influential man, and possessed with very little information about the inside workings since he went from place to place asking what was being decided. If Ferrer had really been one of the leaders, it is incredible that he should have spent the evening of the first day of the strike in such a futile manner.
The declarations gathered in the third class, refer to a special episode, the troubles which took place in the villages of Masnou and Premia. They accuse Ferrer of having taken part in those troubles, not in the troubles of Barcelona. The student careful to find out for himself whether Ferrer was justly or unjustly sentenced to death for being one of the "instigators, directors and organizers" of the insurrection of Barcelona, must therefore not confound the two, a confusion that the Prosecution endeavored and evidently succeeded in producing in the minds of the jurymen-judges. Even had Ferrer been convicted of taking part in the troubles of Masnou and Premia, he could only have been sentenced for this offense to temporary imprisonment, not to death. But let us see if the evidence is sufficient even on that score. The declarations of Juan Puig and of Domingo Casas are worthless for the reason given in note 52. That of Leoncio Ponti, who “knows through private confidences" is insufficient. The first part of Vincente Puig's declaration is merely the record of a coincidence which by itself proves nothing; the second part, which would tend to demonstrate Ferrer's leadership at least in the troubles, of Masnou and Premia, is insufficient because it reports only a "rumor." The declaration of the group of several witnesses from Premia is insufficient because they did not know Ferrer but merely "were told" it was he.
The declaration of Velasquez is the only one in which a witness declares he saw Ferrer do anything, namely, in-
