Commission allow, in this connection, anything to cover damages resulting from the loss of the use, for an average of approximately 10 years, of the value of the property so taken. If, as indicated by the Decision, it was considered possible to compute precisely the value of the property taken, as of 1912, it is not clear why it was considered proper to allow the wrongdoer to deprive the claimant of both the natural appreciation in value of the property taken over a long period of years and at the same time of the use of the money which should have been paid for it at the time of taking before such appreciation. It would seem unreasonable that, in such circumstances, the wrongdoer or its beneficiaries should be allowed to benefit by both appreciation in value of property wrongfully taken and by increment therefrom, over a long period of years, while the innocent victim should be allowed to benefit from neither appreciation, increment, nor interest on money wrongfully withheld. The Decision contains no explanation on this point.

CLAIM

on behalf of

ABRAHAM SOLOMON

DOCKET REGISTRY NO. 12

Syllabus

1. The Commission reviewed the acts of the trial court and Supreme Court of Panama and held that their action constituted a "palpable injustice " because

(a) "there was no criminal act for which Solomon [the claimant] could be held responsible";

(b) "there was no justification for convicting Solomon for the particular offense of which he was found guilty";

(c) the evidence was not properly appraised by the courts; (d) the circumstances "lend credence to the theory that the proceeding was sustained, not by the ordinary motive of punishing an offense, but by strong local sentiment".

2. The Commission stated that its holding that the claimant's conviction was unconsciously influenced by strong popular feeling "is not to cast any personal aspersions on the judges involved ", since "the unavoidable susceptibility of local judges to local sentiment is a matter of common knowledge ".

3. Damages of $5,000 were allowed for imprisonment, under very lenient conditions, for 362 days plus somewhat restricted liberty for an additional 184 days or at an average rate of approximately $9 per day.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The United States claimed compensation for the wrongful arrest and imprisonment of the claimant. These were alleged to have been brought about by wrongful acts

of executive authorities and by manifestly unjust decisions of the courts, including the Supreme Court of Panama. Mr. Solomon, the claimant, who was born in Russia in 1894, acquired American citizenship through the naturalization of his father in 1906. In 1918 he was a member of an infantry detachment of the United States Army which was sent to the Province of Chiriqui, Panama, for the purpose of supervising the elections of July 8 of that year. He remained for about two years with the detachment in question, which, after the election, cooperated with the local Panamanian officials in the preservation of order. On October 7, 1919, he was honorably discharged from the United States Army and was employed by William Gerald Chase, owner of San Juan ranch. (See report of Chase claim, ante, p. 341.)

As a result of the wrongful shooting of livestock on the ranch, Chase and his employees had repeatedly, but in vain, informed offenders that trespassing and hunting on the property were prohibited and had made repeated complaints to the Panamanian authorities against such offenders. The authorities, however, failed to grant redress or afford protection. In view of this situation, Major Pace, in charge of the Chiriqui detachment, detailed two soldiers to San Juan to protect the ranch and its occupants. Major Pace instructed the soldiers to apprehend one Villamonte, a persistent offender against the property, or any others found trespassing on San Juan and to deliver them to Panamanian authorities. In conformity with a specific request from Major Pace, Solomon was directed by his employer to assist the soldiers in carrying out these instructions. On May 16, 1920, one of the soldiers, Private Greenleaf, and Solomon were informed that Villamonte was hunting on San Juan with dogs and firearms. They set out to find him, and Solomon apprehended him on his employer's property. Solomon disarmed him, informed him that he would be taken to the Panamanian authorities, and went with him to the village of Galique, where he turned Villamonte over to the soldier Greenleaf.

Greenleaf took Villamonte to the ranch house, Solomon remaining behind in Galique where he resided.

Greenleaf informed Villamonte that he would be taken to the authorities at David for trial, and placed him in one of the ranch buildings pending the completion of necessary preparations for the journey to David, normally a 12-hour trip by horseback. Greenleaf then sent for Solomon, whom he desired to accompany them to David. Solomon arrived at the ranch house about noon of May 17. On the morning of May 18, after all preparations for the trip to David were completed, Villamonte escaped.

Villamonte appeared before the Alcalde of Las Lajas on May 20, 1920, and complained that Solomon had apprehended him on lands belonging to Federico Sagel and had turned him over to a soldier who imprisoned him, and that, while fleeing from his captors, he was shot in the head by a soldier. The Alcalde conducted an investigation and found there was no ground for any criminal action.

On June 23, 1920, the Alcalde was summarily removed from office. The new appointee, acting in compliance with orders of the Governor of Chiriqui, commenced another proceeding, a report of which was forwarded to the Governor. Almost simultaneously, another proceeding was instituted by the Second Judge of the Circuit, Pinella Urrutia, who, on June 29, commissioned Municipal Judge Frago to make an investigation. Judge Frago's report of July 29, 1920, to the Circuit Judge indicated that no evidence had been presented warranting a continuation of the case against Solomon on the charge of wounding.

It appeared from the evidence that a certain high executive authority in Panamá City had, during these developments, stated to the American chargé d'affaires in Panama that unless Solomon, whom he designated a "thug", quitted the country in the near future, he would be arrested on charges of assuming official authority and of wounding. Solomon, however, did not leave.

On September 14, 1920, Judge Frago began a further investigation, apparently based upon the charge of as

sumption of official authority. Judge Frago returned the record to the Circuit Court on November 5, 1920, and between that date and December 13, 1920, Circuit Judge Villarreal, who had supplanted Judge Urrutia, took the testimony of other witnesses.

During the next 5 months nothing further appears to have been done. On May 23, 1921, however, the Circuit Judge instructed Judge Frago to take another declaration from Villamonte. On July 8, 1921, the Circuit Judge terminated the sumario proceedings and ordered that Solomon be arrested and held for trial on the charge of wounding and imprisoning Villamonte. On October 4, 1921, the Circuit Judge found that Villamonte had not been wounded as alleged but sentenced Solomon to 18 months' imprisonment for locking up Villamonte. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and on October 15, 1921, the Attorney General of the Nation filed his opinion stating that article 491 of the Penal Code, which provided for a fine of from fifty to one hundred balboas, was applicable to the case. However, on December 14, 1921, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower tribunal, confirming a term of imprisonment of 18 months.

The claimant was imprisoned from January 3, 1922, to December 31, 1922, when he was placed on parole, under police surveillance, during the remainder of his term.

Documentary evidence was produced showing the naturalization as an American citizen of one Solomon Solomon (or Solomon Solomonowitz). This was supplemented by affidavits showing that he was the claimant's father and that the naturalization took place during the claimant's minority.

The Government of Panama took issue with this evidence, contending that citizenship could not properly be established by affidavits without proof of the loss of civil registry records. Panama further denied that the claimant had been wrongfully and unjustly convicted and imprisoned or that the decisions of the Panamanian courts