United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Fore.

Compilation of reports of Committee ... 1789-1901, First Congress, first session, to Fifty-sixth Congress, second session .. online

. (page 82 of 156)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on ForeCompilation of reports of Committee ... 1789-1901, First Congress, first session, to Fifty-sixth Congress, second session .. → online text (page 82 of 156)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

in the latter part of the same month, viz., on or abont the 33d of May, 1872. said
Mora testified on the part of claimant in this case, before the Honorable Pedro J.
Barraza, Jndee of the Supreme Tribunal at said capital of Durango, but not until he
had been twice legally cited to appear before said Judge for that purpose, which cita-
tation, or order of said court, the said Marcos Mora refused to obey, and he was finally
arrested upon the order of said court, and brought before said Judge at Durang^o, by
means of the police, to answer a charge of contempt of court, and to answer inter-
rogatories filed by me before said court, some days previously, touching the merits of
this claim, which he refused to answer, until compelled to do so, as aforesaid.

It is not true, as alleged by the defence, that said Gamboa and Loaiza were taken
by me, or by any one for me, or for claimant, from San Dimas to Mazatlan to testify
in this case. They resided in San Tgnacio, Sinaloa, and not in San Dimas, Durango,
and I neversaw either of them in San Dimas, nor at any place in the state of Durango ;
nor is it true that their depositions could have been taken before Mexican authori-
tiea in their own district.

I state pofiitiTely, that on my way from Mazatlan to San Dimas, in April, 1870, 1 called
upon the Judge of first instance, at San Ygnacio, in said district, in wliieh

345 said witnesses resided, and through my interpreter, Colonel Frances F. Dana, I
made application to said Judge, in the Spanish language^ to take the depositions

of said Gamboa and Loaiza, in this case, whicn application said Judge refused, givinff
as his reason for so doing, that he had to leave town at once, on business, and could
not say when he would return there, and for this reason, on my return from San
Dimas, a few days therei^Pber, said Gamboa and Loaiza consented to go to Mazatlan
and there giye their depositions in this case, which they did do. in the month of May
1870, before said United States consul, Isaac Sisson, Esq. Both of said witnesses
selected their own interpreter, the said Carlos F. Galan, and both of them chose to go
before the consul to testify, instead of the Mexican Judge of first instance there, who
was unfriendly to Americans, and before whom it would have been difficult, if not
impossible, to make a fair statement of the facts supporting an American claim. The
sworn statement of said interpreter, Galan, and the certificates of said consul, an-
nexed to the depositions of saia Gamboa, and said Loaiza, show how carefhlly said
depositions were taken.

The '* Candelaria" and *' Bolanas" mines, mentioned in the 4th question and an-
swers thereto, in the respective depositions filed as defensive evidence in this case,
alleged to have been given at San Dimas. in January and February, 1871, before Gil
Ruiz, by Patricio Camacho, Bartolo Rodriguez, Ramon Aguirre, Aquilino Calderon,
Refugio Fonseca, and Tgnacio Manjarrez, are the mines owned and worked by the
" Durango Mining Company,'' of which company the superintendent was Charles B.
Dahlgren, whose deposition, made September 18, 1R72, before Isaac Sisson, United
States consul at Mazatlan, is on file as a part of the claimant's evidence in this cause,
and which deposition gives the reasons why said foreigners were permitted to work
the mines referred to. The alleged statements in the last-mentioned deposition of
Bartolo Rodriguez, that the old hacienda, for beneficiating purposes, was destroyed
by said company, and the statement of Ramon Aguirre, in said deposition, that it was
taken down by said company, and the alleged statement to that ofiect by any other
witness, is wholly untrue, for said hacienda was still standing, by the side of the new
one, erected by said company, at the time I was at Tayoltita, in 1870, and also in 1872,
although in 1873 a part of the roof of said building, being part of said hacienda San
Nicolas, was off, and the same had been removed, as I ascertained at San Dimas, in
1873, to enable Francisco Torres, a Mexican, and James Granger, an Englishman,
(who, I ascertained, was at that time, a son-in-law of said Judge Soto,) to denounce
the same under the Mexican laws, and for which purpose, and to the end that they
might get legal possession, said SotiO, who was in possession when I was there, in 1870,
had moved out with his family to San Vicente, temporarily, and sold out his interest
in said property, to said Torrez, which was confirmed by the fact, that on visiting
olaimanrs said abandoned property, at Tayoltita, in May, 1873, 1 found said Torrez,
with his fsmily. living in saia hacienda San Nicolas, in full possession of said prop-
erty, and working the mines of the same.

