Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 9, 1891

Mr. Egan to Mr. Blaine.

Legation of the United States,
Santiago, January 18, 1892. (Received March 2.)

No. 263.]

Sir: I have the honor to send herewith a translation of a very excellent review of the judge’s report, which was published in one of the papers recently started in opposition to the Government, El Progreso (inclosure No. 1), together with a translation of the fiseal’s report on the case, cut from an English paper in Valparaiso (inclosure No. 2).

I have, etc.,

Patrick Egan.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 263.—Translation.—From El Progreso, of Talca.]

Review of the judge’s report.

The public now has at its disposition the result of the investigation by the criminal court of Valparaiso into the unfortunate occurrences of October 16, in which were engaged a number of sailors from the Baltimore and many men of the lowest class in Valparaiso aided by a great number of Chilean seamen from men-of-war anchored in the bay.

On page 1 is the official report of the police, signed by José H. Zamudio and dated the 17th of October. According to this report, the murderer of Charles William Riggin is unknown, the origin of the disorder is unexplained, and the men who wounded the five Americans and one Chilean sailor are undiscovered. In the said investigation appeared 31 Americans and 11 Chileans, notwithstanding the fact that in the judge’s summary we see 5 wounded and 31 imprisoned Americans—in all 36 Americans. First error: the fact of not mentioning the names of those detained, a matter overlooked by the judge and an unpardonable omission.

On page 2 we find the usual form of decree, dated October 17, in which the number of prisoners is stated as 31 Americans and 11 Chileans. The wounded were not considered prisoners. It would have been barbarous to incarcerate them, and yet this judge liberates, without having ever imprisoned, these wounded men. A most curious and original proceeding!

Beginning on page 3, the testimony of the 42 prisoners continues for two and a half pages. The testimony limits these men to saying that they took no part in the disturbance, nor did any of the 42 men present, and that they bear no ill will toward any of their fellow-prisoners. On the strength of these declarations a writ is issued releasing 20 American seamen.

On October 19 appeared the first witness of the investigation, Capt. Zamudio, who signed the report, page 1, testifying on pages 6 and 15. He knows nothing, and confines himself to conjectures and surmises, which should never enter into an investigation, where a witness should testify only to those things seen by his eyes and heard through his ears.

On page 7 we find the testimony of Dr. Calderon regarding the dead man and the five wounded sailors; while on pages 8 and 14 is the testimony of Dr. Carvallo relating to the same dead man, the same wounded men, and, in addition, to a Chilean wounded in the back. The doctors give as their opinion that the man was killed by a revolver bullet, and that Turnbull had thirteen wounds, all curable in thirty days. Turnbull afterwards died on board the Baltimore.

On page 16 is a certificate of the secretary, in which the wounds of 6 sailors detained at the police station are given in detail, said wounds being swellings caused by blows, bruises, etc.; also stating that eleven sailors’ knives were found, eight being claimed by the Americans, the owners of three remaining knives unknown; an iron bar and another knife were without owners, though taken from the Americans. No arms were found on the 11 Chilean prisoners.

On October 20 (page 17) the 11 American seamen who still remained prisoners testified in their own language. The same day (October 20, at page 18) Lieutenant of Police Gomez and (page 19) Lieut. Vives Bravo testify. Neither knows anything, and they repeat the testimony given by Capt. Zamudio. After these declarations, through the just demands of the captain and two lieutenants of the Baltimore, who pressed the judge to hasten his decree, the 11 American sailors still remaining in prison were liberated. On the same day the declarations of 5 wounded men in the hospital were taken (pages 21 to 23). On October 21 (page 23) the 5 wounded men were released and ordered to appear before the commandant of police. This commandant testifies (page 24) on October 24, but advances no information; everything he says is deduction, bat he offers no facts.

On the same day, October 24, an official communication from a member of the ministry, Señor Matta, is received through the intendente, asking an immediate report upon the completion of the investigation, so that he may be well informed in case of future diplomatic reclamations (page 26). On October 24 those residing in the vicinity of the disorder and the police who made the arrests were ordered to appear. On October 27 (page 27) the judge, Don Enrique Foster, asks data from the commander of the Baltimore and the United States consul.

Here let us pause to contemplate the methods adopted and what has been accomplished. Twelve days have passed and twenty-seven pages of documents have been transcribed. Only four witnesses have been examined—the commandant of police, a captain of police, and two lieutenants of police. What more could be done in a case where only 1 man was killed, 6 severely wounded, and 5 badly injured, without mentioning those not taken by the police? A case in which figure 36 foreigners and Chilean citizens! What more stupendous labor could be exacted from the judge than to fill twenty-seven sheets of paper and to consume twelve days in such a colossal undertaking? And the forty-seven declarations of the 47 prisoners! Do you not think it a magnificent effort? Prisoners and witnesses: grand total, fifty-one declarations. Almost five per day! Let us wait a moment, dear reader, and find the facts, and not lose ourselves in conjectures and deductions like the judge who makes the investigation. How did these things happen? As follows: Pages 3, 4, and 5 the 42prisoners testify October 17. The 5 others testify, not before the judge, but before the secretary, not on the 17th, as our laws require, but on the 20th, the fifth day after the occurrence. What surprising activity in taking the testimony of the wounded! Do you not think so?

In strict regard for the truth, we will say that the judge did much, very much, on October 17. He conducted himself very well, but during the ten days following what did he to refute the just reproaches launched against the indolent?

Why did not the judge repair to the place of action and take the declarations of those present when the affair occurred, when the country cries aloud for a proper settlement of an affair which has dishonored us and harassed a friendly government? Why were not those present and the eyewitnesses called into court on the second day? What hidden hand has controlled events to prevent the summoning of eyewitnesses, the druggists in whose shops the wounded received their first attentions, the laborers on the wharf, the custom-house men, the employés on the street car from which two Americans were dragged by the rabble, one the man Riggin, who died, and the other a wounded man? What a singular thing! Those present at the disorder and the eyewitnesses began to testify on November 4, nineteen days after the disorder occurred. The proprietors of the drug stores—Sotelo, Kiegel, and Aguilar—testify at the end of two months, December 18. Those who arrested the prisoners testified on the 19th of the same month, more than two months after the disorder took place. Not one of the other employés has testified, not even the conductress nor the driver of the car in which Riggin rode has been cited to appear in court; neither is the number of the car known, nor the names of those who were eyewitnesses. Neither has Dr. Hahn, who certified to the death of Riggin and who examined him, been summoned as a witness.

These negligences discourage us, and it mortifies us to contemplate the processes of justice in the city of Valnaraiso, the commercial emporium and business center of a rich, populous, and illustrious country. Not only this; but on October 27, our judge, despairing of any aid from Chilean sources, and finding neither the intendente of the province, the judge of the district, nor any living being will furnish him data to rescue the investigation from the limbo into which it has fallen, rushes for aid to the foreign representatives. Give me light, he says to the foreign representatives, for the Chilean authorities give me none, and I am in the dark regarding what passes in my own house. What a terrible blow launched by the judge against the recognized authority of the immaculate Arlegui and against the indolent and incompetent city police! And this intendente laughs with the refined people of Valparaiso, dishonoring his office that should be a powerful auxiliary to the judge, and makes himself an inactive and indolent official.

