Mr. Ryan to Mr.
Blaine.
Legation of
the United States,
Mexico, August 8, 1889.
(Received August 17.)
No. 61.]
Sir: Referring to my No. 30, of 30th ultimo,
relating to the case of R. C. Work, imprisoned, tried, and convicted in the
State of Tamaulipas, from which judgment an appeal is pending, my attention
was drawn to the publication of a letter by one A. W. Gifford, of St. Louis,
Missouri (I beg to refer here to my No. 27, of 27th ultimo), who, I
understand, was president of the Linares Land and Milling Company, of which
Mr. Work was superintendent.
With a view to obtaining all the information possible relating to the subject
of the offense of Mr. Work, I addressed a communication to Mr. Gilford (see
inclosure No. 1) requesting him to furnish this legation with any facts
relating to the matter. Mr. Gilford has kindly responded to my request, and
I transmit, for the information of the Department, copy of his reply, of
date July 29, 1889.
I am, etc.,
[Page 603]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 61.]
Mr. Ryan to Mr.
Gifford.
Legation of the United States,
Mexico, July 6,
1889.
Dear Sir: It has come to my notice that you
have important information bearing upon the subject of the treatment, by
the court and other Mexican officials, of Mr. Work, during his
incarceration at Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, on the charge of
homicide.
I would esteem it as a favor if you would transmit to me all information,
documentary or otherwise, in regard to this matter, of which you may be
possessed.
Yours, very respectfully,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 61.]
Mr. Gifford to Mr.
Ryan.
St.
Louis, Missouri, July 29,
1889.
Dear Sir: Absence in Mexico has prevented reply
to your favor of the 6th instant, asking for information regarding
treatment of Mr. R. C. Work by Mexican courts, as charged by his wife,
Mrs. Mary Work.
The charges are false and, in my opinion, did not originate with Mrs.
Work, but came from a relative of the family, a lawyer in San Antonio,
Texas, by the name of Brooker, who doubtless imagined his plan a good
one to serve his relative.
I was on the ground a few days after the killing and know that the family
received kind and generous treatment considering the surroundings and
circumstances. Even the brother (of the man killed by Work), with his
family, called on Work’s family, extending sympathy, and offering
assistance and protection, showing by far a better Christian spirit than
I have ever known in our own country. There was by far less excitement,
annoyance, and trouble than would have been over a similar affair in one
of our mining camps.
Work killed a man, as he claims (and I believe him), in self-defense, but
unfortunately for himself, without witnesses, while there were two
witnesses against him. There had been bad blood brewing in the camp for
some months prior to this affair, produced by gossip, petty jealousies,
and enmity, the immediate result of imaginary conflicting interests,
which generally produces a killing in the average mining camp of any
country before interested parties can realize their duty to their
fellow-man.
The Government quickly offered troops to prevent any further trouble in
the camp, all of which was unnecessary.
Work was placed under arrest, and during his several trials enjoyed the
freedom of the towns in which he was held as a prisoner, a liberty
seldom extended their own people under similar circumstances.
On one occasion Work was, under the generous consideration of the
governor, permitted to go from Ciudad Victoria to Linares, in the State
of Nuevo Leon, to transact business, simply on his personal word that he
would return within a stated time.
Knowing personally of the kind and generous treatment extended to Mr.
Work and his family by the Mexican people, I was completely astonished
at first appearance of charges, published in San Antonio from Mrs. Work,
and immediately opened up correspondence to ascertain if there were any
facts in the matter that I did not possess, and to correct any injustice
that might be extended to Work, or to Mexico and her people, by the
false charges of Mrs. Work, copy of which correspondence I hereto
attach, a copy being used in place of original, because original is in
Spanish. In my opinion (as a personal friend of Mr. Work) he has had
fall justice, an impartial trial, generous treatment, and a mild
sentence, and, under the circumstances,” should be a happy, thankful
man. Of course, as an American and personal friend, I would like to see
him have his liberty; but not by false charges against Mexico and her
people. When I violate the law I must be prepared to suffer the
consequences.
Very respectfully,
[Page 604]
[Inclosure 3 in No. 61.]
Mr. Gifford to
Governor Prieto.
St.
Louis, Missouri, June 20,
1889.
Dear Sir: The inclosed* articles from this morning’s Globe-Democrat
completely dumbfound me; and I take the liberty of writing you for the
latest facts and developments in the Work case.
I can’t believe that Mr. Work or his wife would make such charges in the
face of the generous treatment he has received from your people, and am
inclined to believe that it is the work of a San Antonio lawyer, for the
purpose of working up trouble, notoriety, and sympathy. Of course I
fully appreciate the trying position of his wife and daughter; but this
is no ground for abuse of Mexico and her people.
Thanking you for your kind treatment toward Mr. Work, and knowing that
you will still be just and generous in his case, I am,
Very respectfully,
[Inclosure 4 in No.
61.—Translation.]
Governor Prieto to
Mr. Gifford.
Cuidad
Victoria, July 8,
1889.