It is not true, as stated in one of said alleged depositions for defence, that in 1871,

when said d^ositions were made, the six or seven thousand cargasof ores which the

oompany haa taken out and abandoned, still remained, undisturbed, upon the patios

of the claimant's said hacienda, for when I visited naid hacienda and patios, in 1870,

the amount of ores then remaining there, could not have exceeded twelve bun-

346 dred oargas, or one hundred and seventy-five to two hundred tons of the same,
which were then torn down and scattered about the Patios, giving nnmistake-

abla evidence of having been culled out, and the refuse pieces left hy those who had
taken away the best ofthem, which I ascertained to he the fact, from the Mexioan

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


employees who went with me in May, 1830, firom Tayoltita to San Dimae to testify in
this ease, and were frighteneci away and prevented from doincp so by said aathorities,
as already stated : and even a large part of said refase ores, I should think one-bslf^
had disappeared irom said Patios, exhibiting evidence of a farther cnlling ont of the
same, when I again visited said hacienda in 1872 1 and the mining tools, the retort,
some of the wheels and iron work of the stamp mill, and other valuable parts of the
machinery, in and for the working of said stamp mill of claimant, had disappeared
from said premises, so as to render utterly useless what was left of the same.

As copies of said alleged depositions are filed by defence, and are destitute of orig-
inal signatures, rubrioaa of witnesses or magistrates, and without any certification as
to the character or credibili^ of any of said alleged witnesses, it was not my inten-
tion to make any statement in the case, neither as regards the disingenuous personal
allusions to myself, by said Mexican authorities, nor the cross misrepresentations, and
inventions, contained in said allege<l depositions: and I have reluctantly consented
to give my sworn statement of the facts, at the request of claimant's connsel, and
solely to correct said misrepresentations, and any misapprehensions that might anse
{torn my silence.

I have no interest in this case except that which arises from the relation of attor-
ney and client.

A. W. Adams.

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this second day of November, 1874.

Edward C. Inosrsoll,
United SUUea Commi$9Umer for ih§ District of CohmbUi,

Unitbd States of Amerioa, District of Columbia,

City and County of Wtuhingtonf as :
I. Edward C. Ingersoll, United States commissioner, in and for said city and county,
do liereby certify, that Alonzo W. Adams, whose deposition is herein above written,
attended before me, on the second day of November, A. D. 1874, at my ofi&ce in said
city, and was publicly and duly sworn by me, according to law, to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in the above-entitled matter, and thereupon
he deposed and testified as hereinbefore set forth, and signed his said deposition in my
presence. I further certify that I am competent to take depositions, by the laws of
said United States of America ; that J have no interest in the claim to which the tes-
timony of said witness relates, and that I am not the agent or attorney of said Abra
Silver Mining Company, the claimant in said matter, nor of any person having such
interest. I do further certify that said deposition was reduced to writing by Howard
H. Morton, who acted as my clerk for that purpose, and that he thereupon testified
before me that he has no interest, and is not the agent or attorney of any person hav-
ing an interest in said claim. And I do further certify that I Know well the said
Alonzo W. Adams, as a citizen of New York, a man of responsibility, and of good
character for tmtn and veracity ; and I hereby certify to the credibility of said Alonzo
W. Adams, and that his deposition is entitled to full faith and credit.

Edward C. Inobrsoix,
United States Commissioner for the DistHct of Columbia,

[SxAL.-~United States Commissioner, District of Columbia.]



In the matter of the claim of La Abra Silver Mining Company versus I%e JSepudKo of


Copy Deposition of Carlos F. Qalan taken on behalf of the claimant in the case of
James Tobin vs. The Bepublio of Mexico.

La Abra Company being expressly referred to by the deponent as coming under the
hostile acts of the Mexican authorities, and said deposition oontaininff evldenoe af-
footing the above entitled case, permission is respectfully requested, on oehalf of said
Company, that this copy of Deposition be filed and used in this case with the like ef-
fect as if said deposition had been taken therein. The said Carlos F. Galan having
been examined in the case of James Tobin v. The Bepublio of Mexico in rebnttal of
the defensive evidence filed by Mexico.

