prison, on a charge of kidnaping, before a military court. On the 25th of April our consul again protested against this new violation of our treaty with Spain. (See letters on pp. 12 and 79.) Under this last charge he was put in solitary confinement, as he had been under the first. The kidnaping case was ordered to be sent to the civil court on May 7. On May 21 the Department of State formally protested against the exercise of military jurisdiction in the preliminary stages of the civil trial (p. 17), and has firmly adhered to that position. On the 25th of May Vice Consul Springer made formal protest against military proceedings in the further prosecution of Sanguily (see p. 19 of appendix), and demanded that his imprisonment "cease forthwith," and that he be given speedy trial before the civil courts. Bail was refused Sanguily to release him from prison, but he was required to give security for the costs of the proceedings in the sum of $10,000 in the case for insurrection and, in addition, $20,000 in the case for kidnaping, to save his property from confiscation to pay the costs. Every step taken in the case thus trumped up against him only added to the burden of his wrongs and made his deliverance more hopeless. The kidnaping case, without the color of support in law or fact, was held over him until the 24th of April, 1896, when it was quashed." Sanguily had then been convicted of rebellion; and the judgment was reversed by the supreme court at Madrid on the 3d of October, 1896. The evident purpose was to multiply prosecutions against him, in order to hold him in prison, if he should be acquitted on either of them, for trial on the next proceeding. Each of the prosecutions was begun before a military court, in which the accused is subject to secret inquisitorial examination, and when it was transferred to the civil court it carried into that tribunal the record of the summary and secret proceedings of the court-martial. On the 21st of May, 1895, Mr. Uhl instructed Consul Springer, in the most decided terms, that the military arm had no judicial cognizance over our citizens at any stage of the proceeding. (See p. 17.) Every power of protest and petition, even of supplication, was used by our Government to induce Spanish authorities in Cuba to give Sanguily a speedy trial, according to our treaty with Spain, only to be met with duplicity, delay, and denial. On the 2d of October, 1895, the trial of Sanguily was set for the 28th, but the charges against him were not shown to his counsel until October 18-ten days before the trial. The evidence to prove the guilt of Sanguily, on the trial and in his defense, is officially stated in a dispatch of Consul-General Williams to Mr. Uhl, dated December 7, 1896, in which he says: Accompanying herewith are two copies of the Diario de la Marina of 29th and 30th of November, and 3d instant; also two copies of the discussion published in supplement, both newspapers giving full report of the proceedings as they actually occurred during the trials. All the testimony offered on the trial is thus stated in the copy of the Diario de la Marina sent to Mr. Uhl: [Telegram.] Mr. Williams to Mr. Uhl. HABANA, November 29, 1895. Trial of Sanguily commenced yesterday noon; adjourned at 5 o'clock; resumed to-day noon and finished at 3 o'clock. I attended as spectator in compliance with instructions of Department. His advocate, Viondi, has made a magnificent defense. Verdict not rendered yet. [Telegram.] Mr. Williams to Mr. Uhl. HABANA, December 3, 1895. Superior court of Habana sentenced Sanguily yesterday to imprisonment for life. No. 2677.] Mr. Williams to Mr. Uhl. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Habana, December 7, 1895. SIR: I have the honor to report that in accordance with the Department's instruction No. 1180 of the 14th ultimo I attended as a spectator the trial of the American citizen Mr. Julio Sanguily, which took place in this city on the 28th and 29th ultimo before the superior court of the province of Habana. The court opened at 12 o'clock noon of the 28th ultimo, and on the entrance and seating of the accused the prosecuting attorney addressed his charges against him to the five sitting judges, the chief justice presiding, and on conclusion asked the court to declare Sanguily guilty, with sentence of imprisonment for life with chain. The charges summed up by the prosecutor and developed at the trial against Sanguily are in no wise materially different in essence from those transmitted to the Department in my dispatch No. 2727, of the 19th of October last. The advocate for the prisoner, Mr. Miguel F. Viondi, followed in an earnest and eloquent defense, asking the court to declare the innocence and release of Sanguily on the grounds: (1) The absence of evidence to criminate. (2) The present trial being a continuation of the court-martial proceedings commenced on the 24th of February last, the day of the arrest of Sanguily, and against which this consulate-general protested, by order of the Department, before the Governor-General, on the 25th of April last, because said military proceedings were in violation of the protocol of the 12th of January, 