REPRODUCED AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES DECLASSIFIED Authority Stateletter Manz ome NARI Oate 2498 UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure No. to Despatch No. 187, dated April 22, 1948, from the American Embassy, San José.
LA PRENSA LIBRE, April 21, 1948.
Translation WHICH VERDICT WILL PREVAIL?
In entering once more into the field of liberty of the press, there will be many things to be said, other questions to discuss and many problems to analyze. At pesent we are congronted by the most delicate period of the crisis, that of convalescence, which should be watched with prudence and firmness, in order that the evils which be fell the country may not again appear and that it may bring out the many good things conquered in gallant labor.
Perhaps the task is easy because the arenas have been delineated with imposing outlines; it is now known who is who and where everyone should be indexed.
There is one question to take up immediately, and that is the enormous dissimiltude which exists in the number of votes passed upon by the first National Electoral Tribunal which computed for the election of deputies gave a greater number to the National Union Party, than those awarded now by the reports of the recently organized Tribunal, which takes away nothing less than four representatives from the Opposition.
The difference, as will be noted, is quite large, and it must have been possible to cause the phenomenon through specious legalistio arguments which we, laymen on the subject like the majority, cannot understand fully. To us concrete realities count. And it is a concrete reality that in the course of a few days the num by the parties which participated in the recent electoral campaign have varied ostensibly to the detriment of the majority party, that of the Opposition from which the taking away of four deputies is attempted.
There might be a disparity of criterion between the members of the Tribunal originally appointed and those of its successor, but is not conceivable that the calculations Vary to the int to take away four seats from one party and alloting them to others. This event gives rise to the supposition that the second Tribunal may have operated ad hoc for the purpose of favoring de termined groups and to the detriment of others, this in the opinion of the public, since we think that perhaps what has occurred is a subterfuge, a trick of legerdemain, in awarding the seats after the counting.
But it is necessary to show the country clearly the reason for this notorious difference in the figures given by one and the other Tribunal. It is necessary and convenient for the purpose of removing tortuous judgement and to clarify an ambiguous situation to the benefit of national tranquillity and in order that justice may prevail.
UNCLASSIFIED.