Mr. Uhl to Mr. Williams.
Sir: I have received your three dispatches, Nos. 2621, 2627, and 2637, of the respective dates of the 14th and 19th ultimo, and 2d instant, all relating to the case of Mr. Julio Sanguily.
From the second of these dispatches it appears that there has been delivered to Mr. Viondi, Mr. Sanguily’s advocate, a copy of the proceedings in the case for his examination and for the preparation of a defense against the accusation brought. From your summary of the charges, as printed in the newspaper La Discusion of the 16th ultimo, it appears that the counts against the accused relate only to the charge of sedition and rebellion, and it would seem that the additional charge which has heretofore been kept prominently in front in the discussion of his case, namely, alleged participation in an act of kidnapping committed more than a year ago, is not embraced in the present indictment. Your report of this point is, however, awaited. In the communication addressed to this Department by Mr. Manuel Sanguily, brother of Julio, stress is laid upon this latter charge and upon the circumstance that the supposed partner of Mr. Sanguily in the alleged kidnapping, Don Gerardo Portela, was promptly acquitted several months ago by the military court which took cognizance of that charge, and it has been argued that proceedings against him on the ground of sedition were untenable. £ inclose for your information copies of recent letters from Mr. Manuel Sanguily presenting this view of the case.
Your reports, however, of later date show the inapplicability in greater part of the arguments thus presented, and so far as the present state of the proceedings is disclosed this Department could not allege, as Mr. Manuel Sanguily asserts, that the charge of sedition is frivolous and merely vexatious. This Government has continuously asserted the right of Mr. Sanguily, as a citizen of the United States, to be tried on formulated charges by the ordinary resorts stipulated by the treaty of 1795 and by the protocol of 1877. This demand has been acceded to, and while the proceedings have been marked with what from our point of view appears to be extraordinary tardiness, I am not advised that there has been a tangible denial of justice in the case. It is due, however, to Mr. Sanguily himself, as well as to the Government which has necessarily intervened for his protection, that he should be accorded as speedy a trial as may be consistent with his own interests and with the necessary opportunity for full examination of the charges and preparation of his defense. You are presumed to be in consultation with Mr. Sanguily’s advocate and should confer freely with him on this point, endeavoring to avoid as well unseemly haste to his disfavor as prolonged delays to his injury.
Your No. 2637 reports that the trial of Mr. Sanguily on the charge of rebellion is fixed for the 28th instant.
[Page 788]You should keep the Department advised at every stage of the proceedings, and you will direct your endeavors to secure for Mr. Sanguily the fullest opportunity of defense against the charges now formulated.
I am, etc.,