Look, Chileans, how we go to ask information from a foreign power, from a man-of-war; and we ask it without having taken the testimony of the police officials who are at the door of the court, waiting at the very feet of justice, when we have not even exhausted the means of investigation in our own hands. We begin by asking data from the captain of the Baltimore and the United States consul, when this is the point at which we should have finished. And we have concluded the investigation with the testimony of those Who made the arrests, when really we should have opened the investigation with their declarations. Human frailty! What incompetency in a judge to forget the means most useful, just, and honorable! Is it not true that for such a judge the gallows would be a small reward, or a journey to the other world, except to immortalize him among those of his class? However, now that everything is a farce, the law of amnesty a farce, liberty a farce, and the constitution under which we live a farce, we can not hope anything better than that this judge be made a minister of court. To what an extent have we perverted the moral standard!

We are now at the first resting place, the first step in the staircase of the great Yankee investigation. We have thought best to give only the naked truth, whatever it may be worth, believing that we may thus serve our own country and better cultivate the friendship of the great North American people, and that the truth would be acceptable to two nations that esteem each other and that will continue to remain on friendly terms, notwithstanding the fact that the Chileans, from their lofty position, wish to give an example of unparalleled foolishness as a return for the Itata affair.

II.

Let us continue our report after filling twenty-seven sheets of paper in twelve days of labor. It is now October 27. On page 28 appears an official letter from the commandant of police, dated October 28. In this note a little light is thrown upon the affair, and four prisoners are surrendered to justice.

On October 29 this note is made an official decree, Demetrio Leiva and Carlos E. Cortes, citizens, and Carlos Gomez and José Jesus Ahumada, Chilean sailors, being imprisoned. October 30 (page 29) the declarations of the four prisoners above named and of Federico Rodriguez, also a Chilean sailor, commence. Cortes is 30 years of age, a Dane; Gomez, 18 years old, a Chilean; Rodriguez, 17, a Chilean; Ahumada, 20 years old, a Chilean: and Leiva, 20 years of age. They testified in the order named under promise of speaking the truth, except Leiva, who was sworn. The same guardian was appointed for the three minors—the sheriff of the court. On October 31 (page 37) an order is issued releasing Leiva, who, in the report of the commandant, is mentioned as Letelier; Rodriguez is imprisoned and an order issued for the arrest of Carlos Aravena, and it is ordered that the said witnesses shall be brought face to face with the Baltimore men who were liberated and with the wounded men. The same day, the 31st (page 38), Leiva is liberated; Aravena has not been found. On November 3 the sailors of the Baltimore are cited to appear in court. On page 39 there is a fourth report from the police official Señor Cruz Rodriguez, in which he delivers to the judge one F. Rodriguez and a blood-stained shirt found in his possession.

On page 40 is the communication of the United States consul, dated October 31, and transcribed at the intendencia November 2. It states that “in the disorders of the 16th one of the crew of the Baltimore was killed and several others were severely wounded and badly injured;” that “the facts and data obtained by the consulate have been forwarded to Mr. Patrick Egan.”

On page 43 is a communication from Capt. W. S. Schley, of the Baltimore, stating that “the facts have been communicated by my Government to our minister, Mr. Egan. If he were addressed, he might be able to give the names of those who, in their turn, could give the names of others who saw the man that killed Riggin and the men who wounded many more of my countrymen. I can not give these data directly.” On page 45, November 2, these data are asked of Mr. Egan through the minister for foreign affairs. On page 45, November 2, an order is issued for the appearance of several other witnesses.

We have now reached November 3 and page 46. Let us make a short digression and recuperate after so much labor, taking a reasonable view of what has been accomplished, lamenting all that is deplorable, and forgiving all that is pardonable. We have seen four official reports of the police; one by the commandant, one by a captain, one by Sublieut or Lieut, Rodriguez, who, it is to be regretted, has not testified in the summary. What motive has the chief of police in not assuming his real duties in this most important proceeding? His duty is to make the reports and to work in accord with the court. In this way fewer errors would have been made in the details, and those unpardonable mistakes in the names of Chileans would have been avoided.

We can excuse inaccuracies in writing the names of foreigners, but never can we excuse errors in taking the names of our own countrymen. But one guardian was appointed for the three offenders who are minors. To the shame of the court, he names his own doorkeeper as his assistant. We believe this constable to be an honorable man; but we can hardly believe it quite right to call him to the high position with which the judge has honored him. The law has not been complied with when each minor prisoner is not given a separate guardian when there may be conflicting rights. We have seen above another grave infraction of the legal rules of investigation, when witnesses were examined by under-officers and not by the judge himself. It is ordered that a daily report be given of the wounded prisoners in the hospital. This report is not presented until the fifth day. The testimony of the prisoner Rodriguez was taken on October 30, while his arrest was not ordered until the 31st. Is greater confusion possible? What does this mean? The prisoner Leiva takes the oath and then testifies, which is contrary to article 154 of the constitution. The judge releases Leiva on October 31; sworn the 30th.

We have seen in the fourth report of the police that a shirt belonging to the prisoner Rodriguez has been delivered to the court. This article was not mentioned in the summary; in the hands of any other judge who was not a tool it would have been a great aid to the investigation. The same thing occurred with this article as with the silk handkerchief and the uniform of the sailor Johnson. Being the silent witnesses of crime they should have remained from the first in the possession of the secretary of the court and not returned to those from whom they were taken. What has been the result of such illegal procedure? Most important light that could have been thrown upon the chaos into which the investigation of the occurrences of October 16 has fallen is lost. Poor Chilean justice! What an awful judgment will fall upon all your magistrates because of the fatal blunders of one of your colleagues! This is all for the reason that men of ability and honor are not called to these judicial posts, but persons who pledge themselves to the aristocratic mendicants of the absorbing power of the capital of Chile. Who could affirm that the shirt and handkerchief of Johnson were the same that he wore when Riggin was wounded, and that the perforations they received have not been enlarged by washing or by some involuntary act—possible conjectures. All difficulties would have been removed had these most useful articles been retained in the office of the secretary of the court, as the law requires.

Let the reader notice the delay with which the intendencia forwards the communications of the American captain and the United States consul. Instead of forwarding them on the same day they are received, though the court is but a few squares from the intendencia, they are delayed until the third day. We believe this excusable in Señor Arlegui (the intendente), who affects the ostentation of an uncrowned monarch and who sleeps well, thanks to his good years, in the sweet idleness of a marquisate. Let him be free from the charge.

Let us here state that the captain of the Baltimore and the United States consul did not refuse to send their data directly. They only gave a lesson to our incompetent authorities, saying to them: “So those of your own house gave you no data; your methods of investigation have produced no light. You have recourse to foreign territory. Very well; you must approach another government in the right way—through the minister plenipotentiary. He has the data.” How can we explain that a foreigner, deprived of all the auxiliaries to an examination, completes an investigation in ten days, while the wise judge of Valparaiso with an intendente of great importance and with 400 auxiliary police has but half completed it in sixty days? Only the Olympics can explain; we of earth can not.

