Executive Jurisdiction in Diplomatic Affairs.—Constitutional Limitations Protect the Presidential Office.—The Organic larv Inhibits Interference by the Legislative Department with the Exercise of Executive Functions.—The Case of Julio Sanguily. IN THE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, AND FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1897. WASHING-TOX. 1897. JR i W , V 686T le. He rec¬ ognized unquestionably that as the servant of the people it was his duty to maintain the laws which had been provided for his guidance, and which lie must follow until the people in their sov¬ ereign cajiacity established a different system. On page 204 of the same memoirs we find the following: My draft of a dispatch to B. Bush was read. They were all startled at the paragraph announcing it as the President’s intention at no remote period to recognize the Government of Buenos Ayres. 2313 27 The whole conversation, everything that was said—and the re¬ marks are set forth at some length in his memoirs—goes to show that the people, that the Congress, all interested, were anticipating the decision of the Executive upon the matter then pending. That Mr. Monroe asserted the jurisdiction in himself, and that he in¬ tended to see that it remained where the Constitution had placed it, no one can deny. The following significant expressions appear in the same diary, on page 205: Mr. Crawford now said that if the acknowledgment was to take place, he shoxild prefer making it in another form, not by granting an “ exequatur” to a consul, but by sending a minister there; because the Senate must then act upon the nomination, which would give their sanction to the measure. Mr. Wirt added that the House of Representatives must also concur by assenting to an act of appropriation. And the President, laughing, said that as those bodies had the power of impeachment over us, it would be quite convenient to have them thus pledged beforehand. I said my impressions were altogether different. I would make the ac¬ knowledgment as simple and unostentatious as possible, with as little change in the actual state of things as could be. I thought it not consistent with our national dignity to be the first in sending a minister to a new power. It had not been done by any European power to ourselves. If an exchange of min¬ isters was to take place, the first should come from them. As to impeach¬ ment, I was willing to take my share of risk of it for this measure whenever the Executive should deem it proper. And instead of admitting the Senate or House of Representatives to any share in the act of recognition, I would expressly avoid that form of doing it which would require the concurrence of those bodies. It was, I had no doubt, by our Constitution an act of the Executive authority. General Washington had exercised it in recognizing the French Republic by the reception of Mr. Genet. Mr. Madison had exer¬ cised it by declining for several years to receive, and by finally receiving, Mr. Onis; and in this instance I thought the Executive ought carefully to pre¬ serve entire the authority given him by the Constitution, and not weaken it by setting the precedent of making either House of Congress a party to an act which it was his exclusive right and duty to perform. Crawford said ho did not think there was anything in the objection to sending a minister on the score of national dignity, and that there was a dif¬ ference between the recognition of a change of government in a nation al¬ ready acknowledged as sovereign and the recognition of a new nation itself. He did not however deny, but admitted, that the recognition was strictly within the powers of the Executive alone, and I did not press the discussion further. Therefore not only did the Secretary of State in that discussion, and not only did other members of the Cabinet concede and hold the existence of this exclusive power in the President, but the President himself, while believing it to be wise to obtain the ap¬ proval of Congress, so believed only because of the Congressional power to appropriate and for the reason that he wished that mat¬ ters should proceed without friction. No intimation is contained at any place in this discussion or in the detailed report of what occurred at that time to warrant any doubt that Mr. Monroe him¬ self held the same views now entertained by Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Olney. Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from California allow me? Mr. WHITE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator from California if he does not agree that a declaration of war against a foreign district or country is a recognition of it as a sovereign power? Mr. WHITE. Such a declaration is undoubtedly an assumption of the existence of a power against which war could be declared. This i3 certainly true. Mr. HOAR. Suppose, for instance, Cuba had practically main¬ tained her independence of Spain, Spain being utterly unable to help herself, and Cuba had committed hostile acts upon our corn- 2613 28 merce, is not the power in Congress to declare war with Cuba, as the power is in Congress to regulate commerce with Cuba, under such circumstances, with all the incidents that follow? Mr. WHITE. Congress may declare war against a nation or it can regulate commerce with a nation. An act of Congress declar¬ ing war does not by its terms create independence or declare that status. The declaration assumes the status, however. Mr. HOAR. So we could not have a treaty of peace? Mr. WHITE. Well, we could have a treaty; I concede that. A treaty is initiated by the Executive, and the Senate advises and consents. Mr. HOAR. The Senator will pardon me a moment. I do not want to interfere with his argument. I put this question in sup¬ port of the conclusion to which I had myself arrived, which is, I think, the one which was in the thought of President Jackson, and perhaps would reconcile every expression which is to be found in our history. It is very clear that this is an incident, however great or im¬ portant it is. The power in the Executive is clearly incident to the power not merely to send ambassadors, but to invite the send¬ ing of ambassadors from abroad, as the Senator has so well shown, and I agree with the Senator that it is a power which necessarily must continue all the year round, and may be exercised on an hour’s notice sometimes, and it can not be exercised by Congress for that reason. But it seems to me, with great respect, that while it is incident to the treaty-making power of which the President is a part, as the Senator said, it is also an incident of certain con¬ stitutional powers of Congress. . Yet these powers never will be brought into conflict, although they may reside to a limited ex¬ tent in both. But the question we are dealing with is not whether Congress may have it as incident to the power to regulate com¬ merce. not whether Congress may have it as incident to the power to declare war, not whether Congress may have it as incident to its power of legislation over the conduct of American citizens, not as an incident or consequence; our question now is, Does it rest in Congress primarily and originally before any of these other con¬ stitutional things are done? Now, I agree with the Senator that the very necessity of the case makes it an executive power, and an executive power alone, where nothing is to be done but recognition. So this is a very grave matter that we should not concede unless the Constitution requires it, that the power of recognizing a foreign country may sometimes be a necessary incident to some constitutional legisla¬ tive power of Congress; and I hope that nothing will occur in this discussion on either side which will amount to a limitation or abridgment of that power. The Senator will pardon me for the interruption. Mr. WHITE. It is true that the question to which I am imme¬ diately addressing myself is the attempt absolutely and directly by a joint resolution to recognize the independence of another government. Mr. HOAR. As incident to nothing? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; predicated upon nothing incidentally. The resolution directly deals with the subject. It is confined to that specific topic alone. I am not here to enter into a discussion as to the effect of indirect legislation which Congress may per¬ haps at some time see fit to enact in conflict with Executive view. 2613 29 It is always dangerous to seek the discussion of irrelevant sub¬ jects, or to attempt the adoption of rules to govern cases not yet presented. As far as a declaration of war or a treaty of commerce are con¬ cerned, both presuppose the existence of nationality upon which the declaration or legislation may be operative, but whether in the exercise of our constitutional power of passing a bill regulat¬ ing commerce., concurred in by the Executive, a peculiar collateral consequence may result, I do not propose at this hour to elabo¬ rately consider. Such a course would be foreign to the purpose I have at hand. ^ I am endeavoring to show that, as far as the at¬ tempt to directly recognize a revolutionary organization goes, it is not within our sphere. Whether indirect action of Congress might result in the assumption of another national existence, it is not certain that such assumption could absolutely create a nation. But this is speculative. I do not believe that any such conflict of authority or peculiar combination of circumstances will ever be manifested. I could add that we might readily hold commercial relations with communities not constituting a nation. This Gov¬ ernment has continued moving in the present channel for many years without, I think, any substantial deviation in practice from the course to which I have alluded. I do not feel prepared to change our procedure now. The cita¬ tions which I made from Mr. Adams’s account of Mr. Monroe’s statement are interesting, and are certainly sufficient to acquit the Executive or the Secretary of State from the charge of assert¬ ing anything new. The specific proposition contended for by the present Administration is that in the case of Cuba Congress has not the power directly to declare independence, or even belliger¬ ency. I have stated that I believe that contention to be well founded, and I have sought to fortify my opinion by referring to precedent and to principle. Mr. President, it is clear that the Constitution does not make it the duty of Congress, nor does it give to either House, the au¬ thority to receive ambassadors or ministers. This function is conferred upon the President only. It has been suggested that this delegation of authority amounts to nothing more than the enjoining of a duty to extend proper courtesies to diplomatic offi¬ cers coming from abroad. With due respect, it appears to me that this argument has nothing in reason to sustain it. Can we afford to urge that as important an instrument as the Constitu¬ tion, upon which our governmental framework absolutely rests, is devoted to any extent or at all to a mere matter of etiquette? The duty which the President must perform under the organic law with relation to ambassadors and ministers is not merely to grasp their hands or to otherwise salute them in the most approved method of the day; nor is it exhausted or even exercised by giving invitations to receptions or dinners. It means more than this. As the Executive is granted the power to receive, so he is accorded the right to determine to whom such reception should be vouch¬ safed. He receives officially if he believes that the party present¬ ing himself is not only individually the sort of a man who ought to be received, but he also is bound to determine whether he in fact represents a foreign power. Necessarily this authority to determine is involved in the dis¬ charge of the duty to receive. When a person offering himself at the Executive Mansion claims that he is entitled to be received as 2613 30 a minister, the President, from the very nature of the case, ia compelled to decide whether liis pretensions are well founded, and in doing this he is hound to find on the issue as to whether the applicant represents a foreign power. Thus the alleged min¬ ister of the Cuban Republic seeks to meet the Executive; Mr. Cleveland refuses to receive him, because he declares that the minister does not represent a foreign power. Congress can not dictate to the President as to who he shall receive, for the simple reason that the duty to receive being constitutionally delegated to him, he must determine for himself whether a case has arisen calling for the exercise of that power. It is the duty of Congress to pass laws to govern the country, but it is within its sole discre¬ tion to enact or not to enact. If we refuse to appropriate a dollar for public purposes we might be and would be derelict, but no court could mandamus us, because Congress judges for itself as to whether a case has arisen calling for the exercise of its func¬ tions. The President may act badly; indeed, his conduct may justify impeachment. So Congress may behave in an outrageous man¬ ner, and the people may be without any further remedy than that which is expressed at the polls. No scheme of government ever devised can insure ability and honesty upon the part of those in¬ trusted with power, and there is no individual or officer to whom authority has been delegated w T ho may not violate his obligations and work evil. But the accomplishment of such regrettable results is no argument against jurisdiction. It must be remembered that the existence of jurisdiction may well mean the power to do not only that which is right, but also that which is wrong. Where is there a word in the organic law indicating preference for Congressional jurisdiction? The legislative limitations therein prescribed were suggested by ages of experience. Danger lurks in excited multitudes and appears in the consequences of uprisings and insurrections as well as in the remorseless mandates of kingly power. The fathers sought to guard against extremes. The dele¬ gation of authority to the Executive was designed to confer exclu¬ sive jurisdiction to the extent indicated. Concurrent jurisdiction in such a matter as this would be confusing and lead to perilous disputation. The power thus accorded is not and never will be subject to appeal. Congress must pass a bill over the Presidential veto, because the Constitution so declares; but Congress can not, by bill, modify or abrogate the Executive authority with reference to foreign relations, and especially with regard to receiving am¬ bassadors and ministers. So also of the legislative and executive jurisdictions. Were it otherwise, the whole scheme would be a failure. If the legislative department is preferred, this means that the executive and judicial departments exist only in subordi¬ nation to Congress, whose edicts are in fact supreme. This posi¬ tion is not only violative of the words of the Constitution, but in conflict with the often expressed intentions of the fathers. It has no support in our history. It is revolutionary, and destructive of that independence without which the Presidential office can never be properly exercised. SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE CONTRARY POSITION. It is intimated that the President has the power to recognize, but it is said that this is only a conditional grant. It is limited in some mode. It exists now, and it may not exist to-morrow. This 2G13 31 position I repudiate, for I find no direct grant to Congress justify¬ ing such a conclusion; nor does it appear to me that such author¬ ity is granted anywhere by implication, or