[Inclosure in No. 58.-Translation.] DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Mr. MINISTER: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your excellency's note of yesterday, with which you were pleased to inclose copy of the instructions touching the case of A. K. Cutting, received from the Hon. Mr. Bayard, under date of the 4th instant. In reply it gratifies me to advise your excellency that I shall carefully consider the contents of the said instructions, coming as they do from the Government of the United States, and in view of the question therein treated. I renew, etc., IGNO. MARISCAL. No. 64.] No. 794. Mr. Bragg to Mr. Bayard. [Extract.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Mexico, June 5, 1888. (Received June 11.) SIR Herewith I have the honor to inclose copy of my note transmitting to Mr. Mariscal copy of the original instructions of the Department in the matter of Baldwin versus Mexico, and also a copy of Mr. Mariscal's note in reply. I am, etc., [Inclosure 1 in No. 64. ] EDWD. S. BRAGG. Mr. Bragg to Mr. Mariscal. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to transmit to your excellency for consideration and action a copy of an official communication from the State Department at Washington concerning the murder of Leon M. Baldwin, and the claim for indemnity based thereon. I avail, etc., EDWD. S. BRAGG. [Inclosure 2 in No. 64.-Translation.] DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Mr. MINISTER: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your excellency's esteemed note of the 2d instant, in which you inclose a copy of a communication from the honorable Secretary of State, relative to the murder of the American citizen Leon McLeod Baldwin. It gratifies me in reply to state that I will proceed to the examination of the instructions from the Departinent of State, in order to give the due reply. I embrace this opportunity, etc., IGNO. MARISCAL. No. 795. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Bragg. No. 64.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 7, 1888. SIR: I transmit, for your information, a copy of a dispatch from the consul at Piedras Negras, No. 71, of the 18th ultimo, relative to the imprisonment of B. B. Glasier, an American citizen at that place, charged by the International Huntingdon Railway Company with misappropri ating funds, and the arbitrary interruption of an interview between the accused and the consul, Mr. Allen, by Raphael Herara, first local judge; also a copy of a dispatch from the consul-general at Matamoros, No. 496, of the 26th ultimo, commenting in an able and impartial manner upon this case, and the incident reported by Mr. Allen growing out thereof. As a matter of international law recognized by the United States in its dealings with Mexicans, and by all European Governments in their dealings with foreigners, an alien, when under arrest or imprisonment for crime, is entitled to consult, as to his further detention, with the consul or diplomatic representative of the Government to which he is subject. This principle lies at the basis of international law. That law assumes that the sovereign of each civilized state recognizes aliens sojourning in his territory as retaining the right to appeal for protection to the sovereign of their allegiance. But this right can not be exercised unless such aliens have free intercourse with the local consular or diplomatic representative of that sovereign. This privilege, moreover, is fully consistent with the Mexican code, as cited and commented upon by Mr. Sutton in his dispatch, to which reference is made. You are therefore instructed to bring this matter to the notice of the Mexican Government, with an expression of the assurance felt by this Department that that Government will cause the error in this case to be corrected, and will give instructions that in all future cases American consuls or diplomatic representatives, as the case may be, shall have access to American citizens when detained in Mexican prisons for trial, or when preparing for such trial, or when desiring advice as to an appeal to a superior court or to executive clemency. I am, etc., T. F. BAYARD. [Inclosure 1 in No. 64.] Mr. Allen to Mr. Rives. No. 71.] UNITED STATES CONSULATE, Piedras Negras, Mexico, May 18, 1888. SIR: On Sunday morn, May 13 instant, I received from B. B. Glasier a communication stating that he had been arrested and was now in jail in this city, and requesting that I should call and have a talk with him. I thereupon called upon the political judge, who seems to enjoy general supervisory functions, and requested that he would issue an order to the authorities of the jail which would enable me to see the prisoner Glasier. This he promised to do. A few moments later, accompanied by the mayor of Piedras Negras, I called on Raphael Herara, first local judge. The prisoner was then brought in and I had not conversed with him to exceed five minutes when Herara informed me that I had no right to converse with the prisoner. I informed him that I had the authority of the political judge. He then ordered the prisoner removed from the room, which was promptly done. I then retired, and a few moments thereafter Judge Herara issued instructions to the effect that the prisoner Glasier could be seen by any one except the American consul. During the same afternoon an ex parte