Maytorena to Hon. John F. Miller, January 25, 1884
Mr. Maytorena to Hon. John F. Miller.
Sir: Having acted as interpreter during Captain Caleb’s trial, I deem it a duty to that gentleman to make an impartial statement of the facts as they came under my cognizance. It was known in this place, and commented upon, that a schooner, name unknown, had been seen for fully a week or ten days previous to the Adriana’s arrival standing off and on, going out to sea at daylight and toward land at night. This can be proved when the time comes, but no mention was made of this circumstance during the trial. An inquiry into the matter would have brought out the true facts and led to the conviction of the truly guilty parties. Before the Adriana was brought into port, Napoleon Savin lodged information in writing in the custom-house, stating that he had found some cases of goods on the shore of a place called Frailes Bay. This point was also overlooked in the investigation. As to the depositions given in, the witnesses thereto being, to a certain extent, subject to control or pressure, I place no reliance on them legally and morally speaking, as they [the witnesses] were not free agents in this matter, and were not cross-examined to my knowledge.
On the 27th December, 1882, the Adriana was at anchor in Frailes Bay, into which anchorage she had been driven by stress of weather, it being unsafe to keep to sea in the state she was in, sails torn, cargo shifted, leaking badly, and crew used up. Here it was that the revenue sloop found her at anchor. The officer boarded her and demanded the ship’s papers, and, after having examined them, remarked that they were in due form and he would report them as such. At daylight of the same day a boat in which the smuggled goods were found was inshore, fully 2 miles away, as the mate and crew have repeatedly told me, the chart bearing them out, said boat remaining at anchor from 9 a. in. to 4 p.m., when she was seized. After the seizure the boat was brought alongside the Adriana.
During the examinations; at no time did the crew in the slightest manner vary their statements, and one and all from first to last said the same thing, and unanimously bear witness to Caleb’s mental derangement for some time previous. This important fact was completely ignored during the trial. Had due consideration been taken, it would have materially changed the face of the affair. The animus was not concealed, as the men in whose possession were found the goods, corpus delicti, were allowed to escape, and the statement of an insane man was considered sufficient for conviction.
The law deems a man innocent until his guilt has been conclusively proved, and lays down certain fixed principles, which are so many finger-posts laying out our road. On the morning of the 28th the men were put ashore. Now arises the question if, as the officer says, he found a boat alongside, why were the receivers allowed to go? According to the definition of crime—“doing what the law forbids or failing to do what it commands”—it is unaccountable and exceedingly strange, the action taken in this matter, and more so if we call to mind the pains and penalties attached to receivers of goods which are dutiable. And, furthermore, as the interested party claimed that he was tempted to betray his trust, in this arises a question of veracity between the two. As they were taken ashore one of them remarked, “Good-bye, captain; they have taken all our money and are letting us go,” which tallies with the officer’s statement regarding bribery. In all laws the principle is laid down, first find who will derive the greatest benefit from the crime committed and yon will find the true criminal. Comment is unnecessary.
If in the laws of evidence certain rules are laid down in regard to witnesses, they have been totally disregarded, and in common law their testimony would have been overruled if the judge knew his duty and wanted to do it. Vattel lays down the principle that we are bound to obey the laws of the country we may happen to be in. Granted, but any infraction thereof must be remedied, pursuant to the same, by the action of the home government, as absence does not dissolve the tie that exists between the citizen and his country.
It is the duty of every judge before passing sentence to take into consideration the standing and character of the accused, his previous reputation in a word, to pass in review the past life of the accused, and then weigh the facts impartially ere he can arrive at a final decision. This was not done, or, if it was, it does not appear, as the sentence was to the full extent of the law.
Furthermore, at the time the statement was made in the custom-house the sailors protested against it as the action of an insane man. This was not heeded, as it should have been, and their subsequent testimony bears out the fact, corroborated by the medical certificate of Drs. Hidalgo and Martinez. These gentlemen examined Captain Caleb, and said certificate is in the trial papers. It may be safely affirmed that it is the first time that the admission of one suffering temporary derangement has been used for conviction, and in all likelihood it will never happen again, as it is hard to believe that the law will ever be twisted in such a way as it has been under pressure. This is proved on the appeal and letter from Culiacan, which has been seen by many parties here. In this letter the statement is made that the case has been fixed to suit the wishes of the party to whom it was addressed.
The twentieth article of the constitution of 1857, in the definition of the rights of man, lays down the guarantees which in this case have been foully wronged. Fraction third declares “that he shall be brought before his accuser, and shall know the parties testifying against him.” This was not done, and therefore the whole proceeding is null and void, as no unconstitutional act can be considered legal. This being a violation which involves official responsibility, I am not bound to abide by a decision, when the guarantees accorded to criminals have been denied me.
The true animus was plainly demonstrated during the trial, and the sentence has proved it beyond doubt. The crew were not brought face to face with the captors, nor were they, the witnesses for the prosecution, examined in the presence of the accused, if at all, save in the preliminary examination, and then not in his presence.
Fraction fourth declares that “he shall be furnished with all the data necessary for his defense.” This was not done, as only garbled copies were furnished to the defense; another infraction, to which attention is most respectfully called. As we are bound to obey the laws of the country in which we may happen to be, we are justified in protesting against any violation thereof. Such are the facts in this case, and the statement here made can be verified by the copy of the proceedings sent to Washington.
We shall now review the case and judge it accordingly.
Smuggling is the act of introducing goods clandestinely. No substantial proof was brought forward during the trial. The crew denied the allegation made by the cook and boy, and then the defense was not allowed to cross-question the witnesses for the prosecution; thereby the defense was made a farce, as the means to make it good were denied. In all laws the accused or defendant has undoubted right, through his attorney, to cross-question, and by those means arrive at the truth. But in this case it was not so, as has been shown. Had the vessel been consigned to any other house, in this port she would never have been seized, and this is the opinion of many, if not all, of the inhabitants of this place. Said house has made many enemies, and they are watching for an opening to injure it, should opportunity occur. The goods that were seized at Frailes’ Bay were marked P. H. & Co.; the numbers did not agree with the manifest nor with the description of goods it called for, and the duties were paid on the cargo and the cases seized were the only ones that were contraband. Another point. The sentence called for the imprisonment of the guilty parties, and they are at large, and, so far as known, no effort has been made for their arrest. The only sufferer throughout is an American citizen, who claims, and justly so, the protection of his country.
With regards, &c.,