S. as to be adopted, in order of the United States; that ourse, be deceived by this w with indifference these rnment, considering it, as hat the Island must in no or under the protection of Spain." ary of State, in 1829, ster to Spain, alluded nd France with refer5. With reference to to the United States, ited States has always upon the fate of those ts geographical position, our southern shores, and, f the Gulf of Mexico and apacious harbors, its rich ich, for our surplus agris, constitutes one of the hes of our foreign trade, e in its condition which al and commercial standerations, connected with make it the interest of that no attempt should the yoke of Spanish dewould be the sudden e population, the result sibly felt upon the adja of State, in his disews of his predecesto be on the look-out d on Cuba, of which ised. Mr. Webster, f State, to our Min Acquisition of Cuba-Mr. Howard. Hence if the use of the Havana be even at the disposal of an enemy while in the hands of a neutral Power, each and all of these interests could be with difficulty defended, even by a superior naval force, and never guarantied against severe losses. While from it, as a United States port, a squadron of moderate size would cover the southeast and Gulf coasts, protect the foreign and inshore traders, and secure the lines from New Orleans or New York to the Pacific States by way of the Isthmus-its occupation would necessarily be the object of every expedition, military or naval, preliminary to any attempt on the southern trade or territory." The rule of international law for which I am contending, is thus stated by Mr. Wheaton: "Of the absolute international rights of States, one of the most essential and important, and that which lies at the foundation of all the rest, is the right of self-preservation. It is not only a right with respect to other States, but a duty with respect to its own members, and the most solemn and important which the State owes to them. This right necessarily involves all other incidental rights which are essential as means to give effect to the principal end." The European Powers are estopped from deny ce to the United States, ing the application of this doctrine in its fullest extent, by having repeatedly acted upon it. By the treaty of Utrecht the French Government was compelled to demolish the fortifications at Dunkirk, because dangerous to others. By the treaty of Paris of 1815, France was compelled to demolish the fortifications of Huningen, and agree never to renew them, because dangerous to Basle. The doctrine of self-defense and self-preservation was the alleged justification of the combination of the Protestant Powers against Louis XIV., and for all the coalitions formed by the allied Powers against France, and more recently for the Congress of Troppau and Laybach, in relation to the Neapolitan revolution in 1820; for the Congress of Verona in relation to the affairs of Spain, and one of the grounds for British interference in the affairs of Portugal in 1826; for the interference of the Christian Powers in favor of Greece, principally on the ground that the contest encouraged piracies, and interfered with commerce; for the interference of Austria, Great Britain, and Russia, in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire in 1840. I do not mention these instances with approbation, but to show the existence of the right in a proper case, and that neither England, France, nor Spain, can complain of its exercise. England has seized possession after possession in India, on the ground that each instance was necessary to the preservation of her other possessions in that country. will show you that the -n the Island of Cuba by eans new, and you will such a project has not Government." oster communicated tents of a communifrom a "highly reved designs of Eng makes statements -itish Ministry and bout a revolution in ack_military repubHe remarks, says should succeed, the rter, it is remarked, nillions of blacks in usand in her West aid, strike a death States. Intrenched osts as impregnable o close the two en-, and even prevent erce of the United s, and through the ugh Mr. Webster ndorses nor rejects by him as to show ession on his own orrespondence, that ernment that Cuba out_coming under the Island is not in n independent govgerous to our comnal safety. Since ense Pacific comes within sight of er of the Navy, Dort on the subject an opinion, which ll the fortifications cannot protect our ico, with Cuba in ernment. Indeed, us, than Gibraltar To the defense of these there collected, is the ngs enters its western * The right of a government to take all necessary measures for its safety and self-defense consistent with reason and justice to other Powers, is stated more strongly by European writers than by our own. Vattel asserts that "since, then, every nation is obliged to preserve itself, it has a right to everything necessary to its preservation. "A nation or State has a right to everything that can help to ward off imminent danger, and keep at a distance whatever is capable of causing its ruin; and that from the very same reasons that establish its rights to the things necessary to its preservation. Cuba is even now in a transition state. It cannot continue long in its present condition. Revolts will continually occur there, for the seeds of liberty have been sown in that devoted Island. The people will be restive under the onerous and oppressive exactions of Spain. With the present commercial policy of that country, the revenues collected from the Island will not pay the army and navy necessary to keep the people in