Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 3, 1888, Part I

(2.) Text of the strange judgment in which the petition of Mr. John Metzger, praying for the legal delay, was rejected.

[undated].

Liberty. Equality. Fraternity.

republic of hayti—in the name of the republic.

The prize court sitting at Port au Prince and competently assembled in the rooms of the commercial court of this city has, in public session, rendered the following judgment:

Mr. Emanuel Léon explained the affair of the capture of the steamer Haytian Republic, and Mr. John D. Metzger, agent of the Hayti Mail Steam-ship Line, replied by the following counter-plea:

“The undersigned, agent of the Hayti Mail Steam-ship Line, has the honor of praying the prize court for a postponement of the affair of the Haytian Republic to Saturday, the 3d November (Unless there occur an unforeseen prevention, which will be satisfactorily explained), seeing that, in an affair so important, it is impossible for him to prepare his means of defense in the brief delay of one full day only, the Government of Hayti, who is the chief witness for the defense, having been the first to fail in giving him some simple information which he has demanded of them since Saturday, the 28th instant.

“John D. Metzger.

“Port au Prince, October 30, 1888.”

Mr. Léon opposed the petition for a delay.

On the petition for a delay made by Mr. John D. Metzger, agent of the Hayti Mail Steam-ship Line:

Having seen the counter-plea ad hoc deposited by Mr. John D. Metzger in the aforesaid capacity;

Having heard Mr. Emanuel Léon, prosecuting officer, in his verbal opposition;

Considering that the Haytian Republic arrived captured in our waters Sunday, the 21st instant;

That from the next day the preliminary investigation of her affair had commenced;

That Mr. John D. Metzger had a knowledge of it;

That therefore he had the time necessary to prepare his defense;

Considering, besides, that in such cases the process is summary;

That by reason of the importance of the interest involved it is necessary to arrive at a decision promptly;

For these reasons the court, after having deliberated on them, rejects the petition for a delay made by Mr. John D. Metzger in his aforesaid capacity, and orders the continuation of the affair.

Pronounced by us, Hugon Lechaud, president; Maximilian Laforest, Justin Dévot, Jacques Nicolas Léger, Dantès Fortunat, aided by Mr. Christian Duchatellier, clerk, this 30th October, 1888.

It is written and ordered, etc.

• H. Lechaud.
• Justin Dévot.
• Dantes Fortunat.
• Max Laforest.
• J. N. Léger.
• Ch. Duchatellier.

Thus it is because the process is summary and because Mr. John D. Metzger had a knowledge of it before the summons; it is for these reasons that his petition for a delay was rejected. Are these judges of the prize court ignorant of the fact that the summary character of a process, and above all when it is connected with or results from a criminal investigation, does not permit a judge to shorten the delay which the law grants to the defendant to prepare his defense? It is an illogical pretense to object to this defendant that the investigation of his affairs having commenced on the day following the capture he had time to prepare his defense. Not at all. The delay prescribed by law for one to prepare his defense begins only from the day when he is summoned, because it is by this act only that the party knows both the irrevocable intention of judging the affair and the terms of the accusation. The time which precedes, the summons has never entered into the computation of the delay allowed for the defense.

A view of the Bay of St. Marc (according to authentic information) is herewith given, showing the respective positions of the ships Dessalines and Haytian Republic, at 15 o’clock on the afternoon of the 20th October, 1888.