The Wheeling Daily Intelligencer

SPAIN GIVES IN.
Execution of the Competitor Crew is Postponed.

DEMAND OF THE UNITED STATES
Is Respected to that Extent—The Grounds Taken by this Government in the Matter—Terms of the Treaty which is Being Enforced by Uncle Sam—Report of the Spanish Decision Is Confirmed—News From Cuba.

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 11.—In the Competitor case it can be authoritatively stated that at the request of the United States the Spanish government will postpone execution of the death sentences upon American citizens until the views of the United States respecting the application of their cases of the treaty of 1879 and the protocol of 1877 can be represented and considered.

The announcement of the postponement of the executions means a delay of some weeks at least and that the matter will be taken up by the diplomatic representatives of the United States of Spain and be made the subject of the exchange of correspondence on the interpretation to be given the treaty provisions between the two nations. Meanwhile the effect will be to allay popular excitement both here and in Spain.

The action of the state department in insisting upon a retrial at least of the American prisoners is evidently in answer to the contention of the court martial that the Cushing protocol of 1877 did not apply to the present case. The court held that it only applied to American citizens resident in Spain or the Spanish dominions, and, as the captives from the Competitor were not in any sense residents of Cuba, decided that they could not claim any of the privileges accorded by the protocol. In the opinion of the state department this was an extremely narrow and illiberal construction to place upon the protocol, but while not accepting this construction—the department guarded against an adverse decision on the protocol by recurring to the ancient treaty of 1795, on the ground that if the prisoners case was not covered by the protocol they certainly could invoke the measure of protection afforded by the earlier treaty. While this treaty is not by any means generous in the matter of privileges held out to American prisoners, it still contains some guarantees of great value to them in just such cases as that which has now arisen. The section of the treaty applying to the case, in the judgment of the state department is article VII, which reads as follows:

"And it is agreed that the subjects and citizens of each of the contracting parties, their vessels or effects, shall not be liable to any embargo or detention on the part of the other, for any military expedition or public or private purpose whatever. And in all cases of seizure, detention or arrests for debts contracted or offenses committed by any citizen of the one party within the jurisdiction of the other, the same shall be made and judged only according to the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases. The citizens and subjects of both parties shall be allowed to employ such agents and factors, as they may judge proper in all their affairs and in all the matters in which they may be concerned before the tribunals of the other party, and such agents shall have free access to be present at the proceedings in such causes, and at the taking of all examinations and evidence which may be exhibited in the said trials."
The contention of the state department is, that irrespective of the Cushing protocol of 1877 this treaty gives the American prisoners certain privileges that were withheld from them by the Spanish court martial. Notably, they were obliged to rest their defense in the hands of a Spanish officer detailed for the purpose and one in all probability not particularly anxious to clear his clients, and were prevented from selecting their own counsel as guaranteed by the treaty. Also it is said that the prisoners were not accorded an opportunity to procure testimony in their own behalf. This is one of the privileges inseparable from a lawful and regular conduct of the prosecution.

Altogether the indications are that the state department is preparing to make a strong legal defense against the execution of the death penalty in the case of the American prisoners.