210 his claim against the Government of Peru for proper reparation as to the wrongs committed against himself. "I have just received from the Department of State at Washington a copy of Mr. MacCord's memorial to his own Government, in which he states his claim for indemnity against that of Peru, for treatment complained of, at $200,000." The only answer Mr. Buck ever received to such note of November 14, 1888, was a verbal request made by the Peruvian minister as he was leaving for home in the spring of 1889, asking him to say to his Government, on his return, that Peru was anxious to settle the MacCord case, although Mr. MacCord was importuning the State Department, during the years 1889, 1890, and 1891, without any notice being taken of his efforts looking to the prosecution of his claim, except a request of the Department to ask the foreign office for a reply to Mr. Buck's note of November 14, 1888, which resulted in the note from Mr. Ribrego, dated February 15, 1893, that consisted simply of reiteration of Mr. Alzamora's of nearly five years before, and which Mr. Buck in his reply had compelled Mr. Alzamora to recede from every position he had taken, and Mr. Ribrego (in 1893) assumed, while the notice then taken by the American representative at Lima upon the receipt of Mr. Ribrego's note of February 15, 1893, is little if anything less than scandalous to American diplomacy. No wonder that in 1892, while a citizen of Pennsylvania was sojourning in Peru, and the United States was thus represented, he actually passed as an Englishman, for no other reason than that he wished to be awarded the civilities extended to Englishmen, but denied to Americans, citizens of the United States. I have thus, Mr. Secretary, at some length, briefed the status of this case in all fairness, that you may be saved the labor of wading through correspondence in considering the resolution of the Foreign Relations Committee reported to the Senate on the eve of the adjournment of Congress, which I trust you will consider, although for reasons you will understand was not reached on the Calendar. I have the honor, etc., Hon. W. Q. GRESHAM, S. NEWTON PETTIS, Solicitor for Victor H. MacCord. Secretary of State. "AREQUIPA, February 14, 1895. "DEAR SIR: Yours of January 1, inclosing printed document, letters, etc., bearing on my case, is just this morning received. "Minister Ribrego's note is entirely new to me, and is also false from beginning to end, with the exception perhaps of a few clauses purposely arranged to confuse. It is true that cars were left at Mollendo, as it was materially impossible to bring them all away without sending down engines. This fact was made known to San Roman, who replied that no engines should go down, and that in view of the impossibility of bringing the cars away he would order them to be burned. He did not, however, insist upon that when he knew the engines had all been brought to this city. That there was any plan or agreement between Mr. Thorndike and the Iglesias party in Lima is simply impossible, because we here were directly under the orders of the Caceres authorities, who could and did remove all the engines from the lower division of the road. Why not interrogate Mr. Thorndike on the subject? Also, if thought necessary, let Gen. J. M. Echenique, who was then minister of war of the Iglesias government, be questioned on the subject. He ought to know if there was any understanding with Mr. Thorndike. understanding, but let it be proven. True, Mr. Garcia y Garcia did send a teleI am satisfied there could not have been any such gram to Braun saying he had been promised transportation, but that is not proof, and even if it was it could not implicate me, who had, in obedience to orders, retired all the engines from the Mollendo line. "Let McKensie be questioned as to whether anyone had intimated to him such an action. He is not friendly to me, but I am not afraid to have him testify on the subject. "I deny that the prefect had any legal right to impose such a fine. Let the Peruvian law be examined on that point. I indignantly deny and brand as false the statement of Sr. Ribrego that I ever conspired against any government in Peru, and I challenge him to present any proof in support of his allegation. "I never pretended to have paid the fine out of my own private funds. Why should I? Besides, I am claiming not for the fine, but for unlawful, barbarous, and inhuman treatment to which I was subjected, and without the semblance of a trial, to which by law I was entitled. "In regard to Mr. Cantriarias's statement, I do not see that it has any bearing on my case. "Mr. Morales only copies an order which I do not deny having received and which was complied with, as far as possible, and the prefect was made aware of the impossibility of bringing away with one engine all the cars from Mollendo, as before stated. "In regard to Mr. San Roman's affidavit or certificate on page 9, I will only say that I was not, at the time, the legal representative of the railway. I was merely an employee in charge of the traffic department, and Mr. Thorndike, the lessee, had his legal representative in this city. A legal representative, however, was not what was wanted. San Roman wanted some one whom he could with impunity compel to pay a ransom, which, as he himself afterwards confessed to me and to others, 'saved the situation.' "I notice in one of the letters the minister at Lima is requested to ascertain what is thought of the merits of the claim by disinterested parties residing in Peru. This should be done, and possibly may have been; I do not know, but suspect it has not. Arequipa would seem to be a good point for practicing such an investigation. The case is well known here in all its particulars, as also are both Sr. San Roman and "Yours, truly, "Hon. S. NEWTON PETTIS, Meadville, Pa." "V. H. MACCORD. WASHINGTON, April 11, 1895. SIR: After the report in the MacCord case by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Davis, of that committee, suggested that I should see that the Peruvian minister here have a copy of the report made two months ago. Of course, I took no action in the matter, inasmuch as you were so much burdened by diplomatic complications that I did not wish to annoy you. By calling upon Mr. Landis, I should be glad if you would, through him, advise me if there would be any impropriety in my mailing a copy to Dr. Yrigoyen. Yours, very truly, Hon. W. Q. GRESHAM, S. NEWTON PETTIS. Secretary of State. