The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-05-18

trial to be hurried reading Of the process and de-
fence, and the pronounoing Of tho sentence. Your
Exeellency may entertain the contrary opinion; and
your Exocllency is right you do not in stating
that the "trial' was Witnessed by the Consul OF
the United States, and by an immense concourse OF
people But You are in manifest error in stating that
was present Twas brought into court after the
process and the defence had boon read. although !
am assured by eminent counsel, that, to confer
legality upon the proceedings, should have been
present.
As to the Unanimous Witness" &c., all Of those
that wcro present whom have seen, including the
Consul of the United States assured mo directly
the reverse Of your Excollency's statement.
In regard to the freedom of my defence. your
Excellency seems to forget small fact; allow
me to recall it to your mind-On the afternoon OF
the day previous to my being brought up for SEN
tenoe, drew up, in my dungeon, protest against
my being sentenced without being allowed de-
fence. This directed to your Excollency, and for
warded it through the Consul; Your Excellency
regretted the mistake"-sit should have been d.
rected to the President of the Military Commission"
Your Excellency g could not interfere with the at
tributes Of the tribunal and must decline to receive
it, IT was, accordingly, returned to me. Simulta-
neously sent copy by another gentleman, di-
rected to the President Of the Military Commission.
He, also, regretted the error"-''it was attri-
butte of the Captain General, who only could
it," he "could not admit it," &C. This ALSO was
returned to mo- In the dilemma which naturally
ensued, when next day appeared in court with
the President that "purey from consideration for
me, and as a particular favor" the addressed
to the Court would be admitted and attached to the
process. Therefore, my solemn protest against
utter deprivation of defence exists upon record.
AS to the amplitude Of Defence" leave tho
determination Of that to gentlemen practised in tho
labOrs Of the bar; merely romarking that but
twenty-four hours were allowed to examine 1856
(if mistake no) closely written fsolscap pages Of
testimony. taken ca pd~te, and to prepare its
"ampitude."
In regard to tho "mildness Of the punishment
imposed considering the nature of his crime," your
Excellency will allow me to remark, That consider
ing no crime whatever was proved upon mo, the
punishment of "eght years labor, in chains, in .
Spanish prison, was not particularly ''mild."
Your Excollency states 1t is true, that by this
very article" 9th, Treaty 1889, 'the parties in
toYested are allowed to employ such advocates,
lictors, notaries, agents, factors, as they may
Judge proper, and it may DO that Mr.. Thrasher has
inferred from those words that he had right to So
lect an advocate. But who is there SO Ignorant as
not to know that these words have reference to such
matters or suits at law in which such functionares
are required by the established course of proceed
ing. But, when the course of proceeding
usually pursued in such cases forbids the interven-
ton OF advocates attorneys and notares-and 1t Is
tho case with the military commission in regard to
tho crime of conspiracy over which it has jursdic-
tionthore selection, and no right to that effect
can possibly exist The forms of proceeding in
this court do, indeed, require the Intervention of m
officer to conduct the defence; the accused has
right to select one; and let Mr. Thrasher say
whether, in the exercise Of this right, he was not
perfectly free"
Undoubtedly, did infer, from the words Of the
treaty, that had right to select an advocate.
And it would seem to me that in cases where not
only the fortune, but the life and honor of ac-
cused are at stake with much more reason should
he have the necessary protection of legal adviser.
Allow me to assure your Excelency that | cannot
appreciate the spirit of government that denies
riU IN an | mVSnIf
Excellency's permission, and frankly say do not,
under the circumstances, consider that was per-
fectly free in the selection of defender.
The "written opinion of the Royal Court Of Judi
cature" hold in all the respect it merits. The two
well known characters of the scals, signcrs OF that
opinion, Olaheta and Ovares (the first so violently
my personal enemy that he gave to your Excel
lency's predecessor, the Count Alcoy, his written
opinion that l ought not to be allowed even to
sleep in a printing office" the second one of the
proprietors Of my antagonistic journal (the Dia7o
dc la Marina), precludes the necessity OF its con-
sderatOn.
mission has tried Mr.. Thrasher for the crime Of con-
spiracy against the State; again, 'Mr Thrasher
stood accused of conspiracy" and further, having
been tried and sentenced as n cOnsprator.
Perhaps your Excellency has not read the pro-
ceedings in my case, and the mistake may, there
fore, be not your Excelencys, but that of your in
former l can assure your Excellency that no such
charge vague it is, appears therein, and If there
is any such against me, have yet to be arraigned
upon it.
Your Exccllency asks-"Will Mr.. Thrasher still
say he cannot be charged with treason!'
Your Excellency will excuse me from saying can
not be charged with treason Your Excelency, any
one, can charge any man with treason. But can
most truthfuly say that neither the proofs, nor my
own conscience have ever yet convicted me oftrea-
son.
For the very important character of San indvi-
dual who has been for long time branded by pub
lie opinion MS the instgator and promoter OF con-
spracies, for the purpose OF overthrowng the order
of things and for being connected with all those
that aro disaffected toward the government" which
your Excellency is pleased to confer upon in the
last paragraph of your communication, tender
you, and beg you to accept my most unfeigned
thanks. ] will now proceed to substantiate my
previous argument.
The treaty of 1895, between the governments Of
the United States and Spain, in its seventh article,
expressly stpulates-' And in all cases of seizure,
detenton or arrests for debts contracted or offences
committed by any citizen, subject, of one party,
within the jurisdiction of the other the same shall
be made and prosecuted by order and authority Of
law only, and according to the regular course
Of proceeding in such cases The citizens and sub
iects Of both parties shall be allowed to employ
such advocates, solicitors notares agents. and fac
tors they may judge proper in all their affairs.
and in all their trials at law, in which they may be
concerned, before the tribunals of the other party
And such agents shall have free to be present
at the proceedings in such causes, and at the taking
of all examinations and evidence, which may be
exhibited in said trials"
Several decisions have been made in the courts Of
the United States as to the obligation and con-
struction of treaties, among which submit to your
Exceency the following
'sThe obligation of treaty, the supreme law of
the land, must be admitted The execution of the
contract between the two nations is to be demanded
from the Executive of each nation, but where
treaty affects the rights of parties litgating in
court the treaty as much binds the rights, and is
as much regarded by the Supreme Court, as an act
of Congress Limited States VS.. schr Peggy,
Cranch, 1863; Cond. Rep, 256
- A treaty is, in it, nature, contract between
two nations, not legislative act. II does not ge-
nerally effect of itself the object to be accomplished
especially far its operation is mira territora
bur it is carried into execution by the sovereign
power of the respective parties to the instrument"
Foster, ct. al, VS.. Nelson; 2 Peters, 2l4; U.
States vs.. Aredondo d Peters, 73.
"By the stipuations of treaty are to be UNDER
stood its language and apparent intention mani
tested in the instrument, with reference 70 the
contracting parties, the subject matter and the per-
sons on whom il is to operate. Limited States VS.