The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-05-12

srzns.b Authorities a-e ha-rere1 ny tAe
irritating rae-s9lias os America e euoaa
awzzrs"
II . understood TIE United States gov-
esunert has yrees1fsd fresh caaans AeI
heavy indemnity Through Iesses On sugar
rlsrfxs,ons ssloux.ng 20 Amere0s. earn-
ed s.y snsurR~rss II h expecfec that these
demands VIII lead 20 further cornpsicatsoas-
The frnrarrsai. referring eG4toraally %
Tire strained reixtoaa bessesn .es Jaisea
States and Span. Rays The United ssa-ee
intends 20 wear cut TIRE patience OF span
or themselves and declare war. II is pref
erzbie to hasten the event. as the tnfesfof-
i,y OF Spain viii Increase with tine
washington City. May fi-In the Com
petitor case il can he authcrs,atively stat
ed thzf nj the request Of the Unafed States
the Spanish government win postpone the
execution Of tire Death sentences upon
Americans ci.rxens until the views of tie
Ureed States respecting the application 20
their cases OF the treaty Of IT'S ard the
protocol Of IsT7 can he considered. The an
noancsment OF yo4ponemens OF the execu-
tion means q delay OF come weeks. The
matter VIII be taken up by the diplomatic
representatives of the United States and
SPAN and be naie the subject Of an ex-
change of correspondence on the inter
probation to be given 70 the treaty provi-
sions Meanwhile the effect viii be to al
lay popular excitenent both here and in
Spain.
The action Of the state department In
Insisting upon a retriai at least OF The
American prlsorsrx " evidently in answer
to the contention Of the court martial that
the Gushing protocol Of is77 did not apply
10 the present case. The cour: held that
1. applied only to American citizens resi-
dent In Spain or the Spanish dcminions.
and. as the captiyes from the Comped-
tor were not In any sense residents OF
Cuba. decided that thsy couli no; claim
any of the privileges accorded by ihe
protocol. In the opinion Of the state de-
partment this was an extremely narrow
construction to place upon the protocol.
but. while not accepting this construc-
tion. the department guarded against an
adverse decision on the protocol by recnr-
ring to the ancient treaty OF f7B. on the
ground that n the prisoners' case was
not covered by the protocol. they certain
iy could invoke the measure OF protection
afforded by the earlier treaty. While
this treaty is not by any means generous
in the matter of PRIVILEGES held out to
American prisoners. " stili contains some
guarantees OF great value to them In just
such cases as that which has now arisen.
Tho section of the treaty applying 70
the case. In the judgment Of the state de-
parfment. Is article 8. which reads
-
subjects and citizens of each OF the con-
tracing parties. their vessels or effects.
shall not be liable to any embargo or
detention on the part Of the other. for any
military expedition for any public or pri-
yate purpose whatever. and in all cases
OF seizure. detention or arrest for debts
contracted or offenses committed by any
citizens of the one party within the juris-
dictlon of the othsr. the same shall bs
made and prosecuted by order and au-
thority of law oniy and according TO the
regular course of proceedings usual in
such cases. The citizens and subjects OF
both parties shall be allowed TO employ
such advocates. solicitors and notarles.
agents and factors as they may judge
proper. in all their affairs and In ali their
trials at law. In which they may be con-
cerned before the tribunals OF the other
party. and such agents shall have free
access TO be present at the proceedings
at such cases and al the taking OF all ex-
aminaiions and evidence which may be
exhibited In said trials
The contention OF the state department
Is that Irrespective Of the Gushing proto-
col OF ls77 this treaty g.ves the American
prisoners certain privileges that were with
held from them by tbs Spanish court-mar-
tial. Notably. they were obliged to rest
their defense in the hands of Spanish
officer detailed for the purpose and In all
probability not particularly anxious to
clear his clients. and were prevented from
selecting their own counsel as guaranteed
by the treaty. Also. It is said. the pris-
oners were not accorded an opportunity to
procure testimony in their own behalf.
This Is one of the privileges inseparable
from lawful and regular conduc; OF the
prosecution. Altogether the indications are
that the \atc department Is preparing to
make a strong legal eefSise against the ex-
ecution Of the death penalty In The case Of
the American prisoners.