McCLURE'S, ARCHER AND FERRER 57 



of taking testimony, and of its own motion called witnesses 

 in defense of Ferrer. 



It must be remembered that Ferrer was a man of some edu- 

 cation — he is lauded as being a man of learning and foresight 

 by his partisans — that he wrote numerous letters, and that 

 even in prison he was permitted to write his own account of 

 the matter, which was sent to Charles Malato on October i, 

 1909, as Mr. Archer shows in a foot-note in the November 

 number of "McClure's." Hence he could easily have written 

 his defense for the court, detailing exactly where he was during 

 every day of the riots, yet he did nothing of the kind. Mr. 

 Archer makes much of the foul dungeon or cell in which he 

 says Ferrer was confined in the fortress of Montjuich. Yet 

 my friend, Don Casimiro Comas, a lawyer of Barcelona, says 

 Ferrer was confined in the Model Prison ("Carcel Celular") 

 of Barcelona (which apparently is as much up-to-date as the 

 Tombs Prison of New York), where his trial also took place, 

 until he was sentenced. Even Mr. Archer in the November 

 "McClure's" gives the date of his letter to Malato as the "Car- 

 eel Celular, October i, 1909." But these facts are kept in the 

 background in his article. 



Later on he proceeds to review in extenso the evidence in the 

 case, carefully separating it into diflferent portions, thus break- 

 ing the connection between events. One hardly knows just 

 what to make of his analysis, for it is difificult to know whether 

 he is reviewing the trial of Ferrer or reviewing the methods of 

 Spanish judicial procedure. If Ferrer had been tried by an 

 ordinary Spanish criminal court, with a jury, the method of 

 procedure and the taking of evidence would have been the 

 same. Of course, in no event could Ferrer have been tried by 

 the usual processes of English or American law. He would 

 have had to be tried according to Spanish law and procedure, 

 and hence all criticism of the method or procedure is entirely 

 beside the point. It is like "going out and swearing at the 



court." 



For instance, he speaks of "unsupported opinion and hear- 

 say." That is allowable under the Spanish rules of evidence, 

 and that kind of evidence would have been received in the ordi- 

 nary criminal trials in Spain. We have, in America and Eng- 

 land, the rules of evidence so refined that nothing but direct 

 evidence — with certain exceptions — is received; and hearsay 