1877. (3) Claiming that the case of Sauguily comes under the proclamation of the Governor-General, published in the Gazette of February 27th of the present year, granting pardon to the rebels presenting themselves to the nearest municipal authorities, a translation of which proclamation I sent to the Department with my dispatch No. 2428, of that same date. I understand that Mr. Viondi has determined to carry the case on appeal to the supreme court of Spain at Madrid. Accompanying herewith are two copies of the Diario de la Marina of the 29th and 30th of November and 3d instant, also two copies of the Discussion, published in supplement, both newspapers giving full report of the proceedings as they actually occurred during the trials. The current business of this office requiring my constant attention prevents me from devoting time to the translation of either of these reports. I am, etc., RAMON O. WILLIAMS, Consul-General. [From the Diario de la Marina, Habana, Friday, November 29, 1895.] THE SANGUILY CASE-PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. According to our previous announcement, the public examination of witnesses in the case of the Government against Don Julio Sanguily y Garit, charged with the crime of rebellion, was commenced yesterday, the said case having previously been before the court of first instance. At an early hour in the morning an immense crowd occupied the galleries of the court room, and it increased until it was found necessary to keep it back by force. At half past 10 Mr. Sanguily arrived, under the escort of a picket of custodians of public order. He remained in the room set apart for prisoners until half past 12, when he was summoned to sit on the bench in the court room which is occupied by accused persons. Don Miguel F. Viondi, his counsel, and Attorney Luis P. Valdés were then likewise summoned. * * The gentlemen of the press, who occupied their respective places, were then summoned by the doorkeeper; and here an unfortunate incident occurred. All who thought proper to do so sat down at the table intended for the "fourth power of the State," which is certainly small enough, and neither the doorkeepers nor the policemen required anyone to present a permit to occupy that place, the result of which was that the shorthand reporter of the Diario de la Marina, our collaborator, Mr. Vera y Gonzalez, was obliged to work in the midst of the public throughout the session. Consequently our report can not be quite as extensive as might be desirable. In the locality occupied by the civil court, the third section of the criminal court sat, the court consisting of the gentlemen to whom we referred yesterday. Among those present were the United States consul and many magistrates and lawyers. Quite a number of prominent ladies were likewise present. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Don Manuel Ramón Hernández, one of the court officers, acted as secretary and read the argument prepared by the Government attorney, and the defense, to which we referred in our edition of yesterday evening, and the documentary evidence offered by both parties and accepted by the court. CONFESSION OF THE PRISONER. Don Julio Sanguily y Garit, the prisoner, whose attitude was one of perfect serenity, said, in reply to the usual preliminary questions, that he was a native of Habana, 46 years of age, married, and the father of a family; by occupation a clerk, and that he had been a citizen of the United States since the year 1889. He was arrested on the 24th of February of the present year, between 7 and a quarter past 7 in the morning. In reply to a question of the Government attorney, he said that, although it was true that on previous occasions-that is to say, before the rising took place-he had spoken of political matters with various persons, and had received, among other visits, that of Mr. Lopez Coloma, with whom he had spoken somewhat of Cuban affairs, he was in no way concerned in the uprising, and had nothing whatever to do with it. GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY. Could you not state anything more? Could you not tell what sort of a reference you made to Cuban affairs, and whether you were requested to head the movement in Habana, Matanzas, and Santa Clara? PRISONER. I was, indeed, invited to head the movement, if I am not mistaken, but that was several days before. I do not remember exactly when. GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY. What sort of a movement was it? A. The revolutionary movement which began on the 24th of February, and which still continues. Q. Did Mr. Lopez Coloma speak to you in his own name or in that of other persons?-A. He spoke to me both in his own name and in that of other persons. Q. And what did you say?-A. That I could not do it. Q. When did you make your first statement before the military court?-A. On the 23d of February, at 11 p. m. Q. What statement did you make with regard to the movement?—A. I told what I knew. Q. But did you not state that, owing to its political significance, you might be compelled to take part in it?