subjection. It is not, therefore, in my opinion, possible for the Island to long remain a dependency of Spain, and we can never with safety permit it to pass out of her dominion without becoming a portion of the United States. Cuba requires our utmost vigilance. The effort of England and France to induce us into a treaty in relation to the Island; the fact that those Powers combined to place fleets there under pretense of guarding its coast; the fact that England has assumed to erect a colony on the islands off the coast of Central America, and has now a considerable fleet in the Gulf and off the coast of Cuba, under the pretense of arresting the slave trade, all demand our vigilance, and preparation for any emergency. There is no doubt that, since the discovery of gold in Asiatic possessions. Ho. OF REPS. We have been made to feel her power and weight in Mexico, in connection with the Tehuantepec route. I dissent altogether from the position of the President that it would be inexpedient for us to acquire Cuba, if Spain consents to our acquiring it by treaty or purchase. I hold that it is our highest national interest to become the possessor of that Island as soon as we can by cession from Spain. I cannot see the danger of sectional agitation from its acquisition which is anticipated by the President. There are ten men in the United States now in favor of acquiring Cuba, where there was one in favor of the annexation of Texas at the time of the Tyler treaty. The commercial class of the North generally are in favor of the measure as soon as it can be honorably accomplished. It is obvious that the northern States would be largely benefited by it in a commercial point of view. It is, in my opinion, a great mistake to suppose the acquisition of Cuba would give rise to any fresh agitation of the slavery question. If the Island were in our possession, we should effectually suppress the slave trade, and to that extent, its transfer to us would not only diminish slavery, but arrest a traffic which results in an annual loss of the lives of colored persons, nearly, if not quite equal in number, to those reduced into slavery by the trade. If Cuba were converted into a black republic, it would soon become a mere harbor for pirates, and the northern States would be the first to cry for the acquisition of the country. There is no danger that the North would risk the consequences of rejecting Cuba. They have too much interest in the preservation of the Union; far more than the South. Their whole commercial and manufacturing prosperity rests upon it. We have passed that crisis for the present century. Neither is there any danger from the character of the population in Cuba. With the aid of the thousands which would flock there from every portion of the United States, they would have no difficulty in working our system. The admission of a free press, and the Protestant religion, would work wonders in the Island in a short time. I will proceed now to the course of the Administration, which was the subject of the remarks of the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] the other day, touching the treatment which the prisoners taken in the Lopez expedition received by the Spanish authorities of the Island. I repeat, that I am not a defender of the Lopez expedition, nor of any similar adventurers. But there are many things to be said in extenuation of that unfortunate occurrence. Cuba is, no doubt, oppressed by one of the worst governments on earth. It is more arbitrary than that of the Czar, and less humane because it is governed by officers from Old Spain, whose object is to amass wealth by oppressing the people by burdensome and onerous exactions. General Lopez, an ardent lover of liberty, was inspired with the ambition of freeing his country from this intolerable despotism. He pursued his high purpose with an energy, perseverance and courage, worthy of a better fate. He missed the fame and renown of one of the liberators of the age, only because his efforts were unfortunate. While the leader of a revolution is canonized by success, the unfortunate conspirator is covered with obloquy, and his name shrouded in disgrace. Narciso Lopez perished ignominiously by the garote, but his blood watered a soil that will yet bear the fruits of liberty, and a monument to his memory will hereafter be erected over the spot where he fell, by the hands of freemen. Every revolution generally has a victim before success. It has been the policy of the authorities of Cuba to represent that the Creoles of the Island did not sympathize with the movement of Lopez. But the reverse is well known; an extensive revolt was at one time planned and organized. That is proved by the multitude of arrests and banishments, by the fact that all the prisons in the Island were crowded to overflowing. After the failure of the first expedition this organization was, to a great extent, broken up. A reorganization took place just before the second expedition of Lopez, and at one place, at least, a declaration of inde Acquisition of Cuba-Mr. Howard. Lopez was easily could not be punished as pirates, remarking that de the victim of murder and robbery were grave offenses, but not of Cuba. It is piracy. When the State of New York arrested rs written at the McLeod for his expedition into that State, and ing him he had the destruction of the Caroline, he was not tried followers, and for piracy, but, as homicide had been committed, en masse to his he was tried for murder, and given a regular trial , no doubt, that in all the forms of law. It is true, that Judge I an expedition. Cowan, in passing