along the frontier which simply stray across the border line should be allowed to have them returned without unreasonable delay or the payment of the duties. He is, however, also of the opinion that, in order to prevent frauds on the revenue, the privileges proposed to be conferred by the bills in question (and inferentially by the legislation proposed to be enacted in Mexico) should only be granted upon the presentation of adequate proofs of ownership and straying, and he accordingly suggests amendment of whatever measures may be adopted to the desired end, so as to require the owner, at the time the animals are returned, to satisfy the customs officers nearest the point where they are returned that the animals are his property; that they were owned by him in the country whence they strayed, and that they strayed or grazed across the boundary line without his knowledge or consent. I am disposed to concur in the views of my colleague, and if the amendments herein suggested are acceptable to the Mexican Government, but little will remain to be done in the way of reducing the proposed understanding to definite form.* Accept, etc., T. F. BAYARD. No. 872. Mr. Romero to Mr. Bayard. [Translation. I LEGATION OF MEXICO, Washington, May 19, 1888. (Received May 21.) Mr. SECRETARY: I have had the honor to receive your note of yes terday, whereby you were pleased to reply to mine of the 28th ultimo, as an inclosure to which I sent you a draught of an arrangement for the reciprocal passage of cattle across the frontier between Mexico and the United States, for the purpose of grazing or as estrays, which draught was proposed for the avoidance in future of the difficulties which have heretofore arisen in connection with this matter. I have carefully examined the observations made by the honorable Secretary of the Treasury in relation to my draught, and approved by you, and also the additions proposed. As the object of these observations is to prevent the frauds that might be facilitated by the privileges granted to cattle-men on the frontier, I consider myself authorized, by the instructions which I have received from my Government on this subject, to accept them and to sign the agreement in question. I herewith inclose a draught which contains the three modifications suggested in your note of yesterday, the first of which is intended to form section 2 of Article III; the second is to take the place of section 2 of Article IV, and the third is to form the final sentence of Article VI of my draught. Be pleased to accept, etc., M. ROMERO. A convention to regulate the crossing of the frontier by straying or stolen cattle was signed July 11, 1888, and awaits exchange of ratifications. [Inclosure.-Translation.] Additions to the draught of an arrangement for the passage of cattle. ARTICLE III. (2) The collector of customs shall examine the cattle and enter them in due form. He shall, moreover, appraise their value, in order that such appraisement may serve as a basis for the collection of duties, in case the animals do not return to the country whence they came; and he shall require their owner to furnish a bond for their return at the time fixed (which shall not be more than six months subsequent to the date of their passage across the frontier), or for the payment of import duties, in case there shall be occasion for collecting such duties. (Sections 2 and 3 of Article III will then be sections 3 and 4.) ARTICLE IV. (2) (To be substituted for the same section of this article in the previous draught.) That they show to the satisfaction of the collector of the custom-house nearest to the point where the estrayed cattle are to return, that such cattle are their property, and that they were so before they strayed across; and that they describe the brands of the animals, and set forth such other distinguishing marks as may serve for their identification, and furnish evidence to the aforesaid collector that the cattle crossed the frontier without the knowledge or consent of their owner. ARTICLE VI (at the close) in addition to other proof satisfactory to the collector of customs, of the identity of the animals and of their ownership of the same. No. 873. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Romero. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to refer to your note of the 11th ultimo, in which the offer is made to return the horses and other property belong ing to certain citizens of the United States who were detained lately at Janos, Mexico, and to say that the Department is to-day informed that Mr. J. J. E. Lindberg, of El Paso, Texas, is authorized to receive the property in question. I will thank you to make the necessary request of the Mexican authorities, and at the same time you will add to the Department's obligation in this matter if you will have the kindness to telegraph those authorities. Washington. May 23, 1888. (Received May 24.) Mr. SECRETARY: I have the honor to inform you, referring to your note of yesterday relative to the delivery to Mr. J. J. E. Lindberg, of El Paso, Texas, of certain arms and horses taken at Janos from citizens of the United States who had entered Mexico in pursuit of robbers, that I have received a telegram from Mr. Mariscal, secretary of foreign relations of the United States of Mexico, whereby he instructs me to say to you that Mr. Lindberg will receive the arms and two of the horses that were taken, the third having died; the price of the dead animal will, however, be paid if it shall appear that he died owing to any neg lect or ill-treatment on the part of those who had him in charge. Accept, etc., No. 875. M. ROMERO. