“MONSTROUS AND ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS”: LAW ...

on the JEA. The dispute began when Salvador Malta and several other members of the JEA
accused Leal of exceeding the authority granted to him by the corporation to run the
stockyard. Leal responded to the allegations that he had abused his office by publishing an
article in El Salteño against Malta and the other commissioners. In the article, Leal implied
that the JEA members sought to remove him not for abuse of office, but for asking
questions about the organization’s finances. He also indicated that Aleja Castilla, the former
head of the department, military official and prominent local rancher, had sought his
removal in order to avoid an investigation into his own disputed property boundaries. Leal
bluntly asked: “Who in fact exceeded their authority?” His answer was that “the pueblo will
be the judge.” 26 Leal concluded by arguing that he carried out his office “inspired by the two
simple words of honor and independence, and I take solace in the conviction of never having
separated from this path.” 27
The case quickly proceeded to a jury trial. Leal, however, elected not to appear.
Instead, he dedicated himself to attacking the legitimacy of the local proceedings. Leal
traveled to Montevideo in order to secure the intervention of officials there in the matter.
Leal’s son, Carlos, appeared for his father in Salto’s theater. He argued in essence that the
jury selection process was biased. He noted that “the Honorable alcalde cannot ignore the
fact that among the Jury are citizens that cannot legally form part of the Tribunal, finding
themselves precluded by protections the Law guarantees.” 28 Despite these protests, the trial
continued. The jury then rendered its verdict without hearing any evidence from the Leals.
Not surprisingly, they found Thomas Leal guilty and ordered him to pay a relatively small
26 D. Salvador Malta por los miembros de la Comission Extraordinaria-Administrativa c. D.
Tomás Leal sobre una publicación en el Diario “El Salteño,” AGN-SJ. Salto. Penales, n. 56 (1876),
1.
27 Ibid. (emphasis in the original).
28 Ibid.
344