Eude were condemned to imprisonment for two years and six months. and Kittle and Sandham to imprisonment for three years, for "attempted homicide on the person of Mr. Renton;" to imprisonment for three years and eight months and for five years, respectively, for burning Renton's house; and to imprisonment for six months and for a year and six months, respectively, for the illegal detention of Mrs. Renton. In all, therefore, Isert, Dawe, and Edgar Eude were sentenced to imprisonment for six years and eight months, and Kittle and Sandham to imprisonment for nine years and six months. They were also condemned "to pay for the curing" of Renton, and "to supply food" to him and his family while he might be" incapacitated for work!" An appeal was taken on the part of the accused to the supreme court of Honduras, but this court on February 8, 1897, held the appeal to be inadmissible. On March 18. 1897, Dawe alone remained in prison, the rest of the accused having escaped. None of them appears to have been recaptured. On these facts Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, in an instruction to the American minister in Honduras, Feb. 25, 1904, held that, apart from the fact that Isert, who led in the attack on the Rentons on the 16th of March, and who previously aided their persecution, was a minor Honduran official, being subcommandante of the coast, the liability of the Government of Honduras was fully established. While a state, said Mr. Hay, is not ordinarily responsible for injuries done by private individuals to other private individuals in its territory, it is the duty of the state diligently to prosecute and properly to punish the offenders; and " for its refusal to do so it may be held answerable in pecuniary damages." In this relation Mr. Hay said: "There was an inexcusable delay in initiating a judicial investiga tion. The first proceedings were partial and one-sided. The subsequent judicial proceedings, which were the direct result of the naval investigation by the U. S. S. Montgomery, terminated in condemning for minor offenses persons who, the evidence before the Department shows, were guilty of a deliberate and brutal murder. And finally. soon after the decision of the supreme court all of the murderers. with the single exception of Dawe, were permitted to escape. The case is very similar to that of Frank G. Lenz, who was mur dered by Turkish subjects while passing through a remote part of the Ottoman Empire, in the course of a bicycle tour around the world. in 1894. It was only after persistent efforts by the friends of the murdered man and by this Government that the Turkish authorities began an investigation of the crime. The guilty parties were finally identified and arrested, and, although the evidence showed a premeditated murder, judgment was rendered for murder without premeditation, and they were permitted to escape in a body in a manner which showed gross negligence, if not complicity, on the part of the officials charged with their custody. Under the circumstances this Government demanded and collected of the Turkish Government an indemnity in behalf of the mother of the murdered man. In instructing our minister in regard to the case Secretary Hay said: If his [Lenz's murderers had been duly punished, this Government would not have felt disposed to demand the payment of an indemnity. The evidence showed a deliberate and premeditated murder, yet the judg ment was rendered against the murderers as for "murder without. premeditation," and even this penalty was not actually inflicted, for the guilty parties escaped.' (Secretary Hay to Minister Straus, March 25, 1899.)" With regard to the amount of the indemnity, Mr. Hay directed the following demands to be made: For the murder of Renton and the failure promptly to apprehend and adequately to punish the offenders, $15,000; for the loss of property, $32,104.20; for the value of the lands that Renton had taken up, in case the Government of Honduras should refuse to grant them to his heirs, the sum, tentatively, of $100,000; for injuries to Mrs. Renton's person and health, $10,000; for the loss of her individual property, $10,000; for the illtreatment of the niece, $5,000. By an agreement concluded at Tegucigalpa, Nov. 25, 1904, the Government of Honduras engaged to pay in full settlement of the Renton claims the sum of 78,607.82 pesos silver, of legal circulation in Honduras, in monthly installments, chargeable on the customs revenues of Puerto Cortes. For. Rel. 1895, II. 890-897, 883, 889, 920; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Young, min. to Honduras, No. 265, Feb. 12, 1896, For. Rel. 1895, II. 934, MS. Inst. Cent. Am. XX. 598; also, For. Rel. 1895, II. 935936; For. Rel. 1896, LXXv.; For. Rel. 1897, 347-352; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Combs, min. to Honduras, No. 97, Feb. 25, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 352. In the same agreement the Government of Honduras also settled the claim of the estate of Jacob Baiz, an American citizen, for 41,392.18 pesos silver. (For. Rel. 1904, 368-369.) In October, 1903, the American ship Benjamin Sewall was wrecked on the coast of Formosa. As the crew were going ashore their boat was attacked by the savages of Botel Tobago, and some of the men, by reason of being thrown into the water, were drowned. In response to a representation by the American vice-consul at Tamsui, the Formosan government stated that it had "efficiently and strictly censured the savages" and would "warn them not to repeat such misconduct again in future." The Government of the United States deeming this to be an insufficient reparation, a Japanese police force attacked the savages, captured some of them, and burnt some of their houses. It seems that there was special difficulty in dealing with the savages, owing to want of knowledge of their language. For. Rel. 1904, 440-448. 