However, as to the fine of ten (not one, as stated by your excellency) thousand soles, I do not understand that your excellency claims, as I apprehend it can not be claimed, that it was imposed under existing laws, or in a legal way, or by judicial or proper process. Nor do I understand that the laws of Peru (though I express my ideas, if in error as to them, subject to correction by those better versed than I am in them) admit that a mere employee can be imprisoned and tortured, and even confronted with execution, in order to enforce the payment of a fine imposed confessedly not upon himself personally, but upon the company or enterprise (empresa) which he may represent.

But whatever may be the Peruvian law generally applicable to such state of case as is alleged by your excellency's government, it could not apply here, because there was a higher law in force at the time, so far as United States citizens or their interests were concerned, in the shape of an existing treaty.

To the relevant provisions of that treaty I observe your excellency makes no reference, although I called attention to its very pertinent guarantees in my previous said note of September 3 last. Neither does your excellency refer to the important additional evidence presented with my note No. 119, of the 31st ultimo, in which the various consular officers at Arequipa, with numerous other residents and persons acquainted with the facts in this case, testify to the correctness of the allegations of Mr. MacCord's protest, presented, as stated, with my No. 112, of September 3, to the foreign office, which allegations do not agree with the views expressed in your excellency's note of the 6th instant, at least so far as that note charges complicity upon Mr. MacCord in the attempt of the Iglesias forces, and in purposely leaving cars within the reach of, and running off an engine to, those expeditionary forces under Col. Garcia y Garcia.

It not only appears from the protest of Mr. MacCord (which was not made recently, as your excellency assumes, but on June 16, 1885, immediately after the event, as will be seen from its date, though only officially presented to this legation some months ago for the reasons explained), but over the attesting names of the thirtynine consular officers and others signed to the certificate, copy of which has been, as before mentioned, sent to the foreign office, that, in plain violation of said treaty provisions, without legal writ of process, Mr. MacCord was committed to imprisonment on June 12, 1885, and, without legal or judicial examination, he was continued in prison until 3 o'clock p. m. of June 15, 1885; and not only was he so committed to prison and detained for more than twenty-four hours without examination or trial, in violation of treaty guarantees, but was, in still worse violation of treaty obligations, during such illegal imprisonment, tortured with inhuman treatment, and even confronted with threatened execution; and was only thereafter released upon payment of an illegally and violently imposed fine of ten (not one) thousand soles. These facts alleged by Mr. MacCord, and proved before the English vice-consul over his signature, and those of the said some thirty-nine consular officers and other persons in Arequipa, I do not understand your excellency to controvert.

The same signatures attest that "the running away of the engine was due to the perfidy of the engineer and the carelessness of the officer and troops placed in charge of it by the said Colonel San Roman," "there being absolutely no blame attachable to any employee of the railroad except the engineer who ran away."

The statement of said protest and numerously signed certificate, quite contrary then to the views expressed by your excellency, seem to show that Mr. MacCord was not responsible for the flight of the engineer with the locomotive to the Iglesias forces, but that circumstance resulted from the negligence or fault of Colonel San Roman's own forces that had been placed in charge of said locomotive.

But even if the question of the fine be put to one side for the present, which, however, I can not admit can be done, over and above that remains, apparently uncontroverted, the wrong and violence committed against Mr. MacCord's person in disregard of all right, and, as I understand, of Peruvian laws themselves, and in plain violation of treaty guarantees; hence, whether the fine was imposed on him personally or upon him as the representative of the railroad, and whether or not charged on the railroad's books and afterwards discounted, Mr. MacCord has independently his claim against the Government of Peru for proper reparation as to the wrongs committed against himself.

In conclusion, I must therefore again refer your excellency to the treaty provisions then-viz, in June, 1885—in full force, as cited in my preceding note of September 3 last, in this case, one of which guaranties I beg to emphasize and to impress upon your excellency's attention by placing its language in juxtaposition to the facts and considerations that precede, which, found in article 15, reads:

"The said citizens shall not be liable to imprisonment without formal commitment under a warrant signed by a legal authority, except in cases flagranti delicti, and they shall in all cases be brought before a magistrate or other legal authority for examination within twenty-four hours after arrest; and if not so examined, the accused shall forthwith be discharged from custody. Said citizens, when detained

in prison, shall be treated during their imprisonment with humanity, and no unnecessary severity shall be exercised toward them."

I have just received from the Department of State at Washington a copy of Mr. MacCord's memorial to his own Government, in which he states his claim for indemnity against that of Peru, for treatment complained of, at $200,000.

I reiterate, etc.,

CHAS. W. BUCK.

