Mr. Sherman to Mr. Taylor.

No. 729.]

Sir: On the 15th of October last my predecessor sent to you a telegraphic instruction concerning the case of Manuel Fernandez Chaqueilo, an American citizen, alleged to have been taken in combat with arms in hand and committed for trial by military jurisdiction; and in that instruction reference was made to the circumstance that Chaqueilo is a material witness in the case of Charles Govin and that his execution would silence important testimony.

In the note of the Duke of Tetuan, dated October 21, replying to your representations in the case, the ministry of state professed to have no knowledge of the case of Govin, to which Chaqueilo’s testimony was declared to be important, and denied that the request of this Government in that connection could be based upon any consideration or legal prescription whatever. It is presumed that you have since had ample opportunity to acquaint his excellency with the facts of the murder of Charles Govin and the singularly essential nature of the testimony of Chaqueilo in this regard.

By a recent dispatch from the United States consul-general at Havana, under date of July 3, it appears that Chaqueilo alleges that he is a “presentado,” and it is stated that he has been formally acquainted with the charges against him, to wit, “rebellion with the aggravating circumstance of incendiarism.” This latter charge of arson, if indeed it has been made, is entirely new. It is to be significantly noticed that in an official communication of July 4, 1897, to the consul-general, the Marques de Ahumada mentioned only “the cause initiated for rebellion against the citizen of the United States, Manuel Fernandez Chaqueilo, arrested with arms in hand,” being entirely silent as to any added charge of arson. A copy of that note is subjoined for your fuller information.

In view of the repeated assertion that Chaqueilo’s testimony is [Page 523] essential to the substantiation of the claim of this Government against Spain growing out of the murder of Charles Govin, it would be most unfortunate if at this late day, and while that claim is still pending, the testimony of this witness should be silenced by conviction and execution upon a charge not even alluded to in the replies of the Spanish Government to the representations made by us in Chaqueilo’s behalf.

The facts so far as they can be learned appear to justify the allegation that Chaqueilo surrendered himself as a prisoner of war. The diligent inquires of the consul-general fail to suggest that the prisoner has been guilty of incendiarism.

These facts are brought to attention in the belief that they suggest sufficient doubt as to the proceedings against Chaqueilo to justify this Government in reiterating its already repeated request that in the event of conviction the proceedings shall be referred to Madrid for examination, in order not only that justice may be ascertained to have been done in respect to Chaqueilo himself, but that measures may be taken to prevent the Government of the United States as the plaintiff in action from suffering the injustice of having’ the testimony of an important witness in its behalf summarily silenced by the action of the defendant.

Respectfully, yours,

John Sherman.