Digitized by VjOOQ IC



In tk$ inaUer of ike claim of JaiMS Tohin versus Tke Repuhlio of Mexico before the Eon-
ordble ike American and Mexican Claims Commission,

In sesBion at Washington, D. C, ander the Treaty of Jaly 4th, 1868.

% Deposition of Carlos F. Qalan on behalf of claimant.

Statb of California,

City and Cowniff of San Francisco, §s :

At 10 o'clock a. m., this third day of January, A. D., 1874, before me, Ramon de
Zaldo. a notary pnblio, daly commissioned as such, in and for the city and county of
San franoisco, ^rsonally appeared Carlos F. Galan, well known to me as a respecta- '
ble and responsible man, fumiling all the legal conditions of a competent witness,
and being introduced on behalf of the above named claimant, and having been first
duly sworn by me, deposes and answers to the interrogatories as follows, to wit :

Question 1. What is your name, age, nativity, residence, and occupation f State
also if married or single f

Answer. My name is Carlos F. Qalan ; I was bom in Spain ; I am forty-three years
of age I I reside at the southeast comer of Stockton and Francisco streets, in this
city, with my family, consisting of my wife and eight children ; I am an attomey
and counsellor at law, and my office is room No. 12, Montgomery Block, San Fran-

Question 2. Have you ever resided in Mexico, and if so, where and when, and for
how long a time f
248 Answer. I have resided in Mexico many years, from the time when I was but
a boy up to Mny or June, 1872, when I left for this place, except the time I hare
resided in this State. I came to Mexico when I was fourteen years old, and have re-
sided in different States^ Mexico, Lower California, and Sinaloa especially, where I
have been most of the time.

Question 3. What has been your occupation while in Mexico, in the different States
where you say you have resided f

Answer. Soon after my arrival in Mexico, I entered the military college of Chapul-
tepeo, and became a cadet therein, and I was promoted to a lieutenancy in the Mexi-
can army, and fought throughout the war with the United States, in 1846, *7 and 8.
At the close of the war I studied law, was admitted to the bar, and practiced my pro-
fession in Sinaloa and Lower California. I was also interpreter and translator of the
English, French, Spanish and Italian languages. I founded the first £nfi[lish and
Spanish newspaper published in Lower California, called '*La B^]a Califomia,"
which still exists there, though not under my control, which I gave up when I be-
came ffovemor of that territory. I published, also, at Mazatlan, the first large
** weeldy " ever published in Sinaloa, called the ** Occidental," and also another news-
paper called *' La Yoz del Pueblo," at Mazatlan, from 1869 to 1672, where, in the mean-
time I was also engaged in the practice of the law, and as translator of languages,
as stated.

Question 4. Have you held any other office or offices in Mexico than that of lieu-
tenant in the federal army, and if so, state what office or offices, and where you held
the same and when f

Answer. I have been chief justice of the Territory of Lower California ; a member
of its congress or assembly ; its governor or political chief : Judge of the first instance,
and other offices, from 1863 to 1868. I was elected there by the people of the Terri-
tory, to the territorial assembly, in September, 1867, and became its speaker soon
after, and was ex-officio governor of the Territory till May, 1868, and soon thereafter
I moved with my family to Mazatlan, Sinaloa, where I resided until the summer of
1872, as aforesaid.

Question 5. Do you know the claimaBl, and any facts connected with his claim f
If so, state when and how long you have known him, and what facts if any, regard*
ing his claim, and when, where, and how thoy became known to you f

Answer. I have seen the claimant several times. I ha^e spoken with him here in
this city : have but little acquaintance with him, but know, by reputation, his busi-
ness in Mexico. I have learned from various sources, while I resided in Mazatlan,
Sinaloa, and published a pai>er there, mainly by men employed by him, and other
miners, Mexican and foreign, of Mr. Tobin's working some copper mines, and of his
attempts to export Brazil-wood for the San Francisco market, which he contracted to
have out in the Ignacio district in Sinaloa, about 1864. I have ascertained from some
of the Mexicans who made contracts with him for the same, that is, the amount they
were to cut, and the time during which it was to be cut, and the amount they had

S. Doc. 231, pt 2 33

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


wbioh brought abont the ruin of tbe claimant's enterprise,

on to know tbe facts yon refer to f State all yon know in
ing names, dates and oircnmstances, if recollected.
>fee8ion, as a newspaper man, it was my bnsiness to inqnire

pnblic interest, and ascertain tbe newsj and abont 1870
xcitement about claims presented to tbe joint commission
i a great deal concerning most, if not all tbe claims pre*
[ived or were living in Sinaloa and Dnrango. As a lawyer
lany cases, and examined witnesses and was 'attorney in