upon the case, cited those aumen and a few thorities which allege that persons engaged in these bt that the enter-expeditions might be treated as robbers and pirates. uccessful. But These citations were not long since published in made a descent one of the papers in this city; but the learned New g in the vicinity York Judge did not rely on them as authority in that all was lost, point. And when examined, it will be found that h they believed all they intend to assert is, that if the offender e Spanish forces commits robbery, he may be punished as a robber; and if piracy, as a pirate. He is not entitled to the benefit of the laws of war, a position which will readily be conceded. I do not say that the Spanish officers were bound to admit these men to quarter, if they had been taken in conflict with arms in their hands; but having given quarter, having received them as prisoners, they were entitled to the rights of American citizens. The fifty men under Crittenden, who were taken and shot, had not arms in their hands when they were captured. They were endeavoring to make their escape from the Island in two boats, as I have been informed by good authority. The men were in one boat, and the arms in another, which probably accounts for their surrender. As American citizens, then, guilty, not of piracy, but of an offense against the neutrality laws of this country, and at most a conspiracy against Spain, they were ntitled to a trial. I concede that, as foreigners, they might commit treason against Spain, although that has been denied; but I think the affirmative of the proposition the better opinion. Still, they were American citizens, entitled to the benefit of the treaty of 1795 with Spain, which declares: ez and his men of an extensive ution. The exspirit of aggresere desire to aid ion succeeded in , and the Ameriken prisoners, I ecured to Amerith Spain. Now ny aspect of the cial correspondmodore Parker, ith the Captain n the other corand which may ments, that the -ht they had to by the tribunals ng them counsel ound that they to say, that no be found which nese men were irate, according on international s. Such also is writers. "And in all cases of seizure, detention, or arrest for debts contracted, or offenses committed by any citizen or subject of the one party within the jurisdiction of the other, the same shall be made and prosecuted ( por orden y autoridad de la justicia,') by order and authority of law only, and according to the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases." Ho. OF REPS. proceedings in the civil tribunals. And such is citizens. The construction put upon the treaty by the gentleman from New York cannot be sustained. His construction is, that these citizens of the United States were tried and punished in the same manner as Spanish subjects, and therefore they and their friends had no right to complain. Why, sir, it was to avoid that very thing that the treaty was made. It was to avoid the necessity of the citizens of the United States being subjected to these infamous military and ecclesiastical tribunals that this clause in the treaty was inserted; and the construction that is now attempted to be put upon it, would destroy the whole force and virtue of the guarantees of the treaty. Again, the trial by a summary court-martial, was a violation of the treaty; because Spanish subjects could not, under the laws of Spain, be tried for treason in those cases where the arrest was made by military authority; they may be tried by the ordinary council of war, which is a permanent tribunal, but not by a summary court-martial. The trial was not therefore the regular proceeding in such cases even for Spanish subjects, and in this respect was a violation of the treaty,-a point I shall present more fully in connection with the case of Mr. Thrasher. Sir, the Spanish authorities attempted to evade the force of this treaty, as I have said, by declaring that these men were pirates, who were not pirates according to international law. It was only by holding that they were citizens of no country, but the common enemies of mankind, that Spain could shield herself from the charge of having violated the provisions of the treaty of 1795. If you will look at the report of Commander Parker, who was sent to Cuba by the President to investigate this affair, you will find that the Captain General places his justification upon that ground almost exclusively in his first interview with Commander Parker; and you will see furthermore, by looking at the report, that the Captain General did not pretend that they had a regular or legal trial-not even that they had a regular trial before a military commission. He admitted that the trial was summary. Commander Parker thus reports his interview with the Captain General: "He stated that he considered them as pirates, and that they had been so denounced in the proclamation of the President of the United States. That they were tried in a summary manner, and full proof made of their guilt, and that of their participation in the invasion of the Island by Lopez. He did not consider himself at liberty to furnish me with the proceedings on the trial, but would send them to his own Government, and to the Spanish Minister at Washington, who would do whatever was right in the matter, on the call of the Government of the United States." is robbery, or a 32 CONG.....2D SESS. establish their innocence. V ficers of Cuba hurried I think it, therefore, impossible these men were tried by the reg ared to them by the treaty. Bu was regular to try them -martial or any military tribu they was violated; still