Barbarous Mexico/Chapter 15
CHAPTER XV
AMERICAN PERSECUTION OF THE ENEMIES OF DIAZ
America, Cradle of Liberty, has joined hands with Porfirio Diaz, the most devastating despot that rules a nation, in stamping out that portion of the world movement for democracy which is today attempting to secure the common rights of human beings for the Mexican people.
In previous chapters I have shown how the United States is a voluntary partner in the slavery and political oppression of Diaz-land. I have shown how, by its commercial alliance, its press conspiracy and its threat of intervention and annexation, it has supported the military dictatorship of Diaz. This chapter I shall devote to the story of how the United States has delivered its military and civil resources into the hands of the Tyrant and with that power has held him in his place when otherwise he would have fallen; and thus has been the final determining force in the continuation of the system of slavery which I have described in the early chapters of this book.
When I say the United States here I mean the United States government chiefly, though state and local governments along our Mexican border are also involved. Numerous instances go to show that, in order to exterminate the enemies of Diaz who have come as political refugees to this country, public officials from the president down have set aside American principles cherished for generations, have criminally violated some laws and stretched and twisted others out of all semblance to their former selves, and have permitted, encouraged and protected law-breaking on the part of Mexican officials and their hirelings in this country.
For the past five years the law of our border states, as far as Mexican citizens are concerned, has been very much the law of Diaz. The border has been Mexicanized. In numerous instances our government has delegated its own special powers to agents of Mexico in the form of consuls, hired attorneys and private detectives. Mexican citizens have been denied the right of asylum and the ordinary protection of our laws. By the reign of terror thus established the United States has held in check a movement which otherwise would surely have developed sufficient strength to overthrow Diaz, abolish Mexican slavery and restore constitutional government in the country to the south of us.
Three times during the past two years, twice as Secretary of War and once as President, William Howard Taft has ordered troops to the Texas border to aid Diaz in wreaking vengeance upon his enemies. He also—at the same time as well as at other times—ordered posses of United States Marshals and squads of Secret Service operatives there for the same purpose.
The first time Taft ordered troops to the border was in June, 1908, the second time in September, 1908, the third time in July, 1909. The troops were commanded to drive back into the hands of pursuing Mexican soldiers or to capture and detain any fugitives who attempted to cross the Rio Grande and save their lives upon Texas soil.
That this action on the part of President Taft was an undue stretching of the laws it would appear from dispatches sent out from Washington, June 30, 1908. From one of these dispatches published throughout the country, July 1, 1908, I quote the following: "The employment of American troops for this purpose, by the way, is almost without precedent in recent years, and the law officers of the War Department, as well as the Attorney-General himself, have been obliged to give close study to the question of the extent to which they may exercise the power of preventing persons from entering the United States across the Mexican border.
"Under the law no passports are required except in the case of Chinese and Japanese, and about the only other reasonable ground for detention of fugitives seeking to cross the line would be some presumable violation of the immigration or health inspection laws.
"So it will be a delicate task for the army officers, who are charged with the duty of policing this international boundary line, to avert clashes with the civil courts if they undertake to make promiscuous arrests of persons fleeing from Mexico into the United States."The troops obeyed orders. Fleeing Liberals were turned back to be pierced by the bullets of Diaz's soldiers. Was our government justified in causing the death of those unfortunate men in such a manner? If not, would it be improper to characterize the action as executive murder?
During the past five years hundreds of Mexican refugees have been imprisoned in the border states, and there have been numerous attempts to carry refugees across the line, in order that the Diaz government might deal with them after its own summary methods, and many of these attempts have been successful. Some of the schemes employed in this campaign of deportation are, first, to institute extradition proceedings under charges of "murder and robbery;" second, to deport through the Immigration Department under charges of being "undesirable immigrants;" third, to kidnap outright and feloniously carry across the line.
Some members of the Liberal Party whose extradition
| MEXICAN REVOLUTIONISTS | |
| TOMAS SABARIA | ANTONIO I. VILLARREAL |
| RICARDO FLORES MAGON | |
| ENRIQUE FLORES MAGON | LIBRADO RIVERA |
An uprising of a Liberal club at Jimenez, Coahuila, formed the basis of the charges in all but one or two of the cases. During this uprising somebody was killed and the government postoffice lost some money. Wherefore every Mexican who could be convicted of membership in the Liberal Party, although he might never have been in Coahuila nor have ever heard of the rebellion, stood in danger of extradition for "murder and robbery." The United States government spent a good many thousands of dollars in prosecuting these manifestly groundless charges, but it is to the credit of certain Federal Judges that the prosecutions were generally unsuccessful. Judge Gray of St. Louis and Judge Maxey of Texas both characterized the offenses as being of a political nature. The text of the former's decision in the Rivera case follows:
The United States vs. Librado Rivera.
