order of the inferior court, and thus the proceedings were ended, including the charge of murdering the Tabasco woman.

As to the law of the case, the Mexican commissioners contended that where an American citizen voluntarily placed himself under the municipal laws of another country he must take them as they were, and that he had no greater right to complain than the Mexicans themselves if the laws should be bad and imperfectly administered. The American commissioners answered that if Mexico wished to maintain rank and fellowship among the civilized nations of the earth she must place her laws on a footing with the laws of other nations, so far as related to intercourse with foreigners. What oppression they might practice upon their citizens was one thing; the practice of similar oppressions upon foreigners was another thing. The latter had the right to appeal to the protection of their government, if injured. They referred to the case of Meade against Spain for the purpose of showing an acknowledgment by Spain of liability for the palpable misconduct of judicial tribunals. In that case Meade was ordered by the court to pay over the sum of $50,000 into the royal treasury. The money was in his hands as a depositary, and after he had paid the money into the treasury the depositor obtained from the same court a decree directing Meade to pay over the money to him. As it was impossible for him to obey these contradictory decrees he was sent to prison. The Spanish Government admitted the justice of his claim. The case of Dr. Baldwin, said the American commissioners, was much stronger than that of Meade, since not only was there gross injustice and oppression, but a most palpable fraud on the part of the oppressors. The convention afforded the only means of redress for Dr. Baldwin, unless the United States should resort to an act of force.

The American commissioners demanded the following sums: (1) $21,450, with interest from October 6, 1828, to January 20, 1842, for loss of effects, of property, and of merchandise, seized by Ortiz in 1828; (2) $11,500, with interest from November 14, 1828, to January 20, 1842, for suspension of work in Dr. Baldwin's mill during the sequestration of his property and his banishment in 1828; (3) $15,000, as indemnity for his banishment and the expulsion of his family, and for the suspension of his agricultural business for three months in 1828; (4) $2,750, with interest from October 1, 1828, for the seizure of

timber and other property; (5) $50,000, as indemnity for his imprisonment and the suspension of his work during twelve months, and for expenses of defense; (6) $100,000, for loss of property, including land, mills, a coffee plantation, and divers implements, and also for the loss of the product of his capital, of his labor, and of his enterprise during fifteen years; (7) $243, for costs of translation, etc.

The umpire awarded, February 23, 1842, the sum of $100,000 in gross.

Another claim was made by Dr. Baldwin for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the Mexican authorities while he was residing as a merchant and carrying on an extensive business in the settlement or colony of Coatzacoalcos. On December 31, 1831, he received a written notification from the alcalde of Minatitlan, requiring him to appear and answer for a small account for debt. Upon the reception of this notice Dr. Baldwin, in accordance with the law of Mexico, procured an hombre bueno, or arbitrator, and set out for the office of the alcalde. When he reached the alcalde's house, he had, it was alleged, no sooner entered than several armed soldiers appeared to prevent his egress, while the alcalde addressed him in violent language, and after some words ordered him to be put into the stocks. Dr. Baldwin, being satisfied that an outrage was meditated upon his person, declared that he would not submit to the indignity, and attempted to escape. He succeeded in reaching his house, where he made hasty preparations to fly to Acayucan, but was pursued by armed men and a number of people hastily got together by order of Hoyos, the commissioners of the colony, by whom the proceedings were alleged to have been maliciously instigated. In his efforts to escape from his pursuers Dr. Baldwin fell and fractured his leg. Thus disabled he was taken by the soldiers past his own house, where his wife entreated that he might be permitted to remain in his injured condition, and back to the town and confined with his broken leg for two hours in the stocks.

Meanwhile, another division of his pursuers proceeded to his house, which they searched, with great indignity to its occupants. After Dr. Baldwin was released from the stocks he was detained in prison for several days and was then transferred to the prison at Acayucan on a litter, against the advice of a French surgeon then present. In the prison at Acayucan he was permitted to remain for eighty-four days, during the

greater part of which time he had no surgical assistance. The imprisonment of Dr. Baldwin was for two alleged crimes, (1) disobedience to the alcalde in flying at the time the sentence of imprisonment was imposed, and (2) in afterward firing a shot at those who by order of the alcalde went to apprehend him.

The American commissioners maintained that, without considering whether the determination of the judge to imprison Dr. Baldwin was just and in conformity with law, or whether he had committed a crime, it was certain that for such offenses he had suffered a disproportionate punishment. As to the charge of firing the shot, it was disproved. While he had a gun with him, it was found, when he was arrested, to be loaded. The American commissioners awarded (1) for the outrage on Baldwin's person, by placing him in the stocks with a broken leg and then detaining him in prison as a criminal for eighty-four day, $20,000; (2) for permanent incurable injury to his leg, $10,000; (3) for the interruption of his business, and the injury to him as a merchant, $10,000; (4) for the expenses necessarily incurred in consequence of his criminal prosecution, and in the presentation of his claim, $5,000; and (5) for costs of translation and consulting a physician, $174.75-in all $45,174.75.

