Proceso de Ferrer

BARCELONA TRIAL PROCEEDS.
Court-Martial Hears Evidence That Ferrer Instigated Recent Uprising.

BARCELONA, Oct. 9. — The trial by court-martial of Ferrer, the former director of the Modern School of Barcelona, who is accused of having been the principal instigator of the recent revolutionary movement in Barcelona, is proceeding here with open doors. Col. Lacalle has been appointed Presiding Judge of the court in the place of Col. Aguerrol.

The evidence submitted by the Judge who conducted the preliminary investigation included some documents relating to the proclamation of a Spanish republic. It also comprised letters from Republicans, Free Masons, and Free Thinkers residing in various foreign countries, as well as political and revolutionary documents referring to the organization of a universal proletarian society, which, it is argued, proved Ferrer’s complicity in the revolutionary agitation.

It was emphasized in the course of the evidence that Ferrer conducted his campaign in connection with Señor Iglesias, whose newspaper, El Progreso, menaced the Government with a revolution if the troops were embarked for Morocco.

The investigating Judge submitted the deposition of a witness who declared that he heard Ferrer say: «If it is necessary we will do as they did in Russia.»

Much other hearsay testimony regarding remarks attributed to Ferrer was introduced in the course of the hearing. Gen. Brandeis testified that he had heard it said that Ferrer, the instigator of the revolt, had made large amounts of money in speculation.

Ferrer, speaking in his own defense, described how, with the police dogging his steps, he tried to keep out of sight during the rioting in Barcelona and vicinity. He denied that he had been involved in politics. He declared that he was solely interested in the improvement of the education of the youth of the country. He considered that the rising in Barcelona was quite spontaneous. He attributed the incendiarism that had occurred to the madness of the moment. He was convinced that his prosecution was the work of enemies who wanted to destroy his printing establishment, as they had his modern school.

He denied the testimony of other witnesses and protested against the acceptance of hearsay evidence and the introduction of what he wrote as a youth twenty-four years ago, when he agitated for the establishment of a republic with the aid of the army.