is the necessary attend¬ ant of any authority specifically delegated. If the President recognizes the belligerency or independence of the Cuban Republic, can Congress repudiate such recognition? I take it that this is not possible. If the Presidential recognition of belligerency is valid in any case, in what case is it invalid? And. if the President has authority to absolutely recognize independence in any case, is not that authority the result of discretion conferred upon him by the Constitution? And such discretion involves the ability to re¬ fuse as well as to grant, and if it is not competent for Congress to nullify Presidential recognition of belligerency or independence, can Congress render nugatory the decision of the President deny¬ ing such recognition? I think that I have already shown that the framers of the Constitution were not engaged in the business of guarding Congress against the President, but that they felt the necessity of so organizing the Houses that they could not subor¬ dinate Presidential jurisdiction within allotted lines save in one mode, to wit, impeachment. The plenary authority exercised by the President in foreign affairs is exemplified to some extent not only in receiving minis¬ ters, but even in providing for the exercise by foreign consuls of authority within the United States. When the British consul at Charleston, at the beginning of the late civil war, acted in a manner contrary to the wishes of Mr. Lincoln and his Cabinet, the exequatur was revoked and Mr. Bunch's powers terminated. No consultation was had with Con¬ gress upon this subject. It is discretionary with the President to refuse an exequatur, although, as Mr. Blaine declared in his letter to Mr. Morgan, May 31,1881 (1 Whar. Int. Law, page 765), the exercise of that undoubted right is an extreme one, rarely resorted to here. Instances of the dismissal of ministers are numerous. We re¬ member very clearly the action of Mr. Cleveland in demanding the recall of Minister West, owing to his correspondence with an alleged British subject called, for the time being, Murchison. No power was conferred by Congress upon the President, but he, having the right to control the matter, exercised his prerogative at his discretion. In Schuyler’s American Diplomacy, page 136,1 find the following: It may be mentioned here that our Government has never been slow to use its right in asking for the recall of, or of sending away, a foreign minister who becomes obnoxious. The recall of Mr. Genet, the French minister, was asked in 1793; that of Mr. Jackson, the British minister, in 1809; that of Mr. Poussin, the French minister, in 1849; Mr. Crampton, the British minister, was given his passports in 1856; and intercourse ceased with Mr. Catacazy, the Russian minister, in 1871. In all those cases the act was the act of the Executive; it was the result of Executive discretion; there was no participancy by the legislative department, and none claimed. If Congress possesses the pow T er to settle the question of bel¬ ligerency or independence, it is clear that all sources of material information ought to be open to investigation and examination. I beg leave to refer to remarks made by me on a former occa¬ sion touching this question: There is another ground which appears to me very strong in support of the contention that the recognition power is lodged in the Executive. Thera 2313 32 is before the Senate a document which was read by the Senator from Ala¬ bama, and which I deem quite important. I refer to House Document 224 of the present session. I read a few lines for purposes of illustration: “No. 2699.] Consulate-General or the United States, “ Habana , January 7, 1896. “ Sir: With reference to the proclamation of the Captain-General of the 2d instant declaring a state of war to exist in the provinces of Habana and Pinar del Rio, copy and translation of which accompanied my dispatch No. 2695 of the 4th instant At this point I find a note stating that the proclamation mentioned is not printed. From this I conclude that the omitted paper has not been revealed to Congress. No one appears to controvert this supposition. When the House adopted the resolution calling for this correspondence it did so in the following phraseology: “ Resolved , That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate to the House of Representatives, if not inconsistent with the public interests, copies of all correspondence relating to affairs in Cuba since February last.” The House passed the usual resolution in the regular form which custom authorizes. Manifestly information has been withheld—no doubt properly. Time out of mind, if I may use that expression with reference to this verjr modern Government, it has been the custom to withhold information, the disclosure of which the Executive deems incompatible with public interest. The document thus legitimately withheld may contain essential and con¬ trolling facts upon this subject. That it is important would seem to follow to some extent from the very circumstance that it is retained. Has the Executive the right to thus deny information? Our Chief Magistrates have always done so, pursuant to unchallenged custom and in compliance with recognized usage, evidenced by many hundred resolutions calling upon the Executive for diplomatic information. The President is not directed; he is merely requested, and always with the qualification which I have noted. The Executive right to withhold delicate diplomatic correspondence is inci¬ dental to the Presidential office. Can it be that the Constitution has placed upon Congress the burden of deciding and the duty to determine issues con¬ cerning belligerent or other relations to foreign powers and has not at the same time compelled the President to give us everything within his knowl¬ edge? Can it be that we are to pass upon a part of the case and not upon the whole? Can it be that under the law we are deprived of material evi¬ dence and yet are expected to render final and determinative judgment upon an imperfect record—a fraction of the aggregate proof? I say not. The President has before him all information. Ho reviews a complete history. Plainly, he is in a better condition to judge of the true state of affairs than are we. He has the means to secure ail relevant information. Having in charge the diplomatic relations of the Government, he is, or should be, better advised than the Senate or the House of Representatives, or both. It was early settled that the Executive could not he compelled to surrender up to both Houses of Congress information which that officer deemed to be of such a character as to render it inad¬ visable to make a disclosure. When President Washington sent in the proposed treaty with Great Britain, a question arose as to whether the President had any right to negotiate a treaty of commerce (2 Marshall’s Wash¬ ington, page 377). Mr. Livingstone offered a resolution in the House requesting the President to furnish a copy of the instruc¬ tions to the minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with Great Britain. Mr. Madison proposed to amend so as to except such papers as, in the judgment of the President, it might be inconsistent with the interests of the United States at this time to disclose (id., page 378). This proposition was rejected, and the resolution offered by Mr. Livingstone was passed by a vote of 62 to 37. Afterwards the President communicated to the House his refusal, and in concluding it he said: As it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office under all the circumstances of this case forbid a compliance with your recmest. (Id., 381.) 