Santurri or the others were really guilty of any intrigues against the
Republic, is treated as absurd; the fact that any trial or investigation
ever took place is slurred over; and yet, with a marvellous
inconsistency, Salvatori is accused of being in reality the guilty author
of these executions, because some witness--name not given--reports that
he heard a report from a servant of Garibaldi, that Santurri was only
executed, in opposition to Garibaldi's own wish, in consequence of
Salvatori's representations.

What was the nature of Salvatori's defence cannot be gathered from the
sentence. From another source, however, I learn that it was such as one
might naturally expect. During 1849, the mayors of the small country
towns were entrusted with political authority by the Government. In the
exercise of his duty, as mayor, Salvatori discovered that Santurri and
the others were in correspondence with the Neapolitans, who were then
invading the country, and reported the charge to the officer in command.
The result of a military perquisition was to establish convincing proof
of the charge of treason. Santurri was tried by a court martial, and
sentenced at once to execution; as were also his colleagues, on further
evidence of guilt being discovered. Salvatori, therefore, pleaded, that
his sole offence, if offence there was, consisted in having discharged
his duty as an official of the Republican Government, and that this
offence was condoned by the Papal amnesty. This defence, as being
somewhat difficult to answer, is purposely ignored; and a printed notice,
published on the day of Santurri's execution, and giving an account of
his trial and conviction, is rejected as evidence, because it is not
official!

Considering the tone of the sentence it will not be matter of surprise,
that the court sums up with the conclusion, that "Not the slightest doubt