and marked liberal policy, with an entire absence of persecution for political creed or attitude, proved that he came not to oppress. The issue of the severe decree of October 3, 1865, was, at the instance of the French commander, supported by the ministry, and in the belief that Juarez had abandoned Mexican territory. Besides, he had as sovereign as much right to issue such protective measures as the republican government to publish its equally severe law of 1862. He revoked his decree, and according to international usages Juarez should have followed his example.[1] If Maximilian remained after the French prepared to depart, it was partly to prevent a new government from being forced upon the people.
This exposition of the rights and conduct of Maximilian and his party sought to demonstrate that the law of January 25, 1862, was inapplicable to the case. Further, the law was shown to be unconstitutional.[2] Federal interests were concerned in the case, and according to the constitution, congress or a civil tribunal must decide upon it.[3] Hence a court-martial was incompetent.[4] No witnesses being called by the
- ↑ His decree, instigated by duty, was intended rather to intimidate, and few executions resulted from it.
- ↑ Ortega devoted some attention to demonstate this from articles in the constitution and in the law itself. The danger to which it applied was past, and the power of the president by art. 29 to suspend certain guarantees did not extend to those securing life. According to the defence prepared by Hall, the president had no authority to legislate, and any law not issued by the legislative power was unconstitutional. It was also unconstitutional to punish political crimes with death. Congress had no right to let the president make laws. These points were not pressed by the Mexican counsel.
- ↑ The acts of a government risen against the constitution should be tried according to art. 128. The rights of the nation having been violated, the federation was interested, and according to art. 97 federal tribunals must take cognizance; so also by art. 101, when personal guarantees are concerned. The observance of the constitution, interrupted by rebellion, must be restored as soon as the people recovered its liberty. This was no doubt a lost point, for the fight continued round Mexico, in accordance with Maximilian's late regency decree.
- ↑ Art. 13 of the constitution forbade, besides, any special tribunal, Mili- was fraudulent, he as a foreigner, on the other side of the ocean, could not judge. The demonstrations always accorded, on and after arrival, tended to confirm the sincerity of the vote. The term 'filibuster' is inapplicable and absurd under the circumstances. Besides, he brought no troops, but came peaceably, even without escort. Nor did he serve as a French instrument, for he opposed the projected session of Sonora and other Napoleonic schemes.