From October 27 to November 3, six days, what was accomplished? Four witnesses testified, all on the one day—October 30. Prodigious toil! Quite enough to cause the tower of our parish church of St. Anne to fall down in amazement! Let the reader remember that up to this time not one resident of the quarter in which the disorder occurred, nor one single policeman, who arrested the prisoners, has testified. Probably there were difficulties in the way of citing them to appear in court, or the soldiers have put obstacles in the way. This neglect belongs to the judge who conducted the examination and to the chief of police. Let them free themselves from the charge. We mention only what we see. It may be that explanations would clear up the matter. Let us pause a second time to point out to the reader the data unfolded in this famous examination.

III.

On November 3 the examination still continues, and (pages 40 to 49) the testimony of Yensen, Letelier, Glasgow, and Mowats is taken. They know very little. On November 4 fourteen witnesses residing near Calle Arsenal testify (pages 54 to 56). They know nothing. On the 6th three witnesses declare that they know nothing (pages 57 to 59). On the same day a communication is received from the commander of the Baltimore (pages 61 to 63), giving the names of thirteen men who can serve as witnesses in the investigation. He states that there are other witnesses, and asks that his men be allowed to testify in English and in public, and that their declarations be read. Prom page 63 to 70 are various communications, one summoning the captain of the Prudeto, who did not testify in the examination, and others from the captain of the Baltimore and the judge. On November 10 (pages 71 and 72) a sergeant and six police soldiers actually engaged in the disorders testify, and on page 73 Reyley and two other soldiers actually present at the disorders testify regarding the fray of October 16. Pages 74 to’ 78 are filled with incongruous notes. On the 14th the declarations of three witnesses are taken (pages 78 to 80). On the 18th the release of the man Costes is declared void (page 81). This release was granted November 3 (fifteen days before).

On pages 82 and 83 is a communication from the captain of the Baltimore referring to another matter. On November 20 (pages 84 to 90) nine Americans and the four prisoners are examined face to face. Among the nine are the four surviving wounded men. On the 21st (page 91) an important decree is issued, and among the methods adopted is the naming of a special commission, composed of three military officers, to examine the perforations in the silk handkerchief and the sailor’s shirt. Three doctors are also named to ascertain the probable arm used in making the wound in Riggin’s neck that caused his death. A new face-to-face examination is also ordered and a warrant issued for the arrest of Adrian Bravo. On the same day, the 21st, the commandant of police again testifies. The said Adrian Bravo is the one-armed Chilean sailor who was put in liberty October 20 (page 20). Now he is arrested for vagrancy on November 23, and the judge orders his imprisonment on the 25th. The police did not make this capture. He had a face-to-face examination with Davidson (page 93) and was liberated December 12 (page 115). On December 1 (pages 96 to 101) is a face-to-face examination between the soldiers actually engaged in the disorder and two witnesses, Johnson and Luigin, and (page 101) between them and Adrian Bravo. Wallace also testifies, and the police picket that made the arrests and all who have information are cited through the newspapers to appear in court (pages 102 and 103).

The same day (pages 104 to 108) are added the declarations of the doctors of the Baltimore containing information regarding the life, description, and death of Turnbull, that occurred on October 22, six days after having received eighteen wounds in the back, head, and face. This information plainly shows that death resulted from a wound received in one lung. Also, on December 1, the names of nine more persons are forwarded in addition to those mentioned on November 6. All these names are furnished by the captain of the Baltimore.

On pages 111 and 113 are two communications from the minister for foreign affairs, Don Manuel A. Matta, in which the delay of the investigation is attributed to two causes: First, the excuse of the part of the Baltimore’s crew for not appearing in court; second, the absence of the data asked from the United States minister, Mr. Patrick Egan.

We have reached December 3 and traveled over one hundred and fifteen pages of the summary. Let us pause for the third time to contemplate what the labors of genius have engraved upon the mute but eloquent pages of the investigation. In the month from November 3 to December 3, the 3d, 4th, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 20th of November, and the 1st and 2d of December—eight days in all—have been occupied in taking testimony; communications and decrees have taken four days. We have improved twelve days of the thirty. Surprising activity! Let us also note that our minister, Matta, has fallen into the net so cleverly cast by the United States minister, Mr. Egan, which shows very plainly that a man has to use four eyes, or a hundred, if possible, in diplomatic affairs.

We have seen that the judge of the investigation asked data from the commander of the Baltimore, and that he did not furnish them, but said data should be asked from Mr. Egan. Data were requested from Mr. Egan, and a reply was delayed, Mr. Egan ordering Capt. Schley to send the necessary data to the court. It is true that these data reached the judge on November 6 and December 1, and that they advanced the process considerably.

Notwithstanding this, Señor Matta claims the contrary; that the data not having been forwarded, the investigation is retarded. On December 20 the investigation was completed, and the press has already published the findings. In the findings the statement is repeated that up to this time the data asked of Mr. Egan have not been furnished, and that said data are necessary for the completion of the investigation. Let the reader carefully notice that the judge and Señor Matta are still awaiting the coming of the data; the fact being that these data were quietly and cunningly given on November 6 and December 1. Certain it is that the best hunter catches the hare, and right here we are compelled to confess that we have been most unfortunate in warding off the blow of the Yankee diplomatist. It now devolves upon our chancery to reestablish the truth, recognizing the fact that a deplorable wrong which it does not deserve has been attributed to it. The negligence and errors, according to the result of the investigation, rest exclusively with the authorities—local, administrative, and judicial, each in its own department.

Domingo Ignotus.

Santiago, January 1, 1892.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 253.—Translation.]

Opinion of the fiscal in the Baltimore question.

i.—origin of the affair.

From the first moment efforts were directed towards ascertaining the origin of the disorders: but, in spite of the efforts made to throw light on the affair, the witnesses and ringleaders have maintained a profound secrecy.

Nevertheless, in the record there appear several versions which, although they do not possess the necessary authenticity, give some idea of the form in which the occurrences were developed.

The commandant of police states in his deposition, on folio 24, that from the full and complete investigations he has made into this disagreeable affair, it appears to be a positive fact that the disorder began in a more or less insignificant row in a tavern in the Arrayan quarter, but up to the present which tavern is not known, in which row a Chilean and American sailor took part. The row was continued outside the taverns in Alamo street, and, rapidly assuming increased proportions through the interference of other American sailors and civilians, it was continued in Arrayan street. There the tumult still further increased, and all the combatants, who were now many in number, moved in the direction of the bay, where probably the American sailors purposed embarking.

On arriving at the pier numerous groups of boatmen hissed the American sailors, and the latter then fell back towards Echaurren Square closely followed by and in open fight with an enormous number of people of the lower order who had collected in consequence of the row, which had assumed great proportions, when the police interfered and put a stop to it.