(See Ex. Doc. No. 4, Fifty-third Congress, third session, pp. 24, 25, 26.)

Mr. MacCord to Mr. Buck.

AREQUIPA, November 15, 1888. DEAR SIR: Your esteemed favor, dated 9th instant, is at hand. In reply I beg to state that I have never pretended that the fine was paid by me; it was paid by Mr. Thorndike, and the statement that it was afterwards discounted from Peruvian employees, or any others, is entirely false. Neither do I make claim for the fine; my claim is for the unlawful, barbarous, and inhuman treatment to which I was subjected to compel the payment of the fine. For this I have asked a money indemnity of $200,000 or such other as the Government of my country may consider a proper recompense for the sufferings and indignities inflicted upon me, such as being confined in a cell without either food or water or any article of furniture allowed me; being led out at night and stood up before a file of armed soldiers to be shot, etc., as detailed in my protest, and certified to by the whole community of Arequipa.

I deny that any responsibility for the escape of the engine can in justice be attributed to me. The train was put under the charge of the officer designated by the prefect in his note dated June 10 (which original, with signature certified to, has been sent to you), and an armed guard was by him placed in the engine. But in any case I claim, and did demand at the time, that an investigation should be made as to the facts of the case in order to demonstrate the truth and fix the responsibility where it properly belonged. Had this been done I could not have complained; but it was never done. and there are people here who think it would not suit the Government to do it, as it might be shown that their own officers were implicated. Be this as it may, it should be borne in mind that my claim is not for the fine imposed on the railway, but for the arbitrary, illegal, and outrageous treatment to which I was subjected in connection with it, and the refusal or failure to grant me trial or hearing in accordance with the laws of the country.

The statement that I was "in accord with the Iglesias commander" is false and can not be substantiated. I never had any communication, either directly or indirectly, with any person engaged in or connected with the expedition. In regard to the cars left on the road, I disclaim any responsibility for it. The prefect gave an order to bring away the only engine remaining in Mollendo, and with it all the cars remaining there, and which had been kept there, with his consent, as necessary to do the work; and on no account to permit an engine to go out from here except by his order. This order (to bring away the cars) was delivered to Mr. Braun, the general manager, who was here at that time, and as it was utterly impossible to bring up all the cars with one engine, Mr. Braun went personally to the prefect's house to explain and consult the matter with him. The prefect would listen to no proposal for sending more engines to bring away the cars, and declared that he had given orders to burn all that were left on the road by the engine coming up. We could, therefore, do nothing more in the matter, and the responsibility rested with the prefect.

As to my having changed the engineer on the runaway engine, this is also false. The circumstances were as follows: The prefect specified a certain engine, and that engine had just come in, having been out all night on the same kind of service; and when the engineer complained to the master mechanic that he had had no sleep the previous night, and could not stand it another night without sleep, that chief named another engineer to go along for the purpose of watching the engine at night in case they should be kept out. With this I personally had nothing to do, but did approve when advised of it, as I had not a suspicion that we had among the engineers a single one who would be capable of running away with an engine, even if no guard had been kept on them, as was the invariable custom at the time. How the guard came to leave the engine and thus allow of its being taken away has not, so far as I am aware, ever been inquired into; but I certainly do not, and did not at the time, consider that the responsibility rested upon us to prevent such a thing happening, I gave the train into the possession of the officer and charged the conductor and engineer to be careful not to fall into the hands of the opposing forces by any act of their own, and to that end I cautioned the conductor not to allow himself to be sep

arated from the said officer under any circumstances; but I never thought it necessary to caution anybody against running away with the train or engine, much less the latter with a guard of soldiers on it.

In conclusion, I do not think the question of the fine needs to be taken into account. What I ask for is redress for not having been treated according to the laws of the country; and the investigations they are pretending to make now would have been more in order in June, 1885; nevertheless, I am perfectly willing to have them made now and to abide by the result.

Yours, respectfully,

V. H. MACCORD.

(See Ex. Doc. No. 4, Fifty-third Congress, third session, pp. 26, 27.)

By further reference to the papers and correspondence transmitted to the Senate by the Secretary of State (Ex. Doc. No. 18, Fifty-third Congress, third session, p. 5) it appears that subsequent to the filing of MacCord's memorial touching the brutal treatment measured to MacCord in June, 1885, renewed indignity was offered to him, and insult to the national flag, as will be seen below:

In the matter of the memorial of Victor H. MacCord, a citizen of the United States, now sojourning at Arequipa, Peru, South America, addressed to the Honorable Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State of the United States.

Affidavit of Mrs. Sarah A. (MacCord) Allen, residing at Louisville, Crawford County, Pa.

