rendered. The taking of property and merchandise used by the United States naval forces was readily proven by receipts given therefor, or statements made by naval officers that the property in question was taken, or that the merchandise was used for military purposes. The question of the amount to be allowed for the value of the property taken or merchandise consumed was determined by the statements of such naval officers. Apparently, no consideration was given to the question of allowing claimants damages for the time they were deprived of the use of their property. Claims in the second group include items for the value of goods or merchandise which were lost or destroyed. The proceedings in these cases indicate that the board was careful to insist on the production of evidence showing the responsibility of the naval forces for the overt act and the damage sustained thereby. In the absence of such proof, the items of compensation claimed were disallowed. Items for traveling expenses, board and lodgings, and wages were likewise disallowed. Where the claims include items for merchandise, principally liquors, foodstuffs, and furniture lost or destroyed through looting, the claimants were obliged to prove that the American forces were responsible for such acts. In these cases the board considered the statement of claimants alone as to the value of such merchandise insufficient to determine the amount to be paid. The board inspected the premises in each case and had first-hand information of the damage done. However, although the destruction of liquors was made under military orders, the commanding officers failed to ascertain or estimate the loss through such destruction and no allowance was made therefor by the board but on presenting the facts to the Secretary of the Navy that official was of the opinion that items for destruction of liquor should be included in any award made. Approximately $14,046.93 Mexican has therefore been added to the allowance made by the board in the claims, which included items for the destruction of liquors by the naval forces. A list giving the nationality of the claimants, amounts of claims, and action recommended by the naval board is submitted herewith. Finally, the Acting Secretary of State has the honor to request the President to recommend to the Congress the adoption of the findings of the naval board in the settlement of claims arising out of the occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico, by the American forces in 1914, and the appropriation of the sum of $34,214.89 in payment of the awards rendered by that board, and to cover indemnity to Valentin Perez, and to compensate the claimants for the value of liquors which were destroyed under military orders, and, furthermore, that there be appropriated in addition the sum of $11,303.80 in satisfaction of the claim of the Vera Cruz Terminal Co. (Ltd.). It will be noted from the inclosed communication from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, to whom the matter was referred, that the proposed action is not inconsistent with the financial program of the Government. Respectfully submitted. Washington. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TREASURY Department, BUREAU OF The Budget, Washington, September 1, 1922. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have your letter of August 30, inclosing a copy of a proposed report to the President recommending that Congress be requested to take certain action which will embrace an authorization of an appropriation of $45,518.69 for the settlement of claims of foreign nationals arising out of the occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico, by the American forces in 1914, and asking whether the proposed action is in harmony with the financial policy of the President. Under the provisions of Budget Circular No. 49, issued by direction of the President December 19, 1921, this matter has been submitted to the President, who has instructed me to advise you that the proposed request for legislation authorizing an appropriation of $45,518.69 for the settlement of these claims is not in conflict with his financial program. Sincerely yours, The ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE. R. O. KLOEBER, Acting Director. 1 Auditor for Navy Department disallowed this claim on July 1, 1915. (Letter from Solicitor of Navy, Sept. 7, 1920.) Allowed by the board but disallowed by Solicitor of Navy. Considered by Navy Department. United States currency. See note to British embassy, Mar. 14, 1917. Not allowed. Presented by British embassy May 9, 1922; referred to Navy, and decided July 1, 1922. |