I did have the benefits of the anted to them by the treaty in r templates a trial which is templates a trial which alloy vitesses. It contemplates a tri counsel. It contemplates a t hearing and not a judicial b New, sir, it was asserted by t theres-and it has also been a Admistration-that if these mer as of tral as Spanish subjects stats of the treaty were con secured to the criminals. Sr, the treaty is not admissible The citizens and subjects of both p on of the case, still, I say, ta before all the tribunals, wheth We know that these ntest the jurisdiction now that they were now that they were ce, and we know that in hot haste and in Consul, Mr. Owen, ere condemned, interfor a postponement, if not all. The Capt him to intercede for e must know that he es of his Government. ied their victims to from Havana can be ecution were brutally sible to maintain that regular tribunal seBut even admitting hem by a summary tribunal, still I insist till I say that they the provisions guar in relation to trials. h is not a mockery. allows the party his a trial which allows es a trial which gives cial butchery. by the Spanish aubeen asserted by this e men received such jects receive, then the re complied with and ssible of such a conis the object of the of its words is suffiess of that position. both parties shall be allicitors, notaries, agents, er, in all their affairs, and they may be concerned, ty; and such agent shall he proceedings in such ninations and evidence trials." which tried Critten tribunal, had jurisay, the treaty was se they were never they were not alction; because they id because they were nation of witnesses 1 the accounts which is a distinct substanoyment of counsel. can citizens to have in all their affairs, It relates to all hether civil or criminary. It is thereever was the intenSpanish Minister, aty, to put it in the g criminals to miliem of the right of the right of being as taken by which is, therefore, in my ume that American nilitary tribunals of isel and witnesses ts are deprived of to any lawyer in ay be the general sion for the benefit treaty, is the law uty of the Spanish law of the case. provision, our citizens of Spain are enses within their nish Government believed Acquisition of Cuba-Mr. Howard. Spanish subject should have an advocate, agent, or counsel, on any trial before a Spanish tribunal, would it destroy, or in any way affect our treaty provision for the security of American citizens? Sir, the Cuban authorities did not take any such position as to Crittenden and the other followers of Lopez, whom they executed. That was left to the ingenuity of the present Administration and its defenders. They knew that these men had not enjoyed even the benefit of the laws of Spain for the trial of its subjects who were guilty of treason. They were not even tried before the council of war, nor did they have the benefit of the rules of proceeding which prevail in that military tribunal. The Cuban authorities assumed that these men were pirates, and that whatever violence was done them, they were not citizens of any country, and therefore this Government could not complain. Now, sir, although the President did not formally denounce these men as guilty of piracy, although the administration of General Taylor stands committed upon the record of denying that the offense was piracy, yet in his proclamation Mr. Fillmore declared that "such expeditions can only be regarded as adventures for plunder and robbery.' Certainly such was not the object of the leaders of that expedition, and to say so was to do gross injustice to their motives and characters. He then proceeds to inform them that they "will forfeit their claim to the protection of this Government, or any interference on their behalf, no matter to what extremities they may be reduced in consequence of their illegal conduct." In the first place this proclamation, by assuming the guilt of all parties in the expedition, anticipated the work of Concha's court-martial. It incited the Spanish authorities to pursue the very course they adopted. If, sir, there was a provision in the treaty with Spain, which guarantied to American citizens the right of trial, the President could not give up that right unless they denationalized themselves by an act of piracy. He was bound to assert it for their benefit. The President cannot suspend the Constitution, nor treaty or laws made in pursuance thereof. On the contrary, he is compelled by his duty and oath of office to see them faithfully executed. It has been argued that the Lopez men had committed a heinous crime, and deserved to die; but men are not hung, in this country at least, by equity. The greatest criminals are as much entitled to the forms of law as the most innocent who are accused. If a guilty man may be condemned unheard, and without a trial, there is no safety for the innocent. The example set by Spain in the case of the Lopez men, if acquiesced in, places it in her power to execute any American citizen without giving him a fair trial. It has practically abrogated the treaty. Again, sir, I disagree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] as to another branch of this subject. In the case of Mr. Thrasher, he has taken the ground that he had become naturalized, or at all events taken the oath of allegiance to the Crown of Spain, and that, therefore, he had forfeited his right of American citizenship, and was liable to be tried as a Spanish subject, and was not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the treaty. Such, also, was the position of the Administration in relation to Mr. Thrasher, and they