(that of George Briggs,) being against tbe United States,
slated and wrote down tbe depositions of some of the wit-
[aim, at tbe American consulate in Mazatlan, in May, 1870.
were Trinidad Gamboa, Juan Francisco Gamboa, and Jose
, tbe first at Cabazan, tbe second at Limon, and the third
listrict of San Ignacio, State of Sinaloa.
be excitement about, that yon speak of, and how was it

I was, as I have stated, about tbe claims against Mexico,
ome of tbe officials of the state were intimate, and I was
lem officially ji and otherwise, I beard a ^ood deal abont the
apon the authorities there, and the action of said author!-
s, and claimants, and what was said abont this case among

be officials you mention ; what was their rank, and what
7as it shown by said authorities f

.eral Domingo Rubi, who was then military and civil gov-
loa, and a general iu the army of the Republic ; Jose D.
3 ; J. Aldrete, Judge of the First Instance at Mazatlan ; L.
•r tbe federal courts in Sinaloa, and others. Those named
iced more particularly. I have had some testimony which
idge Aldrete, destroyed by him, because it was strong for
(riggs, an American, against Mexico. About the time the
h brothers and Loaiza were taken in this case before the
9, as I have stated, some depositions had been taken in the
¥hiob the district attorney, Gaona, got bold of in the office
le read and took notes therefrom, and kept said depositions
» present testimony under the printed rules, before the joint
J obtained tbe depositions, I sent them to the governor's
ignatnre certified to by Governor Rubi, which he refused,
ire about it, and was referred by the governor to Martinez,
» said ho would read tbe depositions first ; he did so, and
kte, he wrote a sort of impeachment of the witnessefi who
)mor to sign, and on being remonstrated with for this un-
3t, he said ne would like to have such men led out and shot
ico, in support of the claims of these *' Gringos;'' he re-
Americans against Mexico, this and others in that State,
iction, embracing also tbe States of Dnrango, Jalisco, and

ler answer, you mention Domingo Rnbi, the governor of
ything, was done by him affecting this case of James Tobin f
\, morning after the depositions of the brothers, Trinidad
Gamboa, and Jose Maria Loaiza, were taken before tbe
1 1870, they came to my office, and Trinidad Gamboa told
ler, that Governor Rnbi bad bad a conversation with him
my in this case, and threatened to make him and his said
soldier in the army, and pay to the government all dam-
mts by the commission, if they did not retract what they
bs, or so before the jud^e at San Ignacio, and testify on tbe
lese claims, and he said he wanted their depositions re-
sb to go before the Mexican judge and testify to anything

hs thereafter, in one of my interviews with Governor Rubi,
laims, speaking of one prosecuted by a Mr. Green, and by
, and he became very abusive to them and to American
also to Mexicans who were witnesses in behalf of American
marks I came to the conclusion that Trinidad Gamboa had
ting to me the threats made against him and his brother,

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


Question 10. Wliat were the words need by Gk>Temor Babi, as near as yon can rec-
ollect them, firom which you drew sach conclusions f

Answer. I conld not undertake to give his exact language, neither could I say that
all was spoken at the same interview. We met often ; we were friendly — intimately
so, I may say, and we had many conyersations on the subject of American claims. I
always tried to convince him that he was doing wron^ in interfering with witnesses
aod frightening them, but he insisted that the treaty itself, he said, was nothing but
a pretext to get a slice of Mexico, and he said he would, by fair or ronl means, defeat
alt such claims. He advised me to have nothing to do wfth them as counsel, attor-
ney, or interpreter.

Qnestion 11. Were yon ever employed by (Governor Bubi, or by any other Mexican
official, to defeat said claims f

Answer. I have not been so employed, and if 1 had I most certainly should not be
here testifying about it. I wish to explain, that General Bubi is very ignorant of
interoational law and of treaty obligations, and he is stubborn and very much preju-
diced against Americans, and he said the accounts made by some of the American
claimants, for consequential damages, were exaggerated, (aod I fully concurred with
him, as regards consequential, or indirect damages,) and that he. Governor Bubi,
was enraged thereat, and in his ignorance and prejudice against all Americans, he
made no distinction of claims or persons, and he said as they had asked too much, he
would beat all their claims, and they should have nothing if he could prevent it in
any way, or by any means. I remember he said he would have the witnesses who
had testified for the claimants in this and the other cases I have named, examined
anew, and he knew they would say differently from what they had stated for claim-
ants, or he would know the reason why. ** Severe military service, and discipline,'
as he said, ** would make them change their ideas, somewhat, as to what good loyal
Mexicans should do in such cases."

