Mr. Gresham to Mr. Guzmán.
Washington , October 26, 1894 .
Sir:Referring to your note to this Department of August 9 last, requesting the extradition of Antonio Ezeta, Juan Cienfuegos, and others, I beg to call your attention to the fact that the note did not specify the crimes of which they were accused.
Accompanying it, however, was a copy of a note from your Government to you, under date of July 2, in which murder, robbery, and arson only were specified.
[Page 576]Considering this as a sufficient requisition within the meaning of Article VI of the treaty concluded May 23, 1870, the usual certificate, by some called a warrant, was issued for a preliminary examination before a judicial officer on these charges. In the hearing before Judge Morrow, the charge of arson appears not to have been pressed. The charges of robbery and murder were found by him to relate to offenses of a political character, which are excluded from the operation of the treaty, and the persons, other than Cienfuegos, charged with those offenses accordingly were released. Judge Morrow deemed the evidence sufficient to hold Cienfuegos on the charge of attempt to murder, which charge was not embraced in the requisition of Salvador, the warrant for the preliminary hearing, or the warrant of arrest.
It appears from the record of the preliminary proceeding that on or about January 3, 1894, Cienfuegos was arrested and imprisoned in Salvador for an attempt to murder one Andres Amaya; that three days later, by order, or in consequence of some action of the chief executive of the Government, he was set at liberty, and, although the revolution did not break out until nearly four months later, he was not again molested on that charge. On these facts it may be reasonably inferred that Cienfuegos was pardoned before trial. But, however that may be, this Government declines to surrender him on a charge not embraced in the requisition for his extradition, the warrant for the preliminary hearing, or the warrant of arrest.
Accept, etc.,