appear to have abandoned him to his fate without a struggle. Sir, I am astonished that any one should take the position that Mr. Thrasher was naturalized, in view of the facts and the laws of Spain. What is the record, furnished by Concha himself, the Captain General of Cuba? It is, that Mr. Thrasher had not taken the oath of naturalization, and he summoned Mr. Thrasher before him when he attempted to publish a paper in Cuba in 1850, and prohibited him from publishing it, on the ground that he refused, when thus summoned, to take the oath of naturalization. He required him to discontinue his paper, or take the oath of naturalization. Thrasher refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Spanish Government, and was not, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the act of naturalization, and compelled to abandon his paper. Mr BROOKS (interrupting) Will the gentle Ho. OF REPS. Mr. HOWARD. No, not the domiciliary oath. I admit he took that oath. Mr. BROOKS. I believe the gentleman understands Spanish; the oath which he took was an oath of fidelity and vassalage to Spain-juramento de fidelidad y vasallaje. Is not that so? Mr. HOWARD. No, sir, that is not so, if the gentleman means to assert that it was an oath of allegiance to Spain. Mr. BROOKS, He was obliged to take such an oath under the laws of Cuba, of 1817. Mr. HOWARD. I will set the gentleman right on that subject. In relation to that matter, gross injustice has been done Mr. Thrasher. What is naturalization? When is a man naturalized? When he renounces the sovereign of his origin, and acquires the rights of citizenship under the Government to which he transfers his allegiance. Now, what were the laws of Spain in reference to that subject? I have here the regulation of 1791, contained in the official documents accompanying the President's message. But this whole subject of settlement and colonization in Cuba was regulated in 1817 by a special law. It did not require Mr. Thrasher to swear himself a Catholic, as the gentleman supposes. It only required satisfactory proof of that fact. The regulation is contained at length in a work of great authority recently published in Spain, entitled "Legislacion Ultra Marina."* *Naturalization law of Spain in Cuba. 1st. All the strangers belonging to friendly Powers or nations who wish to establish themselves, or who already are in the Island of Cuba, must make it clear by the proper means to her Government that they profess the Roman Catholic religion, and without this indispensable circumstance, they shall not be admitted to domicile themselves there; but as to my subjects of these dominions and of the Indies, they are not obliged to prove this, hecause that, in respect to them, there cannot be any doubt as to this point. 2d. As to the strangers who are admitted according to the preceding article, the Governor shall receive from them an oath [juramento de fidelidad y vasallaje ] of fidelity and submission, in which they shall promise to comply with the laws and general orders of the Indies to which the Spaniards are subject. 3d. When the first five years are past from the establishment of these foreign colonists in the Island, and they shall then enter into an obligation to remain perpetually in it, all the privileges and rights of naturalization shall be conceded to them, likewise to their sons whom they shall have brought with them, or who shall have been born in the same Island, in order that they may consequently be admitted to the honorable employs of the republic and the militia, according to the talents of each one. 5th. During the first five years, the Spanish or foreign colonists shall have the liberty to return to their former countries or ancient residences-and in this case they shall be entitled to take from the Island all the property and goods which they shall have brought into it, without paying any dues whatever, for taking them away-but of those which they have gained in the above-mentioned time, they have to contribute ten for a hundred. 9th. The liberty of the foreign colonists to return to their countries or ancient residences during the first five years is absolute, without limitation or condition, and they shall be able to take away their property, or dispose of it as they shall see fit. In the case of war with the Power which is the natural country or sovereign of the domiciliated colonists, these do not lose the rights and advantages of their domicile in the Island of Cuba, although the five years from their establishment shall not have passed. Their property shall not be subject to embargo, sequestration, or any other of the provisions, ordinary or extraordinary, of the state of war. Those who, notwithstanding the war, wish to remain permanently in the Island, to accomplish their five years and naturalize themselves, shall be allowed to do so with perfect liberty, being of credit, good lives and customs. To those who prefer to absent themselves, sufficient time shall be conceded, so that with ease and convenience they can regulate their affairs and dispose of their property, being allowed to carry away all the property they brought with them, or an equivalent thereto, without payment of any dues whatever-and paying for what they have gained since, ten for a hundred, according to the 16th preceding article. 