City of St. Louis, ss., State of Missouri.
I hereby certify that upon a public hearing had before me at my office in said city on this 30th day of November, 1906, the defendant being present, it appearing from the proofs that the offense complained of was entirely of a political nature, the said defendant, Librado Rivera, was discharged.
Witness my hand and seal.
James R. Gray.
United States Commissioner at St. Louis, Mo.
And exactly this thing has been done. Antonio I. Villarreal, secretary of the Liberal Party, was among those placed in danger of deportation "under the immigration laws," After various means had been used unsuccessfully to secure his extradition, he was turned over to the immigration officials at El Paso and was actually on his way to the line when he made a break for liberty and escaped.
Of a large number of Mexican Liberals arrested in Arizona in the fall of 1906, Lazaro Puente, Abraham Salcido, Gabriel Rubio, Bruno Trevino, Carlos Humbert, Leonardo Villarreal and several others were deported in one party by the immigration officials at Douglas. There is no legal excuse for deporting an immigrant because he is a political refugee. On the other hand, according to "American principles," so-called, he is entitled to especially solicitous care for this reason. And yet all of these men were deported because they were political refugees. All of them were peaceful, respectable persons. The law under no circumstances permits of deportation after the immigrant has been a resident of this country for more than three years. But several of this number had lived here for longer than that time and Puente, who was editing a paper in Douglas, claimed to have resided in the United States continuously for thirteen years.
Still another crime of officials may be cited in this particular case. When occasion arises for deportation the immigrant in ordinary cases is merely returned to the country whence he came. But in this case the group of Mexican Liberals was delivered over to the Mexican police in handcuffs, and the American handcuffs were not removed until the prisoners arrived at the penitentiary of Hermosillo, state of Sonora!
The Mexican government, by the way, found nothing against these men after it had got them except that they were members of the Liberal Party. Nevertheless, it sent each and every one of them to long terms in prison.
Many Americans will remember the case of L. Gutierrez De Lara, whom the Immigration Department seized for deportation in October, 1909, accusing him of being "an alien anarchist." De Lara had resided more than three years in this country, yet undoubtedly he would have been sent to his death had not the country, sent up such a protest that the conspirators were frightened. It is supposed that De Lara's life was sought at this particular time because he accompanied me to Mexico and aided in securing material for my exposé of Mexican conditions.
When Diaz fails to gain possession of his enemies in the United States by other means he does not hesitate to resort to kidnapping and when he resorts to kidnapping he finds no trouble in securing the criminal assistance of American officials.
The most notable case of refugee kidnapping on record is that of Manuel Sarabia. The case is notable not because it is the only one of its kind, but because it is the one which was most successfully exposed.
Manuel Sarabia was second speaker of the Liberal junta. He was hounded about from place to place by Diaz detectives, finally bringing up in Douglas, Arizona, where he went to work quietly at his trade of printer
On June 30, 1907, Antonio Maza, the Mexican consul at Douglas, saw Sarabia on the street and recognized him. That evening U. S. Ranger Sam Hayhurst held up Sarabia at the point of a pistol and, without a warrant, put him in the city jail. At eleven o'clock that night Sarabia's door swung open, he was led outside, forced into an automobile, carried across the international boundary line and there turned over to Colonel Kosterlitzsky, an officer of Mexican rurales. The rurales tied Sarabia on the back of a mule, and telling him that he was to be shot on the road, made a hurried trip with him through the mountains, finally bringing up, after five days, at the penitentiary at Hermosillo, Sonora.
What saved Sarabia? Just one thing. As he was forced into the automobile he cried out his name and shouted that he was being kidnapped. The ruffians guarding him choked him into silence and then gagged him, but some one had heard and the story spread.
Even then Consul Maza had the audacity to try to hush up the matter and carry his plot to a successful conclusion. By some means he succeeded in muzzling the string of Arizona newspapers run by George H. Kelly, as Kelly afterwards admitted in court. But in Douglas at that time there was a newspaper man whom Maza could not bribe. It was Franklin B. Dorr, who was running the Douglas Daily Examiner.
In his paper Dorr raised a protest that stirred the blood of the people of Douglas. Street meetings were held to further arouse the people. Mother Jones was there. A crowd looked for Maza with a rope. Telegraphic appeals were sent to the state and national governments. And finally—Sarabia was shamefacedly returned.
What would have happened to Sarabia if his voice had not been heard on that night in June, 1907? Exactly what has happened to others whose frightened voices have not been heard. He would have dropped out of sight and no one would ever have been able to say for certain where he had gone.
