{"1": {"fulltext": ".^y^r,/^.^-^--^\\nE 721\\n.S76\\nCopy 1\\nAFFAIRS IN CUBA.\\nSPEECH\\nOF\\nIHN C.\\nSP\\nOF WISCONSIN,\\nIN THE\\nSENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,\\nFRIDAY, APRIL IS, 1898.\\nWASHINOTON.\\n1898.", "height": "3505", "width": "1939", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "s.\\nassso", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "srEEcn\\nOF\\nHON. JOHN C. SPOONER^:\\nThe Senate having under consideration the joint resolution (S. R. U9) for\\nthe recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that\\nthe Government of 8pain relinquish its authority and government m tlie\\nIsland of Cuba, and to withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and\\nCuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the\\nland and naval forces of the Ignited States to carry these resolutions into\\neffect, reported by Mr. Davis from the Committee on Foreign Relations, aa\\nfollows:\\nFirst. That the people of the Island of Cuba are and of right ought to b\u00c2\u00bb\\nfree and independent.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Second. That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Gov-\\nernment of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of\\nSpain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba\\nand withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters.\\nThird. That the President of the United States be. and he hereby is, di-\\nrected and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United\\nStates, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of\\nthe several States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry these resolu-\\ntions into effect\\nMr. SPOONER said:\\nMr. President: I shall not attempt to disguise the fact that\\nI sincerely deprecate this debate. I lament the difference in opin-\\nion among us which has given rise to it. Without intending un-\\nduly to criticise any Senator, I deplore the spirit of some of the\\nutterances to which we have listened to-day. Wc are, as the Sen-\\nator from Colorado [Mr.WoLCOTTJ said, at the thre.shold of war.\\nHe is a very sanguine man who thinks he can discover any escape\\nfrom it. Carping and criticism and fault-finding with the Presi-\\ndent, the commander who, under the Constitution, is to lead us, is\\nan ugly and unfit prelude to the roar of cannon, the rattle of\\nmusketry, the roll of war drums, and the groans of the wounded\\nand dying. He has borne himself noblj- in his high oftice.\\nThe suggestion of want of sincerity upon his i)art, or an attempt\\nto belittle his diplomacy would, if effective, lessen the confidence of\\nour people in him and diminish his influence with foreign nations\\nduring the conflict upon which we reluctantly enter. If we must\\ngo into war, as seems inevitable, he is, by choice of the American\\npeople, our leader, sworn to his duty, able and willing to dis-\\ncharge it, and, as patriotic citizens, we are to rally around him,\\nstrengthen his arms, cooperate with his efforts; and, if there be\\naught in him, now or hereafter, which either a fair or an unfair\\nman could critici.se. let us wait until after the battle. From this\\ntime on to the end let us rather say to him, God bless and guide\\nyou. Lead on; Ave follow.\\nI do not stop to make reply to the suggestion that his failure to\\nrecognize belligerency a year ago, or since, has been due to the\\ninfluence of Spanish bondholders upon the American Government.\\n3:. r:5 3", "height": "3447", "width": "1960", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "I know notbin;? of such bondholders. I know however, and so does\\nthe Senate, and so do the people of the United States, and so does\\nthe world, unless the suspicion uttered here yesterday and to-day\\nfinds lodgment somewhere over the sea, that there is no man liv-\\ning less capable of being influenced by bondholders against liberty\\nthan the present President of the United States.\\nUnder our Constitution he is charged with the duty of conduct-\\ning our foreign relations and our intercourse with foreign govern-\\nments. He can not take the world into partnership in conducting\\nnegotiations with other governments. Publicity is fatal to delicate\\nami difhcult international negotiations. Business men keep their\\nown business secrets. Much more so must governments.\\nI have felt that the President should have all the time he re-\\nquired, and not only time, Mr. President, but patience, in the Con-\\ngress and among the people, to enable him to conduct to the end\\nthe diplomatic negotiations with Spain\u00e2\u0080\u0094 a people proud, sensitive,\\nand i)aasionato.\\nI liad the honor to state a year ago in a short address here my\\nbelief that the people of the United States desired the independence\\nof Cuba and my own earnest wish for this consummation. I have\\nnever in any wise abated my opinion that this must come, or my\\nhope that it should come, but I have, with painful earnestness,\\ndesired that the President be permitted to exhaust every possible\\nresource and art of diplomacy before resort to the alternative of\\nwar.\\nI confess I have regretted some of the utterances which from\\ntime to time have been made in the Senate bold, generous, and\\nworth} as in spirit most of them were. I have regretted them\\nbecause I felt they might embarrass the President in delicate and\\ndifficult negotiations with a peculiar people. I have regretted\\nthem because I knew that if they could by any possibility result in\\na rupture of diplomatic intercourse and jirecipitate war we would\\nbe found unready. I have deprecated them in the Senate for\\nanother reason, that under our form of government this body\\nsustains a i)ecu]iar relation to the President in the matter of for-\\neign relations. He has the right, in stress, to come into this Cham-\\nber, to ask us to close our doors to the world, and permit him to\\ntake this body into his confidence, and to invoke its advice. This\\nhas been done once in a crisis since the Government was founded.\\nAnd therefore it has seemed to me that here, of all places, he\\nshould be free from criticism and the embarrassment of either\\nsensational or condemnatory speech.\\nThe President needs no defense from me. He has conducted the\\nnegotiations. I do not know what the correspondence is. I have\\nthe best of reason, however, to believe that his failure to transmit\\nit was due to reasons which would commend themselves to every\\nthoiightful person in this country.\\nIt is not easy to conceive a more diflficult and burdensome duty\\nthan has under the Constitution rested upon him. Ho has been\\nobliged to so conduct this negotiation as not only to satisfy his own\\ngreat constituency, if possible, but with a view to commend this\\nGovernment to the enlightened sentiment of the goveniing pow-\\ners of the world. He has traveled, of necessity, the path of diplo-\\nmacy alone, and I can well imagine it has been a long and weari-\\nsome journey. He has felt the pressure of pu])lic opinion here,\\nstirred to its depths. It is to the eternal glory of our people, how-\\never, that, notwithstanding horrors unspeakable, they have main-\\n3273", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "taiued an attitiule of dip^nity and calm, awaitini? with intense feel-\\ninp:, but with wonderful patience, the inarch of events.\\nThe President has seen some old friends seem to fall away from\\nhim. He has lieard the voice of criticism. Doubtless he has\\nbeen stung by the tongue of slander. I do not know, for I have\\nheard no word from him. I do know that, as an American Presi-\\ndent should, he has gone along the pathway calm, patient, intrepid\\nto the end. There is not to-day in any court of Europe, so far as\\nI know, excej^t the Spanish court, a statesman or a great newspa-\\nper who or which has not applauded his liriiniess. his discretion,\\nand the dignity of his demeanor in the midst of domestic excite-\\nment and Congressional impatience. This good opinion of our\\nPresident is worth much to our people. Some may in the rush and\\nwhirl of excitement in our own land forget but we here have no\\nright to forget that it is of the utmost consequence that our case\\nshall seem strong and clear and humane and unimpeachable to\\nthose governments of the world whose good opinion we invoke\\nand whose sympathies we may well desire, because when war\\nonce begins, God alone can tell when it will end or who before it\\nends shall become participants in it. I have, as an American\\nSenator, taken pride in the fact that those showering praise upon\\nthe President were but a little time ago bitterly prejudiced against\\nhim because of his economic theories, v/hich they antagonize.\\nThe President has been criticised for the tone of his message in\\nregard to the 3/(f/\u00c2\u00bb( It has been said that it was cold and pas-\\nsionless. The Chief Executive of 70,000,000 people, conducting a\\ncase almost inevitably leading to war, must be passionless, must\\nbe calm. If he be not so in the surging tide of popular iwission,\\nwhat, then, is to become of a government by the people?\\nI approved when that message was read here, and I approve now,\\nits si)irit, its tone, and its language. The President was not called\\nupon to denounce the Spanish Government as guilty of participa-\\ntion in the exjilosion of the Maine. It would have been the height\\nof unwisdom. He could, and a rash man would have so done,\\nhave sent a message to Congress which would have broken off in a\\nmoment diplomatic relations and plunged this country into war.\\nWere we ready? No, Mr. President! He knew then, we know\\nnow. and the people know now, that we were not ready. It was\\nthe President s duty to be calm and patient, even to temporize,\\nthat we might become prepared for war, and every hour prepara-\\ntions have gone forward under his direction.\\nThe President has. too, been criticised for delaying his message\\nfrom Thursday until Monday, and it has been intimated in the\\nCongress that it was an artifice, a piece of diplomacy to gain\\ntime. The President in this did wisely; did only his duty. The\\ndispatches from General Lee\u00e2\u0080\u0094 some of which 1 have seen, all\\nof which were seen by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign\\nRelations\u00e2\u0080\u0094 rendered it impossible, in the interest of human life,\\nincluding the life of that chivalric representative of this Govern-\\nment, that the message should be communicated to the world until\\nthe American citizens in Cuba who desired to come home were\\nsafely out of that country.\\nThere is not a member of this Senate, there is not a manly man\\nin the United States, who, had he been President, would not have\\nwithheld that message even had he known that failure to trans-\\nmit it would lead Congress in its impatience to pass unanimously\\na declaration of war. It is an awful responsibility, that which", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "6\\nhas been upon the President; infinitely more than the responsi-\\nbility which rests upon us, because the responsibility here is di-\\nvided. We may say what we please; we may utter the views\\nwhich commend themselves to our judgment, but we know that\\nin the end the majority of the Senate determines the action of the\\nbody. We may win the plaudits of the people by patriotic utter-\\nances; we may defend ourselves on the floor of the Senate. The\\nPresident can not. He is answerable to a greater constituency.\\nHe is answerable to the civilized world.\\nI have been pained by some criticisms made to-day upon the\\nmessage of the President. It has been argued that he is committed\\nin his message to the proposition that an army carrj-ing the flag\\nof the United States shall go over to the Island of Cuba, plant that\\nflag upon the grave of Maceo, and train its guns on Gomez. That\\nis an impossibility. The flag of the United States has never floated\\nabove any army in my day except an army of freedom. William\\nMcKinlcy, the President of the United States, could not and would\\nnot send forth an army upon such a mission, and all fair men\\nknow it and acknowledge it.\\nWhile one of the gentlemen who has seen fit to belittle his diplo-\\nmacy and to criticise him in a strong, stera, and bitter way was\\na boy of 11 or lO years, living in peace, with opportunity for edu-\\ncation, he who is now President had abandoned the schoolroom\\nand was marching and fighting under our flag where the bullets\\nof an enemy were weaving the air about him with lines of death\\nand danger; and never from that day to this has he uttered a\\nthought which was not in vindication and appreciation of human\\nliberty. Never from that day to this, Mr. President, has he done\\nan act which could be imputed to a mercenary motive.\\nWe are not called upon here to enact the President s message. I\\nshall not attempt to vindicate every sentence in it. I have never\\nyet rea l an elaborate document every portion of which commended\\nitself absolutely to my judgment.\\nBut I repudiate, not from anything he has said to me, but\\nfrom the life he has led in public and in private; I repudiate\\nbecause of his utterances from the beginning, the notion that his\\nlanguage was intended to be construed as contemplating an array\\nof occupation under the American flag to helpenslave further under\\nthe banner of Spain the people of Cuba. That is an absurdity.\\nThe man does not live who can more strongly demonstrate the\\nabsohate impossibility of continued Spanish government in Cuba\\nthan the President has done by his message. His recommendation,\\nI think, has been grossly misconstrued. The argument which has\\nbeen made upon it is the sort of argument which would rail the\\nBeal from off the bond.\\nI am bound to assume that such utterances had no partisan pur-\\npose. I will not think that they could be born out of purpose to\\nsubserve a party interest. The message must be read as a whole,\\nand not in the light of some single sentence in it. If our armies\\nshould occupy Cuba, if the Spaniards should bo expelled, as the\\nSpaniards must and will be expelled from Cuba, and Gomez\\nshould not be able to restrain those who follow his standard\\nfor in them, remember, is the hot blood of the Spanish people, al-\\nthough they are themselves struggling to be free from Spain\u00e2\u0080\u0094 if\\nhe should find himself unable to i)rotect the women of that island\\nfrom lust, and to jirotect men in their property and in their lives,\\nit would bo the duty, as it would be the right, of the Government\\nof the United States to lay a repressive hand upon his forces and\\na. 73", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "to preserve peace. That the President of the United States could\\ndo more than that, or that an army under onr tiaa; could do more\\nthan that in Cuba, no man can for one moment believe. The\\nPresident says:\\nIn view of these facts and of these considerations, I ask the Consi ess to\\nauthorize and empower the President\\nOf course he could not say direct the President. lam not\\nhere to-day to employ any technical argument: but 1 have little\\ndoubt that we have no power to direct the President. This is\\na Government of three great coordinate dcjiartments, each inde-\\npendent and supreme within its sphere. If anything is .settled\\nimder our Constitution as to this Government, that is settled.\\nCongress can not constrain the courts; Congress and the Presi-\\ndent together can not dictate to the .iudiciary.\\nThe President can not direct Congress. I do not believe, as\\na matter of law, Congress can direct the President. He is not\\nour servant; we are not his master. Congress can pass a law;\\nCongress can lay down a rule of action, and then the President\\nis bound to execute it. He is bound by a higher obligation than\\nany verbal direction by Congress. He is bound by his oath of\\notlice, an oath registered in heaven, to support the Constitution,\\nwhich says he .shall take care that the laws be faithfully exe-\\ncuted. Congress may declare war. That is the power of Con-\\ngress; but war being declared, it is to be conducted by the Presi-\\ndent, not because we say so, but because the Constitution says so.\\nHe is Commander in Chief. It is not to be believed that the time\\nwill ever come when there will be in any exigency which involves\\nthe honor of this country or the vindication of our flag a want\\nof cooperation between the Congress and the Executive. His rec-\\nommendation is:\\nI ask the Congress to antboiize and empower the President to take meas-\\nures to secure a full and final termination of hostilities between the Govern-\\nment of Spain and the people of Cuba, and to secure\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nNot to establish. I like the word secure better than the\\nword establish, because under the word secure the present\\nso-called government of Cuba, if the facts shall hereafter justify\\nit, might be recognized\\nin the island the establishment of a stable government, capable of maintain\\ning order and observing its international obligations.\\nThat can mean, as argued by the Senator from Massachusetts\\n(Mr. Lodge] the other day, only an independent government in\\nCuba. Canada has no international obligations. Australia\\nhas no international obligations. No colony or dependency\\ncan have any international obligations. That phrase can refer\\nonly to treaty obligations to obligations growing oi;t of conven-\\ntions between independent governments. Bonds issued by gov-\\nernments are not international obligations.\\nCertainly, as the Senator from Massachusetts reminds me and\\nI thought i had expressed it a government in the island with\\ninternational obligations can not lie the government of Spain.\\nIt is impossible, fairly reading the language, keeping the heart\\nfree from bitterness and the mind free from suspicion, by which\\nthe President invokes Congres:sional action, to construe it in more\\nthan one way, and that is the way in which I have .iust read it,\\nas involving the establishment of an independent government in\\nCuba.\\nIf a perusal by the President of some of the criticisms uttered\\nhere to-day give him pain, he may well remember with comfort", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "8\\nthat such criticisms, painful as they maj be, are not new in the his-\\ntory of this country. They were harsher when directed against\\nGeorge Washington because he insisted on maintaining the neu-\\ntrality between Great Britain and France. It is the same harsh\\ncriticism. Mr. President, which wounded the tender heart of Abra-\\nham Lincoln; the same hostile spirit which filled with thorns his\\npathway. It is the same harsh note which, during the years of\\nGeneral Grants Administration, when there was an insurrection\\nin Cuba attended by frightful atrocity, was sounded in his ear be-\\ncause be would not recognize belligerency or independence. No;\\nthe President may well be content that he has done all that he\\ncould do to avert war. Thoughtful men thank him for it now.\\nAll will be grateful to him for it hereafter.\\nI agree with the Senator from Colorado [Ivlr. Wolcott] in\\nrejtrobation of the utterance which once or twice has been made\\nin the Senate, that this country needs war to rekindle a decaying\\nspirit of nationality, to bring again into life the spirit of manli-\\nness, the love of liberty. We are not so very fai removed from\\nwar. There is hardly a man on the other side of the Chamber\\nwho does not remember with a shudder the roar of cannon, the\\nmad, impetuous charge, the rush and whirl of battle. Twenty-\\ntwo such men, I am told, are in this Chamber.\\nIt may seem a long time to us, but it is only a day in the life\\nof a nation. With a pension list of $140,000,000 a year, hundreds\\nof thousands of wounded soldiers North and South, all about\\nus, numberless homes still desolate, numberless hearts still aching,\\nand the waste of that beautiful Southern land not yet repaired,\\nwe need no new object lesson in war to rekindle the mili-\\ntary spirit of our people. No, sir; and the people of the United\\nStates, when this history shall have been written, when they deal\\nnot with the present, but with the retrospect, will thank President\\nJlcKinley that, before the last argument came, he did all he\\ncould in the midst of passion to maintain peace with honor.