24th. The five years being past, and the foreign colonists wishing to naturalize themselves, shall repair to the Government with their letters of domicile, and they shall manifest that they oblige themselves to remain perpetually in the Island. The Government shall take the proper means of information, and their good qualities being certified, their continued residence for five years, landed property or industry, they shall be admitted to take the oath of naturalization, in which they shall promise fidelity to the Catholic religion, the King and the laws, renouncing everything foreign, all privilege and protection that would arise from being foreigners, and promising not to retain any dependence, relation, or civil subjection to the country of their birth-with the explanation, that this renunciation does n Cuba, is not tion. It gives zed, and gives right to return r broke out, he property to his years he was to as his intention , to prove his then to take ch he was retholic religion, ing everything ion that would comising not to r civil subjec a." This was nly be acquired He was then apers, and the strangers shall of Spaniards." to take when neral, and it is , that that genrefused to surStates, and was f a naturalized oath. It does ance; and if it Spanish laws. Thrasher, and privilege as an y oath required Spain and the than the declantention to beoath. Indeed sh law did not eclared. I am in the executive pon Mr. Webrports to be an asher ever took and not author It was obvien made under Acquisition of Cuba-Mr. Howard. saying that no one can lose his allegiance until a method is provided for effecting it, by an act of Congress. Chancellor Kent, after a review of all the decisions, thus states the law: "From this historical review of the principal discussions in the Federal courts on this interesting subject in American jurisprudence, the better opinion would seem to he, that a Citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of Government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered." Concha rested the right of Spain to try Mr. Thrasher in the manner he was tried on the ground that the military tribunal by which he was tried was a regular tribunal of the Island of Cuba, created by law. What was it, sir? It was composed of a brigadier of the army, and six other officers. I shall not repeat what I have said in relation to there being no right to try an American citizen before a council of war; but I will content myself with this position, which cannot be successfully refuted: Although it were a regular tribunal, and had the right to try him, he was entitled to his counsel, his witnesses, his proofs, and his defense. I have never heard his own published account of the trial denied, as a truthful statement of the facts. It was communicated to Congress by the President. Mr. Thrasher says: * 1817 contains e time of Mr. t lay he took, ath (juramento d submission, mply with the ndies to which noticeable that he Department n, it translates 1; but nothing s allegiance to f Spain. It is , under which, obey and not ot make him a m none of the he principle is 10 man can be plies with the y, which conlization. Mr. fused to do it, is true Concha an American had taken an the Indies to pelled to subt was the oath 26th ultimo this was continued, and then I saw no one until the 4th instant, when the question was proceeded with, and on the 6th I was again questioned, and finally informed that I was accused of treason. At the same time I was required to select one from a list of officers that was presented to me, who should conduct my defense. Not knowing any of them, I chose at random, supposing he would consult with me and with my legal advisers, as is usual in such cases, in regard to my defense. On the 7th instant, I was, for the first time, allowed to see my friends, and to consult with them as to the best course to pursue. r on the indisnot become s former allee allegiance of 78. The judithe length of rm of which they er ayuntamiento, without costs or joy all the rights eir sons and leth article of the "I conferred with our consul, and he passed several communications in my behalf to the Government here, all of which have been utterly disregarded and not replied to. On the 11th, I was informed that I was to be brought up the next day for sentence. I immediately wrote to my nominal detender, requesting him to come at once to consult with me, and to bring with him the proceedings, which are in writing. He replied, verbally, that he would come in the afternoon. He did not come, and I extended at once a protest against the proceedings, alleging that I had not been heard, and that neither myself nor my legal advisers had been consulted for a proper defense. I sent this to the president of the military commission that night, who refused to receive it, saying, it could only be admitted by the Captain General. "The American consul, Mr. Owen, as soon as informed of this, proceeded to the palace and protested against sentence being pronounced, as I had not been heard in defense. In the morning, my noniinal defender came to my prison to inform me that he had been allowed by the court only twenty four hours to prepare my defense; that he had been occupied until that moment examining the proceedings, which are voluminous, and that within an hour he must return them to the fiscal. HO. OF REPS. nished with a copy of the charges which, together with the written testimony, was read over in court, and then the prisoner was brought in and asked what he had to say for himself. It is obvious that he was not allowed a defense but condemned unheard. The excuse rendered by the Cuban authorities for not allowing Mr. Thrasher counsel was, that no counsel was permitted to appear in these cases before the military court, because it produced delay. It held back the victim from the "garote,' and from chains, and the mines. Such an answer may content