And what, pray, happened to the kidnappers? Absolutely nothing.
Consul Maza, Ranger Hayhurst, Lee Thompson, city jailer, Constable Shorpshire, Henry Elvey, the chauffeur, and some private detectives whose names were never given to the public seem plainly to have been guilty of the crime of kidnapping, which is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. Those named were arrested and the first four were duly held to answer to the upper court sitting at Douglas. Elvey made a clean breast of the case and the evidence seemed conclusive. But as soon as the excitement had blown over every one of the cases was quietly dropped. It was not Sarabia's fault, for an effort was made to bribe Sarabia to leave town and Sarabia refused the bribe. Evidently the money which had bribed Hayhurst, Thompson and Shorpshire was not all the money that was used by Maza at that time.
Nearly every small town along the Mexican border harbors a personage who enjoys the title of Mexican consul. Consuls are found in villages hundreds of miles from the Mexican border. Consuls are supposed to be for the purpose of looking after the interests of trade between countries, but towns in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas which do not do a hundred dollars worth of trade a year with Mexico have consuls who are maintained by Diaz at the expense of tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Such consuls are not consuls at all. They are spies, persecutors, bribers. They are furnished with plenty of money and they spend it freely in hiring thugs and detectives and bribing American officeholders. By the power thus gained they have repeatedly suppressed newspapers and put their editors in jail, as well as broken up political clubs of Mexicans.
During the trial of Jose Maria Ramires and four other Liberals in El Paso in October, 1908, a city policeman naively swore that his chief had told him to obey the orders of the Mexican consul and the chief of police of Juarez, a Mexican town.
When, after threats by the Mexican consul of Tucson, Arizona, thugs destroyed the printing plant of Manuel Sarabia in that city in December, 1908, Sarabia was unable to persuade the City Marshal to make an investigation of the affair or to attempt to bring the perpetrators to account.
City detectives of Los Angeles, California, have repeatedly taken orders from the Mexican consul there and have unlawfully placed in his hands property of persons whom they have arrested.
Antonio Lozano, the Mexican consul at Los Angeles, at one time had two fake employment offices running at the same time for the single purpose of hiring members of the Liberal Party and luring them to points in Mexico where they could be captured by the Diaz police. This same consul, after De Lara and I started on our trip to Mexico, offered bribes to various friends of De Lara to tell them where he had gone.
Such minor details would fill many pages. John Murray was arrested by Secret Service Chief Wilkie. Murray's offense consisted of raising money for the legal defense of the refugees. Robert W. Dowe, the American customs collector at Eagle Pass, Texas, was compelled to resign under charges of acting as a secret agent for the Mexican government, and receiving money for such service. The evidence in the case was suppressed by our Treasury Department, which reinstated Dowe after some months had passed and public indignation over the affair at Eagle Pass had blown over. In the District Court of Los Angeles, Cal., a warrant for the arrest of De Lara, his wife, Mrs. Mamie Shea, an American, Mrs. Marie Talavera and about twenty others, has been on file for many months, ready for service at any time. Those named are charged with violating the neutrality laws in having circulated a manifesto printed by the Liberal Party. Threats that this warrant was to be served have been made to various of the parties, with the evident purpose of deterring them from aiding in any way the movement for the regeneration of Mexico.
Only a few months ago newspapers reported that Major Elihu Root of the U. S. Army had gone on a special mission to Mexico to confer with Diaz's War Department on the most practical means of entrapping the enemies of Diaz who are sojourning on our soil.
Only a short time ago the news was printed that Punto Rojo, an anti-Diaz labor paper of Texas, had been suppressed, that $10,000 reward had been offered for the capture of its editor, Praxedis Guerrero, that secret service men in pursuit of that reward had seized subscription books of the paper and from the books had secured names of men who would be at once proceeded against.
During the past three years persecution of this general character has directly caused the suspension of at least ten newspapers printed in Spanish along the border for Mexican readers.
To each of these persecutions and press suppressions there is an interesting story attached, but to attempt to detail all of them would require too great a proportion of this work. I shall detail but one case, that of Ricardo Flores Magon, president of the Liberal Party, and his immediate associates. This case, as well as being the most important of all, is typical. Its difference from the rest has been chiefly that Magon, having been able to gather about him greater resources, has been able to make a longer and more desperate fight for his life and liberty than others of his countrymen who have been singled out for persecution. For six and one-half years Magon has been in this country and during nearly the whole of that time he has been engaged in trying to escape being sent back to death beyond the Rio Grande. More than one-half of that time he has passed in American prisons, and for no other reason than that he is opposed to Diaz and his system of slavery and despotism.
