Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/453

 416

1. That the cause of the proceeding and his favor or against him, the decision always the name of the accuser be made known to coming for revision to our Supreme Court. the accused. Some American citizens who are tried in 2. That the preliminary examination of Spanish-American countries expect that the the accused must be held within forty-eight proceedings there will be conducted in ac hours from the time he is placed at the dis cordance with the legislation of their own posal of the judge. country, and, when they find it otherwise, they complain bitterly, considering the Latin 3. That he may cross-examine the wit proceedings as inquisitorial, outrageous, and nesses who testify against him. 4. That such information as the accused even barbarous; and complaining that they may need for the purpose of answering the are not tried under the laws in force in this indictment must be given him if it be in the country, as if the legislation of the United States should extend to foreign countries. record. My experience has shown me that this is 5. That he must be heard in his own de fense either in person or by some attorney" sometimes the cause of serious difficulties of his own selection, or by both, as he may and misunderstandings between the United choose; and in case he should have nobody States and some of the Spanish-American to appear for him he will be furnished with republics.i a list of lawyers appointed for such cases 1 As an instance of the kind of charges made against and given the right to select as his attorney Mexico through the press by irresponsible parties, I will mention a case recently occurred. A telegram dated at any one whom he may prefer. WRIT OF HABEAS CORFUS AND AMPARO.

We have copied in our Constitution from the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence the writ of habeas corpus, the great conquest of the Anglo-Saxons, which guarantees life and liberty to man, and which places under the control of the judiciary the otherwise arbitra ry orders of those in authority; but we have gone considerably farther in this direction, and under the name of amparo have extended this guarantee so that it is not limited to the protection of personal life and liberty, but embraces all rights under the Constitution — including the right of personal property, even when such rights have been denned by judicial decisions. If, for instance, a man finds that his property, or any other of his constitutional rights, are interfered with, either by civil or military authority, or even by a judicial sentence of a Federal or State court, he may apply to the respective Federal district court having jurisdiction thereof, ask ing it to at once suspend the act complained of, and finally to decide the case, either in

Omaha, Neb., on Nov. 23, 1895, and published broadcast by the papers of this country, stated that Col. W. A. Paxton, of that city, had received a letter from MacStewart, an old employee of his, who was under sentence of death at Parral, Chihuahua, Mexico, for .shooting a policeman who was trying to kill him for a trivial offense, and stated that Stewart desired to be placed in a court where he would be allowed to plead self-defense, which he pretended was not permitted under the Mexican law. What has already been said about the Mexican criminal jurisprudence is enough to show how entirely unfounded such a statement was. Whenever I notice in the newspapers any complaint of this character, it is my custom to communicate the same to the Mexican Government and to request an official investigation of the case, so that I may rectify the statement, if it should prove to be incorrect, or remedy the wrong before it assumes a serious aspect, if in fact there should be any real cause for complaint. In due course I generally receive an official statement which is almost always at great variance with the complaint. In this particular case, the facts turned out to be that MacStewart abused a policeman who was un armed, and following him to the post-office, at Parral, fired upon him without the slightest cause, killing him instantly; that, not satisfied with this, he killed the policeman's horse, and then fired upon the Chief of Police, who arrested him. It further appeared that this was his second offense of this character, as he had killed before, in Mexico, a United States citizen named Rogers. In the case of Rogers, MacStewart was acquitted, and upon the trial for the murder of the policeman he was allowed to plead self-defense, but failed utterly to establish it, as all the witnesses examined, including an American citizen by the name of Davis, a friend of Mac Stewart, testified that there had been no provocation on the part of the policeman, and that the accused had committed a wilful and wanton murder.