office was No. 120 of the foreign office series, and dated November last. That note was never answered, and I do not believe it can be answered. The new minister of foreign relations, just before I left, expressed to me regret that I was to leave so soon, and said he wished to settle the case, and asked me to make assurances of the good disposition of Peru in the matter to my Government upon my arrival; but upon my inquiry whether he would give shape to a basis of settlement, he said he was not prepared to do this, but would communicate to the Peruvian minister in Washington relative to the matter. Upon my return the State Department invited no consultation with me on the subject; so practically, as far as I know, the case stood, when I tendered my resignation on April 5 last, where my note of November 14 last, above cited, left it. I can only refer you to the Department for information as to said dispatch, which I observe is not published in the Foreign Relations for the last year, just out. No action at all was taken by the State Department during the whole remaining portion of the year 1889, although the solicitor of Mr. MacCord was untiring and constant in his efforts to obtain consideration of the claim by the State Department, and failing therein, on December 24, 1889, presented to the President in person a clear, succinct, and yet elaborate résumé of the case, and six days thereafter was advised by Mr. Halford that the President directed him to say that he had read the statement left with him and that he would take occasion to confer with the Secretary of State on the subject. Two years and a half afterwards, on September 17, 1891, Mr. MacCord's solicitor addressed a letter to the President, stating that he had not received, either from His Excellency or the State Department, any "information concerning the 'consideration' promised the last of December, 1889)," and on September 23, 1891, received a letter from the President stating that he had received his (the solicitor's) letter of the 17th, in which his attention was called to the claim of Mr. Victor H. MacCord against the Peruvian Government, and that he had called the attention of the State Department to the claim, which was all he could do, as his time was too much occupied to give him the opportunity to take up the case and examine it upon its merits, adding that when Mr. Blaine returned his attention would be called to the matter. The committee finds that Mr. MacCord was continually in communication with his solicitor, and was all the time advised of the action of the State Department down to March 4, 1889, and its nonaction after that date, and of its repeated refusals to hear or even see his attorney, and he subsequently approved of his solicitor's decision in the fall of 1891, to wait until a change of Administration took place, and for that reason declined to mention the matter of his claim to United States Minister Hicks while on a visit to Arequipa, several days' journey from the United States legation at Lima, who on his return trip volunteered a letter, given below, and which resulted in a correspondence that followed, which is given entire on pages 28 to 33, inclusive, Ex. Doc. No. 4, Fifty-third Congress, third session: Mr. Hicks to Mr. MacCord. MOLLENDO, September 21, 1891. SIR: I inclose herewith the documents let with me by Mr. Griffith. I have looked them through carefully and they only confirm my previous impression of the enor mity of the outrage. Why the Department has not acted in the case I am unable to say; but whatever the delay may be, you can rest assured that the Department is influenced by principles of international law applicable to your case, and principles which would govern England or any other nation in a similar case. I will report the fact of my visit here to the Department and ask for a statement of the condition of the case, so that we may be enabled to judge something about the causes which prevent its successful prosecution. From the partial examination of the facts which I have been enabled to make, not having the necessary authorities at hand for consultation, I am inclined to think that it may have been presented to the Department as coming under a class of cases growing out of a condition of war. In time of war subjects of a neutral nation caught between contending armies have little hope of redress, either for loss of liberty or of property, growing out of the legitimate prosecution of the war. This principle, as I understand it, is recognized by all civilized nations, and may possibly have a bearing in your case. When I return to Lima I will look up the case as it appears in the records of the legation, and if I can learn anything which would be of interest to you I will communicate it to you at once. If I can be of any service to you at any time, in communicating with the Department or otherwise, you may be perfectly free to call on me. Your obedient servant, JOHN HICKS. Mr. MacCord to Mr. Hicks. AREQUIPA, September 23, 1891. DEAR SIR: I am greatly obliged to you for yours of the 21st instant, but I notice that you do not quite understand the nature of my complaint against the Government at Washington. Had my case been given a hearing, and the Government have decided that there was no redress for the outrages committed, or that none had been committed, I should have undoubtedly thought it pretty hard lines, but would at the same time have accepted it as in accordance with international law and usages if so decided; but it has not been so, and what I complain of is that I