The worst that can be said of Magon—as of any of his followers whom I know—is that he desires to bring about an armed rebellion against the established government of Mexico. In cases where reformers are given the opportunity of urging their reforms by democratic methods, armed rebellion in this day and age are indefensible. But when through the suppression of free speech, free press and such liberties, peaceable means of propaganda are impossible, then force is the only alternative. It was upon this principle that our revolutionary forefathers proceeded and upon which the Mexican Liberals are proceeding today.
Magon and his followers would never have come to this country to plot against Diaz had not their peaceable movement been broken up by gun and club methods and their lives seriously endangered at home. The propriety of citizens of despotic countries seeking refuge in another country, there to plan better things for their own, was for many decades recognized by the constituted powers of the United States, which protected political refugees.
A dozen years ago Palma established the Cuban revolutionary Junta in the city of New York, and instead of being arrested he was lionized. For more than a century political refugees from European countries, South America, and even China have found safety with us. Young Turks prepared for their revolution here. Irish societies raised money here for a movement to free Ireland. Jewish defense societies have been financed all over the country and none of the promoters have been turned over to the vengeance of the Czar. And these things have been done openly, not secretly. Today there are known to be Portuguese revolutionist headquarters in the United States. Porfirio Diaz himself—what historic irony!—when he turned revolutionist found safety on American soil and, though his cause was an extremely questionable one, no one arrested him. What is more. Diaz committed the identical crime which, through the legal machinery of the United States, he is now urging against many of the refugees, that of setting on foot a military expedition against a foreign power. On March 22, 1876, Diaz crossed the Rio Grande at Brownsville, Texas, with forty armed followers for the purpose of waging war upon President Lerdo de Tejada. He was driven back and, though all America knew of his exploit, no effort was made to imprison him.
But now the policy has been changed to accommodate President Diaz. Action has been taken against political refugees of just one other country, Russia, and it is safe to assume that those cases were undertaken merely that the authorities might defend themselves against the charge of using the machinery of government with partiality against Mexicans,
Magon and a small group of followers, including his brother Enrique and the Sarabias, crossed the Rio Grande in January, 1904, and soon afterwards established their paper "Regeneracion" in San Antonio. The paper had been going but a few weeks when a Mexican, a supposed hireling of the Mexican government, called at the office and tried to reach the Liberal leader with a dirk-knife. Enrique Magon grappled with the fellow, and in another moment four city detectives rushed in and placed Enrique under arrest. The next day he was fined $30 in the police court, while the supposed thug was not even arrested.
The exiles looked upon this incident as a part of a conspiracy to get them into trouble. They moved to St. Louis, where they re-established their paper. They had hardly got into their new quarters when they began to be annoyed by the Furlong Detective Agency. They claim that the Furlong Detective Agency put an "operative" into the office of "Regeneracion" in the role of an advertising solicitor, put "operatives" into the St. Louis postoffice to waylay the letters of the exiles, put "operatives" out to hunt somebody to bring libel proceedings against "Regeneracion," put "operatives" at work to harass the editors of the paper in every possible way.
Our Postoffice Department, called to aid in the suppression of "Regeneracion," revoked the second class privileges which had been properly secured at San Antonio. But this was insufficient, so two different parties were brought from Mexico to institute charges of criminal and civil libel against the editors. The editors were thrown in jail, the publication stopped. Furlong detectives stole letters and turned them over to the Mexican consul, and from these letters, the refugees claim, was gleaned a list of names which resulted in the arrest of some three hundred Liberals in Mexico.
The editors got out of jail on bail, whereupon new charges were prepared to get them back again. But, having important work to do, they chose to pay their bail and flee from these charges. Magon and Juan Sarabia went to Canada and it was here that they carried on their final correspondence preparatory to launching an armed rebellion against Diaz. The first gun was to be fired October 20, 1906, and on the night of October 19 the Liberal leaders gathered at El Paso preparatory to crossing the line the following morning.
As set forth in a previous chapter, this rebellion was betrayed and was more or less of a fizzle. Of the refugee leaders, Juan Sarabia was betrayed into the hands of Diaz and with scores of others was soon afterwards sent to the military prison of San Juan de Ulua. Villarreal, as previously stated, was among those arrested by the American police. For a long time he fought extradition on the "murder and robbery" charge and was finally turned over to the immigration authorities. Immigration officers were in the act of leading him to the boundary line when he bolted and succeeded in escaping by running through the streets of El Paso. Librado Rivera, first speaker of the Liberal Junta, with Aaron Mansano, was kidnapped at St. Louis by city detectives, was hurried as far as Ironton, Missouri, but was there rescued and brought back through an exposé which was made by one of the St. Louis papers.
