Mariscal to Sworn and subscribed to before me. JAMES O. LUBY, Justice of the Peace, Precinct No . 3, Nueces County, January 30, 1875

No. 452. Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Fish.

Mr. Secretary: Toward the close of the years 1873 and 1874 an unusual number of crimes and outrages of all kinds were committed against Mexicans in the State of Texas by inhabitants of that State, the perpetrators thereof, in the great majority of cases, remaining unpunished, either through powerlessness on the part of the authorities of that State or from some other cause still more to be lamented. At the commencement of the period to which I refer, I began to receive information of what was taking place on the Mexican frontier, together with appeals urging me to complain to the Government of the United States. I was unwilling to do this, however, until I should have received proper proof of each outrage, and until all legal resources for the punishment of the criminals should have been exhausted, or until I should be reasonably convinced that all efforts to this end were absolutely unavailing. I confined myself to counseling moderation and prudence in the midst of the excitement prevailing among the Mexican population of those regions, and I said that every effort must be made to secure a remedy from the local and State authorities before appealing to the government of Mexico for diplomatic action.

This is certainly required by the principles of international law. I think, however, that I have observed them in this matter with a scrupulousness which, at first sight, might seem carried too far, if at least we consider the conduct of the government of Texas, which has been notoriously hostile to the Mexicans, as has been shown by a series of acts, and even by official documents known to the public. Meanwhile, except in a few brief conversations with you, Mr. Secretary, and with Mr. Cadwalader, I have avoided troubling the Government of the United States with reference to this grave situation. Now, however, I find myself obliged to do so, in a particular case of a horrible character, as are others which I shall perhaps present hereafter.

With regard to this matter, a formal complaint has been made to my government, which, that I may solicit due reparation, has sent me the documentary evidence (folios 35 and 13) which I have the honor to transmit with the present note. By this evidence the following is shown:

Don Toribio Lozano is a Mexican, residing at Aguafria, in the State of Nuevo Leon, who has owned a rancho or stock-farm in Nueces, Texas, since 1861. He has always kept a considerable number of sheep and goats there, under the charge of shepherds, who were likewise Mexicans, hired at the place where he resided. Thence, he took them to his rancho, which he himself only visited occasionally, for which reason he selected the most honest men as his shepherds that he could obtain. Early in December, 1873, Lozano received a telegram from Corpus Christi informing him that seven of his shepherds had been hung, (it was not stated by whom,) and that the rest had been frightened away, leaving the rancho and the animals without any guard, for which reason the animals had become scattered and lost. Lozano naturally at once repaired in all haste to the scene of the outrage, and, abandoning his affairs at Aguafria, took several men with him as an escort. This precaution was necessary because, after the commission of the crime, the magistrate at San Diego, a town near the place where the crime was committed, absented himself from the district for several days, and utter disorder reigned there.

The hanging of the seven shepherds took place on the 28th of November; and it was not until the 5th of December that an inquest on the bodies was held by the coroner’s jury, by reason, as was alleged, of an Indian invasion, which took place after the commission of the crime, and did not extend, as it appears, to the place where it was committed. The perpetrators of those seven homicides, according to common report, and the testimony of a boy who escaped from the massacre, were persons from Dogtown and Stone Bridge; it frequently happening, as is averred by Lozano’s witnesses, that parties of land-owners and other residents of Texas are organized for the purpose of killing shepherds, who are accused of the crime of stealing and skinning cattle, in order to sell their hides. These witnesses, moreover, declared that, in spite of such savage devastation of thefts of this kind among those Texans, their authorities do not punish, and even expressly permit, the free sale of the hides which may have been thus stolen, and in this manner encourage a crime which they afterward punish in a manner as illegal as it is barbarous. The victims of this atrocious system are usually Mexicans, who, through blindness or interested motives, are made the scape-goats of the criminals.

In this manner, and in others arising from the same cruel prejudice, I am informed that many unfortunate Mexicans have been put to death, whose relatives, through ignorance, terror, or some other cause, do not take the necessary steps to obtain redress.

Returning to the matter which now occupies me, I will observe that, notwithstanding the indications which pointed to the real criminals, since the companions of Lozano even observed the tracks of their horses, which had evidently gone to the aforementioned towns, notwithstanding that this crime had evidently been committed by many persons, and that it must have left many vestiges, it has been said there is no means of discovering the murderers. This is the only result obtained by the Mexican consuls residing at Brownsville and San Antonio, who have earnestly solicited from the proper officers of justice in Texas that the crime to which I refer might be inquired into and punished. Nothing serious seems to have been done looking to such an investigation, as if the power or the will to make the investigation were lacking, or as if the criminals were feared, as may be suspected in the case of the magistrate at San Diego, when he absented himself from the district after the commission of the crime, before he could have been alarmed by the alleged invasion of Indians.

These, Mr. Secretary, are not isolated presumptions that no attempt has been made in Texas to punish the crime to which I allude on the ground that such punishment is impossible, but they are confirmed by the irrecusable opinion of the governor of that State. When the Mexican consul at San Antonio addressed a polite note, dated February 6, to Governor Coke, calling his attention to the case, the governor replied three months afterward (May 8) by a communication of which I have the honor to inclose a copy, (folio 35.) The original, in the governor’s handwriting, is in my possession. In that remarkable reply the governor admits that “lawlessness prevails to a great extent in the western and border counties,” and that “in some degree it cannot be reached by the regular authorities,” adding “this state of things results necessarily in a measure from our form of government.”