Juana Urrutia and Margarita Novoa, who live on Marquez street, saw some Americans beating a Chilean sailor, whom they left lying senseless on the ground. Some persons cried out, “They have killed him,” and the Americans then fled towards Arsenal street.

The policemen who formed part of the armed picket sent from the station to suppress the disturbance state in their depositions, at folio 130 et seq., that of the different versions the most generally received is that the row began in Blanco street, owing to a fight with knives between a left-handed Chilean sailor and an American sailor. To these two combatants there were soon added others on both sides, and thus augmented in number they proceeded, now forming a crowd, towards the center of the Arrayan quarter, filling Clave, Alamo, and San Martin streets. At all these points the row assumed greater proportions from the accession of Chilean and American sailors who were in the numerous grogshops and dance houses in that quarter and with people of the lower order who were attracted to the spot by the news and who soon began to take an active part in the fight.

The witness Francisco Albornoz, tram-car employé at the station in Arsenal street, deposes, at folio 143, that at about 6 p.m. there passed along Arsenal street, in the direction of the custom-house, three sailors belonging to the Baltimore, who were flying before a crowd of people of the lower order and sailors who were pursuing them. In order to escape from their pursuers, the three sailors got inside a tram car with the intention of proceeding towards the center of the city. The crowd immediately surrounded the car and began to throw stones inside, evidently with the object of injuring the sailors. He asked the crowd why they attacked the car, and they shouted in reply that they had to take the sailors out of the car because they had just wounded a Chilean sailor in San Martin street, and that the crime could not be allowed to go unpunished.

It does not appear in a clear and positive manner from all these depositions what was the true origin of the disorders, for which reason the undersigned has endeavored to ascertain the truth for himself; and, as a result of his investigations, which agrees with the depositions just quoted and in the record, it may be accepted as a fact that the disorders which have given rise to this investigation had their origin in Marquez street. Outside the room at No. 33 A there was standing a Chilean sailor, who was in a state of intoxication, and three American sailors named Carlos Riggin, Patrick Eagan, and J. W. Talbot, who were also the worse for liquor (according to depositions on folios 17, 21, and 72 et seq.), in passing him heard him say something which the Americans doubtless considered offensive, for one of them struck him and knocked him senseless, and then fled together with his mates. The people on the spot, on seeing this, shouted that the Americans had killed the Chilean, and they started in a crowd in pursuit of the fugitives, who managed to take refuge in a tram car, from which they were compelled by the crowd to get down, one being wounded, and who shortly afterwards was shot dead, and the other escaping with some injuries.

This was the note of alarm. The people and the sailors who always collect in those quarters to drink, started, half drunk, in quest of the American sailors, who were also drinking in the different taverns which line those streets, and there followed the different rows in San Martin street and Cajilla street, formerly called Alamo street; Arrayan street, formerly called Quince street, and which are alluded to by some of the deponents.

From the preceding it results that the disorders which have given rise to this investigation owe their origin to a fight between two drunken sailors.

ii.—result of the disturbances.

Be this as it may, it is a fact that the result of the disorders which have given rise to this inquiry are, according to the report on folio 1, reports on folios 7 to 14, the certificate on folio 16, and the confrontation of witnesses on folio 102, the following: Charles Riggin, killed; W. Turnbull, with eighteen wounds, of which he subsequently died J. W. Talbot, with two wounds in the back; J. M. Davidson, with a small wound in the head; C. Taricker, contusions in the head and mouth; J. Hamilton, two wounds, one in the back and the other in a hip; Henry Frederick, contusion in the right temple; Thomas Gallagher, contusion of the left eye; Warren Brown, contusion of the right eye; Henry Jarred, slight stab on the side of the nose; Jerry Anderson, two wounds in the back; and Adrian Bravo, Chilean, wound in the back.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the searching investigations and the activity displayed by the court to discover the authors of these crimes, it has only been possible to establish the culpability of two men, as will be seen from the analysis I now proceed to make.

iii.—death of charles riggin.

Charles Riggin, one of the three Americans who beat the Chilean sailor in Marquez street, contrived to take refuge, as already stated, in a tram car with his two mates, from which the crowd compelled him to get down, together with one of his companions, W. Talbot.

It is proved in the record that Riggin, being attacked by the crowd, was stabbed in a hip by Federico Rodriguez, in Arsenal street, corner of Marquez street, and although Rodriguez maintains that he was provoked by Riggin, there is nothing to support the statement.

Sergt. Miguel Vergara, who arrived just at that time at the scene of the disturbance, found Riggin lying on the ground, and he ordered Policemen Encarnacion Jeria and José del T. Castro to take him to the nearest apothecary’s shop, which was that of Don Guillermo Rieggel, Echaurren Square.

According to the statement of these policemen, they had proceeded on foot some thirty or forty paces, as far as the corner of Valdivia street, the said Sergt. Vergara sustaining Riggin from behind when a pistol was fired at close quarters and the projectile entered Riggin’s throat causing his death shortly afterwards.

All the investigations made to discover the author of this crime have been fruitless, and although James M. Johnson and Carlos Langin accuse two policemen of firing the shot, it has not been possible to prove this, because they do not mention any particular person; nor could they, as they themselves say, identify the policemen.

Nevertheless, for the better clearing up of this affair, and although our penal code only establishes individual and not collective responsibility, it is advisable, in order to arrive at the truth, to analyze the circumstances of the case.

James M. Johnson, at folio 86 et seq., deposes that on the day of the occurrence he was dining in Cochrane street in company with Carlos Langin, a shipwrecked sailor at that time and now one of the crew of the Baltimore, when somebody whom he did not know arrived and told him of the disturbance that was taking place, adding that his mates were being beaten in the street. He went out at once in company with Langin to see what was taking place, and on arriving at Arsenal street they saw Riggin lying on the ground and badly wounded.

The deponent raised Riggin’s head and placed it against his shoulder, and at the same time he appealed to the lookers on to bring him a glass of wine or liquor to give him in order 10 bring him around. It was not possible to bring Riggin around, and at this moment he saw two policemen, armed with guns with bayonets attached, who formed part of a numerous picket; and one of them fired his gun at the deponent, the ball passing so close to him that his face was blackened with the smoke. The other, in his turn, fired his gun, also at close quarters, passing through and through the black neckerchief he wore, the ball entering Riggin’s throat, who, as already stated, had his head reclining upon the deponent’s breast. The rifle shot killed Riggin instantly, the deponent miraculously escaping. The neckerchief he produced at his examination is the same that he wore on the day of the occurrence, and it still bears the marks of the ball by which it was perforated, marks which your honor may, moreover, see in the, singlet that he wore. In fact, the court saw that the neckerchief had sundry perforations in a longitudinal direction, corresponding to the folds in which it was tied, a similar thing being observable in the deponent’s singlet.

Carlos Langin, at folio 91 et seq., deposes that Johnson’s asseverations are true, and that on the day of the occurrence he was dining with the former in a boarding house, when somebody arrived with the news that they were maltreating sailors belonging to the Baltimore.