As for Magon, for months he was hunted by detectives from city to city. He went to California, but was still kept dodging and once masqueraded as a woman in order to escape the Diaz hounds. Finally, he revived his paper in Los Angeles under the name of "Revolucion" and here he was joined by Villarreal and Rivera. The three worked quietly together, keeping always indoors in the daytime and going out for their airing only at night and in disguise.
Early in August, 1907, the hiding-place of the Liberal leaders in Los Angeles was located. The evidence seems to point to a plot to kidnap them much as Sarabia was kidnapped. First, the officers had plenty of time in which to procure a warrant, but they did not procure a warrant nor even attempt to do so. Second, they secreted an automobile in the vicinity and did not use it after the arrest. Third, when the three men, fearing a kidnapping plot, cried out at the top of their voices, the officers beat them with pistols most brutally, Magon being beaten until he lay bleeding and insensible on the ground. This circumstantial evidence of a kidnapping plot is borne out by the direct testimony of one of the hirelings of the Mexican consul at that time, who has since confessed that there was such a plot and that the Mexican consul was the man who hatched it.
Everything seems to have been arranged. The descent of the sleuths was made August 23, and Ambassador Creel came all the way from Washington to be on hand and see that things went off smoothly. On the night of August 22 Creel was given a banquet by Mexican concessionaires having headquarters in Los Angeles and the following day he sat in his hotel and waited for news that his thugs had gotten their victims as planned.
But the outcries of Magon and his friends collected a crowd and it became impossible to kidnap them. So unprepared were the officers for a mere arrest case that when they got their prisoners to jail they were at a loss to know what charge to place against them, so they put them down on the police books as "resisting an officer!"
Ambassador Creel then proceeded to hire some of the highest priced lawyers in Southern California to devise ways and means for getting the prisoners down into Mexico. These lawyers were ex-Governor Henry T. Gage, Gray, Barker and Bowen, partners of U. S. Senator Flint; and Horace H. Appel. When the cases came into court their names were announced by the public prosecutor as special counsel and always during the hearings one or more of them was personally in attendance.
The "officers" who beat the refugees nearly to death and then charged them with resisting an officer—although they had not even procured a warrant—were Thomas H. Furlong, head of the Furlong Detective Agency of St. Louis, chief refugee-hunter for Diaz, an assistant Furlong detective, and two Los Angeles city detectives, the notorious Talamantes and Rico.
For months previous to the arrest of Magon and his associates a card offering $20,000 for their apprehension was circulated about the United States. That the city detectives received their share of this reward is evidenced by sworn testimony given in the Los Angeles courts by Federico Arizmendez, a Los Angeles printer. After the arrest of Magon the sleuths repaired to the office of Magon's newspaper, where they took into custody the nominal editor, Modesto Diaz. Here they met Arizmendez and the following conversation ensued:
Talamantes—You'd better congratulate me; I just made a thousand dollars.
Arizmendez—How's that?
Talamantes—I've just caught Villarreal.
At this writing Rico and Talamantes are still members of the Los Angeles police force!
The identity of the employer of Talamantes et al. was confirmed beyond question and the astounding usurpation by that employer of American governmental powers was revealed when upon being released the day following the conversation quoted above, Modesto Diaz was informed that he would have to wait a few days for the papers taken from him at the time of his arrest, as they had been placed in the hands of the Mexican Consul!
If there is any doubt as to who hired Furlong and his henchmen to hunt down Magon the doubt will be dispelled by the reading of an excerpt from Furlong's sworn testimony taken in the Los Angeles courts. Here it is:
cross examination
By Mr. Harriman:
Q.—What is your business?
A.—I am the president and manager of the Furlong Secret Service Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
Q.—You helped to arrest these men?
A.—I did.
Mr. Lawler—That is objected to as a conclusion of the witness.
Q.—By Mr. Harriman: Did you have a warrant?
A.—No, sir.
The Commissioner—The other question is withdrawn and now you ask him if he had a warrant?
Mr. Harriman—Yes, sir.
Q.—Arrested them without a warrant?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—You took this property away from them without a warrant?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Went through the house and searched it without a warrant?
A.—How is that?
Q.—Went through the house and searched it without a warrant?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And took the papers from them?
A.—I didn't take any papers from them. I took them and locked them up and then went back and got the papers.
Q.—Took them from their house and kept them, did you?
A.—No, sir. I turned them over ——
Q.—Well, you kept them, so far as they are concerned?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Who paid you for doing this work?
