817.041/16: Telegram
The Chargé in Nicaragua (Munro) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:30 p.m.]
254. I have delayed replying to the Department’s September 17, 3 p.m., until I could obtain copies of the documents and decisions involved. The history of the appellate courts question appears to be as follows:
Congress under President Martinez passed a law establishing a new court of appeals at Matagalpa, and Chamorro when he wished to obtain [Page 397] control of the existing courts had his Congress transfer two judges from Leon to this court. The judges affected appealed to the Supreme Court for amparo and it was to prevent favorable action on this appeal that Chamorro had Congress remove the majority of the members of the Supreme Court. The de facto Supreme Court denied the amparo on June 1, 1927, just before it was reorganized. The Leon judges did not go to Matagalpa but their positions at Leon were filled by Congress.
When the Supreme Court was reorganized last July the Legation was given a confidential memorandum stating that only those cases would be reopened in which the losing party had protested before the decision against the jurisdiction of the court. The Department was informed of this proposed procedure in the Legation’s telegram of July 30 [31], 4 p.m., and its reply of August 9, 4 p.m., was regarded as approving this course of action. One of the few cases falling within this category according to the president of the Supreme Court was the decision denying amparo to the Leon judges. The court therefore reopened the case and decided that the action of the Congress in transferring the judges against their will was unconstitutional and void and that they therefore still had a right to their positions at Leon. The president of the Supreme Court asserts that he thought that the court was proceeding in full accord with the Department but the Minister felt that the court had forced the issue without giving the Legation or the Department a fair chance to study the question in all its bearings.
In Bluefields the case is different. Two judges there were removed by Congress without following the constitutional procedure because they were accused of connection with the revolution of May 1926. Their case was never decided by the Chamorro court. One of them has left the country but the other appealed to the present Supreme Court which declared the action of Congress unconstitutional and void. In this case and in that of Leon the action was technically a recurso de inconstituciona maceratadad as the court held that there could be no action for amparo against an act of Congress.
The president of the Supreme Court assures me very positively that the decision regarding the Leon judges will not serve as a precedent for reopening any cases decided by the de facto court except five or six unimportant cases of the nature described in the confidential memorandum above referred to. The policy of the court will be announced in a decision within a few days.
Since it appears after investigation that the Legation had been misinformed by certain government officials regarding the situation at Bluefields and that the new Supreme Court’s action there was not a reversal of any previous decision, there seems to be no good ground for recommending that the Chamorro judge be left in possession. I [Page 398] think however that compromise can be effected by which the Chamorro judge will withdraw in favor of one of the substitutes while the former Liberal judge will not take possession until after he has been reelected by Congress. This will save the pride of both parties and I hope that it will meet with the approval of the Department if both sides agree to accept such procedure.