The deponent, who was dressed in civilian’s clothes and was a shipwrecked sailor of the American merchantman Nereus, left the boarding house alone and went to see what was taking place. He saw also the sailor Charles Riggin in a tram car with another sailor whom he did not know, and the crowd were throwing stones at them. Riggin got out of the car, and immediately he was surrounded by several Chilean sailors, who assaulted him. He closed with one in fight, and he must have been wounded by him, because Riggin fell to the ground. While in this position he continued to beat him, assisted by his companions, Riggin getting up and falling again several times. At length two policemen came to his assistance, and they liberated him from the crowd, and it was at this moment that he saw the sailor Johnson, who had remained in the boarding house, arrive on the scene. Johnson began to examine Riggin’s body, and he asked for a little brandy to bring him round. Riggin began to come round, and, assisted by Johnson, who sustained him in his arms, he was able to regain his feet. He had taken about two paces when there approached a picket of police in command of a mounted officer, and two soldiers who were in the front rank fired their guns at close quarters on the group formed by Johnson and Riggin. The smoke of one of the shots blackened Johnson’s face, and the other shot, after perforating the said sailor’s black silk neckerchief, hit Riggin in the neck, causing the wound of which he died shortly afterwards. He could not identify the policemen who fired the shots nor the officer in command, because it was already too dark to distinguish their features.

The contradiction in which the deponents incur is at once observable, Johnson asserting that he left together with Langin, while Langin states that he left alone, Johnson remaining in the boarding house where they were dining, and not meeting together till some time afterwards.

Langin also states that Johnson had raised Riggin to his feet, and that they had advanced about two paces when he received the shot, and Johnson makes no mention of this special circumstance; and, on the contrary, from his deposition it appears that Riggin was not able to stand. The deponent says he raised his head and placed it against his shoulders and at the same time asked the lookers on to bring a glass of wine or liquor to give him with the ob ect of bringing him round. “Riggin could not come round, and at this moment he saw two policemen,” etc.

But this is not all. Johnson, explaining these contradictions, adds, at folio 99 et seq., that with respect to Langin, he does not remember having seen him in the eating house, because at that time he did not know him; so that he does not know if he went out into the street before or after the deponent. He only-joined the said Langin after he had taken to flight by the advice of a foreign gentleman, in Echaurren Square; and the said individual invited him to a boarding house, where he exchanged his sailor’s dress for a civilian’s. With respect to whether Riggin took or not some steps when the deponent sustained him in his arms he is unable to say, because he took ho notice of this circumstance.

And Langin, for his part, deposes at the same time that Johnson saw him in the eating house at the time of the occurrence, notwithstanding that as yet they had not spoken to each other. It is true that it was in Echaurren Square that he joined Johnson and took him to a lodging house, where he obliged him to change his clothes.

The mere perusal of these strange explanations is quite enough to cause them to be rejected. How is it, if, as Johnson deposes, they left the house together and they went together to the scene of the occurrence, it results that they did not know each other nor had they spoken to each other until they met in Echaurren Square? How is it that before knowing Langin he deposes that on the day of the occurrence they were dining together in a boarding house? And Johnson also, that on the day of the occurrence he dined together with Carlos Langin in an eating house in Cochrane street?

Moreover, is it possible that the act of raising a wounded man and knowing if he walks or not could pass unobserved under such or any other circumstances? These contradictions furnish a just motive for doubting all the asseverations, because individuals who incur in such inconsistencies are not worthy of belief.

The depositions of Johnson and of Langin are, moreover, contradicted by those of numerous witnesses, which fully demonstrates that it is not possible to attribute the death of Riggin to the police, but that it was the work of some person unknown, who thus far has eluded detection.

Sergt. Miguel Vergara and Policemen Encarnacion Jeria and José del T. Castro, who, it is said, had Riggin in charge when he was shot, depose at folio 71:

“On arriving at Marquez street, corner of Arsenal street, we found another American wounded and lying on the ground. * * *”

“I ordered,” says Vergara, “Jeria and Castro to take charge of the wounded man. They took him by the arms, and, thus supporting him, he walked with them to the German drugstore in Echaurren Square, which was the nearest apothecary’s shop to the scene of the occurrence. I held the wounded American by the waistband, supporting him at times by the back to push him ahead. On arriving at the corner of Valdivia street there was a large crowd of people, and it was here that the shot which killed the wounded man we had in charge was fired. The shot was fired at such close quarters that sparks struck the face of Policeman Castro and burnt Jeria’s left hand, which he had laid on Riggin’s shoulder. I looked in every direction, but I could not see who had wounded him, as it was already growing dark. The wounded man fell to the ground, and I gave orders to raise him up; but the policemen replied that they could not do so, as he was already dead.”

At folio 96 Vergara, Castro, and Jeria insist in their statement that they were taking the wounded man Charles. Riggin to the apothecary’s shop, in the manner related in their depositions on folio 77, when the shot was fired which ended his life. With respect to the person who fired the shot, they did not see him nor do they know who he was; but they are sure that the shot did not proceed from the armed picket of police which arrived just at that time in command of Capt. José Honorio Zamudio.

When the deponents heard the shot, they had not yet become aware of the presence of the armed picket of police, which debouched from Valdivia street, nor could they see it until it was within 10 meters of the spot where Riggin was, because there exists there a sharp elbow or curve formed by the said Valdivia street. This elbow hid the police from their sight, and when the picket appeared on the straight street the shot which killed Riggin had already been fired.

With respect to the intervention of the sailor James M. Johnson, they say it is a fact that when Riggin was lying on the ground a sailor belonging to the Baltimore, but whether he was the man Johnson now present they are not able to say, as they do not remember his features, approached Riggin and turned him about. As Riggin was almost unconscious, Johnson, if it was he, asked for a little brandy to give to Riggin; but where the liquor came from they do not know, but with his own hands he gave it to him, and under its influence he recovered considerably. At this moment a gentleman, apparently English, whom the deponents do not know, approached and through him they begged Johnson to withdraw, because his presence served to augment the rage of the drunken crowd which surrounded them in a menacing attitude. The gentleman in question spoke to Johnson in English, and the latter followed the advice of the former and withdrew. It was then when the deponents helped Riggin to his feet and assisted by them they began to conduct him from Arsenal street, corner of Marquez street, towards the German drug store in Echaurren Square. They had proceeded about 60 meters, and they only wanted about 2 more to reach the bend in Valdivia street, when the shot was fired which killed Riggin.

With respect to the sailor Charles Langin, they, do not remember having seen him before now, and they are not aware if he was present at the time the occurrence which is being investigated happened.

They add further on that from the report of the shot which killed Riggin they believed it to have been fired from a revolver.

This declaration is confirmed in part by the aforesaid Johnson, who, on folio 99, deposes it is true that when he was examining Riggin’s body after he had been shot a foreign gentleman dressed in black approached him and advised him to retire in order to avoid maltreatment, which advice he followed and withdrew at once. It is to be regretted that, according to the record, it has not been possible to secure the attendance of this foreign gentleman, who doubtless could have thrown full light on the affair.