Dear Sir: I have the pleasure of receiving your
favor of June 20, inclosing newspaper cuttings relative to the letter of
Mrs. Mary C. Work, against Mexico, on account of the imprisonment
suffered by her husband; and asking for additional facts and
information. You may rest assured that the letter ascribed to Mrs. Work,
has been written for the sole purpose of creating a sensation among the
American people, abounding not only in exaggeration, but also in actual
misrepresentations. I inclose copy of a letter in which the president of
the supreme court of justice of this state explains the whole case to
the Mexican consul in San Antonio, Texas, Dr. Ornelas, and from which
you can judge of the prevarications contained in Mrs. Work’s letter.
As a Mexican I most sincerely thank you for not having listened for a
single moment to the slanderers of Mexico.
Very respectfully,
[Inclosure 5 in No.
61.—Translation.]
Judge Mainero to
Dr. Ornelas.
Cuidad
Victoria, July 2,
1889.
Most Respected Sir and Dear Friend: The
governor of this State has seen fit to show me your letter, together
with clippings from American newspapers it transmitted, relative to the
affairs of Robert C. Work. After due consideration of both, I write you
the following under instructions from the governor authorizing you to
give it publicity, translated into the English language.
I was the judge who, after hearing the evidence against Work upon a first
appeal, pronounced a second judgment against the accused, increasing the
punishment imposed in the lower court, by one year and three months.
Work had prayed for an appeal against this my judgment, and this appeal
having been granted, but not yet brought to trial, the whole matter is
now pending sub judice, as no final sentence has
been pronounced, or any decree been entered which could take effect or
be put into execution. To a man of your information it must be perfectly
plain that, under these circumstances, nobody, and least of all the
judge whose findings and judgment have been appealed from, has any right
to say whether Work is innocent or guilty. It may be stated, however, as
an actual fact, borne out of public records, that all public
functionaries who have had anything to do with the case of Work, as the
representatives of impartial justice, have found Work guilty upon the
evidence presented namely, the nisi prius judge
who rendered the first judgment; the public prosecutor who, in the name
of the people, moved for a severe punishment, and I myself, who, as the
presiding magistrate of the court of justice of Tamaulipas, imposed what
to me appeared a just punishment, being convinced that I was as mild as
I could be without violating the† of all the judicial acts, the law itself.
[Page 605]
To these three opinions, which I may qualify to he at least worthy of the
most serious consideration, there is opposed the mere say-so,
unsupported by evidence of any kind, of people who have neither legal
attainments nor judicial standing, who have not examined the official
records, and who can not be considered impartial from any stand-point.
Under such circumstances it is hardly credible that so well informed a
people as the people of the United States undoubtedly is, unless guided
by blind prejudice against us, could give its approval, upon a little
reflection and deliberation over the matter, to mere gratuitous and
one-sided statements and insinuations.
Besides this statement, which is the only one that can be made properly
of the principal question until the matter has been disposed of in the
courts of competent jurisdiction, I should call attention to the
following very significant circumstances, as contravening the charge
that the Mexican judge had been guided by animosity against Work, the
fact being that they had treated him with extreme leniency.
As you, Mr. Consul, well know, the laws of Tamaulipas, differing in this
respect from the laws of the other States and of the Federal district,
do not provide for the liberation, under bail, of persons judicially
proceeded against, except in the case provided for in article 18* of the Federal constitution, when the act
charged against the prisoner does not appear to be subject to any
corporal punishment. I embrace the opportunity to say now that this will
soon be changed in the interest of the good name of Tamaulipas, and that
the law will shortly extend the privilege of admission to bail to a far
wider range of cases. But, for all that, Work has been out on bail
during nearly all the time that his case was pending in the lower court;
and, even after he had been found guilty and his punishment had been
fixed, he was not confined in prison until I found it necessary, when
entering upon the case, to order his arrest in the interest of an
impartial investigation, he having enjoyed the full freedom of the
streets of this capital up to that time, although under sentence of the
court.
A few days after his recommitment to jail, on my order, I was informed by
the jailer that Work was suffering with a sickness, not very serious,
but sufficiently severe to cause him to request that he be permitted to
be nursed at his own home and by his family. In view of this statement,
indorsed by medical certificates, and pending the decision of the
tribunal on the application of Work to be again admitted to bail, I
authorized the jailer to take Work to the latter’s house as often as his
condition required. Upon one of the many visits which Mr. Work was thus
permitted to make at his home he declared himself unable to return to
the jail, and offered a passive resistance to the officer. Being
informed of this, and taking into consideration the fact that the prison
is still incomplete and lacking hospital facilities, it seemed to me
that humanity demanded his being left at his residence, and thus
consented, in order that the generous people of this city might be
spared the little edifying spectaele of seeing Mr. Work carried to the
jail on a stretcher.
I understand that the judge before whom Work’s second appeal is pending
has, up to this time, acquiesced in this state of affairs, and has at
least made no other dispositions regarding the keeping of Work.
The claim that Work has been condemned without having been heard is
unfounded, for in both tire lower and upper courts he was represented by
an attorney of his own choice, Lie. Juan Luis Tercero; and when Mr.
Work, assisted by the American consul, asked me to re-open his case in
order that he might make his defense in person, I granted this favor
upon his verbal request, although he afterwards failed to avail himself
of the privilege.
I have, etc.,