Nor was Furlong backward about confessing the purpose of the hunt. By a Los Angeles newspaper Furlong, in bragging about the arrest, was quoted as asserting that he had been "after" Magon and his friends for three years. During that period, he said, he had succeeded in "getting" 180 Mexican revolutionists and turning them over to the Diaz government, which "had made short work of them." According to an affidavit properly sworn to by W. F. Zwickey and on record in the Los Angeles courts, Furlong stated that he was "not so much interested in this case and the charges for which the defendants are being tried as in getting them over into Arizona; that all we (meaning by 'we' himself and the Mexican authorities) want is to get the defendants down into Arizona, and then we will see that they get across the line."
Attorney General Bonaparte seems to have had the same purpose as Furlong and the Mexican authorities, even at a time when the case in hand did not involve extradition to Mexico or even to Arizona. During a hearing before Judge Ross in San Francisco Mr. Bonaparte had the temerity to wire his district attorney in that city: "Resist habeas corpus proceedings in case of Magon et al, on all grounds, as they are wanted in Mexico." This telegram was read in court. The incident was all the more remarkable in view of the fact that only a few days previously Bonaparte, in answer to a query from U. S. Senator Perkins, had replied by letter assuring the senator that the purpose of the prosecution of these men was not to send them back to Mexico.
Five separate and distinct charges were brought against Magon and his associates, one after another. First, it was "resisting an officer," Then it was the old charge of "murder and robbery." Later it was criminal libel. Still later it was murdering "John Doe" in Mexico. Finally it was conspiracy to violate the neutrality laws.
Undoubtedly the conspirators would have early succeeded in their purpose to railroad the men back to Mexico had not a number of Los Angeles organizations formed a defense committee, held mass meetings to arouse public sentiment, collected funds, and hired two able attorneys. Job Harriman and A. R. Holston. These lawyers after a long fight succeeded in driving the prosecution into a corner where they were compelled to proceed only under action involving imprisonment in this country.
During the early stages of the legal fight the Diaz agents were suppressing the paper "Revolucion" in characteristic style. After the arrest of its three editors, the editorial emergency was met by L. Gutierrez De Lara, who had not previously been in any way identified with the Liberal Party. Two weeks later De Lara was keeping company with Magon, Villarreal and Rivera. His extradition was sought on the ground that he had committed robbery "on the blank day of the blank month of 1906 in the blank state of Mexico!"
Despite the passing of De Lara "Revolucion" continued to appear regularly. As soon as the agents of the prosecution could locate the new editor they promptly arrested him. He proved to be Manuel Sarabia and he was charged with the same offense as happened to stand against Magon, Villarreal and Rivera at the time.
Who was left to publish little "Revolucion?" There were the printers. They—Modesto Diaz, Federico Arizmendez and a boy named Ulibarri—rose to the occasion. But in less than a month they, too, were led to jail, all three of them charged with criminal libel. Thus the Mexican opposition newspaper passed into history. Incidentally, Modesto Diaz died as a result of the confinement following that arrest.
"Revolucion" was not an anarchist paper. It was not a socialist paper. It did not advocate the assassination of presidents or the abolition of government. It merely stood for the principles which Americans in general since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States came into being have considered as necessary to the well-being of any nation. If an American newspaper of its ideals had been suppressed by one-tenth as brazen methods, a righteous protest would have echoed and re-echoed across the continent. But it was only a Mexican newspaper, an opponent of President Diaz, and—it was suppressed.
The story of Lazaro Gutierrez De Lara well exemplifies the system of robbing the enemies of Diaz of their personal liberty in the United States, as practiced by the Department of Justice working in conjunction with Mexican agents in various parts of the West during the past five years.
De Lara was taken to jail on September 27, 1907, on telegraphic instructions from Attorney General Bonaparte. As before stated, he was charged with larceny committed on the blank day of the blank month of 1906 in the blank state of the Republic of Mexico, and on this awful indictment his extradition to Mexico was sought.
The extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico provides that the country asking extradition must furnish evidence of guilt within forty days of the arrest of the accused. In De Lara's case this little technicality was waived, and at the end of forty days a new complaint was filed containing the illuminating information that the alleged crime had been committed in the state of Sonora. This was considered sufficient ground upon which to hold the prisoner another forty days.
Nothing happened at the end of the second forty days, and on December 22 Attorney Harriman applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied and the prosecution was given more time in which to file a third complaint. De Lara was then accused of stealing uncut stove-wood in the state of Sonora, August 13, 1903!
Several peculiar facts developed at the hearing. One was that De Lara had been tried and acquitted of the identical offense in Mexico more than four years previously. Another was that while at the trial in Mexico the value of the wood was fixed by the prosecution at four dollars, at the Los Angeles hearing its value was placed at twenty-eight dollars. Because a thief cannot be extradited for stealing less than twenty-five dollars the wood market had taken a spectacular jump. But, by an oversight of the prosecution the market even then did not jump quite high enough, for by discovering that the price of silver was a little lower than usual that year, Attorney Harriman showed that the alleged value, fifty-six Mexican pesos, did not come to twenty-eight dollars in American money, but a little less than twenty-five dollars, and so on that technicality the life of De Lara was saved.
