Page:Vol 6 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/334

314 of guilty was brought forth, with the sentence of death. Maximilian was found guilty of the crimes specified in parts 1, 3, 4, 5, of art. 1, in part 5 of art. 2, and part 10 of art. 3, in law of Jan. 25, 1862; that is, of promoting invasion and usurping the supreme power. Miramon and Mejía fell under parts 1, 3, 4, 5, of art. 1. The death penalty was in accordance with art. 28, for persons caught in flagrante delicto. The asesor approved the documents in the case, which embraced also preliminary interrogatories. These began May 24th, with inquiries for name, birthplace, etc., of the accused, why he had come to Mexico, waged war, etc. The questioning continued on the 25th and 26th, Maximilian demanding on the latter date to be judged by a congress and given time for defence. On the 29th he made a declaration reviewing the reasons for coming to Mexico and his acts, and protesting against a court-martial, under the decree of 1862. A more elaborate protest was made June 6th, supported by Riva Palacio and Torre on the 10th, and by their supplementary appeal on the 12th, in addition to petitions for mercy. For full and partial reports of proceedings, with documents, see Causa de Maximiliano, Mexico, 1868, 473 pp., reprinted with Aries, Reseña, 283-723, which forms the official report; Memorandum sobre el Proceso del Archiduque Fernando Maximiliano, Mexico, 1867, i.-iv. 3-109, embracing the account by Riva Palacio and Torre of their zealous efforts in Maximilian's behalf. Defensa del Archiduque, 1-55, records the pleading of Vazquez and Ortega. In Hall's Life of Maximilian, i. 213-84, are found also points prepared by this American lawyer for use of counsel. See also documents in Méx., Col. Leyes, 1863–7, iii. 210-45; ''Pap. Var''., cxxv. pt 2, cxxxv. pt l; Lefêvre, Doc.. ii. 413-50; Boletin Rep., July 2, 1967, and later dates; Estrella de Occid., Constitucional, Diario Ofic., Sociedad, and other journals; Vega, Docs, ii. 319, etc., ''Correspond. Legacion'', i. 1-345, contains correspondence with legation at Washington on the trial and execution.

Whatever censure may be applied to the Juarez government for ignoring the nature of the struggle as a civil war, for refusing the peaceful overtures for a congress, and for not recognizing the claim as prisoner of war, it must be considered that Maximilian had loosely seized a pretence for ignoring the republican government, stamping the leaders of its cause as bandits, and executing them as such. The decision was applied to himself, and his executioners cannot be said to have overstepped international law in a greater measure than he did. Even if impelled by resentment, Juarez did what he considered his duty for the safety of the republic, by obviating later possible claims by the infliction of death, and impressing a warning against invasion projects. The retaliation can hardly be termed unjust; yet it was severe, and Mexico has been widely condemned, on grounds of humanity at least, yet by some not only excused, but applauded. A stronger government might have been