\\nMoreover, the war of which we knew was, I fear, little like war\\nof to-day, with the death-dealing instrumentalities of this invent-\\nive civilization. War is terrible in its every aspect. I wish the\\ncup might pass, without dishonor, untasted, from our lips.\\nMr. President, I wish with all mj heart that we might have\\nbeen able to agree upon a resolution for which as one man we\\ncould have voted, but we could not. I find fault with no man\\nthat it is so.\\nI do not like, I am fi-ank to say, the resolution reported by the\\nCommittee on Foreign Relations. 1 have the utmost confidence\\nin its members and the in-ofoundest respect for their ability, but\\nthe resolution to me, as a declaration upon which we are to go into\\nwar, is illogical, inconsistent, and untenable, and I say that fully\\nconscious of the fact that we are going to war, and that one of its\\nresults will be to make Cuba free. It is thus:\\nFirst. Tliat the people of the laland of Cuba are, and of right ought to be,\\nfree and iiidopeudeut.\\nThat the people of Ciiba ought to be free and independent, I cer-\\ntainly afhrni. That the people of Cuba are free and independent, I\\ndo not know. I wish I knew that to be true. I think I know that if\\nit were Lfue we would not to-day be facing war or debating upon\\nthe mt Hiods in which it shall be commenced, to viake that people\\nfree. 11 the pt ople of Cuba are free and independent, whj are we\\nto go there? What should perplex us about them?\\n3iT3", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "9\\nAnother clause of the resolution reads:\\nSecond. That it is the duty of the United States to demand-\\nIt is the duty of the United States to demand\u00e2\u0080\u0094 to demand of\\nwhom? Of Spain of course. Kemember this is to be a hiw, to be\\nput upon tlie statute book and what sort of a kiw is it? To d\u00c2\u00bb-\\nmand of Spain what?\\nAnd the Government of the United States does hereby demand that tlie\\nGovernment of Spain at onro roliiKHiish its authority and fj ^)vernm\u00c2\u00bbiit in\\nthe Island of Cuba and withdraw its laud and uuvai forces from Cuba uud\\nCuban waters.\\nIf the people of Cuba are free and independent and that is a\\nmere legislative assertion of fact what authority and govern-\\nment can Spain have in the Island of Cuba?\\nMr. GRAY, We make a demand and wait for an answer.\\nMr. SPOONER. The resolution says:\\nAt once relinquish its authority and government in the Lsland of Cuba.\\nIs that in any wise consistent? I care nothing for the mere\\nlanguage of it, but this is a momentous paper which we are to\\nenact. It is to go into history; it is the guide of the President;\\nit is our justification before the world in a legislative way; and tff\\nsay that the people of Cuba are in fact free and independent,\\nand at the same time to declarewthat Spain has authority and\\ngovernment there, seems to me utterly inconsistent. The two\\nstatements, like Kilkenny cats, put side by side, eat each other up.\\nMr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Wisconsin allow me to\\ninterrupt him for a second?\\nMr. SPOONER. I will, certainly.\\nMr. MORGAN. I understand that declaration to be not a his-\\ntorical declaration of the existing facts or situation, but it is a high\\npolitical decree, such a decree, for instance, as we put in our party\\nplatforms a basis of political action, not as something already\\naccomplishea, but something that is to be accomplished that\\nbeing their right, that being the ground of their unification in\\nachieving and accomplishing that light. That is the way I under-\\nstand it.\\nIf the Senator will allow me further, that, of course, is copied\\nfrom our own Declaration of Independence.\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. MORGAN. And our Declaration of Independence was\\nmade at a time when historically we were neither free nor inde-\\npendent.\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes.\\nMr. MORGAN. And yet the declaration was good as a high\\npolitical decree or enunciation on our part. Now the question is\\nasked, Why do we undertake here to extend that declaration and\\nmake it apply to Cuba? There is but one reason for it in the\\nworld, and that is that the Cuban Republic has made the same\\ndeclaration, and we concur in it.\\nMr. SPOONER. There is a very broad difference between our\\ndeclaration that we are free and our declaration that somebody\\nelse is free. You may adopt a platform of principles to govern\\nyou, but you can not adopt one to govern me. This is a declara-\\ntion of fact as to a third party. It is a declaration that the people\\nof Cuba are in fact free and independent, is it not?\\nMr. MORGAN. No; and 1 am satisfied the committee did not\\nBO mean it. The committee did not intend to tell a broad, historical\\nfalsehood in the presence of the world.\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "10\\nMr. SPOONER. I am like the Senator from Vir;?inia [Mr.\\nDanielI in one respect, and I wish I were like him in some\\nothers\u00e2\u0080\u0094 in this, that I only understand one kind of. Engli.^h lan-\\nguage. When the committee assert that the people of the Island\\ncf Cuba are. and of right ought to he, free and independent, I\\n\u00c2\u00a9appose tlio rommittee mean it.\\nAir. M(JK(;AN. If the Senator will allow me, I suppose our\\nfatliers in the convention which declared our independence meant\\nit also in the same sense. The fact was, we were not free and In-\\ndei)eiulent, and j-et we declared we were.\\nMr. SPCJOIS ER. There it was a declaration of their own inde-\\npendence; it was an enunciation of a high purpose by a people\\nto be free. I can understand how the so-called Republic of Cuba\\ncan declare in their constitution that we are free and independ-\\nent of the Government of Spain: but it is an entirely different\\nproposition for the Congress of the United States, which ordina-\\nrily does not deal in mere declarations of fact, biit deals in legisla-\\ntion, to solemnly enact as a fact what a great many of us do not\\nbelieve to be a fact, and what the Senator himself admits is not\\na fact. When you say of right ought to be free and independ-\\nent, that is true.\\nMr. GALLINGER. Will the ^enator allow me to make a sug-\\ngestion?\\nMr. SPOONER. The only reason I dislike to be interrupted is\\nthat thereby I am compelled to take more time than I wish.\\nMr. GALLINGER. It is on this very point. What does the\\nDeclaration of Independence mean when it says that all men\\nare created equal? Is not that simply a declaration of an in-\\nlierent or inalienable right?\\nMr. SPOONER. That is an abstraction. That means that all\\nmen ought to be free and independent in fact, but it does not\\nmean that all men are in fact free and independent. If it meant\\nthat, it would be false. Since that declaration rivers of precious\\nblood have been shed to make men free and equal in our own\\nland. You liave translated that dcclai-ation here when you say\\nthat the people of Ciiba of right ought to be free and independ-\\nent, and we all agree to that. This is not a party lilatform.\\nThis is a legislative act. upon which is to be based war, and I wish\\nit to be true in fact. You are asking Congress to vote here as a\\nfact that the people of Cuba are free and independent. You\\nmight say the same thing of the Armenians. Yoii might say the\\nsame thing of any people on the earth, however enslaved they\\nmay be, however miserable they may be if it only means that\\nthey assert it.\\nMr. GALLINtiER. We assert it for them.\\nMr. SPOONER. Wc are asserting here for ourselves that they\\nare free and we are asserting here that they ought to be free and\\nindei)endent. Have they asked us to assert it for them that they are\\nfree? It looks to me to be a call upon the Congress to assert as a\\nfact what is not the fact, and if it be a fact\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and that is what\\ntroubles me\u00e2\u0080\u0094 if they are in fact free and independent, if Gome/,\\nand Ills insurgent army with the sympathy of the people of Cuba\\nhave become free and independent, they must have a flag which\\nfloatsover that island; Si)ain must liavebeen expelled, atanyrate\\nher sovcreigntv brukon in Cuba; if those people are in fact-^\\nMr. F( )HAKER. Will the Senator from Wisconsin alio\\ninterrujit him for a moment?\\nallow me to", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "11\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. FORAKER. The Senator says they must h:xve a flagr. I\\nwish to advise the Senator from Wisconsin that they do have a\\nflag and that when the Maine met with its disaster, that flag, by\\norder of the Republic of Cuba, was placed at half-mast and has\\nbeen there from that day until this.\\nMr. SPOONER. Of conrse. If tho Senator had not interrupted\\nme in tho middle of a sentence, ho would have heard me say that\\nif they are in fact free and independent and the sovereiprtity of\\nSpain has gone from that island, their flag would bo floating at\\nhalf-mast all over the island instead of in two or three provinces.\\nOf course I do not care to spend more time upon that point.\\nThere is another element in this matter. Tho benator from\\nMassachusetts [Mr. Hoak] suggests to me\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and there is something\\nin it that that statement, if it is true, would make them respon-\\nsible for the disaster to tho Maine.\\nMr. FORAKER. What statement would make them respon-\\nsible?\\nMr. SPOONER. That they are absolutely and in fact now frco\\nand independent.\\nMr, FORAKER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin mean to\\ninsist that a people can not be free and independent and at the\\nsame time not be in absolute control of each and every particular\\nlocality within the territory which rightfully belongs to them?\\nMr. SPOONER. No; that is different.\\nMr. FORAKER. That would be a very strange proposition.\\nMr. SPOONER. That is a different question.\\nMr. FORAKER. While it is true that they are free and inde-\\npendent within the meaning and interpretation properly of inter-\\nnational law, it is also true, as we all know, that there are locali-\\nties in Cuba where they are not in possession of the territory, as\\nin the case of Havana and the harbor of Havana.\\nMr. SPOONER. I will get to that point.\\nMr. FORAKER. The Senator had better come to it pretty soon.\\nMr. SPOONER. I will come to it when I discuss the question\\nas to whether they have a government there entitled upon princi-\\nples of international law to be recognized. I will admit, as I must\\nadmit upon the authorities, that it is not essential to their right to\\nrecognition that they should control every spot and place in the\\nisland.\\nMr. FORAKER. Has the Senator any question but that Cuba\\nwill be free and independent in the sense that it will control each\\nand every spot in the island within a very short time after we\\nintervene?\\nMr. SPOONER. I have no doubt on earth that within a very\\nshort time after we intervene the people of Cuba will be free and\\nindependent; and that is why I do not think they are so now.\\nThere is another peculiarity about this joint resolution. I do\\nnot intend to be hypercritical about it. That is this:\\nThat it is the duty of the United States to demand\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nI can understand that as a legislative expression of opinion\\nand the Government of the United States docs hereby demand, that tho Gov-\\nernment of Spain at once reliunuish its authority and government in the\\nIsland of Cuba and withdraw its laud and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban\\nwaters.\\nWhen Ijeforo has the Congress of the United States undertaken\\nto send an ultimatum to a foreign government? Where does it", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "12\\nfiml in the Constitution anj warrant for taking from the hands\\nof the Executive the conduct of our foreign relations? I had sup-\\nposed until now that the demands of the United States upon for-\\neign governments, by way of ultimatum or less than ultimatum,\\ncould onlv proceed {hrough the President and that there could\\nnot he, in the language of a resolution like this placed upon the\\nBtatuto books as a law, a demand upon the Government of Spain\\nthat she at once relinquish her authority and government in the\\nIsland of Cuba and withdraw her land and naval forces from\\nCuba and Culjan waters.\\nI care nothing about it except that if the view which I have\\ntaken of it is a correct one, it is not the logical and dignified\\nmethod which ought to be pursued in this exigency by tlie United\\nStates, wliilo a different and better one would get the same results.\\n^Ir. TELLER. I should like to interrupt the Senator to ask\\nhim if he will indicate what he thinks ought to be the resolution?\\nMr. SPOONER. I think the resolution of the Senator from\\nColorado is infinitely better than this one.\\nMr. TELLER. I have several.\\nMr. SPOONER. I have seen but one, and I mean the one I\\nlike. If the Senator will give me the one he likes, I shall prob-\\nablv like it.\\nMr. TELLER. It has not been offered.\\nMr. STEWART. Read it.\\nMr. SPOONER. I will read it.\\nResolved by the Senate and Houxe of liepresentdtifex of the United States of\\nAmerica in Congress assembled. That the war now existing\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nIt is not the resolution I had in mind.\\nMr. GRAY. Read it.\\nMr. SPOONER. Very well.\\nResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Vnited States of\\nAmerica in Cont/ress assembled. That tho war now existing between the Gov-\\nernment of Spain and tho Government of Cuba lias been conducted by Spain\\nin flagrant violation of the laws of civilized warfare to such an extent as to\\nshock the moral sense of the nations of the earth and greatlj to the injury of\\nthe United States\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nNow I come to it:\\nTherefore the President of the United States is hereby authorized and\\ndirected to take at once such steps as may be necessary to terminate hostili-\\nties in the Island of Cuba and to secure to the people of that island an inde-\\npendent roimblican government by the people thereof; and the President is\\nauthorized and directed to use, if necessary, the land and naval forces of the\\nUnited States for the purpose of carrying this joint resolution into effect.\\nThat is very like the House joint resolution, which I favor.\\nThe word independent is a great word there. Doubtless there\\nwere good reasons why the President did not use it. There is no\\ngood reason why we should not use it. That means what? It\\nmeans independent of Spain, does it not? It means another thing,\\nMr. President, quite as important from the standpoint of interna-\\ntional law. It means independent of us. because at the very foun-\\ndation of this right of intervention is tho principle that beyond all\\nother things you must make it perfectly clear that you have no\\nulterior or selfish purpose whatever.\\nMr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to make a sugges-\\ntion? The re.solution which he has read has never been offered by\\nme. It was prepared before the President s message came to the\\nSenate. After 1 read that portion of the message which seemed\\nto me to indicate that the President contemplated putting his\\na:;73", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "13\\nhand upon the insurgents as well as upon Spain, I concluded that\\nI preferred to vote lor the provision that bad come in from the\\nminority of the committee, recognizing the independence of the\\nRepublic of Cuba,\\nMr. SPOONER. If the resolution which I have just read to\\nthe Senate was right when the Senator drew it, it is riglit now\\nnotwithstanding anything there may be in or omitted from the\\nPresident s message, because we are to deal with this question\\nourselves. He has sent the matter to us, as he must under the\\nConstitution, for the power, primarily, is with us. We can not\\nabdicate our function or our judgment because of any mistake\\nwe may think, or any of us may think, he has made. If that is\\nthe resolution which, without the recommendation of the message,\\nwe should adopt, it is what we should adopt now.\\nMr. President, 1 have been inclined to think, although I may\\nbe wrong about it, that the fii-st clause of the joint resolution\\nreally recognizes the independence of the so-called Republic of\\nCuba.\\nMr. TELLER, If the Senator will allow me, I will state that\\nI intended the first lines to recognize independence, for I men-\\ntioned the government of Cuba, and I intended thereby to men-\\ntion what you might call the revolutionary government.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. The Senator from Wisconsin is\\ntalking about the other joint resolution.\\nMr. SPOONER. I am talking about the joint resolution re-\\nported by the Senate committee.\\nTh.at tho people of the Island of Cuba are, and of riglit ought to he, free\\nand independent.\\nI hardly know what it means unless it recognizes the govern-\\nment, because one could hardly imagine a people to be free and\\nindependent in a condition of anarchy, as any people are without\\na government; and if we declare that a peojile are free and inde-\\npendent who have a government, of necessity almost we thereby\\nrecognize in a way the independence of that government.\\nMr. WHITE. Will the Senator from Wisconsin permit me?\\nIs not the word people, as used in the joint resolution and in\\nthat connection, the equivalent of nation\\nMr. SPOONER. I think a free and independent people, if they\\nhave a government, would be a nation, and if they have not a\\ngovernment, they might be independent of other powers, btit\\nthey would be in a condition of anarchy among themselves and\\nnot a free people.\\nJSlr. WHITE. It would not be a political entity.\\nMr. SPOONER. It would not be a political entity. But while\\nI have no earthly objection to interruption so far as debate is con-\\ncerned, I speak with the utmost reluctance and I am painfully\\nanxious to be through. Many Senators desire to speak, and I do\\nnot wish to consume an unnecessary moment, as I am obliged to\\ndo if I am interrnpted.\\nMr. President, 1 am not willing to vote for a proposition to recog-\\nnize the independence of the so-called Republic of Cuba. It is not\\nto be inferred, because I say that, that I do not sympathize with\\nthe struggle of that people, that I do not appreciate the gallantry,\\nthe skill, the devotion, the strategy which have characterized that\\nstruggle for liberty, for I do. But independence is a fact. It is\\nnot an expression of sympathy. It is a fact, and that is all it is.\\nI may say it is a fact, believing it to be a fact in a particular case.\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "14\\nMy Ineiul the t^eiuitor from Illinois [Mr. Ci LLOM] may, upon tho\\nevidenco before him, douLt or deny it. Whether the .so-called\\nRepnblio of Cuba i.s or is not independent is purely, from the\\nBtandpoint of international law and the practice of this Groveru-\\nmeut, a question of fact.\\nMy first objection to recognizing and declaring that fact in the\\npending joint resolution is that in my opinion it is not a legisla-\\ntive function to declare that fact. I do not intend to take the time\\nto argue with any elaboration that proposition, although I have\\nexamined it with great care. It has been argued in the Senate\\nbefore. The Senator from California [JMr. White] delivered a\\nspeech of verv great ability and of the utmost learning and research\\nupon the (luestion. I believe it to be an Executive, not a legisla-\\ntive, function, and I discuss it only for a few moments in order to\\nlead me to a proposition which I feel bound in the discharge of\\nduty to submit to my brother Senators in this exigency.