470 



LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL. 



27th following one of $683,041 was made in 

 favor of the La Abra Company. 



In June, 1878, Congress passed an act pro- 

 viding that as often as installments should be 

 received from Mexico, the amount should be 

 distributed pro rata among the claimants to 

 whom awards had been made. Meanwhile 

 Mexico had made representations to the Gov- 

 ernment at Washington that the Weil and La 

 Abra claims were fraudulent, and that the 

 awards had been obtained through perjured 

 testimony, and asked that a rehearing be had 

 in these cases. In view of this representation, 

 Congress, in the act of June, 1878, requested 

 the President to investigate these charges of 

 fraud, and provided that if he should find "the 

 honor of the United States, the principles of 

 public law, or considerations of justice and 

 equity" required that the awards should be 

 opened, and the cases re-tried, it should be 

 lawful for him to withhold payment until the 

 cases should be re-tried in such manner as the 

 United States and Mexico might agree. 



During the year 1879 President Hayes caused 

 an investigation to be made, and the conclu- 

 sions reached were thus given in the report of 

 Mr. Evarts, then Secretary of State : 



1. I conclude, therefore, that neither the principles 

 of public law nor considerations of justice or equity 

 require or permit, as between the United States and 

 Mexico, that the awards in these cases should be 

 opened and the cases retried before a new interna- 

 tional tribunal or under any new convention or nego- 

 tiation respecting the same between the United States 

 and Mexico. 



2. I am, however, of opinion that the matters 

 brought to the attention of this Government on the 

 part of Mexico do bring into grave doubt the sub- 

 stantial integrity of the claim of Benjamin Weil and 

 the sincerity of the evidence as to the measure of 

 damages insisted upon and accorded in the case of 

 the La Abra Silver Mining Company, and that the 

 honor of the United States does require that these two 

 cases should be further investigated by the United 

 States to ascertain whether this Government has been 

 made the means of enforcing against a friendly pow- 

 er claims of our citizens based upon or exaggerated 

 by fraud. If such investigation should remove the 

 doubts which have been fairly raised upon the repre- 

 sentations of Mexico, the honor of the United States 

 will have been completely maintained. If ; on the 

 other hand, the claimants shall fail in removing these 

 doubts, or they should be replaced by certain con- 

 demnation, the honor of the United States will be 

 vindicated by such measures as may then be dictated. 



8. The executive government is not furnished with 

 the means of instituting and pursuing methods of in- 

 vestigation which can coerce the production of evi- 

 dence or compel the examination of parties and wit- 

 nesses. The authority for such an investigation must 

 proceed from Congress. I would advise, therefore, 

 that the proofs and the conclusions you shall come to 

 thereon, if adverse to the immediate payment on these 

 awards of the installments received from Mexico, be 

 laid before Congress for the exercise of their plenary 

 authority in the matter. 



A copy of this report was sent to Congress 

 by the President April 15, 1880. It concluded 

 as follows : " Unless Congress should now 

 make this disposition of the matter, and fur- 

 nish thereby definite instructions to the depart- 

 ment to reserve further payments upon these 



awards till the conclusion of such investiga- 

 tion, and to take such further order with the 

 same thereafter as Congress might direct, it 

 would appear to be the duty of the Executive 

 to accept these awards as no longer open to 

 reconsideration, and proceed in the payment 

 of the same, pro rata with all other awards 

 under the convention." No decisive action 

 was then taken by Congress, and, after the 

 close of the session, payments were made on 

 these awards, by direction of President Hayes, 

 the same as on the others. When President 

 Garfield came into office, four installments had 

 been paid to the Weil and La Abra claimants, 

 and a fifth was ordered by him to be paid. 

 After Mr. Arthur became President, he ordered 

 the matter to be again investigated, and u be- 

 lieving that said award was obtained by fraud 

 and perjury," he directed further payments to 

 be withheld, and negotiated a treaty with 

 Mexico for a re-trial of the cases. This treaty 

 is still (March 15, 1884) pending in the Senate. 

 Suits were thereupon brought by the claimants 

 to compel Secretary Frelinghuysen to pay to 

 them their share of the sixth installment paid 

 to the United States by Mexico on Jan. 31, 

 1882. They contended : 



1. That the awards under the convention vested in 

 the several claimants an absolute right to the amounts 

 awarded them respectively, and that this right was 

 property which neither the United States alone, nor 

 the United States and Mexico together, could take 

 away : and, 



2.* That, if this were not so, the action of President 

 Hayes, under the fifth section of the act of 1878 ? was 

 conclusive on President Arthur, and deprived him of 

 any right he might otherwise have had to investigate 

 the charges of fraud presented by the Mexican Gov- 

 ernment, or to withhold from the relators their dis- 

 tributive shares of any moneys thereafter paid to the 

 Secretary of State under the authority of the first 

 section. 



The issue thus raised was, first, as to the 

 power of two governments to reopen an arbi- 

 tration of claims of citizens under a compact 

 providing that the decision of the commission 

 should be "absolutely final and conclusive," 

 and " without appeal " ; that the Presidents of 

 the two republics should "give full effect to 

 such decisions without any objection, evasion, 

 or delay whatsoever," and that the final action 

 of the commission should be considered " a 

 full, perfect, and final settlement of every 

 claim " passed upon ; and, second, as to the 

 power of the President under such compact to 

 withhold payment of awards pending the ne- 

 gotiations for a treaty providing for a re-trial 

 of the claims. The contention relates to un- 

 paid installments. The Supreme Court held 

 that the two governments were free to make 

 a new agreement, and that the President of 

 the United States had the right to withhold 

 payment of awards alleged to have been fraud- 

 ulently obtained. 



Referring to the strong language of the con- 

 vention, that the decision of the commission 

 should be "absolutely final and conclusive," 

 etc., the Court said that this is to be construed 