examination was held, at which the accusers with their counsel and interpreters were present, while the accused was unrepresented by either counsel or interpreter. Last evening I received a letter from Glasier, and this morning still another, urging upon me that his case should be promptly tried. On the receipt of the third letter from Glasier, I called on the federal judge of this district and explained the case to him fully, and also called his attention to the official discourtesy which Judge Herara had shown me. After a lengthy and somewhat animated discussion, he promised to have the case brought up before him on review, and would advise me of the result of his investigation. The judge also informed me that under Mexican law an alien could not elect to have his cause tried before a federal court. This is to be much regretted, as in the large majority of cases the greed and rapacity of state and local officials prevent the speedy adjudication of cases coming up before their respective courts. The issuance of such an order as that referred to by Judge Herara is well calculated to impair if not to destroy the usefulness of a consul of the United States on the Mexican frontier. The charge against Glasier is misappropriating the sum of over $100, said charge being brought by the Mexican International Railroad Company. In my conversation with the federal judge above referred to, I explicitly told the judge that I appeared only in my official capacity, and all that I asked was that the accused might receive a prompt and impartial trial. The early determination of the duty of consuls of the United States in Mexico under similar circumstances is much to be desired, and I respectfully, though earnestly, commend the matter to the attention of the Department. I am, etc., W. G. ALLEN. No. 496.] [Inclosure 2 in No. 64.] Mr. Sutton to Mr. Rives. CONSULATE-GENERAL OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIR: I forward by this mail dispatch No. 71, of the 18th instant, from Consul Allen, of Piedras Negras, as to the case of the American B. B. Glasier, now in jail there, charged by the International Huntingdon Railway Company with misappropriating funds. Consul Allen entitles his dispatch "official discourtesy" and gives the details of his interview with Glasier in Judge Herara's presence and the abrupt termination thereof by the latter. He also states that the judge gave orders that Glasier could be seen by any one except the American consul. By Mexican law any person arrested for serious offenses is held "incomunicado" for the first three days, a sort of grand jury indictment period. During this time no person may communicate with the prisoner except by permission of the judge. I presume it was during this preliminary detention period that the trouble occurred. But by Mexican law and the commentaries of their best writers this incommunication is for the express and sole purpose of furthering the ends of justice, and no judge has a right to refuse to allow the prisoner to see or communicate with his friends unless there be suspicion that such a course will tend to defeat the ways of justice. Mexican judges are given large discretion on this point, but they are also held strictly responsible for any abuse of this discretion. Unless Consul Allen or Glasier violated the proprieties there could have been no just cause for breaking up the interview nor for the issuance of such an order as Consul Allen alleges. All the above is by the laws of Coahuila, under which the prisoner is held. As we have no treaty privileges with Mexico which apply in the present case, I refer you to the foreign code by Aspíroz, the recognized authority on this subject in Mexico. By article 473 of his compilation foreign consuls may address the judge in any criminal cause in which their countrymen are accused, and they have ample privilege to take such information (subject to the laws and treaties in force) as they may think necessary to establish the truth as well as the origin and foundation of the charges. This, as a matter of course, would imply one or more interviews with the accused. Unless, therefore, Consul Allen violated the courtesies of the judge's office, which I do not think at all likely, the breaking up of the interview was an arbitrary act, unjust to the prisoner and highly discourteous to Consul Allen. I beg to request that this action of the judge be notified to the Mexican Govern ment. It would also be of much benefit to the efficiency and dignity of the consular service here if the Mexican Government would issue instructions based on the laws of the country giving this privilege of communicating with prisoners except when, for a good reason, it was suspected that a consul was aiding to defeat the ends of justice. Of course any man fit to be a consul is above the suspicion of such action, and the privilege properly used could only be productive of good results. It gives the average American a very strange sensation to be shut up in a Mexican jail, and fifteen minutes' talk with his consul, if only to have the law explained and see that he has food and bedding, is a great calmer of the nerves. I have had many interviews with Americans in the prisons here, and never had my right questioned but once-some years ago. When I read article 473 of the foreign code to him and threatened an appeal by telegraph to Mexico the judge yielded the point. In fact, I have not usually asked permission, but have gone directly to the jail and, on a polite request, the warden has always produced the prisoner and given us a corner of the room in which to converse. I am, etc., No. 796. WARNER P. SUTTON. No. 75.] Mr. Bragg to Mr. Bayard. [Extract.