At folio 100 of this record Capt. José Honorio Zamudio deposes: “I will add that I was at a few meters’ distance from the aforesaid Riggin, as I was just arriving on the scene of the occurrence in command of a picket of 20 or 25 policemen armed with comblain rifles, when I heard the shot which wounded the said man.” He is sure that the shot was not fired by the men in his charge, for they had not then arrived at the spot whence the shot proceeded. Moreover, the report produced by the shot was not loud, which circumstance induced him to believe that it was fired from a revolver. He at once approached the group whence the shot proceeded and demanded to know who fired it, but the crowd dispersed without paying any heed to his request. He is, however, sure that if the person who fired the shot had been a policeman he would have been denounced at once by the crowd, owing to the well-known antagonism which exists of old between the police and the lower orders.

Andrew Löfquits (folio 124 et seq.) deposes that he went into the street in the direction of the principal tumult which had been formed in Arsenal street to see what was going on. At that moment an armed picket of police on foot and at a trot was proceeding in the same direction to the scene of the disorder. The deponent followed close upon the police, and on arriving at Arsenal street he heard the report of a shot and two exclamations (“Oh! Oh!”) of pain. The deponent rushed along in the direction from which the cries proceeded, and he saw lying on the ground a man from whose neck there issued blood. He approached him to see if he knew him, and, taking him by an arm, he saw that he was an American sailor. The deponent then withdrew, and having shortly afterwards met James Johnson near to Cochrane street, he advised him not to expose himself to danger by walking in the streets and recommended him to get a bed in a respectable house. At the time when the deponent went to look at the wounded sailor, immediately after the shot was fired in Arsenal street, he did not see that James Johnson was accompanying the said sailor. Neither does he remember having seen Charles Langin, although he may have been among the many foreigners who were in the crowd. With respect to the person who fired the shot, he is absolutely ignorant as to who he can be; but he conscientiously believes that the blame of it can not be laid to the police.

In the reports presented by the surgeons on the class of weapon with which Riggin was killed opinions are divided.

Drs. Daniel Carvallo and Antenor Calderon maintain, in conformity with professional reports given on the days following the 16th, date of the death of Charles Riggin (the 17th and 18th of October, according to folios 7 and 8 of this record), that the wound which caused the death of Riggin was made by a revolver and not a rifle bullet.

Drs. Edward Still and Stephen White are of opinion that the wound, was caused by a comblain rifle bullet. It is worthy of note that Messrs. Still and White give no reason for their assertion.

The military experts appointed to examine the holes in Johnson’s neckerchief and the singlet he produced when giving his deposition are also divided in opinion, but not to the same extent.

Messrs. Vicente Zegers and José Maria Bari maintain, at folio 127 et seq., that, without being able to give a positive opinion on the points submitted to them, they believe that, in view of certain circumstances and the holes in the singlet and neckerchief submitted to them, the holes in the sailor’s uniform may have been caused by a large-sized revolver; but with respect to the holes in the neckerchief, they are unable to give an idea how they were caused nor with what kind of weapon.

Mr. Henry MacCrea, who is the other expert, says in his report that, according to information received and in view of the sailor’s uniform, he believes that the holes in the said uniform must have been made by a rifle of moderate caliber, or by a large revolver of greater size than that used in the U. S. Navy. With respect to the neckerchief, he is of the same opinion as Messrs. Bari and Zegers.

The policemen who formed part of the picket sent to repress the disturbance in question—Benjamin Leiton, Lucas Guzman, José Villalobos, Manuel Jesus Bustos, Ricardo Hidalgo, Tomas Cabeza, Manuel Morales, Nicanor del Canto, José Manuel Cuadra, Trimitivo Carquin, Enrique Lillo, and Ricardo Rebolledo—depose as follows, on folio 130 et seq.:

“As it appeared that the disorder had assumed great proportions, and in order that the police might not arrive too late on the spot, they received orders to go at a trot on foot and armed with comblain rifles. They proceeded along Blanco street until they arrived at Valdivia street, where it forms a junction with Arsenal street, in which it appeared that one of the most serious combats of the disturbance was then taking place.”

For this reason they marched through Valdivia street and entered Arsenal street, where there were some hundreds of civilians in a confused mass. They had advanced 20 meters, more or less, along by Valdivia street and before reaching the elbow formed by the said street, where it joins Arsenal street, when suddenly they heard the detonation of a firearm, which, from the slight report it made, appeared to be that of a revolver. At that moment Capt. Zamudio was considerably ahead of the deponents and distant a few meters only from the group of persons from among whom the shot was fired. The deponents accelerated their speed, believing that matters were going beyond a simple row, but the contrary happened when they arrived at the spot whence the shot proceeded; they saw on the ground a sailor belonging to the Baltimore, who, they afterwards learned, was Charles Riggin, and to whom Sergt. Miguel Vergara and Policemen José del Castro and Encarnacion Jeria were rendering assistance. They repeat that at the moment when they heard the shot they were 50 or 60 meters from the spot where shortly afterwards they saw Riggin lying on the ground, and that between the deponents and the said Riggin there was a crowd of people on the sidewalk and in the center of the street.

The faithful account they have given to your honor is sufficient to convince the court that it is entirely false that the shot emanated from the picket formed by the deponents, and that the sailors Johnson and Langin have knowingly told an untruth when they asserted the contrary.

I should also add that Sergt. Vergara, the Policemen Jeria and Castro, and the rest of the policemen on duty at the time the disorder began did not carry firearms or any weapon of defense except the customary short sword.

Messrs. Gregorio Sotello and Guillermo Riegel, the former an assistant and the latter the owner of the English drug store in Echaurren Square, depose, at folio 145, that Riggin was taken to their shop by three policemen, and, having questioned them with respect to Riggin’s wounds, they stated that as they were taking him to the shop a revolver shot fired by somebody in the crowd struck the sailor in the throat, inflicting the mortal wound he had in that part. The deponents state, moreover, that they examined Riggin’s wound, and they were convinced that it was occasioned by a revolver and not by a rifle, given the small caliber of which, according to the orifice, the projectile must have been.

At folio 151 Mounted Policeman Leandro Gomez, who formed part of the picket sent to suppress the disturbance, deposes as follows; “Capt. Zamudio and the deponent arrived at Arsenal street a few moments before the armed picket, and when Sergt. Vergara, assisted by Policemen E. Jeria and J. De T. Castro, were conducting a wounded sailor, who he has since learned was called Charles Riggin. Suddenly there sounded the report of a shot, apparently of a revolver, which at close quarters fell among the group formed by Riggin and the policemen who were conducting him, the projectile taking effect in the neck of the first mentioned, so seriously injuring him that he died the same night. * * *”

From this declaration your honor will see that it is completely inexact that the shot which killed Riggin was fired from the armed picket, which was still at a considerable number of meters from the spot where the shot was fired, which circumstance was witnessed in person by the deponent.

