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

renee, anu the pronounoing OF tho sentence. -FOUR
Exoellency may entertain the contrary opinion; and
fyour Exocllency is right, you do not err in stating
that the trial was witnessed by tho Consul OF
the United States, and by an immense concourse OF
people. But you 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, should have been
present.
As to the "unanmous Witness &C., all of those
that wero present whom have seen, including the
Consul of the United States, assured mo directly
the reverse of your Excelency's statement.
In regard to the freedom of my defence. your
Excellency seems to forget one small fact; allow
me to recall it to your mind:-On tho 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 Excellency, and for
regretted the mistako"-"it should have been d.
rected to the President of the Military Commission"
Your Excelency 8 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, d.
rectcd 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 "coud not admit it," &c. This, also, was
returned to mo- 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 for
me, and as particular favor" the one 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 the
determination of that to gentlemen practised in tho
labOrs Of the bar; merely romarking that but
twenty-four hours were allowed to examine 1876
(fI mistake not) closely written fSolscap pages of
testimony, taken ca porte, and to prepare its
"amplitude."
In regard to tho "mildness of the punishment
1or;n ha nj TN Of hiQ Crim
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 q
Spanish prison, was not particularly mild.
Your Excollency states IL is true, that by this
very article" 9th, Treaty 1889, 'the parties in
torestcd are allowed to employ such advocates, So
lictors, nOtaries, agents. or factors, as they may
judge proper and it may DO that Mr.. Thrasher has
inferred from those words that no had right to
lect an advocate. But who is there SO ignorant as
not know that these words have reference to such
matters suits ut law in which such functionares
required by the established course OF proceed
ing. But, when the course of proceeding
usually pursued in such cases forbds tho interven-
tion of advocates, attorneys and noares-and it is
the with the military commission in regard to
tho crime Of conspiracy over which it has jursdic-
tionthore selection, and right to that effect
can possibly exist. The forms Of proceeding in
this court do indeed, require the intervention of an
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 an ac-
cused are at stake with much more reason should
he have the necessary protection of legal adviser.
Allow me to assure your Excellency that | cannot
appreciate the spirit of a government that denies
this right to an accused ] avail myself OF your
Excellency's permission and frankly say | do not,
under the circumstances, consider that was per-
fectly free in the selection of a 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 fscals signcrs OF that
opinion, Olafeta and Olivares (he first so violently
my personal enemy that he gave to your Excel
lency's predecessor, the Count Acoy, his written
opinion that ought not to be allowed even to
sleep in n printing office" the second one Of the
propretors Of my antagonistic journal (he Dia,7o
dc la Narina), precudes the necessity OF its con-
sideraton.
Your Excelency States The Military Com
mission has tried Mr.. Thrasher for the crime Of con-
spracy against the State" and again, Mr Thrasher
stood accused Of conspiracy and further, 6 having
been tried and sentenced as a conspirator
Perhaps your Exccllency has not read the pro-
ceedings in my case, and the mistake may, there
FORE be not your Excellency's but that of your in
former. l can assure your Excellency that no such
charge, vague it is, appears therein and II there
is any such against me, have yet to be arraigned
upon it.
say he cannot be charged with treason!'
Your Exceency will excuse me from saying can
rot be charged with treason Your Excelency, or 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 can indvi-
dual who has been for a long time branded by pub
lie opinion the instigator and promoter of con
spraces for the purpose OF overthrowing the order
Al fn. hatn MI will n
that aro disafeced 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 Substantiatc my
previous argument.
The treaty of 1875, between the governments Of
the United States and Spain, in its seventh article,
expressly stipulates-s And in all cases Of seizure,
detention 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
jecfs of both parties shall be allowed to employ
such advocates solicitors noaries, agents, and fac
tors they may judge proper in all their affairs,
and in all their trials ut 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 Mt the taking
of all examinations and evidence, which may be
exhibited in said trials"
Several DECISIONS nave Iniue III tHe couTts VI
the United States to the obligation and con-
structon of treaties, among which submit to your
Exccllency 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 litigating 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, 1903; Cond. Rep, 256.
A treaty is, in it, nature, a contract between
two nations not legislative act II does not ge-
morally effect of itself the object to be accomplished
especially so far as its operation is mira terrtora
but it is carried into execution by the sovereign
power of the respective parties to che instrument"
Foster, ct. al, VS.. Nelson; Peters, ia; U,
States VS.. Arredondo, d Peters, 735.
"By the stipulations of n treaty are to be under
stood its language and apparent intention mani
tested in the instrument, with a reference TO the
contracting parties the subject matter. and the per-
sons on whom it is to operate. Limited States VS.