can not get a hearing at all. I do not want to bother you with the case, as I am convinced that it is useless to expect anything from the Government. Proof enough of this is the way the matter of the violation of the consulate at Mollendo was settled, and which caused my resignation of the consular agency there. I can not, of course, pretend to discuss with you the point of whether the fact or circumstance of there being a revolution in the country at the time would or would not affect the case; but I will state that Mr. Gibbs, then minister of the United States in Bolivia, and a man of long experience as minister to foreign countries, assured me, when the circumstance of my imprisonment occurred, that the United States Government would immediately attend to the case, and that without doubt reparation would be demanded. Not long ago two Americans were killed in Bolivia, and the fact that a revolution existed at the time did not prevent our minister taking up the matter, and going himself to the spot to investigate it; nor was it made a pretext by Bolivia for not punishing the criminals. Again, only very recently an American citizen was arbitrarily arrested and thrown into prison in Concepcion in Chile, on some frivolous pretext, and although a revolution or civil war was raging our minister demanded and secured immediate redress. I repeat, that I am not inclined to do anything more in my own case. The time has gone by when a solution favorable to me would have had a good effect here; but I do feel hurt, and the pride which we all ought to feel in being citizens of such a glorious country is in me considerably humbled. Thanking you for the interest taken in my behalf, and your kind offers in connection with the prosecution of my claim, I beg to subscribe myself, Very respectfully, yours, V. H. MACCord. Mr. Hicks to Mr. MacCord. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your esteemed favor of September 23d, which has had my careful attention. I have also given a partial examination of the case as it appears of record in this legation. From all I can learn through your letter, from the representations of your friends, and from the records, I am of the impression that you are laboring under a serious misapprehension, and that the delays and apparent neglect shown can be explained entirely to your satisfaction. First, let me allude to your letter of the 23d ultimo. In my letter of September 21 I alleged, as affording possibly some explanation of the delay or refusal of the Department to press the claim now, that "in time of war subjects of a neutral nation caught between contending armies have little hope of redress, either for loss of liberty or of property growing out of the legitimate prosecution of the war." I made this statement as a conjecture, not as decisive of anything. In reply you allude to the case of Americans murdered in Bolivia, and state that the minister at once took up their case. I can only say that the Bolivian case is not at all like yours, as it appears to me, for the reason that it does not appear that the Americans were murdered "in the legitimate prosecution of the war," but simply by thieves or outlaws. The case of the American imprisoned at Concepcion, Chile, seems to be also of a different nature from yours, as the pretext does not appear to have any connection with the revolution. Second. I was told by your friends that you had properly placed your case before this legation at once, to wit, in June, A. D. 1885, and that three different American ministers had allowed it to slumber without giving it the attention it deserved. I learn from the records that your case was first presented to this legation May 24, 1888, almost three years after the outrage. It was immediately taken up by Mr. Buck, and presented to the Department in several very strong dispatches on the subject. By order of the Department it was presented to the Peruvian Government by my predecessor, Mr. Buck, in an exceedingly forcible, eloquent, and elaborate statement and argument in your favor. In fact, since it was placed in Mr. Buck's hands it appears to have been repeatedly urged upon the attention of the Peruvian Government. I find, also, that on the 9th of November, 1888, Mr. Buck wrote you the result of his investigations as follows: "He (the Peruvian minister of foreign affairs) has been led by my note to investigate the facts, and finds that you were in accord with the Iglesias commander, and, contrary to the orders of the prefect to remove all rolling stock, having left cars on the railroad for the use of those forces. You changed the engineer on the runaway locomotive, so that he made off with it to the Iglesias commander, thus enabling him to cross the desert in his movement on Arequipa. He then says the 'multa' was not imposed on you individually, but upon the railroad enterprise which you represent, and that it was charged by you against the railroad in books which you have concealed, and that the sum was discounted by the railroad from the salaries of Peruvian railroad employees. Minister Alzamora concludes by declining to admit your claim." In conclusion, I am led to think that any delay in the presentation of your case was caused by you or your agents, who failed to place it in this legation until three years after the outrage. Third. That this legation has given your case a thorough and exhaustive examination and seems to have made a decidedly forcible presentation of it to the Peruvian Government. Fourth. That the Peruvian Government, after investigating it, positively