Finally, and in order to form a complete opinion on the matter, it should be borne in mind that the commandant of police deposes at folio 92 that the arm used by the police when ordered to carry firearms is the comblain rifle. This is the weapon carried by the picket sent to restore order in Arsenal street on the afternoon of October 16. In the opinion of the undersigned, it is quite sufficient to present the series of depositions which he has transcribed in order to be fully convinced that the shot which caused the death of Riggin was fired from a revolver, and not from a comblain rifle, which was the only firearm carried by the police picket, and therefore the police can not be held to be to blame for this death.

Besides, in order to demonstrate the falsity of the asseverations of Johnson and Langin, there springs to mind a number of circumstances which admit of no other course but to reject their evidence.

Johnson deposes that he had Riggin’s head on his breast when the two shots were fired on the group formed by them, and they produce as a proof a neckerchief and a sailor’s shirt pierced by bullets. If this had been so, is it possible that a rifle ball, which is capable of perforating several persons, would not have touched him if it had passed through the folds of his clothing? If what they asseverate be true, they ought to have exhibited the blood stain which must have remained on the shirt, and in all of his depositions Johnson forgets this circumstance, which would have given a greater coloring of truth to his assertion.

All the witnesses agree in that there was only one shot, while only Johnson and Langin assert that there were two.

Is impossible to believe them?

The depositions I am analyzing have in their support the statements of two surgeons; but these witnesses do not give the grounds for their assertions, and, on the contrary, the other two surgeons of the commission declare that the wound was caused by a revolver, and they give a reason for saying so, which is the very important one of having, one of them, seen the body of Riggin the day after his death and the other on the second day. And if there be added the evidence of two witnesses who could not be-of-a more impartial character—Messrs. Gregorio Sotello and Guillermo Riegel, of the English drug store—and who are professional men, it must carry the full conviction that the police can not be blamed for the death of Riggin, because everything, absolutely everything, destroys the evidence of Johnson and of Langin and confirms that of Vergara, Jeria, and Castro.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the efforts made to discover the author of the shot, this still remains a mystery.

iv.—injuries to and death of william turnbull.

Immediately after the occurrence which gave rise to the disturbances now being investigated took place the crowd started in pursuit of the compatriots of the man who, according to them, had killed a Chilean sailor, to avenge that supposed murder.

Among the sailors who were victims of this persecution was William Turn-bull, who received eighteen wounds in these fatal disturbances, and in consequence of which he died a few days afterwards.

Turnbull lived to give the deposition on folio 22 et seq., and in it he deposes that he was in a cafe about two squares from the Shakespeare when he was told that there was a great disturbance in the street, and he was recommended not to go out. Shortly afterwards, believing that the disturbance had ceased, he left, when he was attacked by the populace and thrown to the ground and was wounded with stones and knives, one of the wounds being in the head and eighteen in the back. He does not know who wounded him, because there was a great crowd collected together.

In the investigation of this crime evidence has been obtained which, in the opinion of the undersigned, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the perpetrators.

Don Crisologo Aguilar, at folio 147, deposes that some policemen took to the drug store of Don Manuel A. Guzman, in Echaurren Square, corner of Arrayan street, a sailor in a half-conscious state belonging to the Baltimore, and that on examining his body he found that he had numerous wounds in the back of such a grave nature as to require immediate medical assistance.

The wounds exceeded ten in number, and all of them appeared to be knife wounds. The policemen who conducted the wounded man to the drug store stated that they had found him in that state in San Martin street, and from the report at folio 10 and other information there is no doubt that the sailor in question was William Turnbull.

At folio 33 Carlos Gomez confesses that he was in San Martin street, corner of Alamos street, where he saw a group of about 30 American sailors beating 3 Chilean sailors, and especially one of them named Carlos Aravena, discharged from the Oconcagua, whom they had on the ground. The deponent interfered in behalf of his mate, and with the knife produced in court and shown to him he stabbed one of the sailors who was beating Aravena. He stabbed him in an arm as he was in the act of hitting him with a stone.

Demetrio Leiva, at folio 30, in relating what he knew about these occurrences, deposes that on hearing the noise he went to the door and saw a numerous group of populace and Chilean sailors and an American sailor, who was flying before them. Close behind the American sailor ran the prisoner, Carlos Gomez, and finally he came up with him, and he saw that with the knife produced in court he stabbed him three times or more, and, fearing that he might be attacked, he ran away, and from Cajilla street he saw the American fall to the ground from the effect of the blows inflicted upon him by his pursuers, and that, managing to run away again, he was again overtaken by Gomez, who stabbed him several times in the back. Shortly afterwards he saw a policeman arrive, and he conducted the wounded man to a neighboring drug store, and his assailants fled, etc.

As will be seen, all these depositions refer to the same individual, and, taken together, show that they refer to William Turnbull, and they agree in attributing to Gomez the crime of having wounded the American sailor.

The prisoner, on his part, does not seek to shield his responsibility, as is shown in his declaration at folio 33 and in his confession at folio 156; but, on the contrary, after being unable to identify among the wounded American sailors shown to him the one he injured, maintains that he did it in defense of his friend Carlos Aravena, but he has not proved this assertion.

The witnesses Federico Yentzen and Eujenie Francks concur in maintaining that José Ahumada inflicted blows on the American.

The American William Turnbull died after the occurrences, as is proved by the certificate at folio 108, of October 25, 1891; but there is nothing to show that his death was caused by the wounds inflicted by Gomez.

v.—injuries of j. w. taylor, j. m. davidson, c. pancker, j. hamilton, henry fredericks, thomas gallagher, warren brown, henry jared, jerry anderson, and adrian bravo.

If, for the satisfaction of the public vindication and for the just punishment of the delinquents, it has been possible to discover in part the persons guilty of the offenses committed in the persons of Charles Riggin and William Turnbull, the same thing has not happened, unfortunately, with respect to the offenses committed against the persons whose names figure at the head of this title; for, notwithstanding the efforts of the court, it has not been possible to discover anything, owing, probably, to want of information from the injured persons themselves. In fact, all the said persons declared that they did not know the persons who injured them, and, owing to the tumult formed by hundreds of people, it was not possible for the police to apprehend the delinquents.

Thus, at folio 21, J. W. Talbot deposes that at 6 o’clock in the afternoon he was two squares away from the Shakespeare in company with a friend, who was afterwards killed. His mate having commenced to fight with a group of Chileans, they got into a tram car to escape from them. The car was immediately surrounded by the crowd, who stoned them and obliged them to get out, the deponent receiving a stab in the back; but he ignores who it was that stabbed him, and he does not know the assailants.

John M. Davidson, at folio 21 et seq., says that he was on the pier with his mate Talbot and the other sailor who was killed when they were attacked with stones by the populace; he then separated from his companions to go on board in a boat which was just leaving, but unfortunately he missed it and fell into the water, and on regaining the shore he was stoned, being injured in the head. He ignores who they were, because there was a great crowd of people.