\\nTht-re are four ways, some of them only qualified, of recogniz-\\ning the independenceof a state. Under the Articles of Confedera-\\ntiim it was the Congress that received and sent ambassadors,\\nministers, etc. The Constitution of the United States changed\\nthat and gave to the President, as one of the executive functions\\nthe power to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. The\\nConstitution vests in him the executive power of tliis nation and\\nin him alone, with the qualification which is made as to participa-\\ntion by the Senate. All over the world tlie first and the usual evi-\\ndence of a recognition of independence is the reception of an am-\\nbassador or minister from the government recognized.\\nThe President, no man will deny, could to-morrow receive a\\nminister from the Republic of Cuba. He could telegraph to-night\\nto Mr. Palma to visit him to-morrow at the White House and\\npresent his credentials, and before 12 o clock there would be a valid,\\nirreversible recognition of the Cuban Republic, so far as we are\\nconcerned. Congress could not alter it. Does anyone dispute\\nthat? Necessarily the power to receive a minister involves the\\npower to determine whether the government which sends the\\nminister is entitled to recognition as one of the independent states\\nof the world.\\nThere is another way of recognizing independence. It can be\\ndone by treaty. That is an executive function. No one but the\\nPresident can initiate a treaty, and then it requires the partici-\\npation of the Senate.\\nIf the President and the Senate should enter into a treaty with\\nthe Republic of Cuba, that would be recognition. That is the\\nway the (Tovernment of France recognized our Republic in the\\ndays of the Revolution, by entering into a treaty of commerce\\nwith us. What are the other ways, Mr. President? The Con-\\ngress may pass a /a (c\u00e2\u0080\u0094 pass a hiir, mind you\u00e2\u0080\u0094 appropriating\\nmoney to pay the salary of a minister to the Republic of Cuba.\\nIf the President signs the bill, that would be a recognition, in a\\nsense, of the Cuban Republic. It would be a recognition of it so\\nfar as Congress could recognize it. It would not be absolute. No\\npower on earth, in my judgment, could compel the President to\\nsend a minister there until he had determined that it was a gov-\\nernment entitled to recognition. Nor could Congress coerce in\\nany way the President to receive a minister from there.\\nTlie passage of such a bill would not require the President to\\nreceive a minister from the Republic of Cuba\u00e2\u0080\u0094 not at all. But I", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "15\\n;all Senators attention to tho fact that, while that wonld be\\nm incidental recognition of the Republic of Cuba, it would not\\nbe, as we i)iopo.se hero, a rnere dccluraiiun of the fuct. It would\\nbe an incident to the exeivise of a cliar hijishtlire jxiircr. Tho\\npower to create tho office and provide the salarj- is, of course,\\n;)urely legislative. And Congress might pass a law regulating\\n:he value of the coins of tho Republic of Cuba to be circulatt (l\\nn this country, and that, when signed by the President, would\\nje as one incident to tho exercise of the legislative i)owcr, a roc-\\njgnition of the republic. Still for purposes of commercial inter-\\ncourse it would not recognize tho Republic of Cuba.\\n1 wish to say here that, as a lawyer I know other Fciiakirs dif-\\ner with me about it; tliey are entitled to their opinions and I am\\nntitled to mine 1 believe it to be an absolutely sound proposition\\nhat the recognition of independence substantively is a function of\\nhe Executive, and that when Congress attempts, not in tho exei*-\\nnse of the legislative power, but as a mere declaration of a sub-\\nitantive fact, to do that thing, it usurps an Executive function\\nmd attempts to make a precedent which ought not. in the inter-\\nest of this Government, to be established. Alexander Hamilton,\\nu the Pacificus letters, says:\\nThe right of tho Executive to receive ambassadors and other public min-\\nsters may sorve to illustrate the relative duties of tho executive and leg is-\\nativo departments. This right iueludes that of judtd S, in tho case of a\\nevolutiou of government in a foreign country, whether the new rulers are\\ncompetent organs of tho national will, and ought to bo recognized, or not.\\nIt needs no argument to show that the power to receive am-\\njassadors, ministers, etc., of necessity involves the power todeter-\\nnine whether the authority which sends is an authority entitled\\nsend. Every President, without exception, from the beginning\\n)f tho Government, has determined this matter by receiving min-\\nsters, and from this judgment there has been no appeal. No law\\ns to be found in the archives of the Government in which Con-\\npress has attempted to recognize independence by a mere decla-\\nation.\\nMr. Justice Story says, in his Commentaries:\\nSec 15Co. The next power is to receive ambassadors and other public minis-\\ners. Thishasbeenalready incidentally touched. A similar pi iwcr existed un-\\nlorthe Confederation; but it was confined to receiving ambassadors, which\\nv()rd,in a strict sense (as has been already stated), cominvhends the highest\\nTade only of ministers, and not those of an inferior character. The policy of\\nhe United States would ordinarily prefer tho employment of the inferior\\nrrades; and therefore the description is properly enlarged, so as to include all\\nlasses of ministers. Why the receiving of consuls was not also expressly\\nneutioued, as tho appointment of them is in the preceding clause, is not easily\\no be accounted for, especially as the defect of the confederation on this head\\nvas fully understood. The power, however, may bo fairly inferred from\\nither parts of the Constitution; and, indeed, seems a general incident to tho\\nxecutiveauthority. It hasconstuntly beenexerciscd withoutob.jection; and\\noreign consuls have never been allowed to discharge any functions of oUice\\nin til they have received theexeiiuatur of the President. Consuls, indeed, are\\nlot diplomatic functionaries or political representatives of a foreign nation,\\nlut are treated in tho character of mere commercial agents.\\nSkc. IJXM). Tho power to receive amba.ssadors and nimisters is always an\\nmportant and sometimes a very delicate function, since it constitutes tho\\nnly accredited medium through which negotiations and friendly relations\\nro ordinarily can-iod on with foreign powers. A government may, in its\\niscretion, lawfully refuses to receive an amlcussador or other minister with-\\nut its atTf^rdiug any just cause of war. IJut it would generally be deemed\\nn unfriendly act, and might provoke hostilities unless accompanied liy con-\\niliatory exiManations. A refusal is sometimes made on the ground of tho\\nlad character of the minister, or his former offensive conduct, or i f tho spo-\\nial suliject of the embassy not being i)roper or convenient fur discussiuii.\\nhis, however, is rarely done. But a much more delicate occasion is when a\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "16\\ncivil war breaks out in a nation, and two nations are formed, or two parties\\nin the sanio nation, each claiming the sovereignty of the whole, and tne con-\\ntest remains as yet undecided, flagrante bello. In such a case a neutral na-\\ntion may very projjerly withhold its recognition of the supremacy of either\\nparty or of the existence of two independent nations, and on that account\\nrefuse to receive an ambassador from either. It is obvious that in such cases\\nthe simple acknowledgment of the minister of either party or nation might\\nbe deemed takinfj part against the other, and thus as affording a strong coun-\\ntenance or opposition to rebellion and civil dismemberment. On this account,\\nnations ])laced in such a predicament have not hesitated sometimes to de-\\nclare war against neutrals as interposing in the war, and have made them\\nthe victims of their vengeance when they have been anxious to assume a neu-\\ntral position. The exorcise of this prerogative of acknowledging new nations\\nor ministers is therefore, under such circumstances, AN Executive fcnc-\\naiox OF OUEAT DEi.if Acy, whicli requires the utmost caution and delibera-\\ntion. If the Executive receives an amba.ssador or other minister as the repre-\\nsentative of a new nation, or of a party in a civil war in an old nation, it is an\\nacknowledgment of the .sovereign authority de facto of such new nation or\\nparty. If such recognition is made, it is conclusive upon the nation, unless,\\nindeed, it can bo reversed by an act of Congi-ess repudiating it. If, on the\\nother baud, such recognition has been refused by the Executive, it is said that\\nCongress may, notwithstanding, solemnly acknowledge the sovereiffnty of\\nthe nation or party. These, however, are propositions which have hitherto\\nremained as abstract statements under the Constitution, and therefore can\\nbe propounded, not as absolutely true, but as still open to discussion if they\\nBhould ever arise in the course of our foreign diplomacy. The Constitution\\nhas expre.ssly invested the Executive with power to receive ambassadors and\\nother ministers. It has not expressly invested Congress with the power\\neither to repudiate or acknowledge them. At all events, in the case of a\\nrevolution or dismemberment of a nation, the judiciary can not take notice\\nof any new government or sovereignty until it has been duly recognized by\\n.some other department of the Government to whom the power is constitu-\\ntionally confided.\\nSi;c. l. jtiT. That a power so extensive in its reach over our foreign relations\\ncould not be properly conferred on any other than the executive department\\nwill admit of little doubt. That it should be exclusively confided to that de-\\npartment, without any participation of the Senate in the functions (that body\\nbeing conjointly intrusted with the treaty-making power), is not so obvious.\\nProbably the circumstance that in all foreign governments the power was\\nexclusively confided to the executive department, and the utter impractica-\\nbility of keeping the Senate constantly in session, and the suddenness of the\\nemergencies which might require the action of the Government, conduced\\nto the establishment of the authority in its present form.\\nMr. Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court in Wil-\\nliams vs. The Suffolk Insurance Company, o Sumner, 272 et seq.,\\nBays, among other things:\\nIt is very clear that it belongs crchixirel!/ to the executive department\\nof our Government to recognize from time to time any new governments\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0which may arise in the political revolutions of the world: and until such new\\ngovernments are so recognized they can not be admitted by our courts of\\nj ustice to have or exercise the common rights and prerogatives of sovereignty.\\nThis was in 1838. The Supreme Court of the United States af-\\nfirmed this judgment, in Williams vs. The Suffolk Insurance\\nCompany. 13 Peters, 420, Mr. Justice McLean delivering the opin-\\nion, in which it is said:\\nAnd can there be any doubt that when the executive bi-anch of the Gov-\\nernment, tritirh is charged ivith onr foreign relations, shaU in its correspond-\\nence with a foreign nation assume a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any\\nisland or country, it is conclusive on the .judicial department? And in this\\nview it is not material to inquire, nor is it the province of the court to de-\\ntermine, whether the Executive be right or wrong. It is enough to know\\nthat in the exercise of his constitutional functions lie has decided the ques-\\ntion. Having done this under the resi)onsibilities which belong to him, it is\\nobligatory on the people and Government of the Union.\\nIn United States r.s. Hiitchings, 2 Wheeler s Criminal Cases,\\nni3, Chief Justice Marshall had occasion to pass upon the question.\\nIt was a prosecution for piracy, and the question arose whether\\nat a certain date the Republic of Buenos Ayres was independent.\\nCounsel contended that the independence of Buenos Ayres com-", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "17\\nmenced with their declaration of independence, etc. Chief Jus-\\ntice Marshall said:\\nThat a nation became independent from its declaration of independence\\nonly as respects its own government and the various departments thereof.\\nThat before it could be considered indeiu iulent by the judiciary of foreipu\\nnations it was necessary that its independence should be recoKuized by the\\nexecutive authority of those nations. That as our Executive had never rec-\\nognized the independence of Buenos Ay res, it was not competent to the court\\nto pronounce its independence.\\nIn the Prize Case.s [2 Black, 03. in which the Snpi*eme Conrt\\nhad occa.sion to deal with the question, and, although it related\\nto a domestic difficulty, the principle is substantially the same,\\nthe court says:\\nWhether the President, in fulfillins his duties as Commander in Chief in\\nsuppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance and\\na civil war of such al.irming i roportions as will coinjicl liim to accord to them\\nthe character of belligerents, is a question to bo decided by him, and this\\ncourt must bo governed by the decisions and acts of thoiwlitical department\\nof the Government to which this power was intrusted.\\nThe italics are tised by the court.\\nIn the case of The United States vs. Trumbull (48 Federal Re-\\nporter, 99) referring to the late civil war in Chile, Judge Ross saj s:\\nIt is iKjyond question that the status of the people composing the Congres-\\npioual party at the time of the commission of the alleged ofiense is to be re-\\ngarded by the court as it was then regarded by the political or executive\\ndepartment of the United States. This doctrine is firmly established.\\nIn the case of the Itata (56 Federal Reporter, 505) Judge Haw-\\nley, speaking for the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit,\\nsaid:\\nThe law is well settled that it is the duty of the courts to regard the status\\nof the Congressional party in the same light as they were regarded by the\\nexecutive department of the United States at the time the alleged offenses\\nwere committed.\\nSee, also, Pomeroy s Constitutional Law, pages 669-672.\\nIt is impossible on this occasion to thorough! j discuss the ques-\\ntion with reference to the utterances of distinguished statesmen\\nand to the precedents upon the subject. Any Senator who cares\\nto pursue it will find in Senate Document No. 56, Fifty-fourth\\nCongress, second session, abundant information.\\nThe practice has been all one way, and I do not find any case\\nwhich, fairly considered, sustains the power of Congress to, by a\\nmere declaration, recognize the independence of a foreign state.\\nMr. DANIEL. Will my friend from Wisconsin allow me to in-\\nterrupt him for iust a moment?\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. DANIEL. I want to call the attention of my honorablo\\nfriend to the case of The United States vs. Palmer (3 Whea-\\nton, 048) and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the\\nUnited States in 137 United States Reports, page 212, the opinion\\ngiven by Judge Graj and I call his attention to the fact that\\nthese decisions declare the proper authority to recognize a gov-\\nernment are the legislative and executive departments of the\\nUnited States.\\nMr. SPOONER. It has been done that way, as I stated a while\\nago. If the Congress to-day should amend the diplomatic and\\nconsular appropriation bill and insert a provision providing a sal-\\nary for the minister to the Republic of Cuba, and the President\\nshould sign it. that would be, I think my friend will admit, as far\\nas Congress could go in the exercise of the legislative power to\\nai73\u00e2\u0080\u0094 3", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "18\\ndeclare or acknowledge that fact, but that would not receive a\\ny:inister or send one.\\nMr. DANIEL. Thny can do it in a hundred ways.\\nMr. SPOONER. There is one great reason which I never have\\nbeen able in my own mind to escape why this must be, in the\\nlast analysis, considered an executive rather than a legislative\\nfunction, and that is this: It is a shifting affair. We may recog-\\nnize a republic to-day, and four months from now the mother\\ncountry may have conquered it and the republic will have ceased\\nto exist.\\nIf this thing, which is a mere declaration of fact, is to have the\\neffect of a law, a rule of action binding upon the Executive, it\\nmust control him, whether it is true or false, until the power that\\nmade it unmakes it. So it is perfectly clear, in my judgment,\\nthat it is essential to the interest of the Republic that this assertion\\nwhich may be true to-day and six months hence may be false,\\nshould be left for determination, from time to time, by the execu-\\ntive department of the Government. John Quincy Adams thought\\n60. Daniel Webster distinctly stated so.\\nMr. TELLER. I wish to ask the Senator if he is not aware\\nthat the legislative department of the Government on various oc-\\ncasions has denied that proposition?\\nMr. SPOONER. I am coming to that point.\\nMr. TELLER. I am not expressing any opinion myself on the\\nquestion. I wish to call his attention, if he will allow me, to a\\nresolution which passed the House December 19, 1864, by a vote\\nof 118 to 8. Will the Senator excuse me if I read it? I think it\\nmay add something to our knowledge.\\nMr. SPOONER. The Henry Winter Davis resolution?\\nMr. TELLER. Yes, the Henry Winter Davis resolution. It is\\nas follows:\\nHcsolved, That Congress has a constitutional right toan authoritative voice\\nIn declaring and prescribing the foreign policy of the United States, as well\\nin tlie recognition of new powers as in other matters, and it is the constitu-\\ntional duty of tlie President to respect that policy not loss in diplomatic ne-\\ngotiations than in the use of the national force when authorized by law.\\nThat was carried by 118 votes to 8, and the distinguished Sena-\\ntor from Iowa who sits in front of me was one of those who voted\\naffirmatively, and I find certain other gentlemen with whom I\\nhave served in this body who also voted for it. I desire to say to\\nthe Senator that I am not expressing any opinion on the point my-\\nself.\\nMr. SPOONER. I am quite familiar with that resolution.\\nThat was a revolt by Mr. Davis against President Lincoln and\\nMr. Seward. It was during the war. It was a mere expression\\nof opinion on the part of the House of Representatives, and it was\\nevoked by a dispatch from Mr. Seward to the French minister.\\nIt was a quarrel between Mr. Seward and Mr. Henry Winter\\nDavis, who at that time was chairman of the Committee on For-\\neign Affairs of the House.\\nThat the Congress of the United States are unwilling, by silence, to leave\\nthe nations of the world under the impression that they are indifferent spec-\\ntators of the deplorable events now transpiring in the Republic of Mexico,\\nan(i that they therefore think fit to declare that it does not accord with the\\npolicy of the United States to acknowledge any monarchical government\\nerected on the ruins of any republican government in America under the\\nauspices of any European power.\\nThat is the resolution as first introduced by Mr. Davis.\\n\u00c2\u00abK73", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "10\\nIn consequence of an article in the Monitenr, the official jonrnal of the\\nFrench Ciovernuii-nt, the House on May roijuesti-d the President, to com-\\ninuiiicato any explanations nivon liy the Government of the United States\\nto the Uovcrnment of France resiieotinp: this resolution. l resident Lin-\\ncoln in turn, on May i communicated to the House certain corresjjondouc.o\\nl^et ween Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, and Mr. Dayton, the minister to\\nFrance page 2175\\nMr. Seward writes that the French minister havinpr asked an explanation\\nof the re.solution, he inclosed it, with the statement tliat it truly interprets\\nthe uniform sentiment of the people of the United States in regard to Mexico.\\nThat was little move than a new declaration of the Monroe doc-\\ntrine, and was aimed at tlie French interixwition by occupation in\\nthe affairs of Mexico while we were struggling lor the life of the\\nKepublic.