Mr. Hay to Mr. Hunter.
Washington, March 16, 1899.
Sir: The report of Commander Logan, commanding officer of the United States steamship Machias, dated from Puerto Cortez, Honduras, February 21, 1899, conclusively shows that Mr. Frank Pears, an American [Page 675] citizen, was cruelly murdered by a sentinel on post near the office of the Pittsburg and Honduras Timber Company, in San Pedro, Honduras, on the evening of January 31, 1899, while innocently passing between his office and his house.
In obedience to telegrams from the Navy Department of February 8 and 14, Commander Logan proceeded on February 16 to San Pedro, in company with the United States consul, F. H. Allison, from Tegucigalpa, who arrived in Puerto Corfez the previous day, accompanied by Mr. C. Fiallos, minister of justice. The latter bore a letter from President Sierra constituting him, with Consul Allison, a commission to investigate the cause of the death of Mr. Frank Pears.
The commission met at 3 p.m. on the 16th of February at the residence of the consular agent, Mr. J. M. Mitchell, and was permitted to examine the testimony of five witnesses, all soldiers, which had been taken before a military court of inquiry, termed by the minister a “Summary.”
This court of inquiry, which had been held upon the evening when the shooting occurred, and immediately following it, before the Mayor de Plaza, Duarte, in command of the troops at San Pedro, found the sentry, Cruz Rosalez, not guilty of any crime, and released him from custody. It is a matter of surprise to this Government that, after this conclusion by the court of inquiry, he was, on February 1 or 2, discharged from the army. The witnesses who gave testimony in this matter, except possibly one, are also reported to have been discharged from the army at the same time. The sentry is now at liberty, but the minister of justice has stated that he could be produced at any time.
In the testimony of the witnesses called, as reported by Commander Logan, it is not represented that Mr. Pears was armed, or that there was any attempt on his part to escape. According to affidavits made before the United States consul, Mr. J. M. Mitchell, Mr. James H. Russell had passed twice over the spot where Mr. Pears was shot a few moments before Mr. Pears left his office to go to the house where he lived, only a short distance away, and Mr. Russell was not even challenged. Other witnesses testify that Mr. Pears was alone when he was shot. It is also in evidence that not more than six seconds intervened between the first challenge and the sentry’s fatal fire. Mr. Pears made the statement immediately after the shooting: “I was standing in the light of the street lamp, where the sentinel could see me perfectly well. I did not know what to do, but thought the best thing to do was to stand perfectly still, which I did, facing the sentinel.” During the period of martial law Mr. Pears had often passed between his office and his house in full sight of the sentry, and had never been challenged before. He stated that “if he had thought he was in any danger he could have jumped behind a house and saved himself, but he did not do so, as this might appear as if he was trying to hide.” When he heard the challenge, he added, he did not think it was meant for him, but thought it best not to move.
It is evident, therefore, that Mr. Frank Tears, unarmed, was shot by the sentinel, Cruz Rosalez, a few seconds after he was first challenged, upon a spot where he had a perfect right to be, neither accompanied nor in the act of flight, and in full light of a street lamp.
This act was committed in the evening of January 31, 1899, two days after martial law had ceased and the civil law had been restored, which change had taken place on January 29. As evidence that no [Page 676] attack was expected from any quarter at that time, in a house only five blocks from the cabildo and cuartel, the garrison officers attended the wedding of an army officer on that same evening, followed by a dance that continued the most of the night. No intelligence of the approach of armed forces had been received on the day of the shooting; and on the day after the outposts were called in and several barricades were torn down. Further, January 31 was celebrated as a holiday in San Pedro, and gambling was going on all day in the streets, which is permitted only on public feast days.
Taking into account all of the circumstances that have been recited, the shooting of Mr. Frank Pears can be regarded as nothing short of a cruel murder of a defenseless man innocently passing from his office to his house.
But disregarding all the attendant circumstances and all the evidence except that offered by the five soldiers before the military court of inquiry, the act of the sentinel was not in accordance with the military law of Honduras. Article 41 of the military regulations requires sentries to challenge when a person is at a distance of from 40 to 50 paces, but Mr. Pears was at a distance of 190 feet, or more than 63 paces, by actual measurement, when he fell.
If the challenged party gives the wrong reply or fails to answer, the sentry is required by the regulation to repeat the challenge three times, and if the same thing occurs he must call the guard to arrest them. Only in case of flight is he authorized to shoot. On the testimony of the sentinel himself and of his comrades Mr. Pears did not flee, but was advancing toward the sentinel when he was shot. When he fell he was not within the maximum distance to which he might have approached without being challenged.
In view of the facts and the law of the case, therefore, this Government feels under obligation to require of the Government of Honduras, first, the arrest and punishment of Cruz Rosalez, the sentinel who wrongfully and illegally shot and killed Mr. Frank Pears, and, second, the payment of an indemnity of $10,000 in gold, to be awarded to the relatives of Mr. Frank Pears. You are directed to urge these claims upon the Government of Honduras and to secure an early reply.
I am, etc.,