STATE RESPONSIBILITY
Connelly undertook to surrender to police authorities
Thomas H. Youmans v. United Mexican States
(November 23, 1926)
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF FORCES.DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY.
MOB
VIOLENCE.DENIAL OF JUSTICE.FAILURE TO APPREHEND OR
PUNISH.
FAILURE TO PROTECT. Mexican military forces, under command of
officer, instead of protecting American citizens attacked by mob, opened
fire on Americans, as a result of which all were killed either by armed
forces or by mob. No one appeared to have been punished for the
crime, though some prosecutions were begun. Claim allowed.
FACTS:
1. Claim for damages in the amount of $50,000.00 is
made in this case by the United States of America
against the United Mexican States in behalf of Thomas
H. Youmans, the son of Henry Youmans, an American
citizen, who, together with two other Americans, John
A. Connelly and George Arnold, was killed at the hands
of a mob in Mexico.
2. Henry Youmans, Connelly, and Arnold were employees
engaged in the construction of the San Hilario Tunnel
in the town of Angangueo in the State of Michoacn,
Mexico. The construction was being done by Mexican
laborers resident in the town under the supervision of
the Americans.
3. On March 14, 1880, Connelly, the Managing Engineer
in the construction, had a controversy with a laborer,
Cayentano Medina, over a sum of money the latter
insisted was due to him as wages. Connelly, however,
ejected Medina from his house.
4. Subsequently after, Medina, along with several
companions began to throw stones at Connelly and
approached him with a drawn machete. Connelly,
trying to frighten the assailants, fired shots in the air
and then went inside his house where Youmans and
Arnold also reside.
5. Medina and his companions attempted to enter, and
Connelly thereupon fired at Medina wounding his legs.
Soon, the house was surrounded by threatening mob.
6.
but failed to do so as he was driven back to the house
by the mob.
7. Their employer then requested the Mayor to endeavor
to protect the Americans, but he was unable to quiet
the mob. The Mayor then ordered the Lieutenant of the
Michoacan forces to quell the riot.
8. However, the troops, upon arriving at the scene,
instead of dispersing the mob, opened fire in the
house, causing the death of Arnold.
9. The mob renewed their attack against the Americans
and set fire to the roof forcing Connelly and Youmans
to leave, and as they did so, they were killed by the
troops and members of the mob.
10. Their bodies were dragged through the streets
and left under the pile of stones by the side of the road
so mutilated as scarcely to be recognizable.
11. CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
GOVERNMENT:
It is not proved by evidence in the record that the
Mexican authorities were chargeable with negligence
in the matter of protecting the men who were killed; or
that soldiers participated in the assault on the men; or
that proper efforts were not made to apprehend and
punish the persons participating in the attack.
12. However, as per the communications sent to the
Legation by the Director of the company, there had
been witnesses who saw the soldiers later on fire on
the Americans. Moreover, the American Consul
General, who concealed his official character and
conducted an investigation, obtained evidence from
eye witnesses, and established that the appearance
alone of the soldier troops have been sufficient to have
quelled the riot but instead they opened fire on the
Americans in the house which then encouraged the
mob to reopen their attack.
13. The Department of the State called the
attention of the Mexican government stating that on
the plainest principles of international law and
independent of the treaty stipulations between the two
nations, which are contravened by such proceedings,
renders the Government in whose services they
 (soldiers) are employed, justly liable to the
Government of the men who were murdered.
14. The Minister of Foreign Affairs challenged the
right of the United States to intervene in the cases on
the ground that the murdered men had not been
matriculated (registered) under the Mexican law. The
Minister, in his reply, stated that the soldiers confessed
to having participated in the riot, alleging in excuse
that they feared the vengeance of the mob had they
acted otherwise.
ISSUE:
Whether there is liability on the part of the Mexican
Government
HELD:
YES.
The liability on the part of the Mexican Government was
sustained by the evidence in the record. The record shows a
lack of diligence in the punishment of the persons implicated
in the crime. Citations have been made to evidence with
respect to the participation of the soldiers in the killing of the
three Americans. The judicial record also shows that some
soldiers were arrested but were not sentenced. Evidence
before the commission does not disclose whose weapons
killed the Americans, but the participation of the soldiers with
the members of the mob is established.
With respect to the question of responsibility for the acts of
soldiers there are citations in the Mexican Government's brief
of extracts from a discussion of a subcommittee of the
League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive
Codification of International Law. The passage quoted, which
deals with the responsibility of a State for illegal acts of
officials resulting in damages to foreigners, begins with a
statement relative to the acts of an official accomplished
"outside the scope of his competency, that is to say, if he has
exceeded his powers." An illegal act of this kind, it is stated
in the quotation, is one that cannot be imputed to the State.
Apart from the question whether the acts of officials referred
to in this discussion have any relation to the rule of
international law with regard to responsibility for acts of
soldiers, it seems clear that the passage to which particular
attention is called in the Mexican Government's brief is
concerned solely with the question of the authority of an
officer as defined by domestic law to act for his Government
with reference to some particular subject. Clearly it is not
intended by the rule asserted to say that no wrongful act of
an official acting in the discharge of duties entrusted to him
can impose responsibility on a Government under
international law because any such wrongful act must be
considered to be "outside the scope of his competency.
Citation is also made in the Mexican brief to an opinion
rendered by Umpire Lieber in which effect is evidently given
to the well-recognized rule of international law that a
Government is not responsible for malicious acts of soldiers
committed in their private capacity. But the General Claims
Commission do not consider that the participation of the
soldiers in the murder at Angangueo can be regarded as acts
of soldiers committed in their private capacity when it is clear
that at the time of the commission of these acts the men
were on duty under the immediate supervision and in the
presence of a commanding officer. Soldiers inflicting personal
injuries or committing wanton destruction or looting always
act in disobedience of some rules laid down by superior
authority. There could be no liability whatever for such
misdeeds if the view were taken
The Commission therefore decides that the
Government of the United
Mexican States must pay to the Government of the
United States of America the sum of 520,000.00
(twenty thousand dollars) without interest on behalf
of Thomas H. Youmans.