\\nMr. Seward, who was a very able lawyer, I think it will be ad-\\nmitted, a great diplomat, a man whoso memory is fragrant and\\nwill always be for the wonderful skill he displayed on many oc-\\ncasions in circumstances of extreme embarrassment, in a dispatch\\nsaid as to the resolution:\\nIt is, however, another and distinct question whether the United States\\nwould think it m-cessarv or i roper to express thoni-selves in the form adopted\\nby the House of Kepre.-^entatives at thi.s time. Tins is A 1 KACTIcal and\\nI LHEI.Y EXECUTIVE ylK.STION, AND A DECISION OF IT CONSTITUTIONALLY\\nIIEI.ONOS, NOT TO THE HOUSE OF REPHESENTATIVES NOR EVEN CONGKESS,\\nBUT TO THE PHESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.\\nBut it made trouble in the House, It generated bad blood.\\nThere was factional disturbance there. There was hostility to\\nMr. Lincoln. We wonder at this day that there ever could have\\nleen any, as we will wonder some day, looking back on this day,\\nthat there could have been uttered some of the criticisms which\\nhave been heard here upon President McKinley.\\nAbout it Mr. Blaine said:\\nTo adopt this principle is to start out with a new theory in the administra-\\ntion of our foreign affairs, and I think the House has justilied its sense of\\nself-respect and Us just appreciation of the spheres of the coordinate depart-\\nments of Oovernment by promptly laying the resolution on the table.\\nThat is what the House first did with it.\\nMr. TELLER. The first resolution?\\nMr. SPOOLER. No; this resolution. That is what the Ho-Dse\\nfirst did with it. Thereupon, you remember, Mr. Henry Winter\\nDavis, feeling himself affronted, resigned his position as chairman\\nof the Committee on Foreign Relations, and afterwards the resolu-\\ntion was amended and adopted by the House.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. Passed to heal the breach.\\nMr. SPOONER. Passed to heal the breach, passed to prevent\\nfurther division in the face of war, but only at best an expression\\nof opinion upon the part of the House. Allow me for a moment\\nto refer to the case of Kennett et al. vs. Chambers, decided by the\\nSupreme Court of the United States, 14 Howard. 60.\\nThe case fairly involved the question when Texas was recog-\\nnized by the United States Government as an independent State.\\nThe court say, through Chief Justice Taney:\\nBut it has been urged in the argument that Texas was in fact independent\\nand a sovereign state at the time of this agreement, antl that the citizen of ti\\nneutral nation may lawfully lend monej- to one that is engaged in war, to en-\\nable it to carry o!i hostilities against its enemy.\\nIt is not necessary in the case Iwforo us to decide how far the judicial tri-\\nbun.ils of the United States would enforce a contr.act like this when two\\nstates acknowledged to bo independent were at war and this country neu-\\ntral. It is a suftifient answer to the argument to say that the question\\nwhether Texas had or had not at that time become an independent state wa.^\\nn question for that department of our Uovcrnment exclusively which j\\ncharged with our foreign relations.", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "20\\nHas anyone ever heard before now that the Congress of the United\\nStates is charged with the conduct of our foreign relations, to\\npresent in the form of a statute, an ultimatum to a foreign govern-\\nment? The argument against any such possibility is made abso-\\nlutely unanswerable by Justice Story, by Mr. Pomeroy, and by\\nothers in their explanation of why the President, not Congress,\\nwas invested with this power, which requires unity, secrecy, dis-\\npatch. I am quite sure that if it were vested in the Senate there\\nwould not be much secrecy about it. What does the court further\\nsay?\\nAnd until the period when the department recognized it as an independ-\\nent State, the juaicial tribunals of the country were bound to consider the\\nold order of things a.s having continued, and to regard Texas as a part of the\\nMexican territor;5 And if we undertook to inquire whether she had not in\\nfact bccv )mo an independent sovereign Stato before she was recognized as\\nsuch by the treaty-inakinij powir, we should take upon ourselves the exer-\\ncise of political authority, for which a judicial tribunal is wholly unfit, and\\nwhich the Constitution has conferred exclusively upon another department.\\nThis excludes Congress.\\nMr. HALE. Will the Senator from Wisconsin allow me to call\\nattention to an instance in our history that is precisely in point?\\nWhen, in 1837, a resolution was before the House of Representa-\\ntives acknowledging the independence of the Republic of Texas,\\non motion it was amended by adding to it whenever the President\\nin his discretion shall deem it advisable to so recognize it.\\n^Ir. SPOONER. I have all that in this memorandum. And so\\nagain with the recognition of the independence of Texas. A reso-\\nlution was introduced in the Senate recognizing independence.\\nIt was merely an expression of the sense of the Senate, just as the\\nSenate resolution recognizing Cuban belligerency was an expres-\\nsion of the sense of the Senate.\\nIn the debate upon the resolution on Jnly 1, Mr. Preston said that he had\\nwith difficulty restrained himself from offering an amendment to recognize\\nthe independence of Texas immediately. Mr. Webster said:\\nHe was willing to go so far aa to vote funds to enable the President to\\nBend out a proper minister.\\nI admit that that is the exercise of a legislative power, and that\\nincidental to it is the recognition.\\nBut against a direct recognition he thought there existed strongobjec-\\ntions. It was the proper function of the President to take the lead in this\\nmatter.\\nMr. Pasco rose.\\nMr. SPOONER. I beg my friend not to interrupt me, for I\\nmust get through.\\nMr. PASCO. If the Senator will permit me, suppose the pend-\\ning joint resolution passes with the amendment offered by the\\nminority, and the Executive signs the joint resolution.\\nMr. SPOONER. I will get to that.\\nMr. PASCO. But it passes the two Houses. Would not that\\nbe a valid recognition of the independence of the Republic of\\nCuba?\\nMr. SPOONER. I doubt it. I do not think it would be. That\\nwould not, without further action by the President, bring about\\nor authorize any intercourse between the two. And suppose Con-\\ngress should pass such a measure, and the President should receive\\na minister from the Republic of Cuba, and four weeks from now,\\nor five months from now, Congress not being in session, Spain\\nshould receive assistance and should expel that government and\\nresume her sway in Cuba, would this act of Congress, which it is\\n3273", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "21\\nasserted Congress has the power to pass, simply declaring a fact,\\nbe binding on anybody?\\nWoiild it be overturned as an act of Congress and rendered of\\nno eft ect as a rule binding upon the President by successful uperu-\\ntions rendered after its passage in the Island of Cuba? Ordi-\\nnarily, as I stated a few moments ago, any act which Congress\\nhas the power to pass, being signed by the President, is binding\\nupon the President and upon the country until Congress repeals\\nit. But the matter of recognition of independence, being depend-\\nent upon the varying fortunes of battle, one fact this montli and\\npossibly another next month, in the very nature of things that can\\nnot Le a legislative function.\\nMr. PASCO. I wish to suggest to the Senator from Wisconsin\\nthat wo are legislating and the President is acting for the present\\nand not for the future, and when future clianges come, tlien will\\nbe the time to consider what action is to be taken in reference to\\nfuture changes.\\nMr. SPOONER. That is true as to law. When you pass a law,\\nit stays there until you repeal it, does it not?\\nMr. fSTEWART. The Uovernment will keep a minister there\\nif Congress recognizes the republic.\\nMr. SPOONER. It can not keep a minister there if the gov-\\nernment to which we send a minister is in the meantime, while\\nCongress is not in session, destroyed; and if a new government is\\nerected, one for which Congress has not provided a minister, is it\\nto be said that the President of the United States may not recog-\\nnize that new government by receiving from it a minister? In\\nthe very nature of things it is a power which was intended to be\\nlodged with the Executive, and it must be lodged with the Execu-\\ntive in order to subserve the interests of our people.\\nBut, Mr. President, it can not be lodged in both places. If it\\nis a legislative power, the President has no right to exercise it. If\\nit is an executive power. Congress has no right to exercise it. It\\ncan not very well be both.\\nI wish I had time to read from Mr. Maclison. in one of the Hel-\\nvidius letters, an absolute demonstration of this proposition.\\nSenators say that it is a legislative power. Do Senators deny, then,\\nto the President the power, beyond the reach of review by Con-\\ngress, to recognize the Cuban Republic to-morrow? No one will\\ndeny that.\\nBut does he do it in the exercise of legislative power? No; he\\ndoes it in the exercise of an executive power. Now, which is it?\\nIs it both? If it is both, we have this situation: We have Con-\\ngress declaring a fact which the President, acting upon his oath,\\ndeclares is not a fact. What then? We have a conllict which\\nthe Supreme Court of the United States in SutTolk rs. Williaiiis\\nsay could not be tolerated between any of the departments of this\\nGovernment.\\nBut I can not argue longer the question.\\nNow, this brings me to just this situation, and I beg the atten-\\ntion of Senators to it for a moment: It will be admitted that never\\nBince Hamilton wrote the words which I have read in tlie i)resenco\\nof the Senate has there been a President or a Secretary of State wlio\\nhas not denied that this is a legislative function.\\nMr. BACON. Will the Senator from Wisconsin permit mo to\\ncorrect him?\\nMr. SPOONER. Presidents once or twice, I think, where :t\\n0273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "22\\nhas been thought that the recognition involved international rela-\\ntions which might involve war, invited the cooperation of Con-\\ngress.\\nMr. BACON. I will not seek to interrupt the Senator now. I\\nwill make mv statement later.\\nMr. SPOONER. The only ground that is logical at all for those\\nwho maintain the opposite of the proposition is that maintained\\nby the Senatf^r from Georgia, who says it is a legislative power\\nand that the President exercises it only by the implied consent of\\nCongress. Do I state it correctly?\\nMr. BACON. I beg the Senator s pardon; I did not know ho\\nwas addressing himself to me.\\nMr. SPOONER. I say there is no logical ground upon which the\\ncounter-contention may be put except that suggested in a speech\\nby the Senator from Georgia, who insisted, as 1 recollect it, that\\nit is a legislative power, and that when the President exercises it\\nhe does it only by the implied assent of Congress.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator is correct.\\nMr. PASCO. Implied or actual assent?\\nMr. SPOONER. Mr. President, that runs afoul of the pretty\\nwell settled proposition that legislative power can not be dele-\\ngated. Congress can not delegate expressly or by consent to the\\nPresident any legislative power.\\nMr. BACON. Will the Senator permit me, in order that I may\\nnot be misunderstood (as he asked me the question and then\\nseeks to draw a conclusion), to state what I mean when I speak\\nof it as an implied assent? I will do it by illustration. The\\nPresident, under certain circumstances, might order a war ship to\\nbombard a town.\\nMr. SPOONER. I think he will.\\nMr. BACON. Very well. If Congress saw fit to do it, it could\\ncountermand the order. When I say Congress I mean the law-\\nmaking power.\\nMr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I deny it.\\nMr. BACON. Wait a moment.\\nMr. SPOONER. Congress has power to declare war, but the\\nPresident of the United States is Commander in Chief of the land\\nand naval forces of the United States.\\nMr. BACON. I am not speaking of a time of war.\\nMr. SPOONER. Oh!\\nMr. BACON. I am speaking, for instance, of such an act as the\\nbombardment of Grey Town.\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes.\\nMr. BACON. That is what I am speaking of. There is no\\ndoubt of the fact, and the Senator, I presume, will not deny it\\nwith as much vehemence as he did just now, that if Congress had\\nbeen in session and had known of the Presidents determination,\\nCongress, by law, could have stopped that war ship from making\\nthat bombardment. In not doing so there would have been an\\nimplied assent by Congress to such an act on the part of the Presi-\\ndent.\\nMr. SPOONER. That is, Congress by its silence ratified a\\nusurpatory act on the part of the Executive. Is that what the\\nSenator means?\\nMr. BACON. No; I do not mean a usurpatory act at all, but I\\ndo say it was an act whicli it was within the power of Congress to\\nhave denied to the President, and when it was not denied there was", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "the implied assent. I used that siiiii ly liy way of illustration to\\ndeny the conclusion of the h enator tliat there is any ar;, unient on\\nmy part looking to a lflegation of legislative power uu the part of\\nCongress to the President.\\nMr. SPOOK ER. The Senator in his speech, which was a very\\nable and ingenious speech, did not say tliat in terms, of course. I\\nbeg pardon for what seemt d to him to be vehemence; it is a fault\\nof my manner. and only that: but what I say is that the Sena-\\ntor s argument seems to me to involve a delegation of legislative\\npower, which, of course, is inadmissible.\\nNow, Mr. President, whatever else maybe said about it. for the\\npurposes of the appeal which I wish to address now to the Senato\\nwe will call it a disputed proposition. Many men of ability think\\nand have argued one way and many of equal ability have thought\\nand argued the other way. All the Presidents, with an exception\\nor two, and President Jackson reserved the (juestion. have thought\\nthe other way and insisted the other way.\\nIt becomes an important matter to-day. It is on this occasion\\nnot an abstraction. The President in the message which he has\\nsent to Congress, and no one will question tlie sincerity of his\\nutterance, and no one will question the facilities which he has\\nhad at his command to ascertain the fact, has declared it to l)ehi8\\nconviction that as a fact there is no Republic of Cuba which is\\nentitled upon the principles of international law to be recognized\\nas an independent power.\\nNow. we are asked to pass a resolution a joint resolution to be\\nsent to him asserting a contrary fact, and coupled with it a power\\nwhich all the people of the United States want given to the Presi-\\ndent, and which he has asked, in an exigency demanding haste,\\nupon humanitarian and other grounds is it a good time, Senators,\\nis it a good time for sober-minded men to force this issue?\\nIs it a fair proposition when the President, acting within hia\\nsphere, decides the question of fact one way and notifies us in his\\nmessage of his decision that wo should decide it another, and\\nunder cover of a momentous exigency like this we should call\\nupon him to sign a resolution contradicting the fact as stated\\nby his message and surrender a prerogative upon the demand of\\nCongress, a prerogative which ho thinks is executive and which\\nall the Presidents, from Washington down, have considered execu-\\ntive? Whatever may be the law of the matter, I hope Senators\\nwill agree that this is not a good time nor a fair way to force\\nfrom the Executive an assertion, or a surrender, of the long-claimed\\nand exercised prerogative.\\nMr. STEWART. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a ques-\\ntion?\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. STEWART. Have we not got a right to examine the con-\\nditions upon which we will declare war? Is it not our duty to do\\nBO? And if the conditions are not sucli as we think would war-\\nrant war, are Ave bound to vote for war? Have we not a right to\\ndetermine under what conditions war ought to bo declared? It\\nseems to me that we have that question before us.\\nMr. GRAY. Not necessarily.\\nMr. SPOONER. I do not see that that has any necessary con-\\nnection with the observatioES which I am submitting to the\\nMr. STEWART. If the fact does not exist that there are any\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "21\\nlocal rights there and no government of any kind, I do not know\\nwhat right we have to go there and commence war.\\nMr, GRAY. I will say to the Senator from Nevada and the\\nSenator from Wisconsin that we are interfering on distinctly dif-\\nferent grounds, if we interfere at all. If it is a necessary war\\nmeasure, it will be for the Commander in Chief when war is de-\\nclared to exercise the power.\\nMr. SPOONJER. That is true. Mr. President, I object to the\\nrecognition of independence upon another ground. I object to it\\nbecause upon principles of international law there is no govern-\\nment in Cuba, so far as we have any information of it, which is\\nentitled to be recognized as an independent state. As I said a\\nlittle while ago, independence is a fact. What is the rule upon the\\nsubject? There are a great many authorities upon it and a great\\nmany precedents. The elementary books are full.\\nMr. STEWART. I deny our right to go anywhere and estab-\\nlish a government unless we annex the country. As to establish-\\ning a government for somebody else, I deny our right to do it.\\nMr. SPOONER. Mr. President, we do not propose to go any-\\nwhere and establish a government, nor do we propose to annex\\nCuba; nor do we propose in any way to absorb Cuba; nor do\\nwe propose to apply to the purposes of the United States one\\npenny of Cuban revenue. Our purposes are far above that. We\\nintervene, if we go there, in the affairs of Cuba for what pur-\\npose? We intervene to put an end to savagery. We intervene\\nbecause the continued rule by Spain in Cuba menaces our peace.\\nWe intervene because, as a Christian nation at the end of the nine-\\nteenth century, we can not stand it any longer in the sight of God.\\nThat is why we intervene. We go there, Mr. President, and we\\nwill, of course, take the side of the insurgents.\\nMr. STEWART. That is not what you say.\\nMr. SPOOISIER. I do say so, and the Senator never doubted\\nfor a moment that I would say so. I think no man, unless he is\\nblinded by party zeal, unless he seeks in this moment of supreme\\nperil to find fault with an Executive, would doubt for a moment\\nthat that is one purpose of our intervention, and that its effect will\\nbe Cuban independence.\\nMr. STEWART. 1 want the resolution to say so. That is what\\nwe are discussing.\\nMr. SPOONER. I am advocating the adoption of a resolution\\nwhich does say so, and you are advocating the adoption of a reso-\\nlution which says they are already independent.\\nIn the message of the President is the doctrine in regard to this\\nsubject declared by President Jackson, and although he sent a\\nCharge to Texas, having approved the bill which provided the sal-\\nary and so forth, that did not in anywise indicate a change of\\nopinion as to what was required as evidence within the rules of\\ninternational law to warrant a recognition of independence.\\nMr. MASON. The Senator will admit, however, that it was one\\ncase where the legislative action preceded the executive action.\\nMr. SPOONER. That has often happened. If we should pass\\na bill to-day appropriating money to pay the salary of a minister\\nto.the Republic of Cuba, and two weeks from now the President\\nshould recognize the Republic of Cuba, the executive action\\nwould follow the legislative action just as it did in the other case.\\nBut tliat wcmld not change the doctrine of international law at\\nall. That would not make any change in the principle that cer-", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "25\\ntain facts must exist in order to warrant a recognition of imle-\\npendence.