C. Pancker, at folio 22, deposes that he was in a cafe near the Shakespeare when a Chilean sailor arrived and told him that one of his mates was lying in the street badly wounded. He left at once on hearing this and went to the nearest drug store with the object of obtaining assistance for his mate, but he was pursued by a portion of the crowd, who threw stones at him. The deponent stumbled and fell, and when the persons who were pursuing him came up with him they threatened him with knives unless he delivered up the money he had on his person. They took all his money and some objects, and he was wounded in the head. He can not name the guilty persons, because he does not know them and because he was attacked by a crowd of many people.

J. Hamilton, at folio 22, deposes that, being in Echaurren Square, he heard say that one of his mates had been killed, and when he was about to go and see him he was attacked by a number of persons, receiving some wounds in the head, a side, and a leg. He can not say who wounded him, because there were many people and he was stunned by the blows he received in the head.

Henry Fredericks, at folio .17, says that he was wounded as he was leaving Victoria Cafe and as he was proceeding to Echaurren Square between 6:30 and 7 p.m. on the day of the occurrence by a person unknown to him.

Thomas Gallagher was struck by a person unknown to him near Echaurren Square between 6:30 and 7 p.m.

Warren Brown, at folio 4, denies having taken any part in the disturbance, and he was arrested on suspicion of being implicated in it.

Henry Jared deposes, at folio 17, that he was struck by the policemen who arrested him while on the way to the station. He ignores the reason why they struck him, and he received from some unknown person a cut in the nose as he was alighting from a car in Intendencia Square.

Jerry Anderson, at folio 102, deposes that he was pursued in Marquez street, together with J. M. Wallace, by a numerous crowd of people and Chilean sailors, who ordered them to deliver up their money, and Wallace complied with the demand and thus escaped. The deponent refused to give up his money, and while he was defending himself against a sailor by whom he was attacked in front another whom he did not see stabbed him twice in the back with some sharp instrument, inflicting upon him two wounds.

And finally, Adrian Bravo, at folio 5, declares that he has not taken any part in the disturbances which have given rise to this investigation.

Under these circumstances, and it not having been possible to capture the perpetrators at the time they committed the offenses, it has been impossible to discover the delinquents, and justice in this case, as on many other occasions, finds itself in the painful situation of knowing of a crime without being able to fulfill the august mandate confided to it of vindicating the law when infringed by bad citizens.

vi.—participation of john davidson in the disturbances.

At folio 84, John Davidson, in being examined, deposed that before attempting to go on board he had heard that his mates were being maltreated in the street. For this reason he started in quest of Riggin and Talbot, with whom he had been shortly before, and he found them wounded in Arsenal street. At this moment he saw a man, dressed as a sailor and crippled, for he had one arm only, knife in hand, trying to wound the American sailors there, as, for example, when he pursued John Hamilton, who was running away. For this reason and to prevent him from wounding Hamilton, he picked up a stone and threw it at him and felled him to the ground. The deponent then received blows and kicks, but was not wounded, etc.

With respect to this, John Hamilton says, at folio 86, that, owing to the before-mentioned circumstance, he did not see the one-armed man who tried to wound him from behind.

The one-armed sailor referred to having been apprehended, folio 90, whose name, according to investigations made, is Adrian Bravo, this man denies, at folio 93, the charge made against him by the sailor John Davidson, and when brought face to face on December 1, as recorded at folio 101, the result was that Langin and Davidson did not remember having seen Adrian Bravo previously, the latter adding that all he could say was that the sailor who tried to wound John Hamilton was, like Bravo, minus an arm. It results, therefore, that John Davidson confessed having filled a one-armed sailor with a stone to the ground.

vii.—participation of juan edmundo carthy, or cortes.

At folio 49, the bar man of the café kept by Juan Carthy in Arsenal street, No. 69, and who, according to him, is known in Chile by the name of Cortes, declares that at the moment when the row was at its worst, and when numerous groups of people passed in front of his house, Juan Carthy went into the street, armed, in company with several sailors who were eating in the house, to whom he also gave arms, such as a whip with a loaded head and a knife, and they all stood in the door in a menacing attitude, Carthy holding in his hand the revolver.

Nevertheless the deponent believes that the intention of Carthy and his companions was to defend the house in case it was attacked by the crowd. And he adds that he did not see any of them make use of their weapons.

The charge which springs from the preceding deposition might have been considered as such if it had been proved that Carthy and the other sailors had made use of their weapons, but, this circumstance not having been proved, the charge can not be sustained. Nor are the other charges formulated against Juan Carthy in the report of the commandant of police, at folio 28, proved, in which report it is insinuated that various objects found in his possession, such as a watch and gold chain and a locket, which was hidden in a drawer of a chest of drawers and which bears the same initials as the watch, have probably been stolen. And, although there are well-founded suspicions and grave presumptions against this prisoner, there does not exist the clear proof requisite to ask for his punishment; therefore, the undersigned is under the necessity of asking, at the end of this analysis, for his release until further information may be obtained. Nevertheless, I shall ask that the charges made against him in the preparatory investigation be passed to him for his reply, in order to see if, in the course of the final proof, sufficient evidence is obtained to convict him.

viii.—participation of josé ahumada in the disturbances.

The witness Federico Yentzen, in giving evidence, at folio 46, maintains that he saw José Ahumada striking Turnbull, and Eujenio Franck declared the same at folio 56.

The prisoner has denied on every occasion that he took part in the disturbances, and, although he attempts to prove by two witnesses that he was not present at the disturbances, in the opinion of the undersigned that evidence is not admissible, because the witnesses do not state the exact hour, and the time they give, more or less, is so near to that in which the occurrences took place that in the difference of the time calculated he may very well have arrived opportunely to attack Turnbull.

Thus it is an ascertained fact that all these occurrences took place between 6 and 7 p.m., and the witnesses presented by Ahumada depose at folio 116 that on the day of the disturbances he was in the house of his mother, Juana Valencia, from 4 p.m. till 6:30 p.m. Moreover, one of the witnesses, Valenzuela, deposes that he came from the said house, situated on Artillery Hill, accompanied by the prisoner Ahumada, and when they arrived at Echaurren Square, about 6:45 p.m., there was at that, spot a small picket keeping order and the row had ceased. He then recommended Ahumada to return home, and they separated.

ix.—punishments.

The undersigned, bearing in mind the preceding relation, considers culpable of participation in these disorders Federico Rodriguez, Carlos Gomez, Juan Davidson, and José Ahumada, and, in view of the prescriptions of articles 392, 397, 399,402, and 494, Nos. 5 and 72, paragraph 2, and the contents of the certificates at folios 124 and 127,1 ask the court to condemn Federico Gomez to minor imprisonment in the minimum degree (sixty-one to five hundred and forty days), Carlos Gomez to minor in the maximum degree (three years and one day to five years), Juan Davidson to prison in medium degree (ten years and one day to fifteen years), José Ahumada to prison in medium degree (ten years and one day to fifteen years), and to enter a sentence of not proven against Juan Edmund Carthy until further evidence, is obtained.

C. Necochea.

December 31, 1891.