Sanguily's handwriting, but declared that they could not supply the words wanting in the last-mentioned document to give it the intended meaning. These are the letters upon which the prosecution principally rests its charges against Sanguily as guilty of conspiracy and rebellion. After another short recess, the president of the court, in examination of the accused, asked him if the letter dated February 14 was written by him, which he denied, and there appearing to be a contradiction, as in a previous examination he had identified the letter as his, the experts were recalled to examine this letter also, which they declared to have been written by Sanguily. The officers who arrested Sanguily and Azcuy were next interrogated. Upon his arrest Azcuy endeavored to chew up a document found concealed in his cravat, which it was claimed was the appointment of colonel made out to him and signed by Sanguily. Both officers testified that there had not been, previous to his arrest, any orders to watch Sanguily. The negro woman who had care of Sanguily's room at the estate Portela was then examined. It was here that the incriminating letter alleged to have been written by Sanguily is said to have been found, upon the sale of some old furniture taken from the room he frequently occupied. Azcuy's examination, which followed, was to get him to acknowledge where he obtained the document he concealed in his cravat. Upon calling for the witness Antonio Lopez Coloma, who was executed a few days ago, a laugh was raised, which the president promptly stopped. The former declaration of this witness was then read, and the defense noted a protest against this proceeding. Court adjourned. Upon beginning the session of the second day, the fiscal, or prosecu ting officer, moved to declare the nullity of the expert testimony of the previous session on the ground that, as the appointment of new experts in place of two that died had not been communicated to the defense in time to permit a challenge within three days as required by law, this want of form might affect the validity of said testimony. The defense declared that it had had ample notice of the appointment of experts, and accepted their report, and waived making any objection, but as the prosecution insisted on this point, the court took a recess to deliberate. Upon again resuming, it declared the expert testimony valid. The prosecution, however, made a protest against this ruling. The declaration of the pawnbroker, where Sanguily had pawned his machete and revolver, was then read, this witness being too ill to attend. The fiscal then summed up against the accused, maintaining that he was one of the most active promoters of the present rebellion, initiated on February 24, 1895, and the leader designated by the revolutionary junta of New York, to head the movement; that as such he issued commissions, among them one of colonel to José Ynocencio Azcuy, who was arrested, and the document being found concealed in the knot of his cravat, he endeavored to swallow it; that the fragments appear in the proceedings and have been declared by experts to be in the handwriting of the prisoner. The fiscal laid special stress upon the testimony of the accused, who had stated, when interrogated by the court, that he had not accepted the convention of Zanjon, of 1878, but had gone abroad to the United States, whence he did not return until 1879, and then as a citizen of the United States, and bitterly censured him for his acts of renouncing his nationality, of accepting the citizenship of another country, even of such a country as the United States-and here the fiscal took occasion to pronounce a decided eulogium of the United States-of that friendly and powerful nation that feels bound in dignity to protect its adopted citizens who had privileges here that even those who had not ceased to be Spaniards did not enjoy, and of again returning to the land of his birthplace, of his forefathers, and of his wife and son, to resume his residence, and forgetful of the duties imposed on him as a foreign citizen, to remain neutral, to conspire to head a revolutionary movement, issuing commissions, and executing preparatory acts of rebellion such as recruiting men and acquiring arms and ammunition. That in his opinion the proofs were positive, and that he therefore demanded the penalty of chains for life. Counsel for the defense then commenced his argument, but on account of the late hour the court adjourned. The session of the third and last day of the trial was taken up in lis tening to the plea for the defense. In this the counsel declared that the trustworthy private advices of Governor-General Calleja, who stated that Julio Sanguily and José Maria Aguirre were the principal promoters of an armed