\\nAs stated in the very able report of the Comniitteo on Foreign\\nRelations, written by its distinf;:uished chairman [Mr. iJ.vvisJ\\nwho I hope may long remain a member of this body, in which he\\nrenders exceptional service to the country and slieds luster upon\\nthe great State which sends him hero\u00e2\u0080\u0094 intervention is a matter\\nof high politics.\\nEvery State must determine for itself when it will intervene and\\nto what extent it will intervene. But on the principles of inter-\\nnational law this matter of independence is a matter of right.\\nIf a people in fact have established such a govcrninent as within\\nthe principles laid down by President Jackson constitutes them a\\nstate, it is entitled to recognition. Different principles apply to\\nthe exercise of the right of intervention from those whicli ajiply\\nto the exercise of the right of recognition. This is laid down\\nin the seventh annual message of General Grant, and I believe it to\\nbe a fair statement as to what is necessary to warrant the recog-\\nnition of a state.\\nTo establish the condition of things essential to the recognition of this\\nfact\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nBecause it is only a fact\\nthere mtist be a people occupying a known territory, united under some\\nknown and defined form of government acknowledged l y those subject\\nthereto, in which tho functions of government are administered by usual\\nmethods, competent to mete out justice to citizens and strangers, to afford\\nremedies for public and for private wrongs-\\nIt would not be safe to admit a new member into the familj of\\nnations with any less than these requirements. It would not be\\nable to protect its own people. It would not be able to discharge\\nits international obligations. States are particular about this,\\nbecause governments have to deal with each other; and when they\\nrecognize a government, from that moment it is an equal, what-\\never its size or power; and they must see that it is a government\\ncapable of discharging the functions of a government both at\\nhome and abroad, capable of playing its part as a member of tho\\nfamily of nations; and there is no work on international law which\\ndoes not declare that it is a delicate office and should be exercised\\nwith the utmost care and discretion. Let me continue what I waa\\nreading. I had not finished it\\nand able to assume the correlative international obligations, and capable of\\nperforming the corresponding international duties resulting from its acquis-\\nition of the rights of sovereignty. A power .should exist roini)li te in its or-\\nganization, ready to take and able to maintain its place among the nations of\\nthe earth.\\nSir Edward Creasy says, page 679:\\nSpeaking generally, two facts should concur before this grave step [that\\nof recognizing the new state against the wish of tho old stAto be taken):\\n1. The practical us.sation of hostilities on tho nart of the old state, whicli\\nmay lung i)rocedo the theori tical renunciation of nor rights over the revolted\\nmember of her former dominion.\\n2. Then should occur the consolidation of tho new state, so far at least as\\nto be in a condition of maintaining international relations with other i- \u00c2\u00abuii-\\ntries, an ab.soluto bona fide jxjsse.ssion of imlependeneo as a separate king-\\ndom, not the enjoyment of perfect and tindisttirbed internal tnin |uillitv--\u00c2\u00bb\\ntest too severe for many or the oldest kinu doms. Hut there sliouM In- tho\\nexistence of a government, acknowledged l)y the people over whom it is set.\\nand ready and able to nrovo its responsibility for their conduct when tl ey\\ncome in contact with otuor nationa.\\nS27J", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "2G\\nAgain:\\nIt has been pointed out in an early portion of this volume that a state, in\\norder to be entitled to take its place in the great family of sovereign political\\nBocieties, must not only be free from government from without, but it must\\ngovern itself. The sense and necessity of this rule are too obvious to require\\nany comment.\\nI do not understand why there is such haste for recognition of a\\ngovernment in Cuba.\\nIt will not be long after the flag of the United States is can-ied\\nto the Island of Cuba when the people there who sympathize with\\nthe army of Gomez will rally around him\u00e2\u0080\u0094 it will not be long\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nand if the people of Cuba recognize, as they will, if they think\\nthey ought to, this revolutionary or provisional government with\\nits constitution, as a government under v. hich they wish to live,\\nit is for them to say so; and the President promptly can and\\npromptly would recognize it and admit it into the family of states\\nso far as we are concerned. If, on the other hand, for any reason,\\nits people should not wish to live under its constitution, to be de-\\ncided by them, not by us; if they prefer, by a fair expression of\\ntheir opinion, another government with a dilferent constitution,\\nit is for them to say, not for us; and when such a government\\nshall have been erected by them, not by us, and it raises its flag\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nand it doubtless will be the flag under which Maceo died and Gomez\\nfights\u00e2\u0080\u0094 then it will be for us to recognize its independence and to\\nstand by it.\\nThe Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Tillman] talks about\\nthe carpetbagger. That was a grievous trouble to your people,\\nbut it was not willingly put upon you. It was an outgrowth of\\na condition, happily gone, and now only recalled as part of history.\\nWe would have been glad if it could have been avoided. None of\\nus denied the evils of it: and the Senator surely does not suppose\\nfor a moment that the United States intervening here by force of\\narms upon high grounds\u00e2\u0080\u0094 so high that no government will ques-\\ntion its purpose; and I regret that any Senator has seen fit to\\nchallenge it\u00e2\u0080\u0094 will send there an army to install as governors, as\\nchieftains, as tax collectors, carpetbaggers from the United States.\\nNo. no.\\nMr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator allow me?\\nThe VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Wisconsin\\nconsent to be interrupted?\\nMr. SPOONER. Of course.\\nMr. TILLMAN. I am glad to hear what I did not doubt the\\nSenator from Wisconsin would deny, and I dare say all the Sena-\\ntors here will denv, that there is any such purpose. I hope none\\nsuch exists; but why not let us make plain and clear what this\\nresolution means, so that such a condition shall not exist under\\nany temptation that may come?\\nMr. SPOONER. The House of Representatives has passed a\\nresolution providing for this intervention and for an independent\\ngovernment of the people of Cuba. I favor it. Here it is:\\nEesolved by the Senate and House of nejrresentativM of the United States of\\nAmerica in Congress assembled. That the President is hereby authorized and\\ndirected to intervene at once to stop the war in Cuba, to the end and with the\\npurpose of .securing permanent peace and order there and estal)lishmg liy the\\nfree action of the people thereof a stable and independent government of their\\nown in the Island of Cuba; and the President is hereby authorized and em-\\npowered to use the land and naval forces of the United States to execute the\\npurpose of this resolution.\\nIs not that enough? I do not like the word directed.\\na- 73", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "Mr. TILLMAN. But who is goinp: to interpret that?\\nMr. SPOONEli. It does not need any interpretation. It in-\\nterprets itself.\\nMr. TILLMAX. Will the Senator iuteri)ret this lauffuage for\\nme from the President s messasjje\\nMr. SPOONER. I am not discnssing the President s message.\\nWe are not going to vote upon the President s message.\\nMr. TILLMAN. It is the Presiilent s messiige aloiie which has\\ngiven me the painful duty to perform of sjieaking a.s I have to-\\nday; and but for the fact that that message has l)een written and\\ngiven a tail which does not corre.spond with its hody and head, I\\nnever would have uttered a word that I have uttered to-day.\\nI want to ask you to please tell me what this language mean.*? in\\nthe President s message: and I do it for the reason that you of all\\nmen on either side of this Chamber are possibly better informed,\\nor at least equally well informed, on the (juestionof law involved:\\nTo commit this country now to the rpcopnition of any pnrtiiMilnr provorn-\\nment in Cuba might subject us to embai-r.-is^inu couditiuua of iutcruational\\nobligation toward tho organiziition so reooguized.\\nMr. SPOONER. I indorse that, Mr. President, as absolutely\\nsound.\\nMr. TILLMAN. I want you to tell me what will be the obliga-\\ntions of an international character to which we will be committed\\nif we recognize the present government of Cuba?\\nMr. SPOONER. I will get to that in a few momenta.\\nMr. TILLMAN. I will, then, wait until the Senator reaches it.\\nMr. SPOONER. I will endeavor to satisfy the Senator, if I can.\\nOur own Supreme Court say, in Kennett vs. Chambers, referring\\nto Texas:\\nBut it belonged to the Government, and not to individu.il citizens, to de-\\ncide when that event had taken place (independence*, and that decision, ac-\\ncording to the laws of nations, depended upon th question whether she had\\nor had not a civil proverument in successful oporutioii. cajiable of performing\\nthe duties and fulfilling the obligations of an iudciiendent power. It de-\\npended upon the state of the facts and not upon the right which was in\\ncontest between the parties.\\nLawrence says, page 87:\\nThe community thus recogrnized must, of course, posfsess a fixed territory,\\nwithin which an organized government rules in civilized fashion, command-\\ning the obedience of its citizens and speaking with authority on their behalf\\nin its dealings with other states.\\nIt is not enough to warrant the recognition of a government as\\nan independent power that it has a written constitution; it is not\\nenough that it has passed laws or made orders; it is not enough\\nthat it has adopted a postage stamp; it is not enough that it has\\nchosen a pre.sident who is as able and dignified as the President\\nof the L nited States; it is not enough that it has cho.seu a vice-\\npresident who is a professor of law. That is all very well, but\\nthat is not enough. It requires more than a i)aper govenj-\\nment; it requires a government in fact; it requires a government\\nthat governs at home and punisht^s crime through the operation\\nof judicial tribunals; that iirotects property; that levies ta.xes.\\nA Senator near me suggests, and one that has a ti.xed abode. I do\\nnot care so much about that, it must ho a government. Mr.\\nPresident, in fact and that must be made clearly to apin-ar\\nwhich not only performs all tho functions of a government at\\nhome, but is able to perform all the functions of a government in\\nits relations to other governments.", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "28\\nI take liberty to read a word from Sir William Veruon Harcoiirt.\\nSenators will remember these letters, for they were written during\\nthe late war upon the question of recognizing the independence\\nof the Southern Confederacy, and attracted great attention on\\nboth sides of the Atlantic.\\nWhile the issue can bo still considered in any degree in ambiffuo, the pre-\\nBiimption is necessarily in favor of the former sovereign, and a friendly\\nstate is bound to exact very conclusive and indisjjutable evidence that the\\nBovereipnty of a government with which it has existing relations over any\\npart of its former dominions has been finally and permanently divested. It\\nis not at liberty during the pendency of an actual struggle to speculate on\\nthe result or to assume the probability of the ultimate failure of the ancient\\nsovereign, however plausible may be the grounds for such an inference.\\nWhat the claimant to recognition has to show is an accomplished and do\\nfacto, not a probable or paulo post f uturum, independence.\\nThen he says again:\\nThe rule he propounded was precisely that acted upon by Mr. Canning in\\nthe case of the South American Republics, viz, that where a doubtful and\\nbona fide struggle for supremacy is still maintained by the sovereign power,\\nthe insurgents jam flagrante bello can not be said to have established a do\\nfacto independence.\\nMr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator allow me?\\nMr. SPOONER. Then he says in another place, if my friend\\nfrum South Carolina will permit me:\\nWhen a .sovereign state, from exhaustion or any other cause, has virtually\\nand substantially abandoned the struggle for supremacy it has no right to\\ncomplain if a foreign state treat the independence of its former subjects as\\nde facto established; nor can it prolong its sovereignty by a mere paper as-\\nsertion of right.\\nNo mortal man can say because of the military methods em-\\nployed in Cuba that the struggle existing between Spain and\\nCuba could be brought to an early end without the intervention\\nof the United States.\\nMr. TILLMAN. Now will the Senator allow me?\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes, sir.\\nMr. TILLMAN. If France had assumed that attitude toward\\nthe colonies, where would this Republic be?\\nMr. SPOONER. There is nothing novel about that.\\nMr. TILLMAN. France, if you will excuse me again I beg\\nthe Senator s pardon, but I just want to make one observation\\nif France had not established a precedent contrary to that doctrine,\\nwe would not have gained our freedom; and if we need a prece-\\ndent, in Gods name let us establish one.\\nMr. SPOONER. When France recognized the struggling Amer-\\nican Republic, she did not do it so much for love of us as she did\\nit because of her hatred against Great Britain.\\nMr. TILLMAN. Have we not enough cause for hating Spain?\\nMr. MASON. If the Senator will permit me, I wish to ask a\\nquestion.\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. MASON. Do you think France hated England then any\\nmore than the American people hated Spain the day after the Maine\\nwent down?\\nMr. SPOONER. We are not going to war with Spain for hate.\\nMr. MASON. I am.\\nMr. SPOONER. You are, but I am not.\\nMr. MASON. That is one of my reasons.\\nMr. SPOONER. The American people are not going to war\\nwith Spain for hate. Seventy millions of people, with illimitable\\nwealth, proud of being a Christian people, will not wage war\\n3273", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "29\\nagainst any government on the earth for hate. We are going\\nto war with Spain bocauso wo mu.st; wo an* .in:, t war with\\nSpain because we can not toU-rato any lt.nj; r Sii:iTu h nil.- in this\\nneighboring ishmd; we are going to war with Simiu bicaiiM Wo\\ncan not any longer listen to the crios, which come tloatmg over\\nthe sea upon every breeze from Cuba, of starving children and\\nstarving women; we are going to war with Sj)ain, forced into it by\\nher, because her rule in Cuba has for many a long year menaced\\nour safety, and because we can not tolerate it any lon;, er; but\\nthere is no hate in it, no revenge in it. Wo are gouig over there\\nto abate a nuisance. [Laughter.]\\nMr. MASON. The Senator does not love the country that made\\nthe nuisance, does he?\\nMr. SPOONER, Mr. President, I am not here at this hour and\\nin this high place to hurl epithets against tlie nation with which\\nwe are to fight or to exi^ress what I may have in my heart toward\\nher by vituperative language. She will liave to settle. The day\\nof reckoning has come; our bill of particulars has been presented;\\nit is a long list and a sickening list, and the destiny of Cuba at\\nlast will be worked out.\\nWhy, Mr. President, one of the grounds on which the United\\nStates refused to participate in the alliance proposed a great many\\nyears ago, while Mr. Everett, I think, was Secretary of State I\\nhave forgotten the year\u00e2\u0080\u0094 invited by France and Great Britain, on\\nthe application of Spain, to maintain permanently the Spanish\\nstatus in Cuba, was stated to be that the Administration would be\\nutterly odious to our people which would enter into a contract with\\nthose Governments that the Cuban people should not at some time\\nobtain their independence.\\nI do not put the action of the United States upon any such\\nground as my friend does, although I know his aspiration and his\\nlove of liberty and his sj^mpathy with all who struggle; but I ven-\\nture to say that with his heart full of tenderness for the Cubans\\nin their sufferings and struggles, it is no more tender in its sym-\\npathy for them than are the hearts of those of us who have sat\\nsilent in this Chamber during all the mouths that the President\\nhas been walking alone the difficult and wearisome path which has\\nled up to this hour.\\nMr. President, it is true that France recognized the Republic,\\nbut we then had a good deal of a government. We had Giorgo\\nWashington, and he was a good deal of a government; we had the\\nContinental Congress; we had laws; we had institutions. Our\\nseat of Government changed now and then; but that is nothing.\\nWe had whipped Burgovne at the battle of Saratoga.\\nMr. ALDRK If. We captured him.\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes, defeated him and captured him. To\\nillustrate the real attitude and purjx se of France, she made a\\ntreaty of commerce with us, and it was upon that ground that tho\\nEnglish Government declared war against her iind tho Kngliah\\nstatesmen to this day denounce tliat treaty as a violafiMTi of inter-\\nnational law upon the subject of recognition; 1 .do a\\nsecret treaty of alliance with us, in which it that\\nneither Government should make peace with ..v i..... with-\\nout the consent of the other.\\nMr. President, in every court of Europe tho agents of th\u00c2\u00bbj\\nSouthern Confederacy patiently, earnestly, and prayerfully Hoiij^bt\\nthe recognition of independence. In every court of Europe tho\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "30\\nrepresentatives of the United States as earnestly antagonized it,\\ndemanding, npon principles of international law, that it could\\nnot be properly accorded. Every Government of Europe except\\nRussia was unfriendly to us and sympathized with the Confed-\\neracy.\\nI think that statement is fairly justifiable\u00e2\u0080\u0094 perhaps not as to\\nGermany, but aa to most of those governments and not one of\\nthem recognized the independence of the Confederate States.\\nThis book is full of utterances by English statesmen giving the\\nreasons why they could not, in harmony with international law,\\nadmit by their action the Southern Confederacy into the family of\\nWhat was the case of the Southern Confederacy? They had a\\ngovernment; they had a president, known the whole world over;\\nthey had a cabinet; they had a congress which enacted laws; they\\nhad States, each was a sovereignty and enacted laws; they admin-\\nistered .iustice through established courts; they had ships upon the\\nsea which carried their flag into every neutral port under the sky;\\nthey had an army in the field commanded by great generals; they\\nissued money; they had postage stamps.\\nMr. TILLMAN. The Cubans have postage stamps, too. [Laugh-\\nter.\\nMr. SPOONER. That is all. That government was so strong,\\nMr. President, that there were times when the changing tide of\\nbattle made the stoutest hearts of the North doubt. It took over\\n2,000,000 of men to prevent that government from achieving rec-\\nognition; and I have sometimes thought that if the battle of Get-\\ntysburg, which was the pivotal battle of the war, had gone against\\nus it might\\nMr. ALDRICH. Oh. no.\\nMr. SPOONER. I say it might have secured a recognition of\\nthe independence of the* Southern Confederacy by some govern-\\nments abroad. That would have prolonged the struggle, but it\\nwould not have changed the result. Compare the situation of the\\nConfederacy in that day with the condition of Cuba and the prece-\\ndents set by the nations of the earth upon our demand and in our\\ninterest. We are all friends now; there is only one flag now, and\\nthat is the flag which is going to Cuba; there is only one Govern-\\nment now, but we can not forget\u00e2\u0080\u0094 we have no right to forget-\\nthat upon our demand upon principles of international law, which\\nyou find asserted everywhere by the representatives of the United\\nStates, the governments of Europe refused to recognize the inde-\\npendence of the Southern Confederacy.