2613 33 I can not find that the power of the President to retain infor¬ mation the disclosure of which he deems incompatible with the public interest lias ever been doubted, and the uniform practice of Congress admits this power. We do not direct the President nor do we seek to compel him to make disclosures against his own judgment. On the contrary, the Presidential discretion is in terms conceded in every resolution seeking information from the State Department which Congress sees fit to pass. The question of the recognition of belligerency or independence should be determined upon a full view of the entire situation. Every fact bearing upon it ought to be before that department charged with the responsibility of acting. It is manifest that the most important documents, the most direct and convincing cir¬ cumstances, may be contained in official communications contain¬ ing matter which ought not to be made public. Indeed, it is safe to say that the most important information is doubtless encoun¬ tered in such documents. The very gravity of the disclosures therein contained makes it inadvisable to surrender them. So that we who claim the right to pass upon this issue must concede that all avenues of information are not open to us—many are open to us, no doubt, but all are not open to us—and that the most material part of the case is withheld in harmony with the Consti¬ tution, which, it is claimed, gives us the power to overrule the Executive, notwithstanding his superior facilities for knowing the facts, and his power to withhold information officially received by him, and which appears to him (perhaps correctly) properly determinative of the entire matter. If it be true that the Consti¬ tution has made it our duty to pass upon the diplomatic questions involved and has given to the President means of obtaining infor¬ mation not granted to any other department, and has likewise left the disclosure of such knowledge wholly discretionary with him, the system is radically defective. It is not likely that the Presi¬ dent requires more data than the Senate or the Congress, and to require us to act without all the evidence is to compel a judgment in the absence of the most material evidence. I have already referred to the opinion of Mr. Monroe on this subject regarding Executive power. I wish to attract attention to the circumstance that Mr. Monroe deemed it advisable to send commissioners to the South American states for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether he should recognize the inde¬ pendence of the new governments. These commissioners he, as Chief Executive, sent to the South American republics that he might obtain information to justify him in reaching a conclusion as to whether he ought to accord a declaration of independence or not. In many instances subsequent Administrations found it de¬ sirable to send emissaries abroad for the purpose of determining similar issues without consulting Congress. Agents or messengers have been sent not as diplomats or min¬ isters, and therefore without consultation with the Senate, the branch of Congress solely authorized to confirm envoys and plen¬ ipotentiaries; but these appointments have been justified, not only in many of the cases cited but in many others, because of the fact that they were the mere agents of the Executive, his messengers sent abroad to bring him word as to affairs concerning which he needed information in order to duly execute a constitutional power, to wit, the recognition of a new government. The case of Mr. Trist, 'who was sent as a confidential agent to 2613—3 34 Mexico (and the object and purpose of his mission appears, 2 Whar¬ ton on International Law, section 154), is an exemplification of the authority of the President in this regard. The appointment of Archbishop Hughes and Bishop Mclllraine, Mr. Everett, Mr. Win- throp, and Mr."j. B. Kennedy as confidential agents with refer¬ ence to matters connected with the recognition of belligerency during our domestic strife contributes an interesting chapter to the exercise of authority by the President without consulting the Senate and all within the recognized diplomatic limits. The case often referred to here—so frequently that it is not nec¬ essary for me to discuss it—of Mr. Mann and the Hungarian con¬ troversy is in point. Mr. Webster's elaborate presentation of the subject and the treatment it received at the hands of Mr. Everett are all in the same line. I will not go over them, for they have been dwelt upon often and are familiar to the Senate and to the country. When we speak of the advisability of reposing power in one de¬ partment of the Government in preference to another, our argu¬ ment is only of value in so far as it tends to illustrate the motives and objects and ends sought to be accomplished by the framers of the Constitution, and in an ambiguous case, if it is found that the lodgment of power in one particular department would be manifestly inadvisable, and if the language is obscure or the con¬ struction in doubt, perhaps we may be aided to some extent when we consider it on principle and in the light of the practical inter¬ pretation of experience. THE NECESSITY OE SECItECY IN DIPLOMATIC AFFAIRS. / It is notorious that it is practically impossible to preserve secrecy as to matters occurring in the Senate. It frequently happens that debates taking place in supposed executive session are publicly reported; and while it is usually true that the reports made and the deductions drawn are not altogether correct, and there are many omissions of vital and essential features, yet it is also a well- known fact that whenever a sensational proposition or anything calculated to excite public curiosity or interest is announced in executive session it finds its way to the public. The delicacy of foreign negotiations, the ease with which controversies nearly settled may be impeded by ill-advised expressions or premature disclosure, is too plain to need comment. Nor is this all. We know that the Senate is not now and never has been and never can bo os reliable a place for the carrying on of those negotiations which are frequently necessary in the man¬ agement of international disputes, and the same may be said with more emphasis with reference to Congress. Thus, within a year perhaps, we have heard remarks made with reference to foreign governments with which we were at peace. We have heard a friendly nation called “a toothless wolf,’ 5 “a Gila monster, 55 “a nation whose symbol of power is a monkey and an organ grinder,” and kindred phrases in a body several of whose members now claim almost exclusive diplomatic authority. Our ability to excite a foreign government, our ability to involve the Govern¬ ment of the United States in difficulty, certainly will not be seri¬ ously challenged. Wo are not as successful in procuring the spreading of the wings of peace over the earth. Mr. Sanguily may well doubt the propriety of our interference with his case, which is now being energetically pressed by our State Department. £613 While intemperate remarks are delivered here, persons in whom we have an interest are being tried and sentenced for violations of municipal law, and our State Department is endeavoring to extricate, by diplomacy, many in whom we are concerned who have, by reason of their desire to liberate another people, placed themselves within the reach of the criminal processes of a friendly power. It is believed that utterances made upon this floor, which could not have any effect for good, have made it more difficult for the Executive to procure liberation of individuals in Cuba who have been in the greatest peril. The Constitution conferred upon the Senate and the House juris¬ diction as to treaties, and also in the matter of certain appoint¬ ments, and that it was the part of wisdom so to do is, I believe, obvious. Whether we consider a treaty as a contract, in accord¬ ance with the views of Mr. Frelinghuy sen and others, or whether we regard it as in the nature of