rebellion, had not been proven in the trial. General Calleja had stated that Sanguily and Aguirre had been designated to put themselves at the head of the insurrection in the provinces of Habana, Matanzas, and Santa Clara; that they had direct relations with the revolutionary committees abroad and were delegates of the Cuban junta of New York; that they recruited men and acquired arms and ammunition to make war against the mother country, and this was confirmed by their conduct, closely watched by the police; that neither the statement of the chief of police of that date nor that of his subordinate officers have confirmed that allegation that Sanguily was under police surveillance; that they have declared they never received any orders to that effect and had no further antecedents against Julio Sanguily than those of his participation in the last revolution. That on the day the present insurrection broke out Sanguily, Aguirre, Perez Trujillo, and Gomez de la Maza were arrested. All of them, with the exception of Sanguily, were released after a few days. The private advices of General Calleja, whose existence in the offices of the General Government and of the captaincy-general had been denied by Gen. Martinez Campos in two official communications, which appear in the proceedings, this secret information served as the only basis for the arrest of Sanguily, Perez Trujillo, Aguirre, and Gomez de la Maza, and ought not to have any influence in this process, because the facts have not been proved, and with respect to the others named have had no effect whatever. Where appear the relations that Sanguily is said to have had with theinsurgents, and especially with those of Matanzas, and where appears the acquisition by Sanguily of the war material referred to by the prosecution? And the defense refers to a communication from the governor of Matanzas to the effect that the existence of any such committee in Matanzas had not been proved, and that in the proceedings against Juan Gualberto, Gomez, and others, for the acquisition of munitions of war, there appeared no charge against Sanguily. Moreover, the statement of Lopez Coloma, after all, is not altogether against Sanguily, for that which he made before the military jurisdic tion relating to the manner of his capture contained nothing positive against Sanguily; however, he was obliged to declare that Coloma's testimony read before the court was null and void, for he had been executed, and said nullity was founded on strict principles of the law of criminal procedure. That with respect to the expert testimony, although the experts were disposed to declare all the letters to be in the handwriting of Sanguily, yet they did not confirm anything in respect to the principal point of the colonel's commission seized upon Azcuy, and were unable to supply the words missing therein to give it sense; and even if Sanguily had issued said commission, there had been no proof presented that he was authorized, nor any proof whatever by the police or the Government that Sanguily had been designated as a leader of the rebellion; and further, that upon this point Juan Gualberto Gomez had declared that he was the only delegate of the junta, and no leader had been designated for the movement. The counsel of the defense concluded by declaring that against Sanguily there were only his antecedents as a leader in the last insurrection, hypotheses, presumptions, suspicions, which, when taken into account that it was a question of a serious penalty, should have no weight upon the mind of the court. He therefore demanded the acquittal of his client, and finished his plea with thanks and grateful compli ments to the fiscal and judges for their patient hearing. Upon being asked if he had aught to say, Sanguily said: "Not a word, absolutely." The trial was declared to be over, and the court rose. be delayed five days. Sentence may I am, etc., JOSEPH A. SPRINGER, Vice-Consul-General. No. 275.] Mr. Lee to Mr. Rockhill. UNITED STATES CONSULATE GENERAL, Habana, December 30, 1896. (Received January 2, 1897.) SIR: With reference to the trial of Julio Sanguily, reported by Mr. Springer in dispatch No. 271, of the 24th instant, I have to confirm my telegram of the 28th instant, as follows: Assistant Secretary of State, Washington: Sanguily sentenced life imprisonment. Appeal to be taken. I am, etc., LEE. FITZHUGH LEE, Consul-General. No. 283.] Mr. Lee to Mr. Rockhill. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Habana, December 31, 1896. (Received January 6, 1897.) SIR: Yesterday noon I visited the Cabaña fort and had a talk with Mr. Julio Sanguily, an American citizen, and formerly a general in the insurgent army. As you know, he was arrested in his house while taking a bath on the 24th February, 1895. Sanguily had proved himself a very brave and efficient officer in the Cuban war from 1868 to 1878, and had been wounded seven times. It was therefore naturally supposed that sooner or later he would have joined the insurgent side of the war now in progress in this island. He had, so far as I am informed, committed no overt act in that direction, and was taken without arms in hand. On the 28th of November, 1895, or, say, nine months and four days after he was arrested and thrown into a cell at the Cabaña fort, he was tried and sentenced to be imprisoned for life. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of justice at Madrid, which decreed, upon some technical ground, that Sanguily should be retried. On the 21st of December, 1896, his second trial commenced, and ended by his being again sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. From this second sentence an appeal has been taken which, whether successful or not, will greatly lengthen the time he has already passed in his cell. The lawyer who defended this prisoner in his first trial now looks from the bar of a cell adjoining his in the Cabaña fort, and I am informed that the lawyer who managed his appeal before the Madrid court has suffered in consequence thereof, so that it may be difficult to procure in Madrid another person versed in the law who will consent to manage for Sanguily the appeal proceedings. Only a few days after the arrest of Sanguily a proclamation was issued offering amnesty to all persons in arms who would give themselves up. It seems that this ought to apply to persons who had been arrested without arms in hand. Two other Cuban officers of distinction-Ramon Perez Trujillo and José Maria Timoteo Aguirre-were arrested, I am told, at the same time as Sanguily and for the same reason, namely, because it was thought that they would engage in the war. After a short incarceration they were liberated. In view of all these facts, and for the additional reason that Sanguily has been in a cell twenty-three months to date, is not in good health, and is suffering from old wounds, I respectfully suggest that the Department bring these facts to the notice of the Madrid Government and ask that instructions be issued that he be released from prison on the condition that he will leave this island and not return until the present war has terminated. I am, sir, etc., FITZHUGH LEE, Consul-General. No. 317.] Mr. Lee to Mr. Olney.1 UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Habana, January 22, 1897. (Received January 27.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith two papers signed by Julio Sanguily, one in Spanish and the other in English. I would suggest that the papers inclosed be not used until I telegraph to that effect. I am, etc., FITZHUGH LEE. [Inclosure in No. 317.] Affirmation of Julio Sanguily. I, Julio Sanguily, an American citizen confined at the Cabaña fortress, Havana, do hereby sacredly affirm to the United States and to Spain that if I am released by pardon of the latter Government I will leave and remain away from Cuba, and will not aid directly or indirectly the present insurrection against the Government of Spain, and I hereby promise that should I do so at any time I will not claim the protection of the United States Government. I certify that this pledge is given of my ow n free will and without compulsion on the part of anyone. Fortress Cabaña, Havana, January 21, 1897. Witnesses: JULIO SANGUILY. ERNESTO LA FOSCA. Mr. Lee to Mr. Olney. [Telegram.] HABANA, January 28, 1897. Sanguily signed personal pledge to me that he will faithfully observe terms already mailed. Recommend case be considered on said terms. LEE. Mr. Olney to Mr. Lee. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 23, 1897. Inform Julio Sanguily and his counsel that in order to perfect issuance of pardon, appeal should be withdrawn and notice of withdrawal at once given here and in Madrid. OLNEY. Mr. Lee to Mr. Olney. [Telegram.] HABANA, February 24, 1897. Have absolute withdrawal of appeal Sanguily's case. Can so cable Madrid. It is understood, of course, if not pardoned appeal be again taken, as withdrawal leaves original sentence in full force. LEE. No. 376.] Mr. Lee to Mr. Rockhill. UNITED STATES CONSULATE-GENERAL, Habana, March 1, 1897. (Received March 6.) SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith copy translation of a communication from the Acting Governor-General informing me that the Queen Regent had commuted the penalty of perpetual imprisonment and civil interdiction, imposed on Mr. Julio Sanguily by the superior court of Habana, to that of perpetual exile and its accessories. Mr. Sanguily left for the United States by the steamship Mascotte on the 27th ultimo. I am, etc., FITZHUGH LEE. |