the present Administration; but it can hardly be a legal answer to a positive requirement in the treaty, that American citizens shall be allowed to employ such advocates and solicitors as they may judge proper in all their affairs, and in all their trials at law. Neither can it be a very satisfactory reply to an American, to assure him that all Spanish subjects are made victims of a similar barbarity. "On the 12th I was taken before a court-martial, composed of a brigadier general and six officers of the army. The testimony and proceedings were read be ore I was brought into court, which is contrary to law and to custom, and when brought in I was asked what I had to say to the charges against me? I replied, I had not been furnished with a copy of the charges; that I had been denied access to the proceedings and testimony; that my nominal defender had neither consulted with me nor with my counsel, and that I now asked that my protest and petition for stay of proceedings should be admitted. I was told by the president of the court, that it should be considered. I was then removed to my dungeon, and heard nothing more of the proceedings until to-day, when I have been formally notified that I have been sentenced to eight years labor in chains at Ceuta, in Africa, with payment of costs." It was not the usual course of proceeding, because no Spanish subject arrested as Mr. Thrasher was, could be tried before the council of war. The present laws of Spain, as stated in the work to which I have already alluded, declare: "That conspirators being apprehended by the parties of troops, detailed for that purpose by the government, shall be judged by the ordinary council of war; but by the ordinary jurisdiction, if they were apprehended by the order of requisition, or in aid of the civil authority, except in case of resistance by the criminal to the troops. Then they shalr likewise be judged militarily. In all other cases, according to article thirteen, the offenders who commit these crimes, shall be judged by the ordinary jurisdiction, even when the apprehension shall have been made by armed force, but with loss of special privilege. And in article fourteen, it is provided in the trials by this law, there shall not be any authority whatever, except such as shall be exercised by the ordinary and military jurisdictions, according to the limits which are here shown." Do you call such a proceeding a trial according to the usual course of proceedings? Do you call that complying with the provisions of the treaty? I can tell my friend from New York, that an argument of that sort will not prevail with any lawyer, because the treaty is positive that he shall have counsel, which was violated in this case. They would not let him select his counsel from Spanish subjects generally. They furnished him with a list of Spanish army officers from whom he was to select one. He selected, as he has said, at random, not knowing a thing about it. That Spanish officer, as a matter of course, instead of defending the accused, did everything in his power to convict him. It is evident that the provisions of the treaty were denied him, not only as to counsel, but as to being present at the taking of the testimony, which was taken in writing out of court. He was not fur Mr. Thrasher's was not a military arrest. He was taken in the first instance to the office of police, and was in custody of the chief of police. His case was subsequently transferred to a military court. He was tried, therefore, in violation of the Spanish law, which gave jurisdiction of such a case only to the ordinary tribunals. The same remark is true of all those prisoners who came in and delivered themselves up under the proclamation of the Captain General, and of Breckinridge and Beach, of Kentucky, who were arrested at sea by a Spanish merchant ship, endeavoring to make their escape. Neither of them were military arrests, or made under such circumstances as gave the council of war jurisdiction of their cases. The arrest of Breckinridge and Beach was a violation of the law of nations. Those gentlemen were in the Lopez expedition, but had made their escape in an open boat, and were a long distance from Cuba-outside of the league which limits the jurisdiction of any nation over the ocean-when they were captured by a Spanish schooner and brought into Havana. Concha, the Captain General, in reply to Commodore Parker, said that these men were pirates, and that he would try them as such. Now, the Spanish Government had no more right to seize those two men where they were captured, than it had to seize them in the streets of Washington city, unless the offense was piracy. They were, under these circumstances, brought into Havana and condemned by this military tribunal, which had no jurisdiction over them. I admit that, if they had returned voluntarily within the jurisdiction of the Island, they might have been tried by a competent court under the treaty. But having been arrested in violation of the law of nations, it was the duty of the Captain General to discharge them, and the duty of this Governmnt to demand their release. The same was the case with the Contoy prisoners. They had only imagined a conspiracy, as we find in the old English books, that one used to be held guilty of treason who imagined the King's death. If anything criminal was fastened upon them, it seems that they only contemplated an expedition to Cuba. They were outside of the Spanish jurisdiction, anchored near an island in the sea, under the jurisdiction of Mexico. They were seized, and the Spanish authorities maintained that they had