legislation (and the Constitution declares a treaty to be the supreme law of the land), it is proper for the lawmaking power to be consulted as to subjects which not only affect foreign relations but often directly interfere with the acts of Congress and the exercise of municipal powers by the several States. In the making of a contract the ability and char¬ acter of the Senate has always been of great assistance, and I doubt whether there has ever been a topic of international concern sub¬ mitted in the form of a treaty where much light and many wise suggestions have not emanated from this body. Legislation can not be conducted by the Executive alone, and upon the same prin¬ ciple it may be said that no treaty ought to be made without the cooperation of the Senate, and the framers of the Constitution, in making it impossible to perfect such an instrument in the absence of two-thirds ratification here, undoubtedly considered that such a strong indorsement would atone for the absence of the other branch of Congress. Were the concurrence of the House neces¬ sary, there would be much friction, many misunderstandings, and numerous contentions with nations with whom we had been pre¬ viously on terms of amity. But the justification of the policy to be met with in the matter of ratifying treaties is found in the fact that we there deal not only with foreign governments regarding purely international matters, but with propositions affecting legis¬ lation, and which must, as I have already remarked, have more or less effect upon the domestic concerns of the several States. The difficulties unavoidable in treating diplomatic questions in the Senate must be evident to all. Not only are imprudent re¬ marks indulged in because of impulses natural to momentary excitement, induced occasionally by ill-founded newspaper utter¬ ances, mistaken reports—the result of journalistic enterprise and competition—but Senators are in the habit of giving their opin¬ ions through resolutions of various kinds, often accompanied by speeches exceedingly demonstrative and very seldom involving the actual opinion of a majority of the Chamber or even of a com¬ mittee. Such resolutions, after being discussed at the time of their pres¬ entation, are sent to committee and are perhaps never reported back, or if reported are in a modified form; and when the matter is investigated it is perhaps discovered that the circumstances are not such as to warrant the belligerent remarks which had been made at the time of introduction. When Mr. Cleveland sent in his Venezuelan message there was 2613 considerable excitement. Senators for the first time during my brief incumbency here expressed their appreciation by applause upon the floor. A bill was speedily passed placing the necessary funds in the hands of the Executive to enable him to proceed with the work outlined in the message. Resolutions of varied form were introduced, and finally the Committee on Foreign Re¬ lations, through the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Davis] who sits near me, presented a concurrent resolution of considerable length, purporting to define the Monroe doctrine and to extend its application much beyond the lines laid down by Mr. Cleveland. Afterwards the same distinguished Senator delivered an address in support of his report. He took very advanced ground. The resolution is still upon our Calendar, and no vote will ever be had upon it. I intend to refer to several other reports of the Commit¬ tee on Foreign Relations preceding the remarkable Sanguily resolu¬ tion now before us, and shall endeavor to show that the Secretarv of State has done his duty under the law ably and effectively. But 1 will now yield to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. Allison] , and if the appropriation bills are again displaced I will continue my argument. At all events, I will not, under pre¬ vailing circumstances, proceed further at this late hour. ****** * Friday , February 26, 1807. JULIO SANGUILY. It having been ascertained that Julio Sanguily had been par¬ doned prior to the consideration of the resolution on that subject referred to in the foregoing remarks, the following proceedings were had in the Senate: The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 1 o'clock having arrived, it is the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate the unfinished business, which will be suited. The Secretary. A joint resolution (S. R. 207) demanding the release of Julio Sanguily, an American citizen imprisoned in Cuba. Mr. PETTIGREW. I ask that the unfinished business be laid aside, and that we proceed with the consideration of the Indian appropriation bill. Mr. BERRY. Temporarily, -without prejudice. Mr. PETTIGREW. Temporarily, without prejudice, if it is desired. Mr. MORGAN. It was the understanding, by unanimous con¬ sent yesterday, that the joint resolution was "to come up at 1 o’clock to-day. Mr. PETTIGREW. Then I move that it be laid aside. Mr. MORGAN. The Senator can not do that without violating the unanimous-consent agreement. Mr. WHITE. I am entitled to the floor on the joint resolution, I believe. Mr. PETTIGREW. I am not aware of any such unanimous- consent agreement. I should like to have it read. Mr. WHITE. I do not object to the request of the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. PETTIGREW. I do not intend to violate a consent agree¬ ment. 2613 37 Mr. LINDSAY. There was no consent agreement about it that I understand. Mr. BERRY. Is the joint resolution to he temporarily laid aside? The Senator from California who has the floor has no ob¬ jection to that until we can get through with the bill that is now before the Senate. I appeal to the Senator from Alabama not to urge the joint resolution at this time. Mr. FRYE. I hope the Senator from Alabama will consent to allow the joint resolution to go to the Calendar. The telegraphic communications received to-day, undoubtedly reliable, show that Sanguily, by advice of his attorney, has, under duress of a two- years’ imprisonment, consented to the judgment and the sentence by withdrawing the appeal; that the Queen Regent has signed the pardon, and that Sanguily is free. Now, while I regard that as unfortunate in many respects, it seems to me it leaves the joint resolution without any necessity of further consideration. I do not believe, and never did, in wasting powder simply for the purpose of making a noise. I shall vote, under these circumstances, to proceed wfltli the ap¬ propriation bill. I do not believe anyone doubts my friendliness to Cuba. Every pulsation of my heart is with the patriots who are fighting for liberty, and I have an utter detestation of the brutalities of Spain; but I do not believe there is any further necessity of considering the joint resolution. I hope it will be permitted to go to the Calendar. Mr. MORGAN. I am acting here- Mr. CALL. I ask the Senator from Alabama to allow me to say- Mr. MORG AN. Who has the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mr. White] has the floor. Does he yield to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. PETTIGREW. I move to take up the Indian appropriation bill. Mr. WHITE. I am entitled to the floor; but I have stated that I have no objection to yielding the floor; but I should like to say a word. However, I will yield temporarily to the Senator from Alabama. I do not wish to incommode the Senator in charge of the appropriation bill, and will not do it; but, having the floor, I think I am entitled to the courtesy of a request before I yield it. I may be mistaken. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California yields to the Senator from Alabama. GEORGE WASHINGTON AGUIRRE. Mr. MORGAN. I am very thankful to the Senator from Cali¬ fornia for his courtesy. He has the floor on the joint resolution which is before the Senate, and it can be disposed of if Senators will only contain themselves a little while in a legitimate and in a decent way. I rose under the privilege which -was accorded to me by the Senator from California to ask unanimous consent for the adoption of a resolution which I will read: Resolved , That the President is requested, if it is not, in his opinion, incom¬ patible with the public interests, to communicate to the Senate such infor¬ mation as has been furnished to or obtained by the Executive or the Depart¬ ment of State relating to the arrest and imprisonment of and any proceed¬ ings against George Washington Aguirre, a youth of 19 years of age, and a 2G13 38 citizen of the United States, who, to obtain the benefit of a general amnesty proclaimed by the Captain-General of Cuba, surrendered to the Spanish au¬ thorities in Cuba on the 4th day of July, 1896. You will observe, Mr. President, that there is quite an associa¬ tion of dates there that have a great hold upon the affections of the American people. He seems to have surrendered on the 4th day of July, 1896, and his name his George Washington Aguirre. Pie is 19 years of age, and he surrendered under a proclamation of amnesty which invited him to come in and surrender. Doubtless he is one of our American boys, of Cuban origin, who has gone down there to take a hand in that scrimmage, as I am afraid a good many of them are inclined to do. For the benefit of the Sen¬ ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] , if he doubts the citizenship of this man (he seems to turn his head in this way as if he wanted to make a point of citizenship,as he made yesterday), I will call his attention to another name toy reading the following letter: New York City, February 2 U , 1 S 97 . My Dear Sir: I desire to call your attention to the case of George Wash¬ ington Aguirre, an American citizen, 19 years of age, and a prisoner in the Cubana fortress in Habana since the 4th day of July last. He surrendered under the amnesty proclamation of General Weyler promising freedom to those who gave themselves up. He was promptly ordered to be court- martialed, but by the interference of General Lee this was changed to an order for a civil trial. This civil trial has not come yet and likely never will, without the aid of our Government. The tortures of this boy threaten his life. I make this statement to you upon respectable authority, who have requested this letter. I have no personal knowledge of the facts. The authority of this nation should correct such wrongs, and speedily. His release should be demanded at once. I am, very truly, yours, ETHAN ALLEN. Hon. John T. Morgan. Now, there is another name connected historically with the United States, and I suppose I can venture to assume here in pre¬ senting this resolution that this boy, whose name is George Washington Aguirre, and who is only 19 years of age, is a citizen of the United States, because Ethan Allen has said so. That is as far as I can go upon it. Now, acting upon that predicate, I want to ask the unanimous consent of the Senate for the adoption of this resolution for information from the President. Mr. HOAR. What was it the Senator called my attention to? I came into the Chamber as he finished the reading. Mr. MORGAN. I called attention to the fact that this man was evidently of Cuban birth, born of a Cuban family, because his name is Aguirre. I supposed the Senator would be ready to raise the question of naturalization on him, and I wanted to say that I had no further testimony to offer on the subject than the testimony of Ethan Allen. Mr. HOAR. The Ethan Allen of the Revolution? Mr. MORGAN. His grandson. Mr. PLATT. He is president of the Cuban junta of New York. Mr. MORGAN. He is a grandson of Ethan Allen of the Revolu¬ tion and is very apt to be president of a revolutionary junta, or whatever you may call it. Mr. HOAR. I thought the Senator said something about the case that was up yesterday as I came in. Mr. MORGAN. No; I was going to get to that after a little. I ask for the adoption of the resolution, Mr. President. Mr. FRYE. It is only a resolution of inquiry. Mr. WHITE. If there be no objection and no discussion, I will 2613 I 39 yield for that purpose only. I wish to make a very limited number of observations, which will not consume five minutes. Mr. MORGAN. Of course one objection will carry it over. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be read at the desk for information. The Secretary read the resolution, as follows: Resolved , That the President is requested, if it is not in his opinion incom¬ patible with the public interests, to communicate to the Senate such informa¬ tion as has been furnished to or obtained by the Executive or the Department of State relating to the arrest and imprisonment of and any proceedings against George Washington Aguirre, a youth of 19 years of age, and a citizen of the United States, who, to obtain the benefit of a general amnesty pro¬ claimed by the Captain-General of Cuba, surrendered to the Spanish authori¬ ties in Cuba on the 4th day of July, 1898. Mr. HOAR. It alleges certain facts. Mr. GRAY. I rise to say a word and to ask a question. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Cali¬ fornia yield for the purpose? Mr. WHITE. I can not yield for a debate. Mr. GRAY. It is not debate. I want to ask a question. Mr. WHITE. I will yield to the Senator from Delaware. Mr. GRAY. I want to appeal to the Senator from Alabama that he allow the resolution to be so amended as not to make the Senate of the United States responsible for allegation of fact of which they can know nothing. It may be all true, but if he will put in the word “alleged” before “citizen” and “alleged” before “surrendered,” I have no objection to the resolution. Otherwise 1 have. Mr. MORGAN. I will do that with great cheerfulness, because the Senate of the United States has got so far that it is not willing to take any responsibility for- Mr. Lindsay and Mr. White addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be amended accordingly. Does the Senator from California yield to the Sena¬ tor from Kentucky? Mr. WHITE. For a question. Mr. LINDSAY. I desire to know whether this able-bodied young man, who abandoned the Cuban cause and took advantage of the amnesty proclamation, ought not to change his name before he asks the Senate of the United States to intervene in his behalf. That was a very un-George Washington like act, and I do not think he comes here in a position to demand any extraordinary consideration at the hands of the Senate. Mr. MORGAN. How could he change his name? Mr. CALL. Will the Senator allow me to say a word? Mr. LINDSAY. I refer to the George Washington part of his name. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Cali¬ fornia yield to the Senator from Florida? Mr. WHITE. I do not want to discriminate, and therefore I yield to the Senator from Florida. Mr. CALL. Mr. President, I happen to know this young man, George Washington Aguirre. He is a native American, born of Cuban parents, who became naturalized and lived in this country and abroad. He is a young man, animated by a noble, virtuous, honorable sentiment of devotion to the country of his forefathers. He went to Cuba for the purpose of rendering patriotic aid to the cause which he believed in common with all the Cuban people to be 2613 40 a true and honorable effort to obtain independence. lie is quite a youth, not yet being 21 years of age. He was here in Washing- ton just before his departure for Cuba. I have no doubt from these facts, which are within my knowledge, that the statements of the letter read by the Senator from Alabama are true. Mr. LINDSAY. He did not desert the Cuban cause? _ Mr. CALL. I suppose that, like many others, he might have been exhausted by the severe privations, to which he was unac¬ customed. I know nothing about that; but a youth, compara¬ tively of tender years, and not accustomed to great exposure, might quite naturally be unable to continue in the service. Mr. WHITE. As 4 understand, the resolution in its present form is objected to, and therefore I presume it will go over. Mr. FRYE. The Senator from Alabama accepted the amend¬ ment proposed. Mr. WHITE. Then, if it may be voted upon without further discussion, I will yield for that purpose. The PRESIDING- OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama ac¬ cepted the amendment of the Senator from Delaware. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution? Mr. HOAR. Let us hear the amended resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be read as amended. The Secretary read the resolution as modified, as follows: Resolved , That the President is requested, if not in his opinion incompatible with the public interests, to communicate to the Senate such information as has been furnished to or obtained by the Executive of the Department of State relating to the arrest and imprisonment of and any proceedings against George Washington Aguirre, a youth of 19 years of age, and an alleged citizen of the United States, who, to obtain the benefit of a general amnesty proclaimed by the Captain-General of Cuba, surrendered to tho Spanish authorities in Cuba on the 4th day of July, 1896. Mr. GRAY. Let it read ‘ 4 is alleged to have surrendered. ” We do not know anything about that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be so modified. Mr. ALLEN. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If this reso¬ lution is passed, does it displace the Sanguily resolution? The PRESIDING OFFICER, it does not, the Chair will state. Mr. BERRY and Mr. MILLS. Question. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection to the present consideration of the resolution. Is the Senate ready for the question? The question is on agreeing to the resolution of the Senator from Alabama as modified. The resolution as modified was agreed to. Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I trust that we will find George Washington Aguirre to be a duly qualified citizen of some coun¬ try. I am not altogether convinced of his innocence, of his impec¬ cability, or his statesmanship. I do not consider these proposi¬ tions established merely because he bears the name of "George Washington. I remember some time ago prosecuting a person, who was sent to the penitentiary of my State, whose name was Juan de Dios (John of God). He never by word or deed justified a claim of honesty. I do not intend to discuss questions relating to Julio Sanguily at any length to-day for the reasons stated by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Frye] . I understand that a resolution will be offered later by Mr. Sanguily’s friends in this Chamber protesting against his pardon. They seem to be disturbed because he is at liberty. 2613 41 Objections have already been registered to the action of San- guily and his counsel in admitting guilt and seeking pardon. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to control Mr. Sanguily in this respect, and his absence from prison will deprive the world of a vast amount of very effective and charming eloquence, accom¬ panied, no doubt, by applause of an intelligent and discriminating character. It is indeed too bad that Sanguily has been pardoned, even though our resolution has not passed and has not been trans¬ mitted to the Government of Spain. It is to be hoped, Mr. Presi¬ dent. that when the Committee on Foreign Relations brings us a case for discussion hereafter it will be a live case, and it is to be hoped when a resolution is produced here demanding somebody’s surrender that we may not discover in the midst of patriotic declamation that the gentleman whose liberty we are seeking to obtain has already successfully petitioned for a pardon and ad¬ mitted his guilt without consulting us. We can hardly retrieve our position by substituting George Washington Aguirre for Don Julio Sanguily. [Laughter.] I regret that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Rela¬ tions is not in this Chamber. Possibly he may have heard of the pardon of Don Julio Sanguily. Were the chairman of the com¬ mittee here, I should ask him whether it is true that he had in his pocket, or that his committee had in its custody yesterday, when this question was being considered, a document showing that Mr. Sanguily had petitioned for pardon. Such an assertion has been made, but I should like to know whether it is true. I have no information upon the subject. If the report be true, the Commit¬ tee on Foreign Relations should not have kept the information from the Senate. If it was not proper information to be given publicly, we might have placed ourselves “in comunicado,” and should have closed the doors; in that way we might perhaps have constituted ourselves a body of “pacificos.” I do not wish to interfere with the appropriation bills which were set aside to-day in order that Don Julio Sanguily might be released. I will yield to the Senator from South Dakota to make the motion of wdiicli he has already given notice. ****** * Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I had no intention of saving a word on this resolution, which I think was properly laid aside and the appropriation bill taken up. But, in the absence of the chair¬ man of the Committee on Foreign Relations [Mr. Sherman] , the Senator from California [Mr. White] saw fit to attack that com¬ mittee and revive the debate, and say one or two things which I do not propose to leave unanswered, as the chairman of the com¬ mittee is not present to say anything in regard to it. I am very sorry that the Senator from California should be so disturbed about the flow of eloquence in the Senate on the San¬ guily resolution, and about the applause in the galleries. I think he was unreasonably disturbed. He spoke for four hours himself, and no galleries interrupted him. [Laughter.] Also, Mr. Presi¬ dent, I want to say that this matter is not to be settled by sneers, nor is an answer made in this case by mispronouncing the name “Julio,” nor is this case answered by making fun of some man whose name happens to be that of the great general and statesman •whose birthday we celebrated here a few days ago. This matter can not be disposed of by sneers. 2013 42 The case in which a pardon has just been granted is hut one case. There is information which has been withheld from the Senate and from the American people in a great many other cases not in relation to Cubans, but in relation to American citizens. Those will all come to the surface. We shall all see it some day; the Senate will have the opportunity of seeing it; the American people will have the opportunity of seeing it. As to this specific case and the charge made against the Foreign Relations Committee, I desire simply to say a single word. That committee had received no information that this man had been pardoned. The Committee on Foreign Relations began to consider this case about one month ago. The report they made is dated the 1st day of February. We put the matter over from week to week at the request of the State Department, because we were told that the diplomatic negotiations which had been going on for about twenty- three months were about approaching a close, and the Depart¬ ment hoped in a few days to have this man pardoned. We put it over; and finally we reported the resolution, and we got the man’s pardon the next morning. In other words, twenty-three months were consumed in diplomatic negotiations; but after the matter was taken up and it was discussed by the committee and pre¬ sented at the bar of American public opinion, the news of the man’s pardon came by cable this morning, and