respondence with the Spanish minister in 1887 in support of his assertion. But this is an entire mistake, resulting from the same failure to recognize the difference between the rule of stare decisis applied to questions of law and the maxim as to the conclusiveness of res judicata as to the facts decided. The discussion related to certain cotton t elonging to the Spanish subjects captured and confiscated by the United States after Lee's surrender but before the final close of hostilities. The Spanish minister quoted, in support of his views of the law applicable to the case, decisions of the international commission which sat at Halifax to hear cases regarding the Newfoundland fisheries, which he thought affirmed legal principles favorable to his clients. Mr. Bayard, in his reply, says to Mr. Muriaga:

I must be allowed to remind you that the decisions of international commissions are not to be regarded as establishing principles of international law.

The whole passage is instructive, but wholly fails to touch the question of res judicata.

In the opening of the answer the pleader traces the succession to the administrations or management of the trust estate called the Pious Fund through the King of Spain to the Government of Mexico as one of the points on which we agree with him. The fact that King Charles III of Spain, by an act of arbitrary power as cruel and tyrannical as any that history records, seized upon the properties of the Pious Fund, extruded the trustees selected by the donors, and thrust himself into their places, is true. He became thereby trustee de facto of the fund, and, therefore, we have rightly claimed, and he himself admitted, that he thus became subject to all the duties and responsibilities and exercised the powers of such trustee. We do not wish, however, to be regarded as conceding the moral rightfulness of his succession."

The act by which he intruded himself into the place is briefly told, as follows: Having secretly decided on the measure, letters were sent to every city where the Jesuits had an establishment of any kind, addressed to the chief local authorities, and only to be opened on a day and hour indicated on the envelope. Under the royal order inclosed every college, noviciate, or other house of the Jesuits was at midnight surrounded by a guard of soldiers, and the inmates, roused from sleep in the dead hour of the night, were assembled in the chapel. There they were informed that His Majesty had been graciously pleased to banish them all from every part of his dominions. A few moments were allowed them to "put on manly readiness" and enter the carriages waiting at the door, to transport them to the nearest seaport, where ships were already prepared to carry them beyond the seas. They were allowed to take their breviaries and beads, a change of clothing and a prayer book or two, and forbidden all communication with their fellow-creatures from the moment when they learned their destiny till they had left the shores of Spain, and thus they vanished as silently as a passing summer cloud, not leaving a trace behind.

Nos patriæ fines, nos dulcia linquimus arva,
Nos patriam fugimus.'

Opinions may differ as to their virtues or offenses, the advantage or disadvantage of their presence in the community, but they were at least human beings. So deep was the shame of the monarch for his act of brutal tyranny that he forbid his subjects to speak of, write about, or discuss it, as His Majesty reserved the motives and causes of it all in his own royal bosom. The document is quoted from memory, but its text is before the court and speaks for itself. Instead of the mass of treasure expected to be realized from the expulsion of the Jesuits, the total amount of money found in all their houses proved less than $9,000. The missions of California, supposed to be plethoric with the accumulated economies of the income of the Pious Fund and other gifts, yielded in all less than a hundred dollars. Knight's English CyclopediaBiography, Vol. III, p. 960 (Tit. Loyola Ignatius), has a brief colorless relation of the story.

That by this act of cruelty, however, the King of Spain did successfully intrude himself into the office of trustee of the Pious Fund is not disputed. But he did not succeed to it by the will of the donors or founders, but by his own act of usurpation. He exercised the powers of the original trustees, and subjected himself to the responsibilities of the office. The beneficiaries remained unchanged, and the trustee, as such, had no power to make any change in the terms of the trust.

Mexico succeeded to the sovereignty of Spain and to the position of trustee of the Pious Fund, and to the latter by a title, which, if not better, was infinitely more honorable than that of her predecessor.

But in considering and discussing this we must not confound the powers of the trustee with those of the sovereign. The latter had the power to confiscate the fund or devote its proceeds to any other purposes than those designed by its founders, but it must be shown that such was done by an act of sovereignty, and had such been done, by such an act, we would have been without redress. But neither Spain nor Mexico did anything of the kind; on the contrary it has been abundantly shown that both those Governments recognized the duty of applying the fund sacredly to the objects designated by the founders. Misappropriations of the fund were the unauthorized acts of individuals. Wherever the Spanish Crown or the Mexican Government applied any portion of the Pious Fund to secular uses it was recognized as a loan; taken "con calidad de reintegro," and usually the rate of interest was expressed at the time. It was ordinarily 6 per cent, but in one instance as low as 3.

The other matters set up in the answer seem but repetitions of grounds of defense urged on the former trial, more or less varied in form. They were answered in our arguments before the commissioners and before the umpire in that case, which we could hardly expect to improve even if the exigencies of time permitted the attempt: and we therefore beg to refer to them where they appear in the printed volumes: In the Transcript at pages 99, 462 to 477, and 557 to 574, as well as the arguments on pages 575 and 594, and in the Diplomatic Correspondence at pages 12 to 21, 58 to 66, and those of our then associate, pages 51 to 58.

Very respectfully submitted.

JOHN T. DOYLE,
W. T. SHERMAN DOYLE,
Of Counsel for the Prelates Representing the Church.

SEPTEMBER 18, 1902.

PART V.

EXHIBITS.

Laws of Mexico relating to the Pious Fund.

Translation of extracts referred to in the brief history of the Pious Fund of the Californias, and to be found on pages 187-221 of the record in the case of Alemany v. Mexico.

Powers of attorney from the bishops of Sacramento and Monterey to the archbishop of San Francisco.

Proof of succession of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of San Francisco.

Proof of succession of the Right Rev. George Montgomery, Roman Catholic bishop of Monterey.

Deposition of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of San Francisco, dated July 24, 1802.

Deposition of Mr. John T. Doyle, dated August 26, 1902, with exhibits.

Affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan, archbishop of San Francisco, dated September 16, 1902.

Answer to Mexican call for discovery with relation to the Indian populations of California.

Mexican call for discovery, dated August 12, 1902, and supplemental affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan with relation thereto.

Letter of the Mexican legation at Rome to the Holy See, dated April 6, 1840, and affidavit of the Most Rev. Patrick W. Riordan with relation thereto.

Translation of extracts from "Noticias de la Californias."

Translation of motion and argument of Señor Avila, not submitted to the tribunal, inserted to complete the record of the former case of Alemany v. Mexico.

LAWS OF MEXICO RELATING TO THE PIOUS FUND.

For the convenience of the court the Mexican laws and decrees materially affecting the Pious Fund case have been collected and chronologically arranged in the following pages.

May 25, 1832.

[Leg. Mex. 1827-1834, p. 435.]