The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-04-17
The Lopez Expedition.

| Articles have frequently appeared in journals
hostile to the Administration charging it with
want of policy and energy in the management
of the trials in Louisiana, growing out of the
first LOPEZ expedition against CUBA. 1t has
been repeatedly alleged that it was in conse-
quence of the failure to prosecute LOPEZ to con-
vction, in the first instance, that he went to
work to get up the second expedition, in the
belief that the Government were not disposed
to discourage or prevent it.
We were well aware that there was no truth
In the allegation, but its industrious repetition
rendered it proper to lay the facts in the case
before the country. We have, therefore. made
application for and have procured an explana-
ton of the reasons which made it necessary to
put General HENDERSON on his trial instead of
General LOPEZ. From the letters which we
publish below, it appears that the District At
torney, Mr.. HUNToN, insisted upon the trial of
LoPEz and that his counsel resisted it on the
ground of the absence of the Justice of the Su-
preme Court. Mr.. HUNToN urged his motion
for the trial on the ground that it was wholly
uncertain when Mr.. Justice MCKINLEY, who
was then in Washington, would be able to at
tend the sessions of the circuit court. Mr..
BENJAMIN, associated with the District Attor-
ney, sustained the motion upon the same and
other grounds, but they were overruled by the
Court, and obliged to submit.
The case of HENDERSON was then called
He waived the attendance Of Mr.. Justice
Mckinney, and demanded trial. There was
no cause for continuance, and the trial there
fore proceeded. The proof against him was so
overwhelming that he was constrained during
the trial 10 rise before the court and jury and
admit his full and active participation in setting
on foot the expedition, and he relied in his de-
fence mainly on the technical ground that the
expedition did not assume its " military" char
acter within the United States.
A letter on the subject from Mr.. Huron is
now before us, in which he says:
81 will only add that my instructions from
the Department Of State were frequent and
pressing to vindicate the laws and to bring all
offenders to justice. This endeavored to do;
and now, upon a review Of my course in the
conduct of the prosecutions, have no mis-
givings about It's propriety under all the cir
cumstances. 1t is certain, however, that if
'Teproach and censure should fall upon any, it
ought not TO rest on The Executive depart
ment of the Federal Government"
In further illustration Of this matter, we an
mex the following letters from Mr.. Huron,
the District Attorney, and Mr.. BESJAMIS, the
counsel associated with him in the trials:
lfr. Hunton 10 he Secretary of State
OFricE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
NEv ORLghss, December 20, 1850.
Sra: have the honor to inform you that at the
prccnt term Of he circuit court the United state
for this district, on the calling Of the of United
States against Naroisso Lopez, nm indictment under
the act both prl 1915 tho defendant by HE
sel moved for postponement of the trial account
Of the absence Of the presiding judge, in Wash.
ington.
opposed the postponement, but the district
Judge holding tho nit court declined to try the
in the absence of Judge Mckinley; and, al
though the is not formally continued till the
next term, there will be trial unless n Judge of
the Supreme Court shall be in attendance shortly
Of which there seems TO be probability.
The case of United States rs. John Henderson
will be tried; he did not ask for a continuance
am, cir, very respectfully,
(Signed) LOGAN HUNTON,
United States Attorney.
Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, Secretary Of State.