AMENDMENT TO SECTION 851A, CODE OF LAW, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. APRIL 15, 1912. Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. JOHNSON of Kentucky, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 21709.] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred H. R. 21709, report the same back to the House with the recommendation that ít do pass. This bill was prepared by and introduced upon the request of the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. The sections of the code effected by this bill are quoted below, viz: SEC. 834. EMBEZZLEMENT BY AGENT, ATTORNEY, CLERK, OR SERVANT.-If any agent, attorney, clerk, or servant of a private person or copartnership, or any officer, attorney, agent, clerk, or servant of any association or incorporated company shall wrongfully convert to his own use, or fraudulently take, make way with, or secrete, with intent to convert to his own use, anything of value which shall come into his possession or under his care by virtue of his employment or office, whether the thing so converted be the property of his master or employer or that of any other person copartnership, association, or corporation, he shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both. SEC. 835. EMBEZZLEMENT OF NOTE NOT DELIVERED.-Every embezzlement of any evidence of debt negotiable by delivery only, actually executed by the master or employer of any such clerk, attorney, agent, officer, or servant, but not delivered or issued as a valid instrument, shall be deemed an offense within the meaning of the last preceding section. SEC. 836. RECEIVING WITH KNOWLEDGE.-Every person who shall buy or in any way receive anything of value, knowing the same to have been embezzled, taken, or secreted contrary to the provisions of any of the three next preceding sections, shall be punished in the same manner and to the same extent as prescribed in said sections, respectively. SEC. 837. CARRIERS AND INNKEEPERS.-Any person intrusted with anything of value, to be carried for hire, or being an innkeeper and intrusted by his guest with anything of value for safe-keeping, who fraudulently converts the same to his own use, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement and punished as provided in section eight hundred and thirty-four. SEC. 838. WAREHOUSEMAN, AND SO FORTH.-Any warehouseman, factor, storage, forwarding, or commission merchant, or his clerk, agent, or employee, who, with intent to defraud the owner thereof, sells, disposes of, or applies or converts to his own use any property intrusted or consigned to him, or the proceeds or profits of any sale of such property, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement, and shall suffer imprisonment for not more than ten years. EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Hon. BEN JOHNSON, COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Chairman Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives. DEAR SIR: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to recommend favorable congressional action upon H. R. 21709, of the present Congress, entitled "A bill to amend section 851a of Chapter XIX of Subchapter II of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia," which was referred to them at your instance for examination and report. Very respectfully, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, By CUNO H. RUDOLPH, President. AMERICAN CLAIMS AGAINST MEXICO. APRIL 15, 1912.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. GARNER, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. J. Res. 255.] The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred House joint resolution 255, directing the Secretary of State to investigate claims of American citizens growing out of the late insurrection in Mexico, determine the amounts due, if any, and press them for payment, having had the same under consideration, report it back to the House, by unanimous vote, without amendment and recommend that the resolution do pass. The necessity for the passage of this resolution will appear from a recital of the following facts: In April, 1911, a battle was fought at Agua Prieta, a town situated in Mexico immediately across the international boundary line from Douglas, a city in the then Territory but now State of Arizona. Engaged in this battle, fighting against each other, were Mexican Government troops and insurrectionists who were seeking to overthrow the Mexican administration. As an incident to the battle many of the shots fired found their way across the international boundary line into Douglas, wounding a number of American citizens, some of them fatally. Afterwards, in May, 1911, another battle was fought between the Mexican Federal and insurrection forces at Ciudad Juarez, immediately across the international boundary line from El Paso, Tex., and in this engagement shots from the Mexican guns were fired into El Paso, wounding and killing a large number of Americans. At the scene of both these battles an American military force was present sufficient to have protected these Americans who were injured, but this military force was not utilized. The President contented himself with only a warning to the Mexican Government and to the officers commanding the forces engaged in the fight not to injure Americans within United States territory. Following these occurrences the Americans who were thus injured, and the legal representatives of those who were killed, prepared their claims against the Mexican Government for damages and presented them to our Secretary of State, together with their proof, with the request that the Secretary present them to the Mexican Government and press through diplomatic channels for payment. This the Secretary refused to do, and instead advised the claimants that the American Embassy at the City of Mexico would, upon specific request of claimants, file their claims with the Mexican foreign office for presentation to the consultative claims commission of Mexico, but with the distinct understanding that in so presenting the claims to the Mexican foreign office neither the embassy nor the Government of the United States would pass upon the propriety, equity, justice, or legality of such claims, and that these questions would be left for further consideration and final determination in accordance with the rules and principles of international law applicable and controlling, when, if at all, it shall become necessary to consider the question of formally presenting complaints of claimants through diplomatic channels as a diplomatic claim. The Secretary further informed claimants that the American Embassy would do nothing more in relation to their claims than to present them for filing as before stated; that it would be necessary for each claimant, either personally or by attorney, to take all other needful measures in the premises, but that if the parties appearing before the