The facts of the case were that De Lara had never stolen any wood, but that, while acting as attorney for a widow whom a wealthy American mine owner was trying to euchre out of a piece of land, he had given the widow permission to cut some wood on the land for her own use. The audacity of the prosecutors in this case would be unbelievable were it not a matter of record. De Lara was released, but only after one hundred and four precious days of his life had been wasted in an American jail. He had been luckier than many of his compatriots, he had won his fight against extradition, but that three and one-half months were gone and could never be brought back. Moreover. "Revolucion" had been suppressed and a Mexican gentleman had been taught that he who opposes the tyrant may be properly disciplined in the United States as well as in Mexico.
Magon, Villarreal and Rivera remained in prison continuously since August 23, 1907. for nearly three years. From early in July, 1908, to January, 1909, they were held incommunicado in the Los Angeles county jail, which means that no visitors, not even newspaper men, were permitted to see them. For a time not even Mrs. Rivera and her children were permitted to see the husband and father. Only their local attorney saw them. Two attorneys who were representing them in another state were excluded on the flimsy ground that they were not attorneys of record in California.
The only excuse Oscar Lawler, United States District Attorney, had to offer for this severe isolation when, in July, 1908, I called upon him at his office and protested was:
"We are doing this at the request of the Mexican government. They have accommodated us and it's no more than right that we accommodate them."
Requests were also made by the Mexican government that the men be not admitted to bail and the requests were obeyed. The privilege of liberty on bail pending trial is guaranteed by the law to all accused persons below the murderer in cold blood, and yet Judge Welborn, sitting both as district and circuit judge, denied the men this privilege. Bail had previously been fixed as $5,000, ten times the amount required in similar cases that had previously come up. In the latter part of July, 1908, this amount was raised and presented in the most gilt-edged form, but it was not accepted. Judge Welborn's excuse was that a rule of the Supreme Court says that during habeas corpus proceedings the custody of a prisoner shall not be changed. This rule he strangely interpreted to mean that these particular prisoners should not be admitted to bail.
During their six months of incommunicado, when the prisoners were unable to make any public statement, Lawler took advantage of their enforced silence publicly to declare them guilty not only of the offenses charged, but of others, among them a plot to assassinate President Diaz, when, as a matter of fact, Lawler had no evidence whatsoever of such a plot.
After nearly two years in county jails Magon, Villarreal and Rivera, were adjudged guilty of conspiring to violate the neutrality laws by conspiring to set on foot a military expedition against Mexico. They were sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment and were confined in the penitentiary at Florence, Arizona. Sarabia was not tried. Having waived extradition proceedings, he had been taken to Arizona ahead of the others. Here he was released on bail and soon afterwards was married to Miss Elizabeth D. Trowbridge, a Boston girl of old and wealthy family. His health broken by long confinement, believing that a trial would result in his imprisonment in spite of the lack of evidence against him, Sarabia was persuaded to pay his bail and with his wife flee to Europe. There he has since interested himself in writing for various English, French, Spanish and Belgian papers articles upon the democratic movements in Mexico.
The campaign to extradite the refugees on charges of "murder and robbery," generally failed. It succeeded insofar as it kept a good many Liberals in jail for many months, drained their resources, weakened their organization, and intimidated their friends, but it did not succeed in extraditing them. Most of the Liberals deported were deported by immigration officials or by kidnapping.
The "murder and robbery" campaign failed because it was so plainly in contradiction with American laws and American principles. The U. S. prosecuters must have known this from the start but, in order to accommodate Diaz, they went ahead with the prosecutions. That this campaign was not a mere blundering on the part of individual U. S. Attorneys, but that it was a policy of the highest officials of the government was shown, in 1908, when numerous published reports from various departments at Washington and from Oyster Bay expressed the desire of the administration to deport Mexican political refugees "as common criminals."