—A. I do not remember what I said. I asserted that there was no movement. Sanguily's counsel here objected to these questions by the Government attorney and referred to the statements already made by the prisoner. As the presiding judge considered that the questions of the Government attorney were pertinent, the prisoner's counsel declared that he protested, notwithstanding that the presiding judge stated that a protest is proper only when the court refuses to permit a question, and the protest is put on record in order that an appeal for disregard of forms may subsequently be taken, which in the present case is of no practical importance. The Government attorney continued to question the prisoner as to whether he had addressed letters relative to the movement to various persons and issued appointments as officers, among them an appointment as colonel. The prisoner said that he had not. Q. (By the GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY) Do you not remember that you attended a number of meetings on a sugar estate at which these matters were discussed?-A. I do not remember. I had nothing to do with the movement; I have kept entirely aloof from it. Q. Were you in New York in the year 1893?-A. I have not been there since 1878. Q. Have you no relations there with persons who have been concerned in these matters? A. I have, it is true, some friends to whom I was in the habit of writing. Q. Have those letters anything to do with the movement?-A. Nothing whatever. The prisoner was then asked whether he recognized some fragments of a letter which was on file as being in his handwriting. After carefully examining them, he said that he did not. 218 Q. Is the handwriting like yours?-A. I think it is different. Q. Do you know the writing?-A. (Again examining it carefully.) I do not know it. Q. Do you recognize that letter on file among the records of this court as having been written by you [referring to a letter addressed by the prisoner to Dr. Betancourt]-A. (Examining it with care.) The writing looks like mine, but I do not dare to state positively that it is, for various reasons which I can not state now. looks like my handwriting, but I do not feel certain that it is. The PRESIDING JUDGE. Do you know Don José Inocencio Azcuy.-A. No. Q. Have you never had any relations with him?-A. No. Q. Have you never addressed a letter to him?-A. I have not. It The prisoner's counsel stated that he did not desire to address any questions to Mr. Sanguily, and the latter took his seat on the prisoner's bench. THE EXPERTS. No one but Mr. Biosca appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Biosca compared the signatures of the three letters of the prisoner which were in the possession of the court; he considered them similar, and thought they had been written by the same hand, although he could not positively state that they had. Messrs. Antonio Pérez Madueño and Pedro Simon Alvarez, the experts for the defense, claimed that the fragments of the letter in the possession of the court, which the Government attorney thought to have been written by Mr. Sanguily, were of no importance whatever, for the reason that the document was wholly illegible. The Government attorney questioned them on each particular word in the fragment of a letter which apparently contained the appointment of Mr. Azcuy as an insurgent colonel. The following words were found: Colonel in the army citizen appointm yours truly fully author cios colonel of our organize forces # Julio Sanguily (flourish). * # you are au which is hoped by The experts insisted that it was quite impossible for them to make any sense of the detached words of the document, and after several questions by the prisoner's counsel, they withdrew. DON ANTONIO LOPEZ COLOMA. In reply to the usual preliminary questions, he stated that he was 25 years of age, married, an ex-railroad employee, and that he was connected with the prisoner neither by blood relationship nor by friendship. He said that he was arrested in the month of March last for having placed himself at the head of an insurgent band at Ibarra on the 24th of February. He declared that he had not instigated that movement and said that he took the place at the head of his men under compulsion, designing to act as an autonomist, and not as a secessionist. Q. (By the GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY.) Had you previously visited Habana for the purpose of proposing to Sanguily to assist you? WITNESS. I had not. Q. Did you bring oral or written instructions from Dr. Betancourt, which you were to communicate to Juan Gualberto Gómez?-A. I came to receive orders from Sanguily, Aguierre, and Gómez, but I only saw Gómez, and he merely gave me a letter. Q. Did you speak to Gómez concerning the uprising?-A. No, sir. At the request of the Government attorney, the clerk of the court read the statement made by the witness at San Severino castle at Matanzas. In that statement Coloma said that Don Pedro Betancourt had commissioned him to call on Sanguily, Juan Gualberto Gómez, and Aguirre at Habana, with a view to raising the cry of "Hurrah for reform!" The witness was then asked how many interviews he had said at San Severino that he had had with Sanguily and Aguirre. He answered that he had there stated that he had had none, although he was acquainted with those gentlemen. Q. How was it that you did not speak to Sanguily and Aguirre ?