commission should be dissatisfied with the findings of that tribunal, as approved or modified by the Mexican treasury, they might pursue their judicial remedies in the ordinary courts. To this action of our State Department, relegating them to a Mexican tribunal for relief, claimants objected. They took the position that as they were injured in the United States and not in Mexico, and had never submitted themselves to Mexican jurisdiction nor Mexican laws, there was no authority in international law to require them to go to Mexico, the wrongdoer, for the trial of their cases. They contended that, as in all other cases of personal injury, their rights should be determined and the amount of their damages measured by the law of the place where the injuries were inflicted, which were the laws of the United States; that the laws of Mexico were wholly inapplicable, and that if it were the purpose of Mexico to apply American laws to the claims, Mexican tribunals were not competent to apply them; that it was an act of injustice, if not indeed a complete denial of justice, to require the American claimants to incur the heavy expense, which they were unable to bear, of going to a foreign country to submit their claims to a tribunal whose proceedings are conducted in a foreign language and which administers laws of which they have no knowledge, and which has no power to enforce the production of evidence from the locality where the injuries occurred. Claimants further contended that the duty rests upon this Government to afford its people protection and justice; that as to them it had not afforded protection, and in consequence they had been injured, and that it should afford them a proper and effectual means of redress, and that the only way this can be done in these cases is for the Government itself to investigate these cases, determine the amounts due, and present and press them for payment as diplomatic claims. Because claimants can not sue the Mexican Government in our courts, and for the reasons already pointed out, it is impracticable to produce the evidence or try them before a Mexican tribunal. The resolution which is the subject of this report seeks to compel the State Department to act in accordance with the views of claimants. To support the position of the State Department, which we have outlined, the Secretary of State relies upon the following statement setting forth shortly the history of the department's action in the matter of these claims and giving briefly the reasons for the procedure which it has followed: That from the time the anti-American riots broke out in Mexico City until the close of the recent revolutionary disturbance immediately following, the American ambassador at Mexico City and the American consuls throughout the Republic, acting under standing instructions issued very early in the disturbances, were prompt and effective in their representations to the Mexican Government for the protection of American life and property. Whenever and as often as any particular case was called to the attention of the department, special instructions (by telegraph, if the case was urgent, otherwise by mail) were sent to the appropriate diplomatic or consular officers in Mexico. Moreover, pursuant to general and to specific instructions issued by the department, our diplomatic and consular officers in Mexico constantly reported to this Government the conditions in their various localities, so that, thus fully advised, the department was able to secure protection which otherwise might have been impossible. That as to the unfortunate occurrences at El Paso, Tex., and Douglas, Ariz., in which American citizens were killed or injured by shots fired from the Mexican side of the border as an incident of the hostile operations being there conducted, this Government made urgent representations not only to the commanders in the field, but to the Mexican Government itself, that steps must be taken to prevent the firing into American territory, and the reports of our officers go to show that both parties seemingly attempted to avoid such firing. The action taken was as urgent as it was deemed proper to make when it was considered that should the United States be contending with a foe, domestic or foreign, that had placed its back against the Mexican border, military necessity would doubtless require that such foe be dislodged irrespective of the incident damage which might result to Mexican citizens on Mexican soil. If such a case arose on this side of the line, it is doubtful if this Government would do more than assert its willingness to answer in damages for the injuries which it might cause. In the present case the Mexican Government has indicated its willingness to live up to the same rule. To the end of meeting claims against it arising out of the recent revolution, the Mexican Government has established a claims commission which has jurisdiction to examine into claims against the Mexican treasury because of injuries to the private estate of persons or for damages directly growing out of the revolution, for the purpose of reaching the amount of indemnity to which claimants may be entitled. This commission was established by a decree dated June 30, 1911, and was by the decree opened for business on July 1. The decree provided that no claims would be received by the commission after September 30. However, American citizens not having, for various reasons, presented their claims to the tribunal by the last date named, this department arranged with the Mexican Government that claims not already presented to the commission might be presented informally through the foreign office by our ambassador. Two such extensions were secured by the department, as a result of which American claimants, and apparently none others, had until December 31 last to present their claims. In taking advantage of this arrangement and presenting these claims thus informally through the foreign office, the American ambassador, under instructions from the State Department, reserved all rights to make diplomatic representations later in each and every case in which the result reached by the commission was not, in the opinion of this Government, in accordance with the principles of law and equity involved. All American claimants were referred to this commission, because it seemed under the decree creating it that it had jurisdiction of all claims of every kind and nature, and because of the evident necessity, if justice were to be finally done to all Americans, of treating the entire situation as a unit. There was in international law no ground apparent to the department which would have justified it in discriminating between American claims or putting them in certain classes which should receive different treatment, and there was obviously no reason in abstract justice or in morals which required any such course, certainly not so long as ultimately no citizen would suffer |