CRAWFORD COUNTY, 88:

Mrs. Sarah Allen, being sworn, says that she is the mother of Victor H. MacCord above named, now sojourning in Arequipa, Peru, South America, and has been shown a letter from her son under date of October 4, 1888, addressed to S. Newton Pettis, of Meadville, Pa., in which the following appears:

"As I wrote you in my last, Mr. Thorndyke's house in Mollendo, in which was established the United States consular agency, was taken forcible possession of with armed soldiers on the 20th, and the consulate closed and the shield taken down. The minister in Lima claimed and the Government offered him to return the house immediately, which, however, has not been done up to this time, although I have called almost daily, in reply to inquiries by cable, that nothing has been or is being done toward returning the house. Meanwhile the consulate remains closed to the agent, and no business can be transacted by him."

That her son, she is informed and believes, is and for some time past has been the acknowledged consular agent of the United States in Peru, South America; and further saith not.

Sworn to and subscribed before me January 24, 1889.

SARAH A. ALLEN.

WM. PENTZ, Alderman.

JANUARY 31, 1889.

I hereby certify that William Pentz, before whom the foregoing affidavit was sworn to, is a duly acting alderman in and for the city of Meadville, in the county of Crawford and State of Pennsylvania.

S. NEWTON PETTIS, Solicitor for V. H. MacCord.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, February 13, 1889.

SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 31st ultimo relating to the alleged outrage on V. H. MacCord, an American citizen, in Peru, in 1885, to which your letter of August 2 last referred.

A copy of your letter has been sent to our minister at Lima, as supplementary to the statement made under your hand, sent him on 14th August last.

I am, etc.,

L. NEWTON PETTIS, Esq.,

Washington, D. C.

G. L. RIVES, Assistant Secretary.

The committee present the foregoing as a full exhibit of the records of the State Department in this case, chronologically arranged, from the time of the alleged outrage against both the liberty and life of

Victor H. MacCord in June, 1885, then a consular agent of the United States in Peru, to February 13, 1889, less than three weeks before the change of the Administration of this Government on the 4th of March, 1889, and touching the true estimate of the character of Prefect San Roman, by whose order the outrages and crimes were committed against MacCord, in connection with his notorious and disgraceful administration while prefect of Arequipa in 1885, which is best disclosed by editorial notices in the Peruvian press of 1890, seen below:

[El Commercio, September 11, 1890.]

NUEVOS PREFECTOS (NEW PREFECTS).

The general, Don Manuel Velarde and Don Pedro Jose Rinz having renonnced, Col. Don Manuel San Roman and Señor Manuel Elias have been nominated, respectively, to be prefect of Callao and Ayacucho, the first having been until this date prefect of Arequipa and the latter of Apurimae.

As interpreters of public opinion we can and must congratulate Government on the favorable change realized in the prefecture of Ayacucho-Señor Elias having all the required qualities for a high administrative functionary; but we can not say the same respecting the change made in the prefecture of Callao, where General Velarde, a prudent and highly esteemed functionary, by his renouncement has opened the way to Col. San Roman, against whom innumerable complaints have been lodged during the time he was prefect of Arequipa.

We fully comprehend that political necessities impose certain considerations impossible to avoid in many cases, and this explains, in our opinion, the nomination which favors Mr. San Roman; but at the same time it can only be deplored that a population like that of Callao, which have always distinguished themselves by their civic virtues, should be made the victims of such considerations.

[Translation from the Opinion Nacional.]

LIMA, October 1, 1890.

RESIDENTIAL JUDGMENT.

Amongst the prefects recently nominated there are some who, as well on account of their antecedents as by force of law, can not fulfill the commission intrusted to them, and whose nomination the President of the Republic had better annul as soon as possible.

Col. Manuel San Roman, formerly prefect of Arequipa, and lately called to occupy the prefecture of Callao, after six years' service in his former place, is decidedly of the number of such prefects under responsibility. Besides many criminal lawsuits pending against him, and of which one of the most aggravating kind has been decided against him a few days ago by the supreme court, and besides being completely unable to be intrusted with such an important employment on account of his aggressive and reproachable acts, there is another question. According to law he must be submitted to a residential judgment, and during this time he can not have another commission of equal, and not even of less, elevation.

The residential judgment on employees who have been in command of a department or province is a requirement which can not be omitted without counteracting openly the law. The object of these judgments being to examine the behavior of such functionaries in order to ascertain if they are apt or not to be otherwise employed, and not to intrust a new place to those who have behaved badly in former occasions; all this would result delusive in the present case if Mr. San Roman was to take charge of the prefecture of Callao without having been previously submitted to the corresponding judgment of residency respecting his term of office as prefect of the department of Arequipa.

