who had been firing at the train. The soldier identified him and the lieutenant requested the captain of the police to arrest him, which he did.

The investigations started after the events were similar in character to those conducted after the disturbances which took place in Panamá City on February 14 of the same year (see the Opinion of this Commission in the Baldwin case, Registry No. 9) and the Panaman investigation was similarly unsatisfactory. Different soldiers had stated that they could identify policemen who had fired, if confronted with them at an early date. The confrontation, when it finally took place, because insisted upon by the American Legation, was doomed to be futile, owing to the lapse of time. The sublieutenant of police was tried for the killing of Corporal Langdon, but his acquittal was a foregone conclusion, as it had long been discovered that the soldier, who identified him on the day of the events, did not identify him as the man who fired the shot that killed Langdon, but as the man who wounded the soldier on the train. Moreover it had also been discovered that Langdon could not have been killed by a shot coming from the direction where the sublieutenant was located. The sublieutenant was not, however, prosecuted for the wounding of the soldier on the train.

In the opinion of the Commission no claim lies against the Republic of Panama for the wounding of Richeson. The policemen were having difficulties with a group of soldiers. The Commission disbelieves the various versions of the soldiers putting the blame on the police. On the other hand the evidence of the soldiers themselves shows that they interfered with the action of the policemen and put the latter in the position of having to defend themselves. Richeson came up very closely to the group, but turned and ran when he saw the police draw their revolvers. In the absence of convincing evidence, that the police at that moment overstepped the limit of permissible measures for asserting their authority, the Commission must consider Richeson's case as that of an onlooker, inci

dentally wounded in the course of the efforts of the police to restore order.

The Commission finds that the death of Corporal Langdon must be attributed to inadequate police protection and improper police action. Whether Langdon was killed by one of the policemen who had been on the baseball field or by some other policeman or by a civilian, the responsibility rests on the Government of Panama whose police failed to maintain order at the scene of the disturbance, although their task was alleviated by the measures taken by the American military authorities, and whose police aggravated the situation by firing on the soldiers instead of dispersing the civilians against whom they could no doubt have asserted their authority if they had used, or even threatened to use, their arms against them.

Claim has been made on behalf of the heirs of Maurice Langdon, being a brother, a half-brother and the descendants of three deceased sisters. There is no evidence that any of them depended upon the deceased for their support. The measure usually adopted in fixing the amount of an award in favor of relations not being the parents of children of the deceased is therefore lacking in this case. The Commission feels that under the circumstances its award should not be for a larger amount than what it considers to express the very minimum of the reparation due by one state to another on account of its responsibility for the death of the latter's citizen.

The claimant William A. Day, together with other noncommissioned officers, had left the baseball field before the end of the game, to carry out the order that all infantrymen in town should be instructed to return to the train. After having discharged this duty, he was himself going to the train when he was struck down by a missile. Some soldiers helped him to the train. His evidence states that the police began to fire at the train shortly after he had gained it; that there was no firing when he saw the police before he was wounded. It is clear from his testimony that

he was wounded when the disturbance near the train had just broken out.

Even assuming that the missile that wounded him was thrown by a civilian, of which there is no evidence, the Commission does not find that there is a responsibility upon the Government of Panama for the wounding of the claimant.

DECISION

The claims presented on behalf of Charlie R. Richeson and W. A. Day are disallowed.

The Republic of Panama is obligated to pay to the United States of America, on behalf of the heirs of Maurice Langdon, the sum of $2,000, without interest. Done at Washington, D.C., this 26th day of June, 1933. D. W. VAN HEECKEREN

Presiding Commissioner ELIHU ROOT, Jr.

Commissioner

H. F. ALFARO

Commissioner

COMMENT

This Decision may not be classified as a particularly clarifying precedent on the question as to the degree of efficiency required of police officers in the protection of foreign nationals in order to absolve their governments from responsibility for wrongs caused by their acts or made possible by their negligence, since the Decision is not based upon a clear finding of facts in this respect.

The award constitutes, however, a bold statement of a principle often implied but seldom, if ever before, expressed, namely, that international law recognizes the propriety of a national pecuniary claim based upon the wrong

ful death of one of its citizens, regardless of the question as to any private damage resulting therefrom. The award is stated to be for "reparation due by one state to another on account of its responsibility for the death of the latter's citizen". At the same time the amount awarded is made payable to the "heirs" of the deceased. Inasmuch as it is clearly stated in the Decision of the Commission that there was not considered to be any recognized basis for awarding compensatory damages to the "heirs" of the deceased, the award appears to be a clear recognition of the propriety of awards punitive in character. Many awards in the past have carried that implication. Probably none, however, has evidenced it in such open language as in this case.

CLAIM

on behalf of

GUST ADAMS

DOCKET REGISTRY NO. 8

Syllabus

1. Dismissal from the police force, detention (not imprisonment) for 10 weeks, and imprisonment for 13 days is inadequate punishment for a uniformed and armed police officer who demands money from an alien traveler and fells him with a club when he refuses the demand.

2. The Commission in the circumstances just indicated found it unnecessary to pass upon the questions of direct liability of the nation for the acts of a minor police officer, committed while on duty and in uniform but which acts were clearly outside his duty and inconsistent with his duty to protect ".

3. Damages of $500 were awarded on liability resulting from lack of adequate punishment, basis of calculation not stated.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This claim was occasioned by the assault and robbery of Mr. Adams by a Panamanian policeman, on April 25, 1921, in the town of Boquete, Province of Chiriqui. General conditions which prevailed in Chiriqui at and before that time have been indicated in the Denham claim, ante, p. 203. The United States alleged in this case that the policeman approached Adams at the bar of a store in Boquete, demanded that he be given $5 and, upon Adams' refusal, struck the latter a severe blow upon the forehead, inflicting a serious wound which caused much suffering and left a permanent disfigurement. It was alleged further that the claimant, upon regaining consciousness,

275