Mr. Evarts to Mr. Gibbs.
Washington, October 31, 1877.
Sir: I inclose herewith a copy of a letter2 of C. G. Lee, esq., attorney for Mr. Thomas W. Sparrow, together with a copy of certain accompanying papers in relation to a claim of Mr. Sparrow against the Government of Peru.
It appears from these papers and documents that Mr. Sparrow entered into a contract with the Peruvian Government on the 1st of April, 1872, to serve for three years as a civil engineer; that the contract made by its agent, Mr. Tucker, was assented to by the Government, and Mr. Sparrow assigned to duty on the Hydrographic Commission of the Amazon, and that he served in that capacity up to the time of the dissolution of the commission, which is alleged to have occurred on the 15th of April of the present year (1877). It further appears that his compensation was fixed at the rate of 1,440 soles per annum, payable monthly, with an annuity of 90 soles per month for such time as he might be on duty in New York, where, as it appears, the duties of his position sometimes had to be performed; and that on the 31st of October last (1876) the agents of Peru in New York, Messrs. Hobson, Hurtado & Co., from whom Mr. Sparrow had previously been in the habit of receiving his pay, declined to make further payments on account of Peru, and so notified the claimant.
At that time there seems to have been due him $1,408.26, this amount having been audited and directed to be paid by J. Pardo de Tela, the officer of the Peruvian Government charged with such duties. The amount, however, has not, as Mr. Sparrow alleges, yet been paid.
In addition to this amount, Mr. Sparrow claims for five and a half months’ salary, at the rate of $210 per month, from the 18th of November, 1876, to the 15th of April, 1877, the date when the Hydrographic Commission was dissolved and his services ended, making $1,155, which, with the sum due October 31 ($1,408.26), makes the amount of his claim $2,563.26.
It is true that this claim arises out of a contract voluntarily entered into by Mr. Sparrow, and consequently belongs to that class of claims regarding which this Government does not as a rule interfere diplomatically, claimants in such cases being remitted to the remedies provided by the laws of the country with whose Government or citizens the contract is made and where it is to be executed. In the present case, however, the contract of Mr. Sparrow is directly with the Government of Peru, and it may be that that Government does not hold itself amenable to the suits of private individuals in its own tribunals. In such case, the claimant would be without legal remedy, as no mode of redress is provided for in the contract, either by arbitration or [Page 1037] otherwise; and in that event the claim of Mr. Sparrow may properly be held to form an exception to which the general rule as to diplomatic interference would not be justly applicable.
You will therefore ascertain by proper inquiry whether or not the tribunals of Peru are open to claimants against the Government, and should you find that Mr. Sparrow can not avail himself of these means of redress, it will be proper for you to present this claim to the authorities of Peru, with a view to its speedy adjustment and payment.
Mr. Sparrow appears to have faithfully complied with his contract, and his retention in its employ long after the time limited by the agreement raises a strong implication that his labors were satisfactory to the authorities of Peru. His compensation, moreover, seems to have been at a very moderate rate, and his demand is limited to the net sum due at such rate of compensation.
From these facts and circumstances it is conceived that the Peruvian Government must be at once impressed with the equity and justice of the claim.
You will keep the Department advised of the result of your proceedings in relation to the matter.
I am, etc.,
- Not printed.↩