27th ultimo, to be answered in this sense, with insertion of the opinion of the prosecuting attorney, which reads as follows: "To the Hall: "The prosecuting attorney says that the consul of the United States in a communication addressed to his honor the president of the court under date of the 25th instant solicits from the hall, by order of his Government, permission to personally examine the record of the trial of Mr. Julio Sanguily y Garit for rebellion, and for the taking of a copy of the same for transmission to his Government. In reality this petition is identical to the one formulated by the same consul on the 23d of December last, and upon which the opinion of this office was given on the next day with the order of the 26th of the same month, solely with the difference that the copy then asked of the record was to be given by the court and now that its consent is asked for the consulate to make the copy; and in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney, as he then expressed, the hall lacks authority to furnish the copy or to deliver a record of proceedings to anyone not a party thereto or having intervention therein. At all times it would be impossible to accede to such a pretension, but now the more so because of the jurisdiction of the court over the proceedings having ceased by reason of the same having been appealed to the supreme court, as also expressed in the aforesaid order of the 26th of December last. For those reasons the prosecuting attorney is of the opinion that the hall should dismiss the new pretension formulated by the consul of the United States. The hall will decide. "ENJUTO, "Prosecuting Attorney. "Habana, January 30, 1896. "The above is herewith referred to your honor for the corresponding effects." Therefore, I have the honor to transmit you the preceding in answer to your attentive official note of the 25th of last month. JOSE PULIDO. [Inclosure 14 in No. 2756.] Mr. Williams to the General in Charge. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, GENERAL: Notwithstanding the decree issued on the 16th of March last by his excellency the Governor-General of this island, inhibiting the military jurisdiction of the cognizance of the case of the Amercan citizen, Mr. Julio Sanguily, and ordering its transfer to a court of the civil jurisdiction in strict observance of the agreement of the 12th of January, 1877, nevertheless, I am informed by his advocate that he has again been subjected to a court martial, by order of the military jurisdiction, this time on a charge alleged to be related to the kidnaping last year of Mr. Fernandez de Castro; and in consequence this American citizen has been again remanded into solitary confinement and deprived of all intercourse with his counselor by order of the court-martial. This proceeding on the part of the military jurisdiction is not only an infraction on the agreement, but it is likewise a contradiction of the said decree of the 16th of March last of his excellency the Governor-General of this island. I have, therefore, and in compliance with the instructions of my Government, to ask your excellency to have the goodness to order that this second case against this American citizen be also transferred to the civil jurisdiction for trial, as his excellency the Governor-General was pleased to order in the first case; and also by order of my Government to enter its most formal protest before the Government of this island against any delay in the transferring of this second cause against Sanguily to the civil jurisdiction; as likewise to protest against all proceedings hitherto practiced, or that may hereafter be practiced, in this case by the court-martial now trying this American citizen, because they are in clear contradiction of the said agreement between the two nations. SIR: I have received your dispatch No. 2756, of the 6th instant, relative to your inability to obtain a certified copy of the record of the trial of Mr. Julio Sanguily. S. Doc. 231, pt 3—20 In reply you are informed that our minister at Madrid was instructed by telegraph on the 18th instant to ask the Royal Government for a copy of the record referred to. I am, etc., W. W. ROCKHILL, Assistant Secretary of State. No. 1273.] Mr. Rockhill to Mr. Williams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 28, 1896. SIR: Referring further to the case of Julio Sanguily, I inclose for your information translation of a letter addressed to this Department by his brother, Manuel Sanguily, of Brooklyn, N. Y., in relation to current rumors that the prisoner's life is in danger. It seems proper to thus apprise you of the apprehension felt by Mr. Sanguily's friends and to call upon yon for a report in regard to his treatment in prison. I am, etc., [Telegram.] W. W. ROCKHILL, Mr. Rockhill to Mr. Williams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 28, 1896. Cable as to health and welfare Sanguily. His friends apprehensive. [Telegram.] Mr. Williams to Mr. Rockhill. HABANA, March 2, 1896. (Received 3.15 p. m.) Accompanied by Dr. Burgess, I passed an hour yesterday at the fort with Sanguily, finding him cheerful and very content with his treatment and not wishing to change quarters, and desiring his friends to be informed that, while longing for his freedom, he entertains no apprehension for his personal safety. Dr. Burgess reports to me officially that from examination of his circulation, temperature, and tongue, as also from his own statements, that his physical condition and health are good, with exception of some rheumatism, seemed to be of the muscular variety. No. 2809.] Mr. Williams to Mr. Rockhill. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your instruction No. 1273, of the 28th ultimo, in relation to the current rumors purporting that the life of Mr. Julio Sanguily is in danger, and inclosing a copy of a letter of his brother, Mr. Manuel Sanguily. In reply I beg to confirm my telegram addressed to you on the 2d instant, and now present in addition the following remarks: On the day and the moment of the receipt of your telegram of the 28th ultimo (Friday) a violent storm prevailed, and that on Saturday, the 29th, we had to dispatch the consular business of two steamers for the United States. These circumstances prevented me from going to Fort Cabañas, where Mr. Julio Sanguily is confined, till Saturday, the 1st instant, and the next day I sent you a telegraphic report of the facts as I ascertained them in conversation with him. I have also to add that his quarters are such as are furnished there to the army officers, and are occupied by himself and his son who keeps him company, the latter freely going and coming. His treatment in this respect is exceptionally good, for each of the adjoining rooms is occupied by several persons. The commander of the fort, General Suero, makes frequent friendly visits to him. And lastly, he not only said that he had no apprehension for his personal safety, but he expressed himself as fully appreciative of the kind treatment given him by the authorities. I am, etc., RAMON O. WILLIAMS, Consul General. No. 2812.] Mr. Williams to Mr. Rockhill. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Habana, March 10, 1896. (Received March 14.) SIR: I have the honor to submit a translation and copy of a letter addressed to me on the 6th instant by Mr. Miguel Francisco Viondi, advocate, memorial, and other documents pertaining to the cause of Mr. Julio Sanguily, which I forward herewith to the Department, in compliance with the desire of this gentleman. Respecting that part of Mr. Viondi's letter telling me that Mr. Sanguily also encharges him to ask me to inform the Department as to the certainty of the facts related by him—that is, regarding (1) the law of 1821 in its application to his cause and (2) of its inobservance in the procedure under which he has been tried by the courts of Habana—I have to say that this office being purely consular or commercial, and not judicial, it seems as out of place for it to analyze the proceedings of those courts, and the more especially since the Department has its own law officer in the person of its solicitor, with the right, furthermore, to consult the Department of Justice, and to each of whom the facts of the case can be referred should the honorable Secretary of State or his assistant so desire it. I am, etc., RAMON O. WILLIAMS, [Inclosure 1 in No. 2812.-Translation.] Mr. Viondi to Mr. Williams. HABANA, March 6, 1896. DEAR SIR: My client, Mr. Julio Sanguily, has sent me to-day the accompanying protest, memorial, and documents for delivery to you, with the request that you have the goodness to forward them to the Department of State. He encharges me also to ask you to inform the said Department as to the certainty of the facts related—that is, first, in regard to the law of 1821, and, second, of the fact of that law not having been observed in his trial, as agreed between the United States and Spain under the protocol of 1877, but that instead he has been judged according to the law of oral trial of the year 1889. As the advocate of Mr. Sanguilly, I assure you that the protocol has not been complied with in his trial, since he has not been tried in accordance with the law of 1821. Mr. Sanguilly recommends me especially to say to you that, in his opinion, the fact of this violation constitutes the real reason for which the superior court of Habana founded its refusal to furnish you with a copy of the record of his trial. With expressions of the most distinguished consideration, etc. MIGUEL FRANCISCO VIONDI. [Inclosure 2 in No. 2812.] Mr. Sanguily to Mr. Williams. SIR: I, Julio Sanguily, imprisoned in the Cabaña Fortress for the supposed offenses of rebellion and kidnaping, appear before you to protest of the unjust imprisonment suffered and the concluded violation, victim in both charges. In the first I have been sentenced by only five judges. Have been indicted and put in prison by virtue of a warrant founded in the circumstantial evidence of the process originated before the military jurisdiction. Besides, I have been subjected to a new trial by the civil authority, which is not in accordance of the protocol of 1877. According to that protocol the law of procedure that has to be applied to the citizens of the United States is the one of April 17, 1821. That law directs from articles 19 to 23 an especial procedure, by virtue of which every act of the process must be with the consent of the defendant's counsel. Article 23 says that the witnesses must testify in the presence of the defendant and his counsel. Article 24 says the presiding judge must pronounce sentence. Article 25 says that after sentence has been pronounced the case must be carried to the (audiencia) and the parties to be heard there again (article 28) pronouncing definite sentence within the third day by six judges. Laying aside the warrant of process and imprisonment founded in the facts of the case originated before the military jurisdiction, the undersigned could never have been tried by oral process, because the protocol of 1877 objects to it, and says that the citizens of the United States can not be tried only by the law of April 17, 1821, with entire publicity regarding the witnesses, who have to testify in the presence of the defendant's counsel, who can make any remarks he may deem necessary, first pronouncing sentence by the judge, and then with new proof by the audiencia, and that composed of six judges (article 27). The exponent has had only one sentence, by virtue of a law that is not applied, and that sentence has been pronounced by the audiencia, composed of five judges, sentencing to perpetual chain. Article 2 of the protocol has reference to the law of April 17, 1821, and also articles 4 and 5, all in reference to the citizens of the United States. Such is the law in force regarding citizens of the United States. And the general consulate objected against military jurisdiction, the one subjected by the exponent. The Captain-General acceded to the demand of the general consulate by merits directed in article 1 of said protocol. Though another Spanish law may have been promulgated following that of 1821, it is