He states, however, (and indeed with reason,) that that does not justify the murderers of the Mexicans, and as a means of avoiding crimes of this kind, which he calls inflictions, he advises herdsmen not to enter the State of Texas, or, if they do so, to be very scrupulous in their respect for property, which he says he is informed they have not always been. After such declarations from the executive of Texas, which reveal not only the powerlessness of the authorities, whether real or arising from prejudice, (which amounts to the same thing,) but also the prejudice which exists against Mexican herdsmen, it seemed useless to continue to take measures for the obtainment of justice, although the governor says, in conclusion, by way of encouraging the hope which he had already extinguished, that he would ask for an investigation of the crime, and for the punishment of the guilty parties. Nevertheless efforts have been made to secure the enforcement of the law in this scandalous case. Nothing, however, has been obtained, as I have already remarked; nothing has been done by the authorities in the case; and recognizing, perhaps, its powerlessness to repress outrages against Mexican stockmen, in accordance with the opinion of the governor in regard to the best means of avoiding them, the legislature passed a law, on the 2d of May last, expelling, by implication, cattle belonging to Mexicans from Texas, under penalty of confiscation if found elsewhere than on land belonging to their owners.

The execution of this law within a limited period could not fail to do much injury. The governor was also authorized to raise two companies of volunteers for the preservation of order in Nueces and Duval Counties; and those companies have been a most terrible scourge to the Mexican population, among whom they have committed all manner of outrages, and even murders, to which I shall probably have to refer in various notes.

I beg you, Mr. Secretary, to excuse me for alluding, on presenting this complaint for a single case, although in a general way, to various others in which Mexicans have been badly treated in Texas, because I consider that this allusion is useful to throw light upon a question which may now arise. This is, whether there is evidence or not that there has been a denial of justice since the commission of the crime has been well proved. In my opinion, it is also proved that there has been such denial of justice, not only because during the two years that have elapsed the criminals have not been punished, nor have any decided measures been taken for their detection, but because the prevalence of lawlessness and the inertness or powerlessness of the authorities near the scene of the crime are plainly shown by a multitude of facts, and have been recognized by the executive of the State. The excuses made by the governor, for this state of things, and the cause to which he attributes them, are, I think, quite unworthy of discussion. So long as that portion of Texas is not formally declared to be in a state of civil war or insurrection, the government of that State cannot avoid responsibility by alleging inability to fulfill its obligations.

It being in vain, as I have already remarked, to expect any redress from the State of Texas, my government thinks that the petition of Lozano, a copy of which is inclosed, asking for an indemnity from the Government of the United States, is just and well founded. The claim presented by him amounts to twenty-eight thousand two hundred and twenty-one dollars, and seems by no means exaggerated. Therefore, if this sum should be granted to him, with interest at six per cent. per annum until its payment, this would be, according to my view of the case, in accordance with the plainest principles of equity. As to the indemnity for the families of the shepherds, which is likewise solicited by Lozano, he being duly authorized to do so, I think it should be fixed at twenty thousand dollars for each one; and for this there would be no lack of precedents, to which I think it now unnecessary to refer.

In conclusion, Mr. Secretary, allow me to express the hope that the Government of the United States will receive this request from the government of Mexico in favor of these unfortunate men in the spirit of equity and justice which is always expected as a model in the high functionaries of this republic.

I have the honor, &c.,

Questions to de asked the witnesses referred to in the foregoing application.

• First. What is your name; occupation; place of residence, &c.?
• Second. Do you know that Mr. Toribio Lozano is a Mexican and a resident of Aguafria in this State of Nuevo Leon?
• Third. Is it true that he has owned/ sheep and goats for many years? Where has he kept them? How long, and what kind of persons did he employ to take care of them? How much did he pay them? Of what nationality were they? How do you know all this?
• Fourth. Do you know anything about the rancho which Mr. Lozano owned in San Diego, Nueces County, Texas? If so, what was its approximate value?
• Fifth. Is it true that in the month of December, 1873, while Mr. Lozano was at Aguafria, he received news of the murder of his shepherds by the telegraph from Corpus Christi?
• Sixth. Did Mr. Lozano set out for Texas accompanied by nine men, three men setting out after him subsequently, the details of the occurrrence being known there while another outrage was being committed upon two other Mexican land-owners, one of Guerrero, the other of Camargo, a servant of each of the latter being also murdered?
• Seventh. Is it true that common report attributed those murders to armed bands of American stock-raisers from Dogtown and Stonebridge; if so, what was the cause of this rumor, and what induced said stock-raisers to commit those atrocities?
• Eighth. Did the magistrate of San Diego receive timely information of these rumors? Did said magistrate leave the city through fear, returning accompanied by soldiers, who came for the purpose of guarding the town?
• Ninth. Is it the general opinion that these disorderly acts and murders are due to the skinning of cattle in the country districts? Is it true that the sale of hides is conducted freely by permission of the authorities?
• Tenth. From the knowledge which you have of the property of Mr. Lozano, was said property worth the prices charged therefor in the account presented by him? Were the losses, which he claims to have suffered, suffered in reality? Were said losses due to the cause stated by him? Has the estimate been justly made?
• Eleventh. Did the Texan authorities, particularly those of San Diego, take any steps, after receiving information of the murders, for the detection and punishment of the criminals in order to prevent the loss of the animals, and in order to guarantee safety? What is your opinion with regard to their conduct; and why?
• Twelfth. Have you any interest, either direct or indirect, in the claim now presented by Mr. Lozano?