The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-05-15
To General COncha.

MADRID, March 22d, 1852
Pc HIS ExcELLENcy Don JOSE DE LA CoNCHA,
CAPTAIN GENERAL, &c, &C., &C., OF CUBA:
SR-The circumstance of your Excellency hav
ing presented, in communication to Don A. Cal
dsron de la Barca Spanish Minister at Washington,
under date of the 2Sth of November last, an appa-
rent refutation to the argument contained in my
appeal from the dungeons of the Punta to the GO
yemment of the United States, and to my fellow
countrymen, places me under the necessity of re-
plying to your Excelency not only for the purpose
OF sustaining the truth Of my propositions, but also
shat may contribute my humble, but most earnest,
efforts to the protection of those of my eountrymen
yeadent in Cuba, from the indignites and ruin go
yuthlessly heaped upon
AS usual, with the advocates Of a weak cause
your Excellency very judiciously avoids the chief
point at ISSUE and dexterousy proceeds to envelope
She argument in mass of extraneous matter, and
involve, III the presumptive guilt of individual,
an nsidous attack upon great principle. Before
proceeding to mature consideration of the true
question, your Exeellency will allow me to make a
kw preliminary observations upon your commune
cation.
Toryour very candid acknowledgment that the in
habtants of Cuba are treated with precisely the
same kind and quality of justice that was so liber-
ally meted out to me, Cuba, not |, owes you many
thanks. 1t only needed the written confession of
the first authority the Island to demonstrate
government Of that unhappy country, and this your
Excellency has generously accorded. To the sons
Of Cuba leave the task Of adequately thanking
your Excelency.
There are several statements in your Excellency's
communication which i believe are erroneous
Your Excellency states-"He (Mr. Thrasher) Sc
leeted of his own free WILL whichever officer Of the
army he preferred to conduct his defence"
more correct statement of this point is fol-
lows While was still in solitary confinement,
and denied all communication with my friends the
fiscal or prosecuting attorney presented me list of
some forty or fifty names, telling me they were those
Of the officers OF the army who would be allowed to
appear in my defence. knew one of them, and
have since learned they are all subordinate officers,
q think second lieutenants,) and being denied
cess to legal counsel. through ignorance. selected
the first upon which my eye rested. Subsequently
learned should have declined to select.
Your Excellency states-"The latter (my defender)
had access to the proceedings whenever he deemed
Unnecessary"
During the very short interview with which this
gentleman favored me on the morning ! was
brought into court understood him to say that he
bad received the process the day previous, and was
peremptorily ordered to return the same within
twenty -four hours that he had been occupied even
during the whole night reading 1t.
Your Excellency states-"He (my defender) con-
ferred with his client y
The only conference ever had with the gentle
man was about eight o'clock on the morning of the
day was brought up for sentence, and which lasted
not more than ten minutes. During the interview
he informed me he had only received the process the
day previous; that he had been occupied ever since,
even during the whole night, reading IT. IN order TO
gain some idea OF the cases. that he had TO return 1t
within an hour; and that at ten O'Clock was to be
brought up for sentence. The only other occasion
On which saw the gentleman was in court, where,
when asserted | had been in no way consulted IN
regard to my defence upon inquiry by the court, he
hesitated stammered and finally nowledged the
truth of my assertion ] have been told the Presi-
dent of the tribunal subsequently assured him he
had pursued a perfectly proper course IN the mat
ter.
Your Excellency states" He (my defendeD
read large manuscript of defence"
was not present in court when the defence was
read as should have been during the reading OF
both the process and the defence in strict accord
apce with the rules of the Court; but my friends
afterwards told me that 1t was very short, ana
amounted merely TO- that he could find in the pro-
cess no proofs against me- and that he thought that
should only be sent out Of the country
Your Excelency states-"The trial OF MI
Thrasher's case was witnessed by himself, by the
Consul Of the United States and by an immense con-
of people, who bear unanimous witness 10 the
scrupulous exactness with which all the forms were
observed. as well to the freedom and amplitude OF
defence granted TO the accused, and 10 the milsness
Of the punishment imposed, considering the nature
Of his crime"
Our first difference in this series Of statements,
which cannot well separate, may consist in the de-
fnition of the word trial" do not understand a
trial TO be hurried reading of the process and de-
Fence.
Exeelency NAV entertain the contrary opinion; and
Ryour Excellency is right, you do not err IN stating
chat the "trial' was witnessed by the Consul OF
the United States and by an immense concourse OF
peope But you are in manifest error in stating that
/ was present was brought into court after the
process and the defence had been read although
am assured by eminent counsel, that, to confer
legality upon the proceedings, j should have been
present.
AS 10 the "unanimous witness" &c, all of those
Mat were present whom have seen, including the
Consul Of the United States, assured me directly
the reverse Of your Exeellency's statement
In regard to the freedom OF my defence, your
Exceneney scems to forget one small fact; allow
me TO recall it to your mind,-On the afternoon Of
Che day previous to my being brought up for SEN
tence, drew up, in my dungeon, protest against
nv being sentenced without being allowed de-
fence. This directed to your Excelency, and for
warded il through the Consul. Your Excellency
"regretted the mistake'''it should have been dl-
rocted to the President Of the Military Commission
Your Exeelency " could not interfere with the at
tributes Of the tribunal and must decline to receive
a." 1t was, accordingly, returned to me. Simulta-
neously ] sent a copy by another gentleman, di-
rected to the President of the Military Commission.
He, also, regretted the error"-'it was an attri
bate Of the Captain General who only could receive
IT." he "eoud not admit it" &c This, also, was
returned to me in the dilemma which naturally
ensued, when ! next day appeared in court with
my duplicate rejected protest, ] was informed by
the President that purely from consideration foI
me, and as particular favor" the one addressed
30 the Court would be admitted and attached to the
process Therefore, my solemn protest against
after deprivation a defence exists upon record.
AS TO the amplitude Of defence ] leave the
determination OF that to gentlemen practised III tHe
Law, and that you were proceeding in accordance
State be expected 70 acquicsce in this also and to
endorse your proceedings because YOU acted within
thc lawl And yet, in Row little does the present
practice Of the military commission Of Cuba fall
short Of tortured
That the treaty embraces only civil and not crim
nal suits il a great error. In these last are in
volved not only the fortune but the life and honor .
the citizen. Can your Excelency suppose that Al
American cabinet will abandon such holy rights v
the absolute viii Of a government that ~ time 9
profound rcpose, thrusts its own subjects out OF "a
pale Of the law, aud holds in such hght esteem
those Of friendly nationsl
The pretext that in order to avoid subteriuge an