diced b Jos e S. Arc a, - non

imposed for these five cases, while retaining his powers to proceed as orderedand concluded by the court." That same day he sent to Cotabato the militarypersonnel suspected of complicity, without putting them to trial, convincedthat "all the native troops are in the same situation,'" a rather gratuitousconviction from the first moment he was in possession of anonymousdenunciations by native soldiers friendly to the Spaniards and who in theirown ways and styles reported the conspiracy, but without following theformalities demanded by the military ordinances they were not too familiarwith.On 13 April that year, 1872, the five copies which had arrived in Madridwere forwarded to the Supreme War Council to await confirmation. This highmilitary tribunal was headed by Lieutenant General Felipe Ribero Lemoine,who had been Colonel of the Gerona regiment when Rafael IzquierdoGutierrez, a mere 14-year old cadet, enlisted in that unit and for whom theformer acted as sponsor in the Army. Probably the last of his favors to hisgodson was to delay action on the acts of the Cavite trials approved byIzquierdo. Thus, on 7 February 1873, after the latter had ceased as the highestpolitical and military authority in the Philippines, Ribero Lemoine signed therescript approved by the Supreme War Council devolving to the WarMinistry five copies of the sentences duly annotated. The following 26 April,the War Ministry forwarded the complete dossier to Juan Alaminos, CaptainGeneral of the Philippines, ordering "that in the future one should resolutelyguard against anomalies which the Government cannot approve and which ithas the duty to avoid through privileges granted by law deeply lacerated inthose Islands, as reported in the documents in question?'°What were these irregularities which Izquierdo had approved andsanctioned, but which the Supreme War Council denounced, and thecorresponding Ministry considered inadmissible?These are the facts listed in the registry for Corporal Tolentino: guiltysoldiers, crime foreseen in the Ordinances, and the permanent Council whichis termed "verbal," such that, according to the military fiscal of the SupremeCouncil, "it accords neither with the law of 17 April nor with the generalorder of the North Army dated 22 October 1837, because neither thepresident nor his council in any way belonged to the body of the accused."mIn the second, in which the first case concerned Corporal PedroManonson, the same anomalies perpetrated in the first were noted. Besides, acrewman, a prisoner, and a civilian, by decision of the council, weresubjected to the other trial procedures which proved their innocence whenthey were finalizing the last document in which charges were imputed to54