refused to allow the claim, setting forth their reasons for such action. Fifth. That the Department has not refused to give your case a hearing, but, on the contrary, it has investigated it thoroughly and instructed the minister here to demand an investigation and to press the matter forcibly and immediately upon the attention of the Government. It is not to be presumed that you are familiar with correspondence on the subject between the State Department and the legation, but I assure you that your case was received as all such cases are, in a friendly and impartial spirit, and orders were at once given to take it up. Sixth. I do not find that the case is closed. From its first presentation by Mr. Thorndike, May 24, 1888, to Mr. Buck's letter to you, November 9, 1888, only six months or less had elapsed, during which time the records contain ample evidence of Mr. Buck's labors in numerous long documents to the Peruvian Government and to the Department about your case. I succeeded Mr. Buck on May 1, 1889, and since that date my attention has never been called to your case by you, your attorney, or your friends, or the Department until my visit to Mollendo. I shall submit at once to the Department copies of my letters to you and your letter of the 23d ultimo, and ask for a statement of the present status of the case. I assure you, however, that you have no cause for ill feeling against this legation or the Department, as far as I am able to judge. Should the Department see fit to reopen the case, it is not too late, and I shall be glad to do anything properly in my power to bring about an intelligent and equitable settlement of the case. Your obedient servant, JOHN HICKS. Mr. Hicks to Mr. Blaine. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 327.] Lima, Peru, November 23, 1891. (Received December 15.) SIR: Referring to my No. 310 of October 5, 1891, in regard to the claim against the Peruvian Government of V. H. MacCord, I now inclose a copy (1-327) of a letter received by the last mail from Mr. MacCord. I have, etc., JOHN HICKS. The above reference by Mr. Hicks to his No. 310 is found on page 27, Ex. Doc. No. 4, Fifty-third Congress, third session, and in the words following: No. 310.] Mr. Hicks to Mr. Blaine. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Lima, Peru, October 5, 1891. (Received October 27.) SIR: When I was at Mollendo and Arequipa, in the south of Peru, I was told by friends of Mr. MacCord that his arrest and imprisonment in 1885 was an outrage upon American rights which had never been noticed by the Department, and that Mr. MacCord had sought in vain to have his case properly taken up by the legation in Lima and our Government at home. Great ill feeling exists among Mr. MacCord's friends on the subject, and the indignation expressed against the legation and the United States Government was decidedly unpleasant. I find, on investigating the matter, that it is almost entirely without foundation, and I have written to Mr. MacCord giving him a statement as it appears to me. I would suggest that some statement from the Department, giving the reasons for not pressing the case, in such a manner as would convince Mr. MacCord that he has been fairly treated by the Department, might be a judicious step. I will say that I am of the impression that Mr. MacCord is a conscientious and honorable man and that he really feels that he has a grievance. Besides, the fact that he is and has been the manager of an important railroad and has a large circle of friends who sympathize with him would seem to make it a case worthy of explanation. On the other hand, should it be the judgment of the Department that the case should be reopened, I will cheerfully attend to it to the best of my ability. Your obedient servant, Mr. MacCord to Mr. Hicks. JOHN HICKS. AREQUIPA, November 14, 1891. SIR: In reply to your esteemed favor dated 4th ultimo I beg to say that, according to my information on the subject, the allegations contained in Minister Alzamora's note were denied by a subsequent note from Minister Buck, and the minister of foreign affairs was asked to substantiate his charges with proofs. Nothing short of this could be called an investigation, surely. I furnished proofs in support of my charges, and all I have ever asked is that the matter should be investigated; but to accept as truth the unsupported statements of the Peruvian minister does not, in my humble opinion, constitute an investigation. This was, however, done in the question of the violation of the Mollendo consular agency, and it does not surprise me that it should be also accepted in my case. Every allegation contained in Minister Alzamora's note, as transcribed by you, is false. I was not in accord with the Iglesias commander. I did not leave rolling stock on the road without the prefect's knowledge and consent. I did not change the engine driver. I never pretended that it was not the railway who paid the money (in the end), but I claimed that I was tortured to compel the payment of it. I did not conceal the books in which the transaction was recorded, nor was the money ever deducted from Peruvian employees. Why was Mr. Alzamora not asked to prove these statements? I believe he was so asked, but never gave the matter any more attention; and the Government of the United States, for reasons best known to the Secretary of State, allowed the investigation to stop there. I claimed (and I furnished unimpeachable proofs of the facts) that I had been illegally imprisoned and unlawfully and barbarously treated to compel