The umpire, February 23, 1842, adopted the award of the American commissioners.

Dr. John Baldwin v. Mexico: Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

Dennis Gahagan, a citizen of the United Gahagan's Case. States, was the agent at Tabasco, Mexico, of Aaron Leggett, a merchant of New York. In 1832, while in the interior on business, he was arrested. He was soon released, but after returning to Tabasco was imprisoned again and in other ways ill treated. The principal cause of his persecution seems to have been that he gave advice looking to the rescue from the hands of the Mexicans of Mr. Leggett's vessel which had been seized by them and impressed into service in a political contest then prevailing. Mr. Leggett also preferred a claim for his own losses. The American commissioners said:

"Neither in the papers accompanying his (Gahagan's) memorial, nor in the voluminous documents of Leggett's case, can we discover the slightest pretense or provocation for the

wanton outrages inflicted upon him. His conduct was in all respects legal, circumspect, and respectful to the public authorities, and to individuals; yet he was imprisoned by both parties, loaded with irons, thrown into the most loathsome dungeons, kept from starvation while there by the charity of his countrymen, his assassination attempted, his health by a wanton exposure in a sickly climate and season destroyed, and his mind for a time became partially alienated in consequence of his severe mental and bodily sufferings. No particular cause for this barbarous treatment has ever been assigned, though sought for at the time by the sufferer and his friends; none has since been alleged."

The American commissioners awarded "for imprisonment, barbarous treatment, loss of health, and suffering in consequence thereof," $10,000, and "for loss of his employment, and expenses resulting therefrom, the sum of," $6,000. The umpire, February 23, 1842, rendered an award in accordance with that of the American commissioners.

Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

Claimants were the owners of certain merHammonds' Case. chandise which they were transporting from St. Louis, in Missouri, to Santa Fé, then (in 1828) in Mexico. It had been transported in a wagon most of the way, but because of mountains and bad roads it became necessary to transfer a portion of the goods to pack horses. While these were on their way to the custom-house in Santa Fé, in charge of a Mexican driver employed for the purpose, they were seized on the pretense that he intended to smuggle them, and without any judicial proceedings or trial whatever were sold and the proceeds converted by the Mexican authorities.

The American commissioners awarded damages for the taking of the goods and the umpire sustained them.

The claimants also asked damages for alleged wrongful action of the customs authorities in 1830, in withholding permits for the transportation of goods. It seems that they at the time took some action against the authorities, the precise nature and results of which were not disclosed. The American commissioners awarded $500 on this score, with interest, but the umpire disallowed it.

Eli E. and Jervis S. Hammond v. Mexico: Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

Bolles's Case.

"The claimants above named, citizens of the United States, being temporarily domiciled at Monterey, in California, in the year 1840, were, with some sixty or seventy other foreigners, forcibly seized and imprisoned by order of the governor of California upon the pretext that they had attempted to excite an insurrection. The prisoners were placed on board a Mexican vessel and carried to Santa Barbara, where they were confined about ten days. They were then sent to San Blas where they were again confined as close prisoners. From the latter place they were sent to Tepic, where they were brought to trial before a Mexican tribunal, by which they were fully acquitted and discharged. During the whole time of their imprisonment they were treated with extreme harshness and cruelty, and frequently refused the means of subsistence for several days together. From this inhuman and barbarous treatment many of the prisoners would doubtless have perished, but for the charitable interposition of strangers, who furnished them with food and by other means mitigated their sufferings. The claimants upon their return to Monterey, after their acquittal, found the little property which they had left confiscated by order of the governor, and they were left without any means of subsistence. The seizure and imprisonment of the men appears to have been wholly without cause, as there was not the slightest evidence to show that they had taken part in the political disturbances of the country. It was a wanton act of arbitrary power and without even the color of law to justify or excuse it, and could have been prompted only by unfounded suspicions or a hatred of foreigners. In the opinion of the board the claims are valid, and the same are allowed accordingly."

Cases of Joseph Bolles and John Christian: Opinion of Messrs. Evans, Smith, and Paine, commissioners, December 4, 1850, under the act of Congress of March 3, 1849. An award was made in favor of Bolles for $2.821.25$1,850 principal, and $971.25 interest; and in favor of Christian for $1.374.50-$902 principal, and $472.50 interest. Awards were made in other cases growing out of the same transaction. All these awards were for losses of property. It appeared that the Mexican Government at the prisoners' release offered an indemnity for their imprisonment, amounting in some cases to $250 and in others to $300 or $400, and that, with the exception of one Isaac Graham, they accepted it, through the American minister at the City of Mexico, reserving, however, their right to claim for loss of property. Graham's case was the most aggravated of all. was," said the commissioners, "shot at and wounded, cut with a sword, and

"He