Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/302

 The Trial of Maximilian. tution, the laws of the Congress of the Union regards a civil war as entitling both the con which emanate from it, and all treaties made, tending parties to all the rights of war or which may be made by the' President of against each other, and even as respects the Republic with the approbation of Con neutral nations. And therefore, if the de gress, shall be the supreme law of the cree of Juarez, of January 25th, 1862 was Union.' And, further, under the head 'Of the legally made, which punished with death Inviolability of the Constitution,' Title 8th. prisoners of war, then Maximilian was justi Art. 1 28th, it says, 'This Constitution shall fied in issuing the decree of October 3d, 1865, in retaliation, it being only equal in not lose its force and vigor even in time of severity. rebellion.' "i7th. That, as a fact, the French forces "i2th. That the late or present war be under Marshal Bazaine were not subject to ing a civil war, the punishment of death can the control of Maximilian in regard to their not be awarded for political crimes, accord military regulations, orders, and movements, ing to the said Art. 23d. as will appear by the treaty of Miramar; but "i3th. That there is a distinction between only so in regard to their political govern an executive regulation and a law. The ex ment while in the Empire of Mexico. ecutive can only provide for the execution of "i8th. That the said decree of October the law; consequently a regulation or decree of the President conflicting with any existing 36, 1865, was drawn by instructions, arid according to the direction of Marshal ¡aw, or the Constitution, is void. Lares, in Bazaine; and that he, Maximilian, was in his Derecho Administrativo, page 19,says:— 'Neither the judicial nor administrative tri formed that the said Marshal Bazaine en bunals are under any obligation to obey forced a part of said decree before it was illegal reglamentos' (regulations). Such is; signed by said Maximilian. the opinion of the writers on the Civil law "igth. That at the time said Maximilian which is in force in Mexico. signed said decree Marshal Bazaine stated "i4th. That if the said war is a foreign to him, Maximilian, that ex-President Juarez one, then Maximilian is not guilty of trea had positively left the territorial jurisdiction son, as he is an Austrian. of Mexico, and that he was then in the "iSth. That whilst a civil war, involving State of Texas, in the United States of North the contest for the government, continues, America. other States may remain indifferent specta "2oth. That the said Maximilian, after he tors of the controversy, or may espouse the left the city of Mexico for Orizaba, at the cause of either. The positive law of nations Hacienda Zoquiapam, on the 2ist of Octo makes no distinction between a just and an ber, 1866, annulled said decree; but that said unjust war in this respect; and the interven annulment thereof was secreted by the said ing State becomes entitled to all the rights Marshal Bazaine for three weeks before the of war against the opposite party. And the same was published, although he, the said fact that foreign States in Europe furnished Maximilian, sent three despatches to the him, Maximilian, troops and munitions of city of Mexico, ordering the annulment to war, or whether such troops rendered him be published forthwith. Therefore, upon aid voluntarily, does not, according to the principles of natural justice and the usage of law of nations, change his rights as a con nations, the said decree of January 251)1, testant in the struggle for the supremacy of 1862, if ever legal, should not have been en government. forced after the annulment of the said decree "loth. That the general usage of nations of Maximilian of October 3. 1865.