fiscal, who supported his charges on the evidence of public notoriety, the proceedings were denounced as illegal, and the charges not proved as required by law.[1] According to the constitution, the penalty of death did not exist for political offences such as the present. It did apply for treason; but Maximilian as a foreigner could not be charged with this crime.[2] Allusion was made to the considerate treatment accorded in the republic of the United States to the far more censurable president of the late confederacy, who had never been recognized by any other nation.[3] Finally, an appeal was made to the honor and sympathy of the republicans not to abuse their victory and stain their laurels with a bloody and useless execution.[4]
It had also been urged that Maximilian should be treated, if not as emperor, as archduke, and be sent back to his country as a prisoner of war, for as such he had been admitted by Escobedo. But the
- ↑ 43
- ↑ Evidence of public notoriety was inadmissible, unless proved reliable, and so forth. Vazquez entered into a review of this point, altogether too elaborate as compared with others.
- ↑ The case of Ortega was also brought up in a previous representation, as being left to a superior tribunal.
- ↑ The defence, as framed by Ortega and Vazquez, is lacking in symmetry and sequence, partly because each took a special section; but even with greater study and intonation of points it would not have availed against a court biassed by political feelings, and acting under pressure, if, indeed, they were not pledged beforehand. It forms an appendix, pp. 17-55, to Palacio's and Torre's Mem. In previous representations a public investigation of Maximilian's administrative acts was urged as needful to so important a case, for willing to enter on grounds so dangerous to their aim. That he had abdicated was also made a point. The Miramare treaty might have been produced to weigh in his favor, as freed from criminal intentions with regard to French acts.
tary courts were for discipline, etc., and Maximilian not belonging to the army — at least, not to the army controlled by these courts — he could not be subjected to them. The points involved were difficult for experienced judges, much more so for the young military members of court, who knew little or nothing of law. Maximilian had already protested against them as of too low a rank to try him. All this had been previously overruled by Escobedo. A court of generals would undoubtedly have been less subservient to dictation from an interested source, and more careful of their local and foreign reputation, hence, more impartial.
