1908. GOVERNMENT OF THE CANAL ZONE v. GALINDO.

transmitted to Mr. Slifer, that Mr. Slifer transmitted to Mr. Shontz and which Mr. Shontz said he thought he had handed over to the respondent. The letter of the relator's of the 27th of February he did not send to Mr. Slifer with his recommendation until the 29th of February, when he then wrote to Mr. Slifer that he had received a letter under date of the 27th from the relator, the attorney for Mrs. Burat, which he enclosed. He concluded his letter in the following words: "It is my opinion that the request expressed therein is perfectly in order, and that our Company is not only in a position to accede to it, but should do so." On the 29th of February, he received another visiting card from Dr. Bonis, which did not, however, reach him until after he had written the letter referred to. This visiting card had written on it the information that the controversy between Mr. Burat and Dr. Bonis had been settled. Respondent testifies that all he did in the matter was through a sentiment of duty to the Isthmian Canal Commission; that he did not care but for the interest and prestige of the United States and not for the interest of the private parties.
Having thus taken a general view of the evidence, we will now proceed to a more careful analysis of the same. The letter from Mr. Slifer to Mr. Shontz, dated February 5, 1908, has a sub-head as follows: "Lease of lots to Mrs. Martha Burat." This letter Mr. Shontz testifies positively that he handed to the respondent. The respondent does not deny having received the letter. He says, "Mr. Shontz has stated that when Mr. Slifer sent him that letter and some enclosures which I-and some enclosures, he handed them to me across the table. That must be true because I have never found Mr. Shontz to have said anything but the truth. But really I did not look for the papers that were handed me across the table and I did not see what the enclosure was, if there were any." It would, therefore, clearly appear from the respondent's own evidence that the letter of Mr. Slifer's in regard to the lease of the lots to Martha Burat was brought to the attention of the respondent. As to the enclosures he denies that he ever saw them. It will be noted, however, that Mr. Shontz thinks that he handed the enclosures to respondent with the letter of Mr. Slifer's. The

95