OCR Text |
Show Killing of Wallace Not Due to Failure to Heed Sentry's Sen-try's Warning. WASHINGTON, Dec. US. Calms o." the Mexican government, as recently presented present-ed to the American embassy in Mexico City, that the killing near Tamplco late in November of James Wallace, an American Amer-ican citizen, resulted from his failure to heed the warning of a Mexican sentry, are denied in an account of the incident which reached Washington today from the Aguila company, of which Wallace was an employee. The killing of Wallace caused tne state department to make an urgent inquiry of the Mexican government as to the circumstances. cir-cumstances. The Mexican foreign office in its reply charged that Wallace, while intoxicated, passed a sentry at what was characterized as "a dangerous spot" and, failing to halt, was shot and killed. The Aguila company's report, widen was presented at a meeting in Tanipico of oil company managers and which is the first detailed accoun of the American's death to reach Washington, says; "On the morning of November 26 Mr. James Wallace, employed by us as foreman fore-man on our earthen reservoirs at Potrero Del Llano, was riding from the office down to the tank farm, a distance of about u.'iO meters. On the road was iul, outpost of four government soldiers, wlt. a machine gun. As far as we have been able to ascertain, Wallace's horse reared while passing the outpost and kicked the machine gun. whereupon one of the soldiers sol-diers shot him. killing hirn instantly. None of our men actually saw what happened. Home of them had been talking to Wallace Wal-lace a minute or two before, and. hearing the shot thev ran out of the oifice and found Wallace lying on the ground dead. "The soldiers gave the explanation that Wallace insisted on passing between the machine gun and a sentry; that his horse refused to go. for which reason one of the soldiers heat it several times with the butt of his rifie. and that Wallace then threw his horse over on tiie sentries, nearlv upsetting the machine gun. They also 'claim Wallace hit- the soldier with an ax handle he was carrying, and. furthermore, fur-thermore, make the statement that Wallace Wal-lace was intoxicated. These statements are not substantiated by facts. Apart from the circumstances that we have never known Wallace to be intoxicated during the ten months he was employed 1 by us, and that it is In any case very 1 unlikely a man would he under the influence' in-fluence' of liquor when going to his work ' at S o'clock in the morning, we know 1 positively that Wallace was absolutely ' sober, as several of our men were talking 1 with him a few minutes belore he was 1 killed- , "As regards Wallaces having assaulted 1 the soldier with an ax handle, the lack ' of foundation for this statement is proved by the fact that the ax handle wnlcn he was carrying down to tiie tank farm was found still strapped to the saddle when the horse Wallace had been riding was brought back to the corral. Furthermore, I it Is extremely unlikely, to say the least. that a man armed only wltn a stick '. should attack four soldiers with rifles I and a machine gun. Another circumstance which proves the soldier wao killed Wal- lace did not act in self-defense Is that . the nature of the wound, according to i medical evidence, shows beyond any pos-- pos-- sibil! ty of doubt that Wallace was shot from behind." |