Article 22 of the law concerning the interior organization of the Republic says terminally: "The public functionaries cease de facto by the termination of one period, and the residential judgment will be effected, without which proceeding they can not be combined in the same charge nor be given another."

Mr. San Roman has been six years at the head of the prefecture of Arequipa. In this excessively prolongated term (exceeding twice the term stipulated by law) his misdeeds and abuses are known to the public; the press has denounced them frequently, and demand in high tones his punishment; private parties have accused him

before the competent tribunal, and there are still pending lawsuits against him. Nothing would be more logical, then, than to submit him to a residential judgment, before taking charge of the new prefecture, to examine the accusations which have been made against him and see if they are well founded or only show that there has been a bad feeling against him When anybody is in charge of a commanding public position and will govern obediently to the laws, without listening to his personal affections or disaffections, he will surely not elude this definite legal prescription. It would indeed be the summit of arbitrariness to despise the law and to obey the inspirations of favoritism and individual condescendence. The prefects and all public functionaries in general are bound to account for their acts; they must prove to have executed the law during the time of their commission, and this can not be obtained unless they are submitted to a residential judgment, this being the only means to prove their good or bad behavior.

By prescinding from this judgment the natural consequence will be the impunity; the most abominable abuses of the authorities will be established as a rule for future conduct; social morals will be deeply affected, and the people will accustom themselves to regard their governors as the hangmen of their social privileges and of their immanent civic rights, instead of the natural protectors of their interests and guaranties.

If the acts of Mr. San Roman, committed in Arequipa, remain unpunished, what will he do, being prefect of Callao? Undoubtedly he will believe that by his abuses he will gain the esteem and good opinion of the chief of the state, and will consequently abuse as soon as he takes charge of that new situation, and will abuse still more than in Arequipa, because he can suppose that by so doing he will acquire a good right to occupy afterwards a still higher position in the political theater.

The recent electoral period is that in which Mr. San Roman has extralimited himself most. There was no guaranty which he has not trampled under his feet, nor any right which he has not violated-and all this against the terminant orders of the candidate he proposed to favor. In this sad period horrible crimes like that of Paucarpata were committed, and sufficient blood was shed; a great many citizens were debarred from voting in order to convert the election, the most august act of popular sovereignty, into a shameful mockery; hundreds of citizens were thrown into prison only because they proclaimed a candidate who did not enjoy the good will of the prefect, and, finally, the public force has been employed to fight party battles, ill treating and arresting all the dissenters from their official ideas.

And in spite of all, this abusive and rash prefect is elevated to a better prefecture, putting aside the residential judgment, of which law a ridiculous contempt is shown. This can not be accepted; it can not pass without noticing, unless we renounce the right of fiscalizing belonging to every citizen in the Republic to judge the acts of public men and to demand their submision to the sanction of law.

Mr. San Roman himself must ask for residential judgment in order to prove himself innocent in case he really thinks he is. He must not allow himself to be carried away by what he terms the passionate judgments of the press. If he is convinced that his acts being in authority were good and agreeable to law, he must from his free will invoke his vindication and ask for his judgment, in order to enable him to prove the sacrifice which he pretends to have made for the good of his country.

If he does not proceed in this manner, if he does not wish his acts to be assayed in the crucible of law, then he must confess the truth of all the inculpations which the press has registered, and confess that all the charges brought publicly forward against him are well founded; and then he must not accept the new prefecture given him, because he does not merit to have it.

It is high time to cast off this inconvenient silence, which has so often made us suffer abuses, in order not to give any pretense for disturbing public order. But now, when order is restored and nobody will reasonably fear any subversion, we must raise our voices to see the law obeyed and to expel from the public scene all those who never merited to be authorities and never will be good ones, because their habits do not allow it and their education is opposed to it.

Let us hope that Mr. San Roman, before taking charge of the prefecture of Callao, be submitted in Arequipa to the judgment of residency prescribed by law, and of which the Supreme Government can not dispense, because this is not in its power and attributions, nor does it belong to his constitutional privileges.

We are sorry to have been obliged to this frank severity, but the insinuations made to the Government for the best of its own prestige not having produced any effect it is necessary, at least, to leave a testimonial of the justice of our request. Wo demand nothing but what the law comands-the residential judgment. (See Ex. Doc. No. 18, Fifty-third Congress, third session, pp. 14, 15.)

About the same time Mr. Buck wrote Mr. Pettis, in answer to a note addressed to him at Midway, Ky., touching this case, saying:

In reply to your note received this afternoon, inquiring as to the status of the MacCord case when I left Lima, I may say I think that my last note to the foreign