No. 771.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Bragg.
Department
of State,
Washington, March 6,
1888.
No. 4.]
Sir: The ease of Henry Brudigam, a citizen of the
United States, confined in the jail at Chihuahua during more than three
years past, on the charge of murder committed upon one Domingo Steiner, has
heretofore been the occasion of dispatches from your legation to this
Department and instructions in reply, to remonstrate against the oppressive
delay in the prosecution of the case.
With instructions No. 220 of December 3, 1887, there was sent to Mr. Connery
a copy of dispatch No. 15 of October 29, 1887, from Mr. Heimké, United
States vice consul at Chihuahua, reporting the acquittal and release of Mr.
Brudigam, and it appeared to the Department that the impression that he was
innocent and of the weakness of the charge against him, which had been
easily arrived at here, was sustained by the verdict, with which I ventured
to express satisfaction, although regretting that justice to this American
citizen had been so long deferred.
There has recently been handed tome by Mr. O. D. Barrett, of Washington, copy
of a letter (of which transcript is herewith inclosed) addressed under date
of 17th February ultimo, by Mr. Brudigam and a fellow-prisoner named Fred.
Ficken, whose citizenship is not stated, but who is said to have been the
business associate of Mr. Brudigam, from which letter it appears that, after
having been acquitted as aforesaid on the 29th of October last, Mr. Brudigam
(with Mr. Ficken) was re-arrested on an appeal of the public prosecutor, and
a second trial ordered, which
[Page 1141]
took place January 26 and 27, 1888, resulting in conviction, entailing
capital punishment, which sentence was pronounced, on the 16th ultimo
against both the accused.
En this country, where exemption from being twice placed in jeopardy is one
of the most sacred individual rights recognized under a constitutional form
of government, it could not but cause a most profound and unfortunate
impression were a citizen of the United States, in a neighboring republic
likewise under constitutional law, to forfeit his life after a complete and
formal trial and acquittal.
Wholly apart from this, the slender and unsatisfactory evidence against Mr.
Brudigam, as elicited in the protracted proceedings of the first trial,
could not, in the absence of new and conclusive evidence brought out on the
second trial (of which the Department has no information) in impartial
minds, justify a reversal of the former verdict of acquittal.
These considerations, which, however, for want of later details, I am as yet
unprepared to urge upon the Mexican Government as grounds of complaint, seem
abundant to justify an inquiry, coupled with a request for a stay of
execution of the sentence until the result of such inquiry shall have been
communicated and an opportunity afforded to this Government for an
examination.
I accordingly sent to you on the 5th instant an open telegram in the
following words:
Bragg, American Minister, Mexico:
Henry Brudigam, American citizen, after three years’ detention at
Chihuahua on charge of murdering Domingo Steiner, was acquitted and
released October 29 last, re-arrested November 2 and new trial
ordered, which resulted in conviction 16th ultimo. You will ask
information in the case and urgently request stay of execution until
this Department can examine Mexican reply.
Mr. Heimké’s dispatch of October 29, 1887, is the last report in the case
from the consulate at Chihuahua. He has been directed to report the facts of
Mr. Brudigam’s second trial both to the Department and directly to the
legation in Mexico.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure in No. 4.]
Mr. Brudigam to Mr.
Butler.
Carcel
Municipal,
Chihuahua,
Mexico, February 17,
1888.
Dear Sir: As a known champion of liberty and
justice, as a friend to the oppressed, we beg leave respectfully to
submit the following brief synopsis of our wrongs at the hands of the
Mexican authorities, and to request your advice and influence with a
view to obtaining that impartial judgment which alone the evidence in
the case admits and which the chicanery and corruption and
circumlocutory action of these Mexican courts have perverted.
On the 9th of February, 1885, a jeweler, by name D. Steiner, was robbed
and murdered in the city of Chihuahua, Mexico, and his store plundered.
The audacity of the crime in connection with the popularity of the
murdered man incited to action the whole city with a view to bringing
the criminals to justice. The undersigned were conducting a bakery in
Chihuahua at the time of the occurrence above narrated, and being
acquainted with deceased felt in common with the populace a just
indignation at the act and a keen desire to ferret out the perpetrator.
With this object in view, I called upon the chief of police and left
with him my watch, which I had purchased of Mr. Steiner some months
previous to the murder, hoping it might be of service in detecting the
[Page 1142]
guilty parties, as I
knew Mr. Steiner had other watches at the time of his death like the one
I had purchased of him. Three or four days subsequently I sent for my
watch. In the mean time there had been no arrests made, nor so far as I
knew any developments throwing light upon the case. In a few months I
was arrested upon a minor charge and imprisoned. I was then catechised
with reference to the watch by the authorities, who, ignoring my action
with the chief of police, setting aside the evidence of three competent
witnesses that I had bought the watch of Mr. Steiner, they actually
refused to accept as testimony the identical bank check, properly
authenticated, with which I paid for the watch. I was then formally
charged with the murder of Mr. Steiner. Two weeks afterwards my
associate in business was also arrested upon the same charge, and we
were both imprisoned.
On the 19th of November, 1886, having been in prison since May, 1885, the
agente del ministerio publico decided there were no grounds for
prosecution. The case then went to the supreme court, and his decision
was reversed and a trial ordered. In May, 1887, we were notified that
our trial would commence. We were not present at court, but about six
weeks from date of notification we were informed that the agente del
ministerio had refused to prosecute, and consequently our lawyers did
not make any defense. On the 29th of the following October we were
released from confinement and declared not
guilty. On the 2d of November we were re-arrested on an appeal of
the procurator, a new trial ordered, which took place January 26 and 27,
1888. We were both present at the trial. There was no evidence whatever
tending to implicate either of us, yet the prosecuting attorney, in
summing up the case, expressed it as his opinion
that we were guilty although no legal evidence had been submitted. We received our sentence on
the 16th instant—capital punishment. I have given
a brief outline of the case to enable you to base intelligent action
upon it. The consul here has no standing with the authorities, and we
are without friends or money. This appeal to your known generosity is
the last lingering hope of despairing men. You have the influence with
our Government to obtain for us a fair and impartial trial and the legal
acumen to grasp at once the case in all its bearings and favor us with
your counsel and advice. The inclosed copies of letters is all the
correspondence had by us pertaining to the case.
Very respectfully, etc.,
- Henry Brudigam.
- Fred. Ficken.