Failing in its efforts to deport Mexican refugees wholesale "as common criminals," our Department of Justice concentrated its energies to secure their imprisonment for violation of the neutrality laws or conspiracy to violate the neutrality laws. It is a high misdemeanor to set on foot a military expedition against a "friendly power," or to conspire to set on foot a military expedition against a "friendly power." In addition to Magon, Villarreal, Rivera and Sarabia, some of the Liberal refugees who have been prosecuted under this law are Tomas de Espinosa, Jose M. Rangel, Gasimiro H, Regalado, Lauro Aguirre, Raymundo Cano, Antonio Aruajo, Amado Hernandez, Tomas Morales, Encardacion Diaz Guerra, Juan Castro, Priciliano Silva, Jose Maria Martinez, Benjamin Silva, Leocadio Trevino, Jose Ruiz, Benito Solis, Tomas Sarabia, Praxedis Guerrero, Sirvando T. Agis, John Murray, Calixto Guerra. Guillermo Adan, E, Davilla, Ramon Torres Delgrado, Amendo Morantes, Francisco Sainz, Marcelleno Ibarra and Inez Ruiz.
Most of the arrests occurred at San Antonio, Del Rio, El Paso, Douglass, or Los Angeles. This is by no means a complete list, but is a list of the most notable cases.
In nearly all of these cases the accused were kept in jail for month after month without an opportunity of proving their innocence. When the cases came to trial, they were usually acquitted. Convictions were secured in the cases of Espinosa, Aruajo, Guerra, Priciliano Silva, Trevino, Rangel, and Magon, Villarreal and Rivera. Prison sentences ranging from one and one-half to two and one-half years were given the convicted ones and they were confined either at Leavenworth, Kansas, or Florence, Arizona.
Were these men guilty? If not, how is it that they were convicted?
It is my opinion that not one was guilty within the proper interpretation of the statute, that the laws were stretched to convict them, that in some instances, at least, they were deliberately jobbed.
This is a bold statement, but I think the facts bear me out. That there exists on the part of our government a most incontinent desire to serve Diaz is shown by the circumstance that cases where the evidence of violation of the neutrality laws is ten times as clear—as American expeditions to aid revolutions in Central American or South American countries—have been and are habitually overlooked by our authorities. But this fact I do not need to urge in favor of the Mexican Liberals. The truth is that there has never been any adequate evidence to show a violation of the neutrality laws on their part.
Did they set on foot a military expedition against a friendly power? Did they plan to do so? No. What did they do? They came to this country and here planned to aid a revolutionary movement in Mexico. Here they fled to save their lives, here they staid, planning to return and take part in a rebellion upon Mexican soil; nothing more.
Did this constitute a violation of the neutrality laws?
Not in the opinion of U. S. Judge Maxey. of Texas, who reviewed some of the cases. January 7, 1908. the San Antonio Daily Light and Gazette, quotes Judge Maxey as follows:
The exact text of the law is as follows:
Magon, Villarreal and Rivera, the leaders, not only did not set on foot an expedition against Mexico, but they did not even cross the river and fight themselves. Their conviction was secured through the palpably perjured testimony of a Mexican detective named Vasquez, who presented the only direct evidence against them. Vasquez claimed to be a spy who had penetrated a meeting of a Liberal club. There, he declared, letters were read from Magon ordering the club to constitute itself as a military body and invade Mexico. At this meeting, said Vasquez, military appointments, forwarded by Magon, were made. The names, said he, were written by a member named Salcido. The paper was produced, but handwriting experts brought by the defense proved the document to be a forgery. Vasquez then changed his testimony and swore that he wrote the names himself. This was a vital point in the testimony and, had the public prosecutors been interested in upholding the law, rather than in persecuting the political enemies of Diaz, they would have discharged the defendants and prosecuted Vasquez for perjury.
The general persecution of Mexican political refugees continued unabated up to June, 1910, when the scandal became so great that the matter was presented to Congress, and the facts which I have set down here, but in more complete form, were testified to before the House Rules Committee. Resolutions providing for a general investigation of the persecutions are now pending in both houses.
Up to the initiation of congressional proceedings the government planned to continue the persecutions. Repeatedly it was announced that, when the terms of Magon, Villarreal and Rivera, at the Florence penitentiary, ended, they would be prosecuted on further charges. But on August 3 they were released and were not re-arrested. Since that date there have been no prosecutions, to my knowledge. It is to be hoped that the laws of this country, and the great American principle of protection for political refugees, will not again be abused, for I fear that the conspirators are only waiting for the public to forget their past crimes.
There may be further persecutions and there may not. Even if there are not, Justice will not be satisfied; the friends of decency and of liberty cannot be content. For some of the victims are still enduring unjust punishment which it is in the power of the American people to end. There is Lazaro Puente, for example, the peaceful editor, thirteen years a resident of the United States, who was unjustly and unlawfully deported as an "undesirable immigrant" by our immigration officials. Lazaro Puente is a prisoner in San Juan de Ulua, the military fortress in Vera Cruz Harbor. He has been a prisoner there for more than four years. Unjustly he was yielded up to the Diaz police; in justice the American people should demand that he be returned free to this country.