\\nMr. MONEY. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a ques-\\ntion?\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. MONEY. I want to ask the Senator this question: If any\\none of those European powers at the time the Southern Confeder-\\nacy was soliciting an acknowledgment of its independence had\\ndesired to terminate the war here, and had then concluded to ac-\\nknowledge the independence of the Confederate States, what\\nwould the Senator say of international law on that case? Could\\nthey not have done that if they had taken the attitude that you\\noccupy to-day of putting an end to the contest?\\nMr. SPOONER. That question was discussed, and it is dis-\\ncussed by Historicus in this book.\\nMr. MONEY. I am not talking about that book. I am asking\\nbi73", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "31\\nthe Senator for his owi\\\\ oninion. Allow mo apiin to ask if nny\\nEuropean government had seen (it to declaro that it inti n .i 1 ti\\nstop the war between the Foileral and tlie iV ni.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2whether or not as a preliminary tlicy wnuhl not\\nedged the independence t f the Southern Confederal _\\\\ i-.. uiu\\nSenator believe that or not?\\nMr. SPOONER. That would have been for them to dec id.\\nand so we have the power\\nMr. MONEY, It is for us to decide to-day.\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly it is for us to decide. I am only\\narguing that upon principles of international law and upon a prin-\\nciple which was settled by the governments of Europe \\\\i\\\\ un our\\ndemand, we ought not to violate that precedent, but that wo\\nought to stand by it.\\nMr. DANIEL. Will my honorable friend allow me to ask him\\na question? He is, I think, making a very interesting speech.\\nMr. SPOONER. I feel guilty, if my friend from Virginia will\\nallow me to say so, that I have already spoken so long.\\nMr. DANIEL. It has seemed verv short to us.\\nMr. SPOONER. That is very kind.\\nMr. DANIEL. I wanted to call the attention of my honorable\\nfriend, whose ability as a lawyer I know full well, to the fact\\nthat his statement overlooks, as it would seem to rao, the point\\nas to which recognition would be accorded and the i)oint men-\\ntioned in the Presidents message. And that is tliis: Tliat when\\nthe danger line against a resubjugation is gone, then it is time to\\nrecognize. The danger line of the Southern Confederacy never\\ndid go, and, existing, no government recognized her. Has not\\nthe danger line as to the resubjugation of Cuba gone the moment\\nonr flag tloats to the sky?\\nMr. TILLMAN. The President himself acknowledges that.\\nMr. SPOONER. Answering the question of the Senator from\\nVirginia [Mr. Daniel] it is enough to say that the danger line\\nhas not gone now.\\nMr. DANIEL. I think it is pretty well gone now, when the\\nPresident says it has gone.\\nMr. SPOONER. 1 am no blind follower of any man. Wo are\\nto deal with this question as Senators, and to do about it what we\\nthink is right in the interest of the country and in harmony with\\ngeneral principles. When we shall have intervened, when the\\ndanger line is gone, as it vrill be gone soon, the question will solve\\nitself.\\nMr. P*resident, there are very good reasons, and I think very\\nstrong reasons, why we should adhere stri -tly to the fvidonco r\\nquired of the existence of the elements\\nto recognition in this ca^e. Oneofthom\\nfrom Massachusetts [Mr. Hoak] in the mi-L-nu. .ui\\naddress which he delivered yesterday, and that i.s, that i\\nEurope are ujion us. To-day. so far as we can see, ni.\\nGovernments of Eumpe, for whose friendship we shotild care, Iwuk\\nwith approval upon the conduct of this c^i.se up to thi h nr.\\nAlmast everyone of those governments lia.s f:i\\nnies, colonies which are liable to insurrectiDU. nn i\\nthat those governments are all interest.\\nlike this should at least stand by the i.r-.\\nadopted upon our demand, anil hotdd i.\\nhaste a provisional government of msurgents. That w u ptoijuat-", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "32\\ntion which is a matter of interest to every foreign government\\nwhich has outlying colonies.\\nWe can not afford to signalize onr entry tipon war by violation\\nof international law. Wo can not afford to be wrong, Mr. Presi-\\ndent. Nations have reputations to gain and lose at the bar of\\njjublic opinion as well as men have reputations to gain and lose\\nat the bar of public opinion in a narrower sphere. The world is\\nver)- snipJl in this day. Everything that is done in one part of the\\nworld is known the next day in everj other part of the world.\\nAlmost every thought exjiressed in one part of the world is read\\nat breakfast the next morning in the newspapers of every other\\ncountry: and the Government of the United States, strong, pow-\\nerful, illimitable in its resources, can not afford to violate in this\\nexigency any principle of international law. Let us hew to the\\nline. What difference does it make to Cuba whether a republic is\\nrecognized there to-day or ninety days from to-day? They have\\nbeen struggling for freedom, and freedom is coming.\\nLike the negroes millennium, it has been a long, longtime on\\nthe way, but it is coming. They have been strugglmg for a flag of\\ntheir own to float upon the island in place of the Spanish flag. It\\nwill go up, and I hope, Mr. President, it will go up to stay. I hope\\nCuba\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the Republic of Cuba, if that shall be the name will be\\nan exception to the attempts of that race throughout the world to\\nestablish governments. 1 hope it will be stable; I hope it will be\\nfree from revolution.\\nI hope that coup d etats of struggling chieftains will be stran-\\ngers to them I hope so; I wish I knew it but it is a small matter\\nto Cuba and the Cubans whether the independence of a govern-\\nment there is recognized to-day or three months hence. It is a\\nmatter of larger consequence to us whether we set a bad example\\nand violate the principles of international law in recognizing a\\ngovernment which we all think on these principles is not entitled\\nto recognition. All the President states and the Senator from\\nSouth Carolina read it a few moments ago, and I wish 1 could\\nturn to it\\nMr. TILLMAN. I will furnish it to the Senator.\\nMr. SPOONER. On what page?\\nMr. TILLMAN. On page 10.\\nMr. SPOONER. It is as follows:\\nTo commit this country now to the recognition of any particular povcrn-\\nmoiit in Cuba mitcht subject us to embarrassing conditions of international\\nobligation toward the organization so recognized. In case of intervention\\nour conduct would be subject to the approval or disai^proval of such gov-\\nernment. We would bo required to submit to its direction and to assume\\nto it the mere relation of a friendly ally.\\nDoes anyone doubt that?\\nMr. TILLMAN. The mere relation of friendly ally is all we\\nare struggling for on this side.\\nMr. SPOONER. We are going to be a friendly ally, not of any\\nprovisional government, but of the people of Cuba.\\nMr. TILLMAN. The people of Cuba certainly are not as much\\nthe government as the government which the Senate recognized\\nby resolution last year.\\nMr. SPOONER. We are not going to war, with all its burden\\nof taxation, with all the desolation it will carry into the homes of\\nour country, with all its waste, for war is waste, with all itsblood-\\nBhed and all its horrors, to elevate any particular crowd of men to\\n3273", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "33\\npower. Wo are goin;? to war l)ccause wo miLst, ami a result of It\\nshall be freeiloin ami mdepeiuleiu-o to tht* tuonlo of Cuba.\\nBut the Presiileut. in my ju\u00c2\u00abl^Tiu nt, is aV)s\u00c2\u00ab iut\u00c2\u00bb lv n.mvt wh\u00c2\u00abm\\nhe says that wo shouUl not go tlu-ro shackled 1 .aI\\nrclatious too oou creatt il by 113. When wo r i-\\nvisional government as an indopemlent repnbh\\nhave we there except by its invitation:* The moincni it is rLiox-\\nnized by us it is, so far as we are concerned, an indt-pfmlont and\\nequal government. Are wo invited? What right have wo toatay\\nthere an hour except upon terms prescribid bv itV\\nMr. TILLMAN. If the President will siMul fur this gontlcman\\nwho has been sent here and lying around hero for three years try-\\ning to get recognition, I am sure he would beg us to go there with\\ntears in his eyes.\\nMr. SPOONER. I am sorry my friend should accuse anybody\\nof lying around here for three years. [Laughter. I beg my\\nfriend s pardon. I think there has been some of it. I do not\\nknow to whom he refers.\\nMr. TILLMAN. I am speaking about the envoys of this so-\\ncalled government.\\nMr. SPOONER. We have not recognized any envoys of this\\nso-called government.\\nMr. TILLMAN. I know we have not, but the Senator .\u00c2\u00abaid wo\\nhad not been invited to Cuba, and I say if we will just semi for\\nthat man and tell him that we recognize the government, lie will\\nask us to go there, and he has been ready to do so at any time\\nwithin the past two or three years.\\nMr. SPOONER. It is not very long since I read in the paper\\nan elaborate interview with the counsel of the so-called Rejiublic\\nof Cuba\\nMr. TILLMAN. The counsel of the junta.\\nMr. SPOONER. The junta has been, so far as we know and so\\nfar as the world knows, the civil political government of the so-\\ncalled Republic of Cuba. They are the people we have hoard\\nfrom, and it is a part of the laws of the so-called Government of\\nCuba that Mr. Estrada Palma, if that is his name\\nMr. TILLMAN. I beg the Senator s pardon. I do not knowit.\\nMr. SPOONER. It is a part of the laws of the so called Gov-\\nernment of Cuba that he is authorized to issue bomls of the so-\\ncalled Republic of Cuba without any limit and to issue paper\\nmoney of the so-called Republic of Cuba without any limit.\\nWhether or not he has done it and to what extent I do not know.\\nHe may have issued millions for aught 1 know.\\nMr. TELLER. I doubt whether the Senator can establish that\\nstatement.\\nMr. SPOONER. I have not charged it.\\nMr. TELLER. I understood the Senator to make it.\\nMr. SPOONER. I .said for aught 1 know.\\nMr. TILLMAN. The only testimony before the Senate is con-\\ntained in the report of the committee, and in that the treasurer\\nof the Cubans says only some $100,000 of bonds have been issnetl.\\nMr. SPOONER. I care nothing about that. The grant to\\nTomas Estrada Palma, delegate i)lenipotentiary. found n pnjfo\\n3G of Senate Document No. lU, Fifty fifth Congress, first session,\\nis as follows:\\nSecond. To contract for one or more loans, the proooodw of triili-li nro to t\u00c2\u00ab\\nused in the service of the republic, guarauteolni; Haiti loans with all tho pub-\\n3273-3", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "34\\nlie property, land taxes, custom house duties, present and future, of the said\\nrei)ul.lic, issuiug bonds, registered or coupon, for an amount which he may\\ndeem convenient, payable, as well as the interest, when he may judge it op-\\nportune; empowering him also to determine the nominal value of the bonds,\\nthe interest they earn, condition of the payment of the capital and interest\\nwhich ho may consider most favorable in order to place the said bonds at the\\nbest price, and also to mortgage them.\\nThird. To i.s,sue paper money in the name of the Republic of Cuba for the\\namount which be may think necessary and in the form and conditions which\\nhe considers most adequate.\\nFourth. To issue po.stage stamps of the denominations which he may con-\\nBJder most convenient for the service of the republic.\\nThis power is conferred upon Mr. Palma by the president and\\nhis cabinet, which, under the constitution, is the lawmaking\\npower.\\nI know nothing as to what bonds have been issued or what\\nmoney has been issued. I care nothing about it. I referred to it\\nto show how completely the civil government of the Republic of\\nCuba is wherever Tomas Estrada Palma is, which, 1 think, is\\nNew York.\\nAnd he is authorized to delegate these great powers.\\n1 have made no reference to the suspicion that there are bonds\\nof the Cuban Kepublic in this coxmtry. That cuts no figure here.\\nI am not a suspicious man, Mr. President. I am not a pessimist.\\nI am an optimist. I am a pretty general believer in the honesty\\nof men and the goodness of women.\\nI am not ready to suspect my colleagues or the people with\\nwhom I associate. I have lived long enough to know that a man\\nwho is always suspecting the integrity of somebody will bear a\\nlittle watching himself.\\nMr. Rubens is reported to have said\u00e2\u0080\u0094 I understand it has been\\nqualified, and that is the only invitation we have had, so far as I\\nknow, from the so-called Republic of Cuba\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that if we went there\\nwithout first recognizing the independence of this revolutionary\\nparty, or the men who on paper are the civil executives of the\\nisland, though we came to free them, they would turn their guns\\nupon us. Of course that was explained afterwards by the state-\\nment that he supposed we meant annexation. I have no doubt at\\nall that when we go there, they will all flock to our standard\u00e2\u0080\u0094 none\\nwhatever.\\nWhy should we encumber ourselves in this intervention by\\nrecognizing a government of which we know nothing and which,\\nwhen recognized, will be our equal in treaty -making and other\\ngreat powers so far as we are concerned? It is stated that they\\nhave collected $400,000 of taxes. Perhaps they have, but a gov-\\nernment which in a struggle for liberty lasting for three years can\\ncollect only $400,000 in taxes does not establish a very firm foun-\\ndation for recognition.\\nMr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. TELLER. Will he state to us how much money the Con-\\ntinental Congress collected during the contest with Great Britain?\\nMr. SPOONER. Not knowing, I can not say.\\nMr. HOAR. I can answer the question.\\nMr. TELLER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts answer it?\\nMr. HOAR. I have seen within a very short time a statement\\nin the handwriting of one of its members of a particular account\\nof about $37,000,000 received by the Continental Congress from\\nthe various States.\\n3373", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "Mr. TILLMAN. In continental money, which they thL-mselvM\\nissueil.\\nMr. TELLER. That money was collected bv the mlonios.\\nMr. HOAR. Unaoubtedlv.\\nMr. TELLER. Not by Cow^vess.\\nMr. HOAR. The Continental Congress had no i .\\\\s. i i., ...n-t l\\ntaxes.\\nMr. TELLER. They not only collected, but they borrowed\\nmoney.\\nMr. HOAR. That is another thing. The answer to the S\u00c2\u00ab na-\\ntor s inquiry, in substance, not in phrases merely, is that tho\\nContinental Congress had no power to collect taxes. Strictly in\\nthe way of collecting taxes they collected nothing, but they made\\nrequisitions upon the States; and nut only did they nnUvo reciuisi-\\ntions upon the States, but the States expended of themselves tho\\nmoneys which raised, equipped, and armed the Continental sol-\\ndiers.\\nMr. TELLER. That is true. When the question was whether\\nor not we had a Natiunal (Government, how could foreign govern-\\nments determine it if we did not collect taxes? We did collect an\\ninifinitesimal amount; I do not know how much: a triHe.\\nMr. HOAR. We not only had a National Government, but wo\\nhad thirteen national governments.\\nMr. TELLER. The question was whether we had one National\\nGovernment.\\nMr. HOAR. We were conducting a war by a confederation of\\nthirteen nations, all sovereign, all allied, and all declaring them-\\nselves independent.\\nMr. SPOON ER. The Republic of Cuba, so called, when you\\nlook at its constitution, embraces the Island of Cuba from end to\\nend. It is not pretended that the so-called Republic of Cuba ha.s\\ncontrol\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and that control is peculiar\u00e2\u0080\u0094 of more than two provinces,\\nI think it is. There is another government in Cuba which con-\\ntrols the rest of the island which on paper is -the Rej)ublic of\\nCuba. One of the foundation principles in relation to the rec-\\nognition of the independence of a state is that it shall have fixed\\nboundaries. Is it not idle to say that the Republic of Cuba is an\\nestablished government with tixed boundaries? It docs not con-\\ntrol, so far as I know, a single city. It does not control or hold a\\nsingle seaport\u00e2\u0080\u0094 not one.\\nMy friend, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Forakeh]. said tho\\nother day in his very eloquent speech that Switzerlar.d did not\\ncontrol a seaport. Neither does Colorado. Switzerland is in tho\\ninterior; but here is an island republic, so called: and think of an\\nisland republic claiming recognition as a republic which has not\\na single port nor a ship\u00e2\u0080\u0094 not one!\\nBut, Mr. President, the conflict, although it is a peculiar one.\\nis still raging. Is there anyone here bold enough to s;jy that if we\\nleave them alone over there they can expel the power of Spain?\\nThe rebellion or insurrection might be continued indetinilely, b\u00c2\u00bb\\ncause they are fighting Spain a good deal on the principle that\\nCaptain Jack fought the trfjoi s of the United Stales in the lava\\nbeds. They do not give open liattle.\\nIt is a wise and masterly strategy, but the fact remains that\\nthere are 70,U00 Spanish troops. There is another fact. Senators\\nsay Spain is exhausted\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that is hardly true- and if left ah.no\\nwould abandon sovereignty over the island of Cuba. Wo aro\\n5273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "36\\nspending a vast amount of money to prepare the United States to\\nmeet an exhausted country, if she is exhausted. It was said\\nby Sir William Vernon Harcourt:\\nIt is quite clear that one of the most essential elements in the status of the\\nclaimant to i-ecopiiition is that its limits should be intelli{n ly defined. I do\\nnot say that the lioundary line need be laid down with scientific accuracy,\\nbut at all events that it should be understood in a much clearer manner than\\nIt can be yet said to be defined as between the South and the North.\\nBut the war is still going on. I have a letter here from General\\nGomez, which I wish to read:\\nMr. Oucsada has a letter from General Gomez, under date of March 9,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2which allows how hopeful\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nNot how assured\\nhe is of success, and how even then he spoke of the utter futility of attempt-\\ning negotiations with Spain. A portion of the letter is as follows:\\nThis province (Santa Clara), as well as Santiago de Cuba and Puerto\\nPrincipe, is ours. Tlie enemy has departed, ceasing military operations and\\nabandoning the garrison and forts which constituted its base of operations.\\nDays, weeks, and months pass without a column of troops appearmg within\\nour radius ot action, which is of many leagues. In the conditions in which\\nwe are it is my opinion that what we need to end the war quickly are cannon\\nand a great deal of dynamite, so that we can expel them by fire and steel\\nfrom the towns.\\nNobody could live on those devastated plains. Death and starva-\\ntion have held absolute sway over them.\\nNotwithstanding the opinion of the optimists, I adhere to the idea that we\\nwill never make Spain come to terms but in that manner\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nBy guns and dynamite and esi^elling Spain from the towns\\nand that it is a loss of time and very dangerous to enter into any negotia-\\ntions. We must fight them vigorously and unceasingly in order to force\\nwhat we will have, and we will surely obtain it in time.\\nMr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to add to that now\\nwhat the President says about it?