[Subenclosure—Translation]
Supreme Court of Justice,
Panama,
February 9, 1917.
Notice: This voluminous summary was begun
the 14th of February 1915 by the municipal court judge, with the
purpose of investigating the matters occurring in this city on the
night of the 13th to the 14th of the said month, in the district of
the “Cocoa Grove”.
From decrees it results that on the night of the 13th of the month
referred to, on Carnival Saturday, there were about 100 American
soldiers in and near Pedro de Obarrio Street frequenting the saloons
established there. It happened that about 12 o’clock at night there
arrived at the first of the said streets a group of Panamanian boys,
one of whom was playing a cornet. One of the soldiers mentioned
tried by force to stop him from playing the cornet. With this motive
an agent of the police started to intervene, and he was attacked and
struck by various American soldiers. Perceiving that attack, many
Panamanian civilians stepped in to keep the soldiers from killing
the agent thus ending in a fight between American soldiers and
Panamanian civilians which increased even up to the use of firearms,
stones and sticks thrown by the American soldiers against the
Panamanian police and citizens.
Then the soldiers invaded the establishment of target shooting of the
North American citizen, Charlie Roocard, from which they took out
various rifles with which shots they increased the firing right and
left, attacking especially the police prison “La Victoria”, throwing
stones at the small number of agents on guard there. The people
succeeded in repelling that attack, assisting the police and
suffering blows of stones that the soldiers threw at them.
It is a matter of fact that the police made use of their revolvers
shooting into the air in order to see if that intimidation would
stop the attack started between numerous soldiers and civilians; and
although some of those soldiers state that the police shot directly
at them, the agents accused by them have not been identified.
As the judge says, whether the Panamanian police, in the riot of
which we are treating, found themselves or not in the necessity of
using their firearms, is a very complex question, and consequently
difficult to determine. The right of defense of one’s own life is
natural but the police had more means of defense than the civilians
for the sole reason that they are one corps. Nevertheless, in the
attack in question some policemen might well have been placed in the
case of defending their lives by arms because of not being able to
receive, in the exact moment at which they were individually
attacked, effective aid from their companions, being that, at least
at first, the soldiers were much
[Page 856]
greater in number than the policemen. Even
Lieut. C. W. Edgarly [G. W. Edgerly], in the plea which he presented
to the military authorities of the Zone, says among other things,
that at arriving at the saloon called “Jossie’s Place” he found many
men, soldiers, civilians, white and black, and a policeman engaged
in what resembled a pitched battle in which each one threw at the
others without distinction. The policeman was without a hat, his
hair disheveled, covered with blood, his clothes in rags and without
a stick.
From this encounter there resulted, as was natural, wounds and
bruises to various civilians, Panamanian police, and soldiers and
American civilians; but with the confusion, which in cases like that
is produced, it has not been possible to determine those responsible
for those injuries and ill treatment of one or the other of the
contenders and the circumstances of each one of the facts which
produced them, nor is there any indication which might help the
situation in the clearing of the happenings from the beginning to
the end; nor has there been able to be found, the one responsible
for the death of Benito Garcia occurring in the encounter.
Likewise, there have not been able to be identified those
responsible, from the civilians who invaded the saloon “La
Valenciana” and committed in it robbery of money and materials, as
in the other saloons of the red-light district.
There has only been found out the fact that the wound inflicted on
Sixta Vasquez was from a rifle fired by the agent, Rodolfo Acuna,
towards the saloon, “La Valencia”, the doors being closed. Vasquez
died the 16th of March 1915 but not from the natural effect of the
said wound but because of a lockjaw.
The Superior Judge to whose knowledge this matter has been brought,
inasmuch as a homicide resulted from the riot, the death of Benito
Garcia, has ended the investigation, overruling in respect to the
matters originating in the tumult and fight because of there not
appearing any person responsible for it in spite of the many efforts
made to identify him; and called to judgment Rodolfo Acuna for the
crime of wounds; but as after that decision which was dated the 18th
of December last, it was proven that Acuna died in this city the 4th
of January, he declared ended all criminal proceedings against him
and decided to send the matter to this Superior Court so that a
suspension decree might be furnished, which the court considers
correct, after the exposition which was just made.
Likewise is the opinion of the Attorney General as can be seen by the
judgment which precedes.
Therefore, the court, “en Sala de Decision” administering justice in
the name of the Republic and by authority of the law, confirms the
suspension decree consulted. Be it published, copy made, notified
and proceedings returned.
-
Manual A. Herrera L.
-
Juan Lombardi
-
Samuel Quintero C.
-
Hermoneges Casis, Srio. Into.