the payment of money for war purposes, and which could not even be termed a fine, because a fine presupposes an investigation of the facts in the case, which was denied me-or at least was not accorded, although it was promised to the deputation of the foreign consuls which waited upon the prefect for that purpose. My demand during the whole time of my imprisonment was to be placed on trial. I claim, also, that no evidence has ever or can be produced to implicate me in any manner with the escape of the locomotives, and, further, that the prefect knew perfectly well that no blame could be attached to me. He himself has said so, and he himself told me in Mollendo, immediately after the Iglesias forces had left, that the money would be returned from the very first receipts of the Mollendo custom-house; that that money had saved the situation, etc. You may possibly think (although I hope you do not) that because I was disposed to let the matter drop I had some fear that they might prove something against me; but such is not the case. I am aware that it has been insinuated that I had instructions from Mr. Thorndike to favor the Iglesias party, but such a charge is not worthy of nor does it receive a moment's consideration by anyone who knows the man; and as for myself, I refer to a record of twenty years' residence in Peru to show if I have ever in any way interested myself in the political strifes so frequent in this country. My position demanded of me the strictest neutrality, which I never failed to observe. As manager of the railway it was my duty to serve the constituted authorities of the party in power at the headquarters where I was stationed, and I always did so honestly and to the best of my ability. I know my duty as a law-abiding citizen, and I used to think I had a right to invoke the law in my own behalf and for my own protection. If I was disposed to let the matter drop, it was because I found so much difficulty in prosecuting it, and because so much time had elapsed that a solution favorable to me now would probably not have the effect I expected and desired, i. e., to aid in preventing such lawless proceedings in future. Had the Peruvian Government not put it out of my power, by approving the prefect's action (without hearing me at all), I should have sought redress in the courts of the country and never pretended to a money indemnity. What I desired was the punishment of the authority who abused his power; but the Government by its action shut the door to this, and left me no other course to pursue than the one I adopted, or else keep silence. You will remember that at the time of the perpetration of the outrages complained of I was the consular agent of the United States at Arequipa. The agency was afterwards changed to Mollendo, where it was violated by an armed force, and the matter was settled, it appears, by the minister of foreign affairs making an absurd and false statement as to the fact, which was accepted without proofs, notwithstanding my statement, with official proofs, to the contrary. They claimed that they thought the consulate was in Arequipa, but they took down the coat of arms from over the door in Mollendo, and I had official notice from the prefect of the department of the change to Mollendo. They say I used the coat of arms and the flag on my place of residence in Arequipa-things I had never done after the change. As a matter of fact, I never had the shield until the agency was changed to Mollendo. Nothing of this was taken into account, however, in the settlement of the question, and I, quite naturally, I think, resigned the appointment in consequence. Had the first outrage been properly dealt with I am satisfied the second would not have occurred. I have nothing to add to my statements, with the proofs which are already on file in Washington, and my solicitor is there to answer questions or furnish more proofs if required. My time is too much occupied here, and the matter seems fraught with too many difficulties for me to take much interest in it at this late date. I thank you, however, for having taken an interest in my behalf, and beg you to excuse the delay in replying, which was caused by excessive pressure of work. I am, etc., V. H. MACCORD. Mr. Hicks to Mr. MacCord. UNITED STATES LEGATION, SIR: I have your valued favor of the 14th instant in regard to your claim against the Peruvian Government. Your letter has been forwarded to the Department at Washington as a part of the history of the case, and will no doubt be duly consid ered. A careful perusal on my part does not induce me to change the views expressed to you in my letter of October 4, 1891. Your several letters have expressed a censure upon this legation and the State Department for (1) delay and neglect in taking up your claim, (2) improper consideration of the charges made by your assailants, and (3) unfair decisions against you. 1. I have already pointed out the fact that your claim was never presented to the legation or the State Department until nearly three years after the outrage, and that it was immediately taken up and vigorously pressed by the legation and the Department. It would seem, then, that the delay was partially, at least, your fault. 2. As you can not possibly know the action of the legation and the Department in the various letters, instructions, and decisions upon points in your case, I am at a loss to know how you can say the case was not investigated, or "nothing short of this could be called an investigation," or "to accept as truth the unsupported state |