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, in which you request me to advise you if there would be any impropriety in your mailing to Dr. Yrigoyen, the Peruvian minister in this city, a copy of the report recently made to the Senate by its Committee on Foreign Relations upon the case of Mr. Victor H. MacCord. In reply, I have to say that this is a matter upon which the Department can not undertake to advise you. I am, sir, your obedient servant, S. NEWTON PETTIS, Esq., W. Q. GRESHAM. Washington, D. C. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 22, 1895. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 30th ultimo, inclosing a letter addressed to you by Mr. Victor H. MacCord, dated Arequipa, February 14, 1895. After reviewing at some length the published correspondence in the MacCord case, you express the hope that I will consider the resolution in regard to that case recently reported to the Senate by its Committee on Foreign Relations. In reply I have to say that the resolution has been considered by this Department, but I do not think it can properly be taken as a basis for further diplomatic action in the case until it has been finally adopted by Congress. I am, sir, your obedient servant, S. NEWTON PETTIS, Esq. ALVEY A. ADEE, [For Exhibit B, this report, see Senate Report 927, Fifty-third Congress, third session, pp. 164–202.] [See Claims Against Spain, Gen, Index.] FIFTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, February 24, 1897. [Senate Report No. 1531.] Mr. Morgan, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report: The Committee on Foreign Relations submitted the following report and a joint resolution as a substitute for Senate resolution No. 186, relating to the arrest and imprisonment of Julio Sanguily in the island of Cuba. The declaration of the Spanish minister, made conjointly with the minister of the United States on the 12th of January, 1877, is in the following words: Señor Calderon Collantes declared as follows: 1. No citizen of the United States residing in Spain, her adjacent islands, or her ultramarine possessions, charged with acts of sedition, treason, or conspiracy against the institutions, the public security, the integrity of the territory, or against the supreme Government, or any other crime whatsoever, shall be subject to trial by any exceptional tribunal, but exclusively by the ordinary jurisdiction, except in the case of being captured with arms in hand. 2. Those who, not coming within this last case, may be arrested or imprisoned shall be deemed to have been so arrested or imprisoned by order of the civil authority for the effects of the law of April 17, 1821, even though the arrest or imprisonment shall have been effected by armed force. 3. Those who may be taken with arms in hand and who are therefore comprehended in the exception of the first article shall be tried by ordinary council of war, in conformity with the second article of the herein before-mentioned law; but even in this case the accused shall enjoy for their defense the guarantees embodied in the aforesaid law of April 17, 1821. 4. In consequence whereof, as well in the cases mentioned in the third paragraph as in those of the second, the parties accused are allowed to name attorneys and advocates, who shall have access to them at suitable times; they shall be furnished in due season with a copy of accusation and a list of witnesses for the prosecution, which latter shall be examined before the presumed criminal, his attorney, and advocate, in conformity with the provisions of articles 20 to 31 of the said law; they shall have right to compel the witnesses of whom they desire to avail themselves to appear and give testimony or to do it by means of depositions; they shall present such evidence as they may judge proper; and they shall be permitted to be present and to make their defense, in public trial, orally or in writing, by themselves or by means of their counsel. 5. The sentence pronounced shall be referred to the audiencia of the judicial district, or to the Captain-General, according as the trial may have taken place before the ordinary judge or before the council of war, in conformity also with what is prescribed in the above-mentioned law. By the law of April 17, 1821, this audiencia shall consist of six judges. The foregoing agreement makes the Spanish law of April 17, 1821, a part of the treaty between the two Governments, and it is fully obligatory. This agreement was made at the close of the revolutionary struggle in Cuba which lasted from 1868 to 1878, when it closed with the agree ment of Zanjon. It was made necessary by many events that had involved the sum mary execution of citizens of the United States during that struggle, and especial care was taken to make the provisions of the agreement specific and clear. During the present hostilities in the island of Cuba this declaration of the Spanish Government has been frequently called to the attention of the Spanish authorities in Cuba, in the effort to secure the benefit of its stipulations in favor of citizens of the United States who, without being found with arms in their hands, have been arrested, imprisoned, tried, and condemned by summary proceedings of courts martial for alleged offenses, in gross violation of our treaty rights. The progress of the case of Julio Sanguily, a citizen of the United States, is characterized with the deliberate perversion of justice and with persistent disregard of these engagements. Our consul-general, Fitzhugh Lee, in a letter to the Department of State dated January 6, 1897, thus describes Julio Sanguily and his condition and environment: No. 283.] Mr. Lee to Mr. Rockhill. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Habana, December 31, 1896. (Received January 6, 1897.) SIR: Yesterday noon I visited the Cabañas fort and had a talk with Mr. Julio Sanguily, an American citizen, and formerly a general in the insurgent army. As you know, he was arrested in his house while taking a bath on the 24th of February, 1895. Sanguily had proved himself a very brave and efficient officer in the Cuban war from 1868 to 1878, and had been wounded seven times. It was therefore naturally supposed that sooner or later he would have joined the insurgent side of the war now in progress in this island. He had, so far as I am informed, committed no overt act in that direction, and was taken without arms in hand. On the 28th of November, 1895, or, say, nine months and four days after he was arrested and thrown into a cell at the Cabañas fort, he was tried and sentenced to be imprisoned for life. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of justice at Madrid, which decreed, upon some technical ground, that Sanguily should be retried. On the 21st of December, 1896, his second trial commenced, and ended by his being again sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. From this second sentence an appeal has been taken, which, whether successful or not, will greatly lengthen the time he has already passed in his cell. The lawyer who defended this prisoner in his first trial now looks from the bars of a cell adjoining his in the Cabañas fort, and I am informed that the lawyer who managed his appeal before the Madrid court has suffered in consequence thereof, so that it may be difficult to procure in Madrid another person versed in the law who will consent to manage for Sanguily the appeal proceedings. Only a few days after the arrest of Sanguily a proclamation was issued offering amnesty to all persons in arms who would give themselves up. It seems that this ought to apply to persons who had been arrested without armis in hand. Two other Cuban officers of distinction-Ramon Perez Trujillo and José Maria Timoteo Aguirr-were arrested, I am told, at the same time as Sanguily and for the same reason, namely, because it was thought that they would engage in the war. After a short incarceration they were liberated. In view of all these facts, and for the additional reason that Sanguily has been in a cell twenty-three months to date, is not in good health, and is suffering from old wounds, I respectfully suggest that the Department bring these facts to the notice of the Madrid Government and ask that instructions be issued that he be released from prison on the condition that he will leave this island and not return until the present war has terminated. I am, sir, etc., FITZHUGH LEE, Consul-General. It is only just and in accord with the well-established opinions of mankind to attribute to a man who has exhibited high courage and devotion to honorable duties-of which his many wounds are eloquent witnesses in behalf of Mr. Sanguily-a due sense of obedience to whatever obligations he has voluntarily assumed toward the United States with reference to Spain, under his petition and oath of naturalization, until the contrary is made to appear. In this instance there is no evidence or suggestion growing out of the facts of the case that Mr. Sanguily has manifested toward the Spanish authority in Cuba any hostility, ill feeling, or want of due respect for and obedience to the laws. In all respects he has been true to his duty to the United States while residing in Cuba, his native country, under the passport and registry of the United States and also of Cuba, and the only ground of proceeding against him in Cuba has been an unjust suspicion, derived from the honorable and devotional courage he exhibited in his efforts to free Cuba from Spanish dominion in the former revolution that ended nearly twenty years ago. During more than eighteen years of that period he has resided in Cuba, striving, peacefully and laboriously, to raise and provide for his family until now he is an old and feeble man, and is still suffering from severe wounds received in battle. The whole record of the two prosecutions against this worthy man, first for rebellion and then for kidnaping, as far as our Government has been able to obtain it, after most industrious and urgent efforts, is set forth in Executive Document No. 104, Fifty-fourth Congress, second session, which is appended to this report. The Spanish authorities in Cuba have artfully, and contrary to our rights as a treaty power, concealed from the Government of the United States much of the actual record of the proceedings against Sanguily in these two prosecutions. This has been done, notwithstanding frequent urgent and just demands of our Government for full information as to such proceedings. This demand was the more necessary and imperative because the proceedings as to the more important parts were conducted in secret, were inquisitorial, were compulsory, and were under conduct of a court-martial; all of which procedure is in violation of Spanish law and of our treaty rights as they are declared by Spain in the protocol of January 12, 1877. The facts, so far as our Government has been able to develop them, partly from official correspondence with the Spanish authorities in Cuba and partly from newspapers in Cuba that are recognized as official organs, show a deliberate purpose to persecute an innocent man, through the use of the tribunals and under the forms of law, first, by long delays in such proceedings in order to protract his sufferings in prison, and then by suddenly putting him on trial without the benefit of witnesses to establish his innocence. Sanguily was registered in Cuba as an American citizen, on the 22d of August, 1878, on a passport issued by the United States on the 7th of August, 1878. He then resided in Habana until his arrest on the 24th of February, 1895-nearly seventeen years. That was the day the revolution broke out, and he was 300 miles from the locality of its origin. He was arrested in his house, where his family resided, at 7.30 a. m., while taking a bath. No arms were in his house, and he was alone with his family. He was arrested by the military and held in secret confinement to answer to a court-martial. A military officer subjected him to an inquisitorial examination at 11 o'clock at night, without the presence of witnesses or counsel. On the 16th of March, upon the request of our consul, his case was ordered to be transferred into a civil court for further proceedings. On the 24th of April, 1895, Sanguily was again prosecuted, while in |