jurisdiction over them, because they were pirates. I believe that these prisoners were subsequently released, but that the vessels were not; and I understand from the hon 32D CONG.....2D SESS. le gentleman from Maine, [1 ject remains now precise that the Government has ta ret means to enforce satisfactio fhose wrongfully-seized vessel ensation, by an appropriation Can at New Orleans, whose p gored by the mob. But let us a sicion for those violations of n Sjuries which our own cit sequence of the violati Spanish authorities. Jesuservations in reply to th from New York on the It seems to me to be under the power of Spain to cor to break down the commer see the two countries. Und exclude a person from her sh safety. But the power must and not capriciously. The Mr. Smith should not authority to say that th to port and discharge its agers and mails. It was not ni, passengers, cargo, and mails w Caba.oreven obnoxious to its auth to deny communication less its offers or crew had comm Mr. Smith exercised the comain, she could only pr Smith would have been seve dual should not be p commerce on such friv erral treaties are worth not marine can be dealt with are made these observati erala any sentiments of host inistration, but because 2 to the groes manner in irenean citizens are tramp es Its frequency has erec The time has arrived whe Brion, should feel the prote 7 dag in the remotest corn Government which does no against foreign oppressio each their contempt, and the s world. The time has arriv energy should be infused S. e, [Mr. SMART,] that ecisely where it was, as taken no very effifaction to the owners essels. Let us make iation, to the Spanish ose property was detus also demand satof national law, and vn citizens have susolations of our treaty to the remarks of the -n the Crescent City undeniable, that it is to construe the treaty mercial intercourse Undoubtedly Spain her shores dangerous must be exercised in They had the right d not land, but they hat the vessel should geits cargo, and land s not alleged that the nails were dangerous sauthorities. They cation with the ship, committed some of ther laws, and even e and proceeding in ed the right of every by the Constitution, f he exercised any wever, having pubed going there withorder not to land, nt, and observed the he might, when he his views, and Spain ; it was no offense ion. If she had a ly proceed through country; that might , as it was in Engra libel on Napow principle of the he libel, there is no severely punished. tercourse to deny nded, and the mails al, William Smith," ntry, relative to the s too ridiculous an man but a Spaniard. Cuba had addressed In the first instance, and requested that e permitted to go matter of courtesy, omplied with. But uthorities in Cuba matic agents of the ands, and exclude a frivolous pretense? mothing if our comith in that manner vations, not because Ostility to the prese I wish to draw n which the rights pled on by other ected itself into imhen the American, ection of his counner of the globe. not protect its own Eon, will soon sink scorn of the civilved when new life into our foreign TARY OF THE ■nuary 15, 1853. y reports: DITURES. dry-docks and ocean steam-mail contracts.... Purchase of stock of the loan of 1847... Leaving an estimated balance in the Treasury, July 1, 1854, of..... ..$10,368,325 91 It will be seen, by reference to the foregoing in the Treasury for the year ending on the 20th statement, that the total cash receipts and means June, 1852, were $60,640,032 57. Of which there were received from customs, $47,339,326 62; from lands and miscellaneous sources, $2,389,060 27; and a balance in the Treasury at the commencement of the year of $10,911,645 68. The expenditures for the same period were $46,007,896 20, which includes the following payments on account of the public debt, viz: For interest, including that on $5,000,000 of 5 per cent. stock issued to Texas.. .$4,000,297 80 For the redemption of the principal of various loans..... Reimbursement of revolutionary debt....... Reimbursement of outstanding Treasury notes.. Reimbursement of stock for the fourth and fifth installments of the Mexican indemnity........ Total..... Besides which there was paid the installment of the debt of the cities of the District... The last installment due to Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo..... Awards to American citizens under the same treaty.. 1,986,160 66 1,460 31 300 00 287,596 76 $6,275,815 53 60,000 00 3,180,000 00 529,980 78 Making a total of........ $10,045,796 31 $5,372,079 51 included in the expenditures of the last fiscal year on account of the principal and interest of the funded and unfunded public debt, which, deducted from the above sum, reduces the expenditure to $35,962,099 89. This balance, it will be observed, exists after the application of $7,199,477 77 to the redemption of the public debt." The estimated receipts and expenditures for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1853, and ending June 30, 1854, are: Receipts from customs. Receipts from public lands. ..... Do. from miscellaneous sources, $49,000,000 00 2,000,000 00 200,000 00 From this latter sum, however, may be still further deducted the following items, which form no portion of the regular expenses of the Government, viz: Repayment to importers of the excess of deposits on unascertained duties..... $846,918 86 Repayment of drawbacks, allowances for damages on imported merchandise, fishing bounties, &c. Refunding duties under the act of 8th August, 1846.... Refunding duties under the decisions of the Supreme Court, ac 544,452 38 138,086 41 |