not possible to lay aside without the accord and consent of the United States of the one particularly determined in the protocol, i. e., the citizens of the United States must be tried by the law of April 17, 1821, more advantageous than by secret process, by which the Spanish subjects are subjected to. The law of 1821 also demands proofs in order to convict, and the Spanish law in force, or say that one of the oral process, authorizes the laying aside of the proofs and the conviction or discharge, only in conscience of the judges. And the conscience of the judges of the Spanish tribunal toward the undersigned is not a guaranty sufficiently impartial, taking into consideration the political offense and the important part taken by the undersigned in the last war. In the case of kidnaping, as in the previous one, the protocol and law of April 17, 1821, is not applied and is substituted by the oral process. The exponent has not consented to the law that has been applied In the first place, because the treaty has a public character and can not be renounced individually; in the second place, because it designates an obligation of the Spanish Government which has to be fulfilled; in the third place, because, as it appears in this case, did not know the existence of a law that favored me so much, an ignorance that can not be imputable to the Spanish authorities, necessarily cognizant of the treaty, which did not wish to apply in prejudice to a citizen of the United States; in the fourth place, because the Spanish criminal law, in article 8, declares that the criminal jurisdiction can never be prorogued. Then it can not be said that the undersigned has been submitted to a crimial jurisdiction, which does not belong to him, proroguing to that jurisdiction his own. The undersigned does solemnly swear, in the name of the Almighty God, that, until now, did not know the existence of the law of 1821, and being imprisoned since February 24, 1895, and sentenced in one of the cases, by virtue of a law which is not submitted, but excluded by the protocol of 1877, appears before his consul with the present protest, against the arbitrary and violation of the law of which is a victim, that through the representative of his nation may be elevated to the United States Government, so that it may obtain the immediate liberty of one who is suffering imprisonment illegally and has already been sentenced unjustly, and besides that Ï demand from the Spanish Government an indemnity in the sum of $500,000, damages cansed by the said Government in depriving me of my liberty arbitrarily decreeted and against the solemn law of treaties. At the date of this protest and claims of damages the undersigned has already suffered one year and eleven days of illegal imprisonment in a fortress. So the United States Government can not consent that, contrary to the expressed laws, a citizen of his nation be deprived in such a manner of his own liberty by a foreign Government. CABAÑAS FORTRESS, March 6, 1896. JULIO SANGUILY. Memoir presented to the United States Government by Julio Sanguily, a citizen of same, demanding his liberty and indemnity of the Spanish Government for reason of the unjust imprisonment of which he is the victim. The treaties and protocols in force between the United States of America and Spain relating to its citizens and subjects are laws. The first treaty in the chronological order is that of 1795. That treaty was ratified in 1819 for another one, with exception of articles 2, 3, 4, and 21 and the second clause of the twenty-second. The seventh clause of the treaty of 1795 remained, therefore, in force. Said clause says: "That the citizens of the United States shall be granted free access to all judicial procedures and to be present at all hearings and examinations relating to same." As that clause was not sufficiently clear, several conferences were had between the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at Madrid and the minister of state of is Majesty the King of Spain, agreeing definitely in 1877 to sign on the 12th of January of said year the protocol, which, according to its preamble, has for its object the following: "To terminate amicably all controversy as to the effect of existing treaties in certain matters of judicial procedure and to make declaration on both sides as to the understanding of the two Governments in the premises and respecting the true application of said treaties." That protocol has been signed by the Hon. Caleb Cushing, for the United States, and by His Excellency Señor Dn. Fernando Calderon y Collantes, minister of state of the Spanish Government. The president of the cabinet, His Excellency Señor Dn. Antonio Canovas del Castillo, confirming same and communicating it to the governor and captain-general of Cuba through a royal order. Said protocol ends with the following words: "In order to give the Government of the United States the completed security and good faith of His Majesty's Government in the premises, command will be given by royal order for the strict observance of the terms of the present protocol in all the dominions of Spain, and specially in the island of Cuba." The exponent was indicted by military jurisdiction in two cases-one for the rebellion and the other for kidnaping. The consul-general of the United States demanded immediately of the Spanish authorities, and referring to article 1 of the protocol of January 12, 1877. The Spanish authorities, recognizing the justice of that demand, consented that the case would pass to the civil jurisdiction. This action of the Spanish Government in the island of Cuba proves that they recognize the protocol, because the first of its clauses was fulfilled. But the Spanish Government has not recognized all the other clauses of the protocol, having violated them, and the exponent goes to prove it. All the protocol is united to the law of April 17, 1821. That law has never been applied to Spanish subjects in the island of Cuba. It is an especial law of Spain, and if it was published in Cuba in El Diario del Gobierno Constitucional de la |