3. BRIGANDAGE. $1021. On May 21, 1883, two American missionaries, named Knapp and Reynolds, who were traveling in the vilayet of Bitlis, Case of Knapp and put up for the night at the oda of one of the Reynolds. four Armenian residents of the village of Ghuorie, where lived the noted Kurd named Mirza Bey. While they were at supper, some villagers entered the room, among whom was Moussa Bey, a son of Mirza Bey. It seems that Moussa Bey felt himself insulted because the missionaries did not offer him a cup of coffee, and, taking four assistants, waylaid them the next day. They beat Mr. Knapp with clubs till they supposed him to be dead, while Moussa Bey with his own hand struck down Reynolds, giving him ten cuts with a sword. The two men were then bound and dragged into the bushes and there left to die. The offense and the offenders were well known, and the names of the latter were given to the Turkish Government. The British consul at Erzeroum lent his active aid, and efforts were made to secure the punishment of the culprits. The efforts to obtain the punishment of Moussa Bey and his associates having been ineffectual, by reason of the connivance of the local authorities with them, a demand was made for the trial of the offenders in Constantinople. The Turkish Government was also requested to dismiss the governors of Bitlis and Van and to pay an indemnity. The governor of Bitlis was dismissed, and the Turkish Government instituted proceedings against two of the delinquent magistrates. The outrage upon Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds was only one of many that had occurred in the same region, in which Moussa Bey was concerned. These incidents, by which numerous British subjects were affected, attracted wide attention and became the subject of discussions in the British Parliament. In June, 1889, chiefly through the influence of Sir William White, British ambassador, Moussa Bey was brought to Constantinople to answer the charges against him, but was not put under arrest. He presented a petition to the Sultan denying the charges and asking for a trial. On his trial he was acquitted of some of the charges, and an appeal was taken to the court of cassation. He was not, however, tried for the assault on Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, and the Sultan declined to order a second trial. The Turkish Government in fact took the ground that the culpability of Moussa Bey in the affair was not legally estab lished, and that, although a long delay had taken place, the interested parties were still at liberty to sue the judges as well as to proceed against Moussa again before the competent tribunal in case they should discover new evidence against him. The United States refused to be content with this answer, and claimed the fulfilment. of the promise of the Turkish Government that Moussa Bey would be brought to punishment. In the summer of 1890 an imperial iradé was issued for Moussa's exile to Medina. He fled from Constantinople, but was captured three weeks later in the vilayet of Broussa and was brought to Constantinople under guard, and on October 19, 1890, was sent thence to Medina. The governor of Scutari, a cousin of Moussa, in whose custody he was at the time of his escape, was removed and sent to Monastir. For. Rel. 1883, 850, 864, 866, 882, 886, 888; For. Rel. 1884, 532, 535, 537, Baldwin. August 19, 1887, Leon M. Baldwin, a citizen of the United States and a mining engineer, who was employed as superCase of Leon M. intendent of the Valenciana mine, in the State of Durango, Mexico, was shot and killed by two wellknown outlaws in the village of Ventanas. It appeared that this was one of a series of acts of violence that had lately been perpetrated by bandits in that quarter. Acts of robbery, kidnapping, and homicide had been frequent, and it was alleged that, although one of the victims was a prominent native official of Ventanas, nothing had been done by the Mexican Government to render life. and property secure. About ten days after Mr. Baldwin's assassination, the native population, wrought up by a new outrage, dispersed the bandits and killed five of their number, including the murderers of Mr. Baldwin. It was alleged that some of the crimes were at least partly inspired by hatred of citizens of the United States, and that this feeling had the sympathy and active support of a large part of the native population of Ventanas. Under these circumstances, Mr. Bayard, on March 15, 1888, instructed Mr. Bragg, then American minister in Mexico, to lay the case before the Mexican Government with a view to obtain "an appropriate redress to the representatives of Mr. Baldwin." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bragg, min. to Mexico, No. 8, March 15, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, II. 1144. See, also, For. Rel. 1888, II. 1087, 1092, 1202, 1217, 1248, 1250, 1254. H. Doc. 551-vol 6-51 Mr. Bragg, when first presenting the case to the Mexican Government. laid down too broadly, in the opinion of the Department of State, the principle of liability of governments to indemnify foreigners voluntarily within their jurisdiction for losses growing out of neglect of duty by public officials, and was instructed to modify his presentation of the case. (Mr. Bayard to Mr. Bragg, No. 55, May 23, 1888, MS. Inst. Mexico, XXII. 208.) See, also, For. Rel. 1889, 550, 562, and Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Whitehouse, chargé, No. 181, Dec. 7, 1888, MS. Inst. Mexico, XXII 318, 319. "It is not asserted by the Government of the United States that the slayers of Mr. Baldwin exercised so nice a discrimination in their criminal conduct as to select foreigners alone for their victims. It is doubtless true that Mexicans as well as foreigners were robbed and murdered. Enmity and the desire for plunder may have been mingled as motives of the outrages that were perpetrated. But it appears by the evidence of all the witnesses that there was a prevalent hostility to foreigners, and that, while the enmity against certain Mexicans may have proceeded from personal causes, there was a general prejudice against foreigners, and especially against Americans, because of their nationality. In several instances, as in that of the killing of Mr. Baldwin, this prejudice seems to have been the chief, if not the sole, motive of the crime. Mr. Mariscal has given a very prominent place in his argument to the murder of Quiros, the jefe politico of Ventanas, with a view to show that the killing of Mr. Baldwin can not be attributed to prejudice against him as a foreigner and an American. The evidence in the possession of the Department is to the effect that Quiros, having shown a disposition to oppose the bandits, became an object of hatred which was significantly expressed by them in the charge that he was the friend of the Gringos.' That they should have regarded any act of interference with them as an act of friendship to the foreigners whom they thus denominated, and that they should for that reason have made the interference a ground of resentment and retaliation, is, when considered in connection with the nationality of those whom they selected as their victims, most powerful evidence that there was a deliberate purpose to expel or exterminate the American residents. "It has been shown that, upon the facts established by the testimony in regard to the death of Mr. Baldwin, the Government of the United States may well be content to rely for the maintenance of its position upon the measure of international liability incorporated in the treaties cited in the reply of the Mexican Government. Mr. Mariscal, however, also refers to the rule laid down by the United States on several occasions in respect to the liability of a government for injuries caused by mob violence, as an answer to |