\\nMr. STEWART. Read it.\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes.\\nMr. TELLER. The President, in his message to us, says:\\nThe long trial has proved that the object for which Spain has waged the\\nwar can not be attained. The fire of insurrection may flame or may smolder\\nwith varying seasons, but it has not been and it is plain that it can not be\\nextinguished by present methods.\\nMr. SPOONER. Oh, yes; the fire of insun-ection smoldered\\nand flamed in the same way for ten years, but it did not result\\nin the independence of Cuba. It did not result in expelling the\\nsovereignty of Spain. I am told that Mr. Quesada stated before\\nthe House Committee on Foreign Affairs that if the United States\\nshould not intervene, he thought the insurgents might win their\\nindependence in twelve years. But that is not independence\\nnow. That is a struggle for independence. That is v/hat General\\nGomez says in this letter.\\nBut it is said they collect taxes. The taxes are levied and\\nassessed in the most arbitrary way by officers of the treas-\\nury, and they are enforced under the following laws:\\nArt I According to article 18 of the constitution and the decree of the\\ngeneral in chief of the Oth of September last, the military chiefs shall give\\nthe necessary aid to the officers of the treasury for the better fulfillment of\\ntheir duties. i\\nArt. II. With the aid of the armed forces, they will proceed to the destruc-\\ntion of those plantations, whatever be their nationality, which will refuse to\\npay the taxes decreed by the government of the republic\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Se?ia?e Document\\niVo. 10, Fifty-first Congress, first session, page 19.\\n327.3", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "37\\nTh-it mav be all riL ht for a military government, but it hardly\\nanswers m^Jiren^ent in this age o t a civU J;0----\\nto recognition as au inclepen.lent state. It is not a l^^*^\u00e2\u0084\u00a2 r\\nwhich so far as wo know, aammisters law. protects propel t or\\nmeets out justice through juilicial tribunals.\\nThere is another thing about it. General Lee who ought to\\nknow f anyone should know, what there to the so-ca led ro^\\nnubric, estitied before the Committee on ^o^^ -^\\\\^^^]l ^^[}\\\\l\\nSenate upon this subject. He made some remarks that are not in\\nthe testimony, I am told, but he says on page i)4d:\\nI have nov thought that the insurKeuts bad anything except the skeleton\\nTer!ainlyhe had better facilities for accurate observation ^nH\\nMr mSon {VinVhe Senator permit me to ask him a hucs-\\ntion;\\nMr- flTsON^ ^Did noJeinoral Lee also tes1.ify that his rela^\\nti^iis were not wiTh the insurgents; that bis relations were with\\nthe Government to which he was accredited.^\\nHi W^^T kS.Sf.oM not .poa. with any knowleCse,\\niri.^gs-\u00c2\u00a7ir i S we-:^ t.?tTn^;^.?e\u00e2\u0080\u009e -oS\\npublic of Cuba.\\nMr- SPOON^ER^VIhould not object to that. Of course bis re-\\nHt^ons ^^^?e noTwich the so-called Republic of Cuba, because\\ntheie vas not anv government to which we could send a con.su\\nThev h-fve no i teriiational relations, as the Senator from Massa-\\nclmse ts [Mr Hoak] says, with anybody. We want better ey\\nIf ce thit the peopli of Cuba have a government capable of dis-\\ncharging in S^ duties and of discharging the functions of\\nf/ovefnment at home before we commit this Government tn ,ai ul-\\n-^ion of it into the family of nations. But General Lee las\\nhad vastly better opportunities for learning what there is to this\\n^T crn^ioVe scaJeXe^c^Sclusion that if we go there, having.first\\nreJo ^nized the independence of the so-called republic, recognizing\\n]^Sf^ty ft^s as^a t-at^^makuig^ower a cthei ise.\\nrnfmSdSs l i^bS^-eshaiTha;^^^\\nH^HS?^rt^:vSn^^^\\nXntv MrPiv-ident it is said that we must lecognize the inde-\\n,..nrnceof theRepuulic of Cuba or become liable by intevvention\\nR^rtff debts of Smn based upon the liypothecated revenues of\\nrnha I kno\\\\^n little about the Spanish debt, either as t.) its\\nCuba, i Kno\\\\\\\\ ^i^ j.^ j^ j^ s-i.so.dOO.OOU: others say it la\\nSo\u00c2\u00b0o\u00c2\u00ab:Z -.lu^rk S,w, LVl have round \u00e2\u0080\u009eo one to inform\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "38\\nme. Those bonds are Spanish bonds, I am told. I assume, of\\ncourse, they are not the obligation of any government but the\\nSpanish Government. Whether they are based upon a hypothe-\\ncation of the revenues of Cuba alone, or the revenues of Cuba with\\nother Spanish revenues, I do not know.\\nIt might make a difference as a matter of law as to the liability\\nof the government of Cuba when one shall have been established.\\nThe Senator from Indiana [Mr. Turpie) seemed to think yester-\\nday that our recognizing the independence of the Republic of\\nCiiba would shield it from any obligation to discharge the debts\\nof the Spanish Government based upon the hypothecation of\\nCuban revenue.\\nHow could it? I do not know that any Cuban or Spanish bonds\\nare held in the United States; I have never seen any, but it is\\nstated that they are held in Germany, in France, and perhaps in\\nGreat Britain. How would our recognition of the so-called\\nRepublic of Cuba have anything to do with the question of their\\nobligation to discharge the Spanish war debt? Would Germany\\nbe bound by our recognition of the Republic of Cuba? Would\\nGreat Britain be bound by our recognition of the Republic of\\nCuba, Would France be bound? Not at all.\\nNobody would be bound but the United States, and if Germany\\nor Great Britain or France, not having recognized the so-called\\nRepublic of Cuba, saw fit to insist that it or any government es-\\ntablished there was liable to pay to the extent at least of the\\nhypothecated revenue the debts due to a British subject or a Ger-\\nman subject or a French subject, how long would those Govern-\\nments be bound by our decision on a question of fact? Not a\\nmoment. The fact that we recognized her sovereignty would make\\nno difference. There are no strictly legal liabilities of nations.\\nNations can not be sued. The sovereign can levy taxes with which\\nto pay. The sovereign can repudiate, and if the sovereign has the\\nstrength, it can maintain that position. Such debts are only col-\\nlectible at the cannon s mouth.\\nMr. MONEY. Will the Senator from Wisconsin permit me to\\nask him a question? I do not want to interrupt the Senator with-\\nout his consent.\\nMr. SPOON ER. The Senator can not ask me a question with-\\nout interrupting me, but I permit it.\\nMr. MONEY. I beg the Senator s pardon.\\nMr. SPOONER. No; I permit it.\\nMr. MONEY. Does the Senator state to the Senate as a lawj er\\nthat the United States, if it assists in driving the Spanish from\\nthe island and establishing a free, stable, and independent gov-\\nernment there, will in any way become responsible for Spanish\\nbonds because the revenues of Cuba have been hypothecated to\\nthat purpose?\\nMr. SPOONER. I have not said anything of the kind.\\nMr. MONEY. Do I understand the Senator to say that if the\\nRepublic of Cuba should be acknowledged and should win her in-\\ndependence, she would be responsible in any way?\\nMr. SPOONER. That is a question of law and the power of\\nother governments.\\nMr. MONEY. That is why I ask the Senator. I acknowledge\\nhis eminent ability, and I should really like to have an opinion.\\nMr. SPOONER. I have never made profession that I am an\\nInternational lawyer.\\n8273", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "39\\nMr. MONEV. Just as the Senator is.\\nMr. SPOONER. I have not foniul in ilic lux.ks, as lar as my\\niuvestigatioiiH have gone, and I have only h^okotl into it for niysclf.\\na satisfactory statement njion the iiuestion, I tliink there niiKhv,\\nas I said a moment afi;o, possibly be a difference if the obli^^ations\\nof Spain were based solely upon the hyputliecation of the ruveniies\\nof Cuba from what it would be if that were only a pjirt of the\\nsecurity; but that is no matter now. It has been my opinion, and\\nI will proceed to answer the Senator s question, that the Cuban\\nRepublic, or whatever government is established by the C ubiins,\\nwould not be liable for any part of the Spanish war debt, even\\nbased upon a hypothecation, and solely upon a hypothecation, of\\nCuban revenues, and 1 will say whv.\\nMr. MONEY. Very good.\\nMr. SPOONER. They are the obligations of Spain, as I under-\\nstand it. They are not a mortgage upon the Ci;ban people. They\\nare not a mortgage, strictly speaking, or secured by a mortgage,\\nupon the territory of Cuba. It is a Spanish debt secured by\\n])ledge of revenues which can only be collected by the exercise of\\nSpanish sovereigntv.\\nMr. MONEY, lam obliged to the Senator for his answer.\\nMr. GRAY I should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin\\nwhether he has found anywhere in the books any allusion to the\\ndoctrine of international subrogation for the debts that are sup-\\nposed to be based on the hypothecated revenues of a conquered\\nterritory, except when the territory has been absorbed by the\\ncountry which is sought to be made liable. Is there any other\\nground\\nMr. SPOONER. That is not quite clear.\\nMr. GRAY. I should like to hear the Senator as to whether he\\nhas found any such allusion.\\nMr. SPOONER. I do not remember to have done so. I wish\\nto be through. If the Spanish obligation or pledge is to pay the\\nbonds, principal or interest, out of Cuban revenue, every man\\nwho took a bond must have taken it with notice, it seems to me,\\nthat he depended for payment out of the hypothecated funds upon\\nthe ability of Spain to continue her sovereignty, because, as I said\\na moment ago, the collection of these revenues is only an exercise\\nof sovereignty, and if Spain lost her sovereignty over the Island\\nof Cuba, she would of course lose her power to realize or pay the\\nrevenues pledged.\\nMr. GRAY. The Senator did not quite catch my remark. Al-\\nlow me to restate it. It is that there is nowhere in the books, so\\nfar as I know, and I ask him whether he has read to the contrary,\\nany suggestion of such a liability except where the country sought\\nto be made liable absorbs the territory. We do not expect to\\nabsorb it.\\nMr. SPOONER. No: of course where there is annexation, ab-\\nsorption, you take it cum onere you take it with its burden of\\ndebt. That is different from revolution. That is different from\\nan acquisition of title by war or conquest. That is an acquisition\\nby agreement, as in the case of Texas. Where we ac(iuire terri-\\ntory by such means, we take it subject to its indebtedness. When\\nmy friend from Ohio [Mr. FokakkkI read from Hall tlie other\\n(lay a statement a.s to liability which follows absorption, he read\\na principle which I think no one would dispute.\\nBut I beg him to remember, unless I am in the wrong, that that", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "40\\nis not this case. We do not intend to absorb the Island of Cuba.\\nWe do not intend to annex the Island of Cuba. We do not intend,\\nI trust, for indemnity or anything else, to appropriate a dollar of\\nthe revenues of the Island of Cuba.\\nMr. FORAKER. The Senator from Wisconsin will remember\\nwhat I said was predicated upon a question asked me by the Sen-\\nator from West Virginia [Mr. Elkins] which did involve the\\nidea that if we were to displace the Spanish Government and es-\\ntablish a stable government of out own upon that island, either\\nour own Government or some other government, we would be\\nresponsible for it.\\nMr. SPOONER. No, Mr. President, I never have heard that\\nyet. The Senator from West Virginia may have said\\nMr. FORAKER. No; ho did not say that. I asked him if that\\nwas not what he had in his mind; and it was upon that theory that\\nI read the authority referred to.\\nMr. ELKINS. It was not in my mind. I do not wish the Sen-\\nator to misstate my record. I did not ask the question as stated.\\nMr. FORAKER. If I may be allowed\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. FORAKER. I will say to the Senator from West Virgmia\\nthat I did not undertake to repeat what his question was, but I\\nsaid that he asked me a question which gave rise to the discussion.\\nMr. SPOONER. The authority which the Senator from Ohio\\nread was an authority which, as I understand it, has nothing to\\ndo with this case, and that authority is as follows:\\nWhen a state ceases to exist by absorption in another state, the latter in\\nthe same way is the iuhoritor of all local rights, obligations, and property.\\nThere is no doubt about that. That is utterly inapplicable to\\nthis case, because we are not proposing to absorb Cuba or to an-\\nnex Cuba. We are proposing out of a duty to humanity and for\\nself -protection to help free Cuba. We are not even proposing to\\nestablish a government of our own there or by our dictation We\\nsimply propose, while occupying Cuba, to afford the people of\\nCuba a fair opportunity to establish an independent government\\nof their own.\\nMr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me a question?\\nMr. SPOONER. Certainly.\\nMr. ALLEN. The bonded indebtedness of Cuba is about $ul9,-\\n000,000 in round numbers.\\nMr. SPOONER. You do not mean Cuba.\\nMr. ALLEN, I mean Cuba.\\n]\\\\lr. SPOONER. Oh, no!\\nMr. ALLEN. Yes; I am correct. The Spanish indebtedness\\nof Cuba, which is kept separate, amounts to $519,000,000. All of\\nthat bonded indebtedness was issued before the war now m prog-\\nress, with the exception of about $175,000,000. What will become\\nof that portion of the bonded indebtedness issued before the break-\\ning out of hostilities?\\nMr. SPOONER. That is just what I have been discussing and\\nwould have been through with but for the interruption.\\nMr ALLEN. The Senator was speaking about the indebted-\\nness that has been issued\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the Spanish war debt. I am now speak-\\ning of that portion of the indebtedness that existed before the war.\\nMr. SPOONER. I do not care whether it be a war debt or\\nwhat kind of a debt it is; upon the Senator s statement it is a debt\\n3273", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "41\\nof Spain. It is an obligation of the Spanish Government. It is\\nno obligation of the Cuban Government, for there never lias been\\nany, as I understand it. My propositinn was eimidy this: Of\\ncourse if it is not based upon or Hecuri d by a hypothecation of\\nCuban revenues there can be no question about it\\nIf it is secured by a hypothecation of Cuban r^ venues, it is de-\\npendent upon tlie continued sovereignty of Spain in Cuba to\\nenable her to sequestrate those revenues and to ]iay them over\\nto the creditors. And that bond was subject to tliis condition,\\nalthough not written in it by the hand of man, made a part of it\\nby a higher law than any man or set of men can enact, tliat Spam\\nshould so conduct herself, should so exercise bcr sovereignty in the\\nIsland of Cuba, that in the sight of God and in the light of the\\ncivilization of the century she might be permitted to continue it.\\nThat she has not, nobodj- hero disputes; and it has seemed to\\nme very much like this case, because the princi])le which imderlies\\nthose obligations they are not international obligations\u00e2\u0080\u0094 is very\\nmuch the principle which underlies the obligations between in-\\ndividuals sometimes. If one owns a flat and mortgages the\\nissues, rents, and profits the income of it for twenty-five years\\nto the Senator from Rhode Island, and he makes a pesthouse of it\\nand it becomes infected .so that it is a menace to the health of the\\nwhole city, and the public interest and the public safety require\\nthat it should be battered down, and the municipality batters it\\ndown, would the municipality be liable for the debt?\\nJlr. President, there is an authority which I have here, but will\\nnot take the time to read. I will cite it. It is found in Hall s\\nInternational Law, pages 243 and 244, including the elaborate note.\\nThis seems, I think, to clearly sustain the proposition.\\nThere is another principle about it. It is stated by Mr. Theo-\\ndore S. Woolsey. He states that\\nThere is anotlier extreme case where a chaufro of government may dissolve\\nprior oblifiations. It is wherea despotical covfriimunt has contracted debts\\nagainst a nation attempting to recover its liberties. The Government is, de\\nfacto, in posse. ision of authority, and thus its acts are lawful; nevertheless,\\nobligations entered into to suu.iu-jrate tlie peojile must be regarded in this\\nextreme case as pertaining to the government alone, and not as resting on\\nthe people.\\nBut I have been imperfectly and hastily discussing the question\\nwhether obligations of Spain, based in part upon hypothecated\\nrevenues of Cuba, would be transferred to and be a debt of the\\nnew government. That would not depend upon the time when it\\nbecame independent or when it was recognized, but upon the guns\\nand aggressiveness of the nation or nations asserting the responsi-\\nbility. Our action can not, I think, as I have stated, affect the\\nquestion one way or the other.\\nBut, Mr. President, I have been utterly tmable to see what differ-\\nence it can make, so far as any possible responsibility of the United\\nStates is concerned, whether we recognize the independence of the\\nso-called Cuban Republic now or recognize the independence of\\na government later. Upon what theory could we be said to l e\\nresponsible? Only upon this distinct ground, that having inter-\\nvened wrongfully by force of arms to aid the Cubans in expelling\\nthe Si aniards, we had helped to take the pledge from reach of\\nSpani.sh sovereignty, and therefore had rendered ourselves re. ^ponsi-\\nble for the debt, in whole or in part.\\nThat principle would be just as strong, if there were anythinij\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "42\\nin It at all, which there is not, when applied to us if we recognized\\nthe so-called Cuban Republic before we go in there and help drive\\nSpain out as it would if we help the Cubans drive out the Spanish\\nsovereignty and then recognize a republic. We are not going\\nthere wrongfully, to begin with, and the suggestion of possible\\nresponsibility we repudiate at the outset and forever.\\nBut, Mr. President, what if our intervention in Cuba, with the\\ninevitable expulsion of Spanish sovereignty from that island,\\nwould bring to ns an assertion by some other nation of moral re-\\nsponsibility for this debt? What of it? Could we listen to the\\nfeeble wail of the starving baby, and the awful cry of the starv-\\ning mother, be mindful of all the horrors rife in that island, so\\nnear to us, take pencil in hand, work out the possible cost, and\\nthen fold our arms, turn our backs, and let the history of mis-\\nrule, oppression, insurrection, savagery, with constant menace and\\ncost to us, go indefinitely on? No; that is not the spirit of our\\npeople. There is no dollar mark on our flag.\\nAn intervening power must count the cost, and we will have\\ncounted the cost. We can not stand it any longer, and the nations\\nof tlie earth have no right to expect it of us.\\nThe authority for intervention is ample and clear, and the right\\nof intervention is justified by the facts and warranted by interna-\\ntional law.\\nThe rule, of course, is against the right of one State to intervene\\nin the affairs of another, the general principle being that every\\nnation is to be permitted to manage its own affairs, and to work\\nout its own destiny. The last hundred years, however, have been\\nfilled with interventions, some on high grounds and for noble pur-\\nposes, others upon the low plane of selfish purpose.\\nAlmost every government has exercised the right, upon one\\nground or another.\\nIn Mannings Law of Nations, by Sheldon Amos, it is said:\\nThe only grounds on which interference with the affairs of a foreign state\\nwould now be held capable of justification are:\\n(1) The breach or attempted breach of a subsisting treaty, as where a state\\nis restricted by treaty in the amount of its armaments, or in the quality of\\nits military defenses; or else (2) the continuance of a revolutionary state of\\naffairs in the foreign state under circumstances in which it seems highly prob-\\nable that, without such interference, either public order can never be re-\\nstored at all or can only bo restored after such sufferings to humanity and\\nsuch injuries to surrounding states as obviously overbalance the general\\nevil of all interference from without.