837.00/3218
The Ambassador in Cuba (Guggenheim) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 4, 1932.]
Sir: In the Embassy’s despatches concerning the political situation occasional reference has been made to the existence of a conflict of jurisdiction between the civil courts and the military authorities as a consequence of the suspension of constitutional guarantees.
This conflict was greatly accentuated because of the procedure followed in several instances by the military authorities after martial law had been proclaimed throughout the republic in August of this year, but detailed reports of the various controversies that arose were unobtainable due to the strict censorship imposed on the press.
The Superior Court has, however, now broken its silence on the subject and has brought the dangers inherent in the present abnormal situation to the attention of the public by means of a communication addressed to the lower courts which was published in the Habana newspapers of December 27. A copy and English translation of this very interesting document are enclosed.43
After commenting on the activities of the military authorities and mentioning several cases in which the latter have interfered with the proper functioning of the civil courts, the Supreme Court goes on to say that the prolonged state of war has had the effect of removing the citizen from the jurisdiction of the regular judges, with the consequent malaise produced in any society when persons are tried by other institutions than those established by the Constitution for the ordinary administration of justice and that whenever this state of affairs [Page 83] has been brought to the attention of the President of the Republic he has shown unequivocal evidence of the best of intentions and a spirit of conciliation which, however, was not sufficient to remedy matters, owing, perhaps, to the lack of adequate legislation or regulations to ensure the integrity of civil justice. This situation might, suggests the Supreme Court, be remedied by the modification of certain existing laws, such as the Law of Public Order, the Law of Habeas Corpus, the Law of Military Procedure and the Organic Law of the Judiciary, in such a way as to clarify their provisions and to adapt them more closely to the precepts of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court further observes that justice requires that this abnormal state of affairs be terminated in order that penalties for violation of the law may be imposed, not by arbitrary authority, but through the regular channels of legal procedure. In other words, it advocates the reestablishment of the normal régime of the Courts of Justice. While the other branches of the Government attend to matters within their respective provinces, the Judiciary is enjoined to maintain its legitimate jurisdiction, proceeding with diligence, expediting trials, holding in prison no one against whom there is not sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution and ordering the arrest of those who should be imprisoned.
The opposition has undoubtedly derived a good deal of satisfaction from this confirmation by an incontestable authority of some of the accusations it has been making against the Machado administration.
Respectfully yours,
- Not printed.↩