Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1896-05-14
NO OFFICIAL REPORT.
State Department Has Not Received
News of the Sentence.

State Department Has Not Received
News of the Sentence.
Washington, D. c., May 9.-NO infor-
nation is to be had from official sources
in Washington today respecting the Com
petitor case in any aspect, either as the
results of the court martial or as to the
course our government will follow in the
future. Nevertheless, it is generally I'M
derstood that the court-martial found the
prisoners one and all guilty and imposed
the death sentence upon them, subject
to Admiral Navarro's approval This,
however, does not necessarily mean that
there is to be speedy action in the execu-
ton of the sentence, or even that hope
for the convicted men must be aban-
doned.
Under the Spanish military code, as in
the case Of our own military law, all
capital sentences are renewable by SUI
perior authority. The impression pre-
walls in well-informed quarters that the
proceedings of the courI-martial must be
submitted either in the first instance or
eventually to the council of ministers at
Madrid and while this may be done by
the free use of the cable, several days
will be required to complete the action
in the case.
Meanwhile the state department is in
close connection by cable with United
vana and under instructions he will lose
no opportunity to aid the prisoners in
all proper ways. Indeed, it appears, that
he has already been energetically pro-
testing and making representations i'll
the interest of the Americans captured.
He has raised some points that although
dismissed by court-martial at Havana
as applicable are likely to be made the
subject of the immediate Representations
by the state department to the Madris
authorities. Our department is not dis
posed to accept as final, by any means,
tial to the celebrated Gushing protocol
upon which depends the safety of so
many American citizens in Cuba.
AS gathered from the newspaper re-
ports of yesterdays trial the Spanish
authorities in answer to Mr.. Williams
demand that the Americans under ar
rest be granted the privileges assured
by that protocol held that the protocol
did not include persons captured under
such conditions as were these, but APP
plies only to American citizens resident
in Cuba. 1t is true that this is the lit
eral wording of the protocol, but it is
held here that this construction is ex-
tremely technical and narrow and it will
not be accepted without remons.rance
by our government.
The Competitor case is also compli-
Gated byta wide variance between Span
lsh law and our own respecting the def
milton of piracy and this becomes of
great moment when it is realized that
in the present case the captives are ac-
cused. in addition to treason, of being
pirates. Under our law, or under Brit
ISL law. such a charge would not annIy
to .heir case. but it appears that the
Latin code recognizes what is called
municipal piracy meaning offenses
COMMITTED against the laws of country
from p base within the waters over
which municipal jurisdiction extends,
against the Competitors men. Alto
gether the case promises to present .fea-
lures Of novelty making it extremely diff
ficult TO deal with legally and perhaps
to call for it some strong expressions of
opinion from both sides before it is final
~ disposed of satisfactorily.