehe (19 Nevada, 379) 234 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zacharie -- - - 720 
 
 Zacharie (Aubry et Rau sur) /85 
 
 O