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Mexico, June, 18, 1888. (Received July 6.) SIR: I had the honor to transmit to you on the 8th day of March last, as an inclosure to my No. 5, copy of my note addressed to Mr. Mariscal, on the 6th of that same month, touching the alleged acquittal, re-arrest, retrial, and conviction of one Henry Brudigam, who claimed to be a citizen of the United States, for homic.de. Herewith I have the honor to inclose the following papers: Copy of a second note from me to Mr. Mariscal, dated 24th March last; text and translation of a note from Mr. Mariscal, dated the previous day but not received till the 26th, and covering transcript of letter from the gov ernor of Chihuahua; note (in Spanish and English) from Mr. Mariscal, of date the 28th of March, and my reply of the following day; my note of May 5 last, inclosing certificate of application for naturalization by Brudigam; and copy and translation of Mr. Mariscal's note of the 16th ultimo, inclosing extracts of testimony in the case, and the finding and sentence of the appellate court. The point made by Mr. Mariscal that declaration of intention is not sufficient evidence of citizenship to warrant the Mexican Government in recognizing the right of intervention on the part of the United States is a grave question, and I respectfully request full and explicit instructions of the views of the Department thereon. It seems to me that the declaration of intention, followed by an appeal to the United States for protection, makes a prima facie cash; and they can only meet it by showing an abandonment by Brudigam of the territory of the United States sine animo revertendi. Brudigam was a German by birth. He has not applied to the German Govern ment for protection, as Mr. Mariscal says "he has been informed." The facts are (and I have them from the German legation), Brudigam's partner in business and alleged accomplice in crime, is a German, and applied for German protection. But Brudigam did not apply to the German, but to the American consul. Brudigam's mother in Germany applied for German protection, not he. It will be seen that every extract of evidence, disjointed and disconnected, that standing by itself, without the context, can cast a shadow upon Brudigam, is carefully compiled; and standing as it does alone, furnishes not a shadow of legal evidence to establish his guilt. You will notice that the only direct evidence is the declaration of a witness that certain parties told him Brudigam was going to or did take part. Take the circumstances of the watch in this case, which it is said was taken from Brudigam, and is a strong circumstance used against him. "He stated that he bought it, when he bought it, and how he paid for it; and he took it voluntarily to the officer and gave it to him, telling him it might aid him in search of the murderer, as the murdered man had other watches of the same make, and the robbers took them away, and might offer to sell, and hence a clue could be had, etc." But none of this is in the record. The record, you will notice, makes another strong point against the prisoners-they failed to prove an alibi. They stated where they were and who they were with, and the party named could not remember whether or not he was there at the precise hour named. Another thing to which I call attention is the ideo consideratum clause these judges assign among the facts establishing the guilt of the prisoners"other causal propositions of the Attorney-General." The original record of the court of first instance nowhere appears. That judge saw these witnesses. He was inquisitor, and knew just how much credit should be given the statements, and he acquitted the prisoner. This judgment and conviction is from the appellate court, supported by the garbled statements and fearful torturing of evidence that I have referred to, without ever seeing a witness or the parties. The governor appoints and removes judges at his pleasure and all the subordinate police officials; so that he controls absolutely the life, liberty, and property of all within his State. I am, etc., EDWD. S. BRAGG. [Inclosure 1 in No. 75.] Mr. Bragg to Mr. Mariscal. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. SIR: I have the honor to call your attention to a note of your excellency dated March 7, advising me of your forwarding to the governor of Chihuahua my note requesting information concerning the case of Henry Brudigam, and to which note, as far as this legation is advised, the governor of Chihuahua has not yet replied. I trust your excellency will excuse me from the charge of impatience when I again call your attention to this matter, as the question involved is quite a grave one, affecting the rights and liberty of an American citizen. I repeat, etc., EDWD. S. BRAGG. [Inclosure 2 in No. 75.-Translation.] DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Mr. MINISTER: As I had the honor to promise your excellency in my note of the 7th instant, relative to the case of the American citizen Henry Brudigam, I have now the |