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Romero. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge, with satisfaction, the receipt of your note of the 23d instant saying that two of the horses-the third having died-and arms detained by the authorities at Janos, would be delivered to Mr. J. J. E. Lindberg, at El Paso, Texas; also offering to pay the price of the dead animal, if it shall appear that he died owing to any neglect or ill-treatment on the part of those who had the horse in charge. Mr. Lindberg has been communicated with upon the subject, and the Secretary of the Treasury has instructed the collector of customs at El Paso to admit the property to free entry. Accept, etc., No. 876. T. F. BAYARD. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Romero. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for your information, in connection with my note to you of March 24th last, a copy of a letter from the honorable C. Meyer Zulick, governor of the Territory of Arizona, dated the 9th ultimo, concerning the case of Manuel Mejia, a Mexican citizen. It will be observed that Governor Zulick refers to his letter of January 20, 1887, a copy of which was sent to you under date of the 29th of that month, and which detailed the circumstances connected with the outrage upon Mr. Mejia. In his present letter the governor states that the forms of law in the case of Genung and Bryant, suspected of the commission of that outrage, were followed, and that they were finally discharged from custody for want of sufficient evidence to hold them for trial. Governor Zulick then adds: Please convey to Mr. Romero the assurance that all has been done possible to do under the unfortunate circumstances; also that the authorities of this Territory [Arizona] and of Maricopa County stand ever ready to faithfully maintain and enforce the rights of every person within their borders, irrespective of nationality. Accept, etc., T. F. BAYARD. [Inclosure.] Mr. Zulick to Mr. Bayard. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, SIR: Referring to the matter complained of by Mr. Matias Romero, the minister of Mexico, regarding the outrage committed upon Manuel Mejia, a Mexican citizen, at Phoœix, Maricopa County, Arizona, I have the honor to report that the authorities of the Territory and of Maricopa County have used earnest endeavors to discover and punish the perpetrators of the outrage complained of. The facts establish that this wrong was committed under the cover of darkness by disguised persons, whose apparent object was to force from him a statement of who (they believing that he knew) were implicated in the murder of Barney Martin and his family. In my letter of January 20, 1887, I gave a detailed statement of this brutal murder, and Mejia's circumstantial connection with it, he having been found in close proximity to Stanton's house in possession and riding one of Martin's horses. As I heretofore stated to the Department, Charles B. Genung and Tom Bryant, who were suspected as the parties committing this outrage upon the person of Mejia, were duly arrested and held to bail to answer the action of the grand jury of Maricopa County, which body, under the direction of the district attorney, fully investigated the charge, but the evidence of identification being insufficient, failed to find an indictment. Under our system of judiciary, and that which, certainly, is recognized all the world over, no more could have been done. The parties claimed to be identified by Mejia were duly complained of under oath, arrested under process of law, held to bail on a good and sufficient bond to appear and answer the action of the grand jury in Maticopa County, and that body, composed of true and tried men, under the solemnity of an oath to present none or fail to present any through fear, favor, or affection, ignored the bill and discharged the parties. They, doubtless, discharged these men because of the absence of sufficient proof to justify an indictment. They were a competent judicial authority, regulated and acting under the forms of law, and I respectfully, but earnestly, assert that their action is not fairly open to the criticism that it resulted in a "notorious disregard of justice," as stated by Minister Romero. Respecting the arrest without warrant of a competent magistrate, and the detention for several days by Deputy Sheriff Blankenship, of Mejia, the circumstances should be fully considered. A foul and brutal murder of a respected