Question 12. You stated, in answer to a former quention, that Trinidad Gam-
251 boa had requested yon to have his deposition in this matter, and that of his
brother returned ; were they returned, or, if not, why, and what became of

Answer. They were not returned, as I stated. Trinidad Gamboa, his brother, and
Loaiza, came to my office, and after telling me the Governor's threats, requested me
to send for Mr. Adams, the attorney for this claimant and other claimants on whose
behalf they had testified, and to induce him to return the depositions, in view of the
Governor's threats, and thus to save them from the dangers threatened.

Question 13. State, if you know, why were the depositions you refer to, of the
brothers Gamboa and Loaiza, in this and the other cases named, taken before the
American Consul, and not before one of their own judges f Say, also, if yon know,
whether the paid Gamboa brothers were or not forced, as threatened by Governor
Bubi, to go before a Mexican judge and sign depositions against this claim, and
others yon have named, and if yea, by whom, and how you know the facts f

Answer. It was at the witnesses own suggestion that they testified before the
consul; all of these witnesses had been here in this State. California, five years, in
early times, and knew English enough to make themselves understood, and the
American consul at Mazatlan understood Spanish, and all of the said witnesses and
the consul had, or said t^ey had, entire confidence in my fairness and ability to take
down the witnesses statements. They did not dare to ^ before a Mexican judge to

S've evidence in favor of an American claimant, they said, and I did not blame them
r it, for they were aware, as I was, of the prejudice existing against such witnesses
by the authorities. Jose Maria Loaiza is a claimant against the United States for
$300,000, and I am his counsel, bat believing it a duty, and wishing, as he did, to
show his fairness and impartiality, he was willing to testify to the facts in this and
the other cases I have named, yet he refosed, point blank, to go before a Mexican
judge to testify. The said depositions in support of this and the to other cases named,
taken before Consnl Sisson in May, 1870, were sent to the Joint Commission at Wash-
ington, by said attorney, or by the connsnl, in my own handwriting. They were
not returned to the Gamboa brothers, as requested, although the attorney offered to
return them, for the reason that when I sent for the attorney to come to my office,
he came and met the Gamboa brothers ; the next day after their testimony was taken
before the Consnl, he told said witnesses he would return them the papers — their dep-
ositions — if there was one improper, or untruthful statement in them ; but these
witnesses insisted that every word contained in their said depositions was true. The
said attorney for claimant then offered to have their depositions modified or amended
before the Consnl, if tbey, the Gamboa brothers, or Loaiza, desired it, before sendiufl
them to Wadiington, but they all decUned this, and said they had no changes or mod-
ifioations to suggest, that their depositions were truthful, and that the attorney could
send them befbre the Commission as their evidence in tnose cases ; and many othei
things were said by them, at the same time, in this connection, to about the same
effect. In reference to the question, whether said witnesses, the Gamboa brothers

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


eatened by Qovemor Bnbi, to sign depodtioDs agftinst this
uned by me, I have to say, that some time in the summer of
mboa, and he related to me how they had been compelled to
^e of the first instance at San Ignaoio, and there sign a deposi-
prepared for each of them bv said Judge, against this claim
nd that of Daniel Green, and others, and that they signed to
^Qse, that they knew bv Governor Bnbi's threats, wonm have
Q as a ponishment for having testified in favor of this claim-
he prejudice of the local authorities of the District of San
)rican claims aud the claimants themselves, was such, he said,
td his brother would have been in imminent danger if they
said depositions. At the time they made the depositions in
md others, before the American Consul at Mazatlan, I went,
bhree witnesses, before the said United States Consul, and 1
ny of all three of them, in this case of James Tobin, and of
> the testimony of Juan Francisco Gamboa and Jose Maria

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on ForeCompilation of reports of Committee ... 1789-1901, First Congress, first session, to Fifty-sixth Congress, second session .. → online text (page 82 of 156)