-A. Because it was believed at Matanzas that Messrs. Sanguily and Aguirre were opposed to the movement. I consequently saw no one but Juan Gualberto Gómez. Q. (By PRISONER'S COUNSEL.) Whom did you recognize as leader?-A. Betancourt. Q. (By the GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY.) Had you no knowledge that Sanguily was the leader of the movement in Habana?-A. On the contrary, I had heard that Sanguily disapproved the movement, and as Betancourt wished to make me believe that Sanguily was with the movement, he spoke to me in rather vague terms. Q. Did Betancourt tell you that Sanguily would place himself at the head of the Matanzas forces?-A. He had told me that he expected Sanguily by the 25th. Q. (By the PRISONER'S COUNSEL.) Did you believe those statements of Betancourt?-A. I did not think that Sanguily would join the insurrection. Q. If Sanguily I ad gone to join the insurrection, on what day was he to do so?-A. On the 21st. After a document belonging to the records of the court had been shown to the witness, and after he had ratified all the statements which he had made, he retired. A FEMALE WITNESS. The next witness was a colored woman employed on the estate Portela, in Aguacate, where the prisoner Sanguily used to go on hunting trips. PRESIDING JUDGE. Do you swear, before God, that you will tell the truth? The JUDGE. Do you not hear? WITNESS (terribly frightened). Sir! She was unable to answer the usual preliminary questions that were addressed to her, and afterwards answered in monosyllables. It was finally elicited that she was an unmarried woman, employed in agricultural labor. Q. (By the PRESIDING JUDGE.) Did you reside on the estate Portela, in Aguacate, at the close of last year?-A. Yes, sir. Q. (By the GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY.) Did not Mr. Sanguily occupy a room there, the furniture of which was sold?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there a gun there?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember whether the civil guard came there because the furniture was to be sold?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there a closet in that room?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Who kept the things there?-A. I don't know. Q. Did you see when the civil guard took some papers?-A. No, sir. Q. (By the PRESIDING JUDGE.) Do you remember what person spoke to Don Julio Sanguily?-A. I do not remember. Q. (COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE.) When the civil guard came to examine the closet, where were you?-A. At home. Q. Did you live in the house occupied by the family?-A. No, sir. Q. And did the civil guard apply to you?-A. Yes, sir. Q. And did those gentlemen come to see the furniture?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Did they buy anything?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the commander of the civil guard come there?—A. No, sir. Q. Did they take leave of you?-A. No, sir. Q. Did you not see what they took away?-A. I did not notice. The witness then retired. INSPECTOR TRUJILLO. After answering the usual preliminary questions, he said that he was acquainted with Sanguily, but that he was neither his friend nor his enemy. Being questioned with respect to the arrest of Mr. Azcuy, he said that when he arrested him on his landing from a steamer from Key West, he untied his cravat, in which he found a paper, which Azeny snatched out of his hand, put it in his mouth and chewed it up, so that he was able to secure a part of it with the greatest difficulty, and to take another fragment out of Azcuy's mouth. The fragments of the letter having been shown to him, he said that they appeared to be the same, and withdrew. DON JOSÉ PAGLIERY. Mr. Pagliery appeared in court in citizen's clothes, and answered the usual preliminary questions by saying that he was 45 years of age, and a colonel in the civil guard. The PRESIDING JUDGE. Do you know Mr. Julio Sanguily?—A. I do. Q. Are you a friend of his?-A. No; but I have had some intercourse with him. In reply to a question by the Government attorney, he said that Azcuy had never told him who had given him the papers which he carried in his cravat, or who had signed them. His first statement was read, from which it appeared that he had taken from Azcuy a folded letter which was hidden in his cravat, and that when Azcuy saw that the letter was discovered he tore it in two pieces, which he put into his mouth, but that the witness had succeeded in securing some fragments of chewed paper which, among Mr. José Azeuy * other things, said: "Habana by our author to organize forces." It bore Sanguily's signature, and when Azcuy was asked who had given him that paper, he said that it had been given him by his nephew, Dionisio Azcuy. * * * * The JUDGE. Were you chief of police on the 24th of February?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you the person who arrested Don Julio San uily?-A. Yes; by order of the Governor-General. |