citizen of Maricopa County, also his wife and two boys, aged nine and eleven years, had been committed for the sole purpose of a robbery of several thousand dollars, the price of his ranch, which was in his possession. The four bodies were burned, and the charred remains of the murdered victims were discovered about a week afterward. The tracks of the assassins led to the immediate vicinity of Stanton's and Mejia's houses, which were the rendezvous of a lot of Mexican outlaws, with whom Stanton was generally reported to be a participant. His reputation was of the worst, he having a record in crime. Stanton and Mejia were both arrested, and subsequently released, the evidence not being sufficient to hold them. Public indignation was greatly aroused; it was in the midst of these exciting incidents that the unfortunate acts complained of were committed. Certainly, Mejia's being found in possession of the horse, the stolen property of the murdered man, was a circumstance in itself sufficient to justify his arrest under due forms of law, and fully warranted a sworn complaint upon which to base an order of arrest. The neg lect of the deputy sheriff to formally execute this sworn complaint is greatly to be regretted, but I can scarcely think this failure to do so when being in full possession of facts to fully justify it constitutes as serious an offense as is charged. The omis sion was not occasioned by any desire to violate the personal rights of Mejia, who it was supposed at that time was an American citizen, much less to reflect any discredit upon a citizen of the Republic of Mexico. Please convey to Mr. Romero the assurance that all has been done possible to do under the unfortunate circumstances, also that the authorities of this Territory and of Maricopa County stand ever ready to faithfully maintain and enforce the rights of every person within their borders, irrespective of nationality. I am, etc., MEYER ZULICK. No. 877. Mr. Romero to Mr. Bayard. [Translation.] LEGATION OF MEXICO, Washington, July 3, 1888. (Received July 5). Mr. SECRETARY: Your note of the 16th of April last, as an inclosure to which you sent me a report of the Acting Commissioner of Public Lands, bearing date of the 15th of March previous, and having reference to the complaint of J. Escobar y Armendariz, a Mexican citizen, owner of the Santa Teresa tract, situated in Doña Ana County, in the Territory of New Mexico, was transmitted by me to the Mexican Government, and as I have now received instructions from Mr. Mariscal on this subject, I must once more invite your attention to it. The petition of Mr. Escobar y Armendariz, which I transmitted with my note of November 25, 1887, raised three points: (1) That the title to the Santa Teresa tract was valid according to Mexican law when the land was transferred, in virtue of the treaty of December 30, 1853, to the United States. (2) It asked for a confirmation of said title by the Congress of the United States, and (3) That new survey of the land should be made, the owner being notified. With regard to the first point, it appears from the petition of Mr. Escobar y Armendariz that Mr. H. M. Atkinson, surveyor-general of the Territory of New Mexico, expressed the opinion, in December, 1878, in view of the evidence submitted to him, that the validity of the concession of the Santa Teresa tract was fully shown, but that Mr. George W. Julian, the new surveyor-general, expressed a contrary opinion, based solely upon the fact that, according to article 6 of the treaty of December 30, 1853, betweeen Mexico and the United States, it was necessary for the concession, in order to be valid, to have been recorded in the archives of Mexico, and that no evidence had been furnished that this requirement had been complied with. The entire question in respect to this matter is, therefore, in the opinion of the surveyor-general, reduced to one fact, and that is: Was the concession of the land of which Mr. Escobar y Armendariz is the present possessor recorded among the archives of Mexico? It seems that Surveyor Julian understands by archives of Mexicothose of the City of Mexico, and not those of the chief towns of the other territorial divisions of the country-which divisions were first made by the Spanish Government, and afterwards adopted by the Mexican Government-and I do not consider that interpretation of the treaty to be well founded. It may very easily have happened that the authorities of the prov inces into which the vice-royalty of New Spain was divided were authorized to make grants of land for the validity of which the approval of the viceroy was not necessary, in which case the proper evidence would be found only among the archives of the respective local authorities, and not among those of the City of Mexico. It appears evident to me that the object of the stipulation referred to was to prevent the approval of fraudulent grants forged by speculators with a view to acquiring lands that had never been granted to them by either the Spanish or the Mexican Government; as, however, it is |