\\nThese words read as if they were written for this case. T read\\nfrom an English edition, published in 1875, and at the foot of the\\npage from which I have just quoted, referring to the language\\nused by President Grant on the attitude of the United States to\\nthe Cuban revolution, December 7, 1874, is this note:\\nThe deplorable strife in Cuba continues without any marked change in\\nthe relative advantages of the contending forces. The insurrection contin-\\nues, but Spain has gained no superiority. Six years of strife give the insur-\\nrection a significance which can not be denied. Its duration and the tenacity\\nof its advance, together with the absence of the manifested power of repres-\\nsion on tlie part of Spain, can not be controverted, and may make some posi-\\ntive step.s on the part of other powers a matter of self necessity.\\nWe are the only other power, as the island lies at our door.\\nAnd now, after the lapse of many years, including three years of\\na new revolution, we are ol)liged to take positive steps as a mat-\\nter of self-necessity.", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "43\\nProfessor Lawrence, at page 120, wi ites of it thus:\\nIn tho opinion of some writers interventions undortnkon on the pround of\\nhumanity and iutervontioiis for tlio juu-jioso of putting a 8t ii to relijtious\\npersecutions art also leRul. Hut wo avu nut von tu re to brine tlnMU witliln\\nthe ordinary rules of international law. it certainlv d K s nut lay down that\\ncruelty on the i art of a government renders it liniilo to lie deprived of its\\nfreetlo m of action, nor does it impose upon sst^itos the obli^ ation of prcvent-\\nins either ordinary U-irlwirity on the part uf their neiKhtmrs or thai special\\nkind of inhumanity which takes tin- form of roli^;ious i)ersecution.\\nAt the same time, it will not condi-mn such interventions if tlu y are under-\\ntaken with a single eye to the object in view and without ulterior considera-\\ntions of eelf-interest iind ambition. Should the cruelty l e so lontj contiiniod\\nand KO revolting that the Wst instincts of human nature are outrapred by it,\\nand should an opportunity arise for brinKinjf it to an eml and removing its\\ncHU.se without addinjj fuel to tho flame of the contest, there Ls nothing in tho\\nlaw of nations wliich will c-undemn as a wron^rdoer the state whicli sti-i)s for-\\nward and undertakes tlio necessary intervention. Each cabO must bo judged\\non its own morita\\nThere is a prcat difference between declarinpr a national act to be lepal,\\nand therefore part of the order under which states have con.sontod to live,\\nand allowing it to be morally blameless as an cxcootion to ordinary rules. I\\nhave no ripht to enter my neitrhbor s parden without his consent; but if I\\nsaw a child of his robbed and illtreated in it by a tramp, 1 should throw cer-\\nemony to tho winds and rush to tho rescue without waitinfj to a.sk for per-\\nmission. In tho same way a state may, in a preat emer;, ency, set aside\\neveryday restraints; and neither in its case nor iu the corresponding case\\nof the individual will blame be incurred.\\nBut, nevertheless, the ordinary rule is prood for ordinary cases, which,\\nafter all. make up at least ninety-nine hundredths of life. To say that it is\\nno rule because it may laudably bo if^nored once or twice in a jionoration is\\nto overturn order in an attemjjt to exalt virtue. An intervention to put a\\nstop to barbarous and abominable cruelty is a hiijh act of policy over and\\nabove tho domain of law. It is destitute of technical legality, but it may be\\nmorally right and even praiseworthy to a high degree.\\nThe grounds for intervention are abundant. It is too narrow a\\nstatement of the case to confine it to tho horrors which have\\nshocked tho world during the present insurrection. We have no\\nright to forget the ten years of unavailing struggle, attended by\\nindescribable atrocities. During thirteen years since the close of\\nour war this island, lying almost in sight of our shores, has been the\\nscene of insurrection and of monstrous horrors, and in the inter-\\nvening j-ears of nominal peace the promises of Spain of govern-\\nmental reforms have been broken, and misrule there has been so\\noppressive in every way as not only to justify but compel renewed\\ninsurrection.\\nThe arraignment of Spain contained in the President s message\\ndiffers not a great deal from the arraignment contained in Gen-\\neral Grant s messages. Secretary Fish, in his dispatch to the\\nSpanish minister upon the Virginius case, dated April 18, 1874,\\nsums up the then situation as follows:\\nFor five years the policy of repression, of confiscation, of summary execu\\nlion of political prisoners, of refusal of reforms, of denial of self government,\\nof maintenance of slavery, iu short, tiic policy of violence; and force, has held\\nsway in Cuba. It is understood that the insurrection calls to-day for as many\\ntroo ps to keep it in restraint as were necessary in l.^CiH.\\nDuring these five years this Government has watched events in Cuba, per-\\nhaps not always patiently, but certainly always impartially. It h.as ,seeu\\nvessels sailing under its tlag intercei)ted on the high seas and carried into\\nSpanish ports. It has seen tho property of its citizens embargoed and their\\nrevennes sequestrated; and when it has complained, it has l)eei) met by i)rom-\\nises of restoration; but tho oflicial a.ssurances of Spain in that res] ect have\\nin most cases not been complied with. It has seen its citizens t-ondemned to\\ndcAth under the form of military law, and executed in violation of the treaty\\nobligations of Spain. It has seen other citizens of the United States mobbed\\nin the street. of Havana for no other reason than that they were citizens of\\nthe United States, or the accidental circumstaiK.-o of tho color of the dress.\\nIt has stretched its powers and interfered with tho liberties of its citizens\\nin order to fulfill all its duties as a sovereign nation towaril tho jiower wliich\\nin Cuba was tolerating the evil influences of reaction, and of slavery, and of\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "44\\nthe deplorable and pertinacious tradition of despotism referred to by the\\nminister of transmarine affairs, all of which made the things complained of\\npossible. It has refrained from the assertion of its rights, under the hope,\\nderived from the constant assurances of tlio Government of Spain, that lib-\\nerty and self government would be accorded to Cuba, that African slavery\\nwould be driven out from its last resting place in Christendom, and that the\\ninstruments of the Casino Espanol would be restrained in tlieir violence, and\\nmade to obey law and to respect the treaty obligations of Spain.\\nAll tins and more, intensified a thousandfold by the infamous\\npolicy of Weyler, have we borne during the last three years.\\nThe testimony of Senators upon this floor from personal obser-\\nvation as to the starvation and merciless savagery prevailing in\\nthat island will be a haunting and horrible memory.\\nThis people has borne it, and borne it, and forborne, through\\nmany, many years, patient almost, if not quite, to the point of\\ninhumanity. This Government has shrunk from becoming in-\\nvolved in a war with Spain.\\nWe have policed our waters, repressed our citizens, at great\\ncost, and we have suffered incalculable loss from interrupted and\\nparalyzed commerce.\\nThe great Republic must have suffered in the estimation of the\\nChristian world, that it could tolerate, without intervention, such\\ntyranny and atrocities.\\nWe have stood by, refusing to let any other government inter-\\nvene in Cuba because of our national policy, which we can not\\nand will not surrender.\\nWe can not longer be inactive. We have been forced to the\\nconclusion that Spain, by her rule, not only justifying but com-\\npelling insurrection, with its accompaniment of cruelty, corrup-\\ntion, lust, loot, starvation, and blood, can not in the future govern\\nthat island by different methods, or with different results, than\\nthose which have characterized her past dominion.\\nShe has violated treaty obligations, destroyed the property of\\nAmerican citizens, and trampled in the most reckless and auda- .O\\ncious manner upon their rights.\\nSenators here complain of Mr. Cleveland for his course in rela-\\ntion to Cuba. I do not. I assume he had a good reason for his\\ninaction, just as General Grant had for his.\\nOne thing seems clear. Having reference to the past and to the\\npresent, we can not tolerate it any longer.\\nWe can not have indemnity for all the past, but we can and will\\nhave security for the future.\\nNow, Mr. President, a word about the Maine. The discussion\\nof the case by the Committee on Foreign Relations is of great\\nability. But there is one striking fact which has been overlooked\\nand which impresses me greatly. The destruction of the Maine,\\nwhile it may not be so established as a governmental act, and\\nJ am not ready to say that it is. as to warrant us in declaring war\\nagainst Snain, to my mind furnishes upon a well-established\\nprinciple of international law abundant ground for armed inter-\\nvention and for insisting upon the installation of a government\\nin Cuba which for all time, independent of Spain, shall be able to\\ndischarge its international duties.\\nI have before me the report of the Spanish court, with the evi-\\ndence upon which it is based. The Maine was at rest in the har-\\nbor of Havana at J.40 in the evening, when everybody on board\\nof the ship was in fancied security, as they had a right to be, for\\nif anywhere in the world an American sailor may rightfully feel\\n3273", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "45\\nsecure one would think it wouUl be on his own ship, under onvQa^,\\non a visit of peaco to a friendly harbor. In a moment slie was\\nZ explosion ^trfnsf^^ from a ma^M,ifK-ent .hip of war into a\\nKrcat twisted metallic burial case. Of course our authorities oi-\\ndered a court of iiuiuiry. i\\nThat court, composed of officers of unimpeachablointeRnty and\\nof conceded ability, proceeded with the i iry. That court it\\nmust be remembered, was hampered in its in^ ^f.^ ^^t //^^f.J\\nin a foreign port. It had not power. I bel.eve-tho Senator from\\nNew llampsiiire fMr. Chandukr] can tell me if 1 am wronK-\\neven at Key West to compel the attendance of witnesses, iho\\ninvest^^ition was made. They examined such witnesses as they\\ncouUl tfnd. and after carefully exploring the whole sub.iect made\\nreport to the Government that the Maine was exploded by an ex-\\nSal force, and expressly excluded accident or any negligence\\nupon the pai-t of the captain, his officers, and the men under his\\nsnahi%f course, anticipated that investigation and that report,\\nand at once instituted an inciuiry of her own conducted on her\\nterritory, where she could call any witness and compel lus attend-\\nance and promptly transmitted the report with the testimony to\\nthe Go?eriment of the United States. Our report, if it so found,\\nwould be a prima facie establishment of the fact of external ex-\\nplosion. It was doubtiess expected that the Spanish report would\\nmake a prima facie showing that it was an accident, and thereby\\nan international issue would be made for trial before some court of\\nexperts to be appointed as agreed, by whose findmg of fact bpam\\nvery readily agrees to be bound in advance.\\nMr President, 1 have read all of the evidence taken by the Span-\\nish court. I have gone carefully through the report of the Spanish\\ncourt There is one phase of it which to my mind more than any-\\nthing else is inculpatory. It has been stated by Captain feigsbee\\nthat a dozen men might have dropped a buoyant mine under the\\nMaine and not have been discovered. That won d have been a\\nmine of course, which would have exploded only by contact. It\\nwould not have been one of the mines to be discharged by an elec-\\ntric flash from the shore. The Spanish court deals with that\\nquestion, and I want to read to the Senate what at says about it:\\nBefore proceeding to the consideration of other data, I think it well to re-\\ncall to vourcxceUem-v-s enlightened mind the phenomena which accompany\\nthe exXsion of a. submarine mine, meaning thereby what is known under\\nally.\\nThat is a subterranean mine as distinguished from a submarine\\nmine.\\nThe iCTiition of the torpedo must ,,ecc..snii7y have been produced either by\\nfo//.\u00c2\u00ab^o for by an ehctriail discharyc, and as the state of the sea and t \u00c2\u00bbd\\ndtlnTaZwo/anym..iion in tlic vessel the hyfothesi^ of a cotl.^ton at that\\nmoment must be rejected.\\nThe Spanish court here refutes the idea that the explosion could\\nhave been caused by a buoyant mine or by any tori cdo resulting\\npom contact icith the shix).\\nAnd wc must consider that of an rleetric nmentgen t bj, a f f ^jy^irv\\\\from\\na statio^J hut no traees or siyns of any wire or station have been discove,ed.\\n3273", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "46\\nWe take it to be established that that ship was destroj ed bj- an\\nexternal explosion, as our board finds\u00e2\u0080\u0094 by the explosion of a sub-\\nmarine mine. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. WolcottJ ahvavs\\neloquent, never more eloquent, never more patriotic than he was\\nto-daj stated the truth when he said that the explosion of the\\nMaine had had infinitely to do with the situation which has led us\\nup to the verge of war. Our people believe it Avas destroyed as\\nfound by our court.\\nMr. President, no one could know better the efTect upon an\\nalready intense situation of the explosion of the Maine than the\\nSpanish Government. The destruction of our ship and men in\\nher harbor must, all things considered, have given her officials\\ngrave concern. It was of the utmost consequence to Spain to\\nestablish that the Maine was exploded by accident and exempt\\nherself and her officials from the suspicion that the ship was ex-\\nploded by a submarine mine, over which she was moored by Span-\\nish direction. It was easy for Spain to make that proof if it were\\na fact. Mr. President, it was easy. How? Does anvone doubt\\nif there was a submarine mine under the Mai)te that the Spanish\\nofficials knew it? Does anyone suppose for a moment that there\\nare mines in the harbor of Havana unknown to tlie military au-\\nthorities? Does anyone suppose for a moment that there are miners\\nin any of the harbors along our coast unknown by chart and ac-\\ncurate location to our authorities? It can not be possible, for they\\nwould be useless if the mine is to be exploded by electricity.\\nI repeat, if there was a mine, Mr. President, in the harbor of\\nHavana, the Spanish authorities knew it. If there was no mine\\nunder the Maine, they knew it. If they could have proven that\\nthere was no mine there, God knows they would have been swift\\nto prove it. But go through this evidence and vou will not find\\na single witness called, and I ask my friend from Minnesota [Mr.\\nDavis], who has examined it carefully, too, if I am not correct\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nyou will not find a single witness called to establish the negative\\nfact, entirely itnder their control, beyond our reach, that there vas\\nno mine under the Maine. The burden of proving the negative\\nwas upon them, for the evidence to prove it was entirelv in their\\npossession.\\nIt is a familiar principle of law that when one has in his posses-\\nsion exculpatory evidence and fails to use it, or attempts to make\\na false issue upon it, it is warrant for the gravest suspicion at least;\\nand I would have been infinitely more satisfied with the situation\\nin regard to the 3Iaine if the Spanish court had called the author-\\nities of the Spanish army in Havana and had shown that there\\nwere no mines in the harbor or none under our ship.\\nMr. President, if there had been no mine under the Maine, they\\nu-ould have proven it. But make an issue of it; refer it to some\\nboard of experts; and what then? No witness could be called\\nbefore that board of experts for Spain except the witnesses Spain\\nchose. I acquit, as did the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar]\\nyesterday. General Blanco. I have not felt that he could be\\nguilty of complicity in it. General Lee has testified that General\\nBlanco exhibited the utmost emotion: that he wept when it oc-\\ncurred.\\nBut, Mr. President, the testimony taken was utterly inconse-\\nquential; the report of the same qualitv. Thev dispose of the case\\nby showing that other ships had exploded, that there were no dead\\nfish to be found, was no hole under the ship, and no wave at the time", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "47\\nof explosion. One can not read the testimony, consider what is\\nshown and iHtat is not s/(ojr?i, witliout being driven to theconclii-\\nsion that Spanish hate perpotratt-il that awful, cowardly crime,\\nthe murder under our tlag in that harbor of the men of the Muinc.\\nNo; we are not in a position to declare war against Spain. I think,\\non account of the Ala inc. but our Navy must not be blamed if\\nflying at every masthead when the ships go into battle is the legend,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Remember the Muijic.\\nBut what of its relation to intervention? Only this. Mr. Pres-\\nident: It is laid down by!Mr. Hall, and he is quoted with approval\\nby the Supreme Court in the Wiborg case, unreported, treating of\\nintervention, as follows:\\nInterventions for the purpose of self-preserv.ition naturally include all\\nthose which are prouiided njion dni-.^er to the institutions, to the tjood order,\\nor to the external safety of tlie intervening state.\\nTo some of these uo objection can be offered.\\nNow mark this:\\n1/ a government is too ire ak to prevent actual at t neks upon a iniijlihni-hn\\nits subjects, if it foments revolution abroad, or if it threatens liostilitics\\nwhich may be averted by its overthrow, a menaced state may adopt such\\nmeasures is are necessary to obtain sulistantial guaranties for its own se-\\ncurity. The state which is subjected to intervention has either failed to sat-\\nisfy its international duties or has intentionally violated them. It has dona\\nor Tiermitted a wrong, to obtain redress for which the intervening st\u00c2\u00abte may\\nmaKo war if it chooses. If war occurs the latter may exact as one of the con-\\nditions of peace at the end that a government shall be installed which is able\\nand tcilling to observe its international obligations.\\nIf there were nothing else, this of itself is suflBcient warrant for\\nintervention. Acquitting Spain as a sovereignty, and General\\nBlanco as her representative, of any comi)licity in the destruction\\nof the Maine, the fact remains that under circumstances which\\ncalled for unusual measures of protection, her government in Cuba\\nwas at least too weak to prevent her subjects from destroying\\nour battle ship and murdering our sailors.\\nWe can endure it all no longer.\\nWe intervene, Mr. President, not for conquest, not for aggran-\\ndizement, not because of the Monroe doctrine; we intervene for\\nhumanity s sake; we intervene to gain security for the future; we\\nintervene to aid a people who have suffered every form of tyranny\\nand who have made a desperate struggle to be free. We intervene\\nfor our own permanent peace and safety. We intervene upon the\\nhighest possible ground, Mr. President; and upon this case we\\nmay. although with the utmost reluctance for we are a people\\ndevoted to the arts of peace\u00e2\u0080\u0094 go into the war. if it must come, con-\\nfidently invoking the considerate judgment of mankind and\\nthe blessing of Almightv God.\\n3:, 73", "height": "3406", "width": "1856", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "LiBKHKY 01- CONUKtbt.\\n013 902 168 fl", "height": "3374", "width": "1871", "jp2-path": "affairsincuba00spoo_0048.jp2"}}