we are sneered at because we are told he was going to be pardoned any way. Mr. GRAY. May I ask the Senator a question as to a matter of Mr. LODGE. Certainly. Mr. GRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts says that twenty- three months have been consumed by the State Dei>artment in negotiations in regard to the case of Sanguily. Mr. LODGE. I think I have stated the fact correctly. Mr. GRAY. Is it not a fact that the larger part of those nego¬ tiations, and the greater part of the time occupied in pursuing them, was consumed in discussing the treaty between the United States and Spain in regard to citizens of the United States who were arrested for participating in rebellion, without arms in their hands, and demanding for them a trial by a civil court under the treaty; and whether, at last, those negotiations were not success¬ ful in procuring that trial, and that the necessary delay was by reason of the procedure of the courts, which, of course, takes time? Mr. LODGE. I did not enter into what the diplomatic nego¬ tiations were about. Mr. GRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts gave that impres¬ sion; at least, I so understood him. Mr. LODGE. I stated that diplomatic negotiations had been going on in regard to this man’s case for twenty-three months, and that is absolutely true. Mr. GRAY. But the Senator gave the impression that futile negotiations were going on for twenty-three months, whereas at different stages the demands made by the State Department were acceded to by the Government of Spain, and the trial demanded before a civil court for Sanguily was granted after necessary de¬ lay owing to their form of procedure. Mr. LODGE. I did not say the negotiations were futile. That word was not used by me, but used by the Senator from Delaware. Mr. GRAY. I say that is the impression I got from what the Senator stated. Mr. LODGE. I did not so state, but I shall not quarrel with £G13 43 the Senator about that. All I said was that for twenty-three months diplomatic negotiations had been going on in regard to this man; that the question has been considered in the committee for one month; that the resolution was reported to the Senate yesterday, and this morning we have cable news that Sanguily is pardoned. Those are the simple facts, and I am perfectly willing to leave them. Mr. GRAY. Those are not the simple facts. Mr. LODGE. I beg the Senator’s pardon. Had not diplomatic negotiations been going on for twenty-three months? Mr. GRAY. There it is again, Mr. President. The simple statement is made that negotiations of a diplomatic character have been going on for twenty-three months, and the impression is made—I do not know whether it is sought to be made by the Senator from Massachusetts or not—that negotiations, which were futile in their character, have been going on all that time in regard to the release of Sanguily, whereas a greater part of the time was occupied in demanding the rights of Sanguily under the treaty with Spain. Mr. CHANDLER. Where was Sanguily all the time? Mr. LODGE. I did not say that the negotiations were futile. The Senator from Delaware keeps saying that. Mr. GRAY. I intended that the Senator should state or that I should state for him what the real facts were. Mr. LODGE. I omitted i^o facts. I say diplomatic negotiations were going on for twenty-three months, and during that time this man was in prison. There is no question about it. I do not say the negotiations have not been successful. We know they have been successful, because he was released this morning or yester¬ day. i say it was twenty-three months that the State Department was engaged in negotiations before the Senate did anything, so that they did not seem unreasonably impatient about- it. Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to state that this man was tried and condemned on December 8, 1895, and sen¬ tenced on December 3, 1895, more than a year ago. Mr. LODGE. He was sentenced more than a year ago, Mr. President. Mr. GRAY. The trial from which the appeal was made was had on the 3d of December, 1896. That was the trial against which the State Department protested. Mr. LODGE. He has been tried, and an appeal has been taken, and all that. But. Mr. President, I do not care to go into the details of it. The facts are perfectly well known. I only desire to say, in reply to what the Senator from California [Mr. White] has said, that the Committee on Foreign Relations had put this matter over two or three times at the request of the Secretary of State, because Sanguily was about to be released and action was about to be taken as the result of diplomatic negotia¬ tions. We had no information yesterday that he was pardoned, so far as I am aware. Mr. MORGAN. We have none now. Mr. LODGE. We had no information that he had been par¬ doned. Mr. WHITE. Nobody said you had. Mr. LODGE. I understood the Senator from California—if I misunderstood him, I am very sorry—to say that the committee yesterday had information that Sanguily had been pardoned. Mr. WHITE. I stated that the committee, as I understood it, 2313 44 had the information in their pockets, or the chairman had in his pocket a petition filed by this gentleman’s counsel and himself, asking for pardon, and that they knew of the processes which had been had in connection with the affair. Mr. LODGE. What counsel does the Senator refer to? Mr. WHITE. The counsel, if I may be permitted to pronounce his name—although 1 have heretofore supposed that I had a little knowledge of the Spanish language—I may be permitted to say Julio Sanguily, notwithstanding a correction by the infallible authority at present upon the floor. [Laughter.] Mr. LODGE. The Senator is welcome to pronounce that name any way he likes. I thought from his knowledge of Spanish that he was mispronouncing the name humorously, as that is the com¬ mon form that is employed against Cubans. All I want to know is who the counsel is who has made this statement. I received no information and the committee received none. Mr. WHITE. I had no reference to the Senator, and was not thinking of him in connection with the matter. Mr. LODGE. I can only answer for the committee. The com¬ mittee received no statement. There was a dispatch read here by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Hale] from Mr. Dominiguez, I think, who said an appeal had been taken. That was read here in open Senate by the Senator from Maine. But there was nothing sent to the committee except a single communication from the State Department, and not from the counsel. That did not say that the pardon had been granted. It said what had been said before, that efforts were being made to obtain a pardon. Mr. GRAY. Let me ask the Senator whether the information he got in committee—as long as he has spoken of what occurred in the committee—was not to the effect that a pardon had been deter¬ mined upon just as soon as the condition precedent, which is requi¬ site under Spanish law, had been complied with? Mr. LODGE. I understood that they were trying to get a par¬ don. Mr. GRAY. I tried to get out the information that it had been determined upon by the Spanish executive. Mr. LODGE. Then the Senator said that a pardon had been granted. Mr. GRAY. That it had been determined to be granted as soon as the condition precedent, necessary under under Spanish law, had been complied with. Mr. LODGE. That is exactly what I said. I said that we received information that a pardon was shortly expected. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Mr. LODGE. And that it had not been granted. Mr. GRAY. Your previous statement was, unless I misunder¬ stood you—of course I have no altercation, and wall have no alter¬ cation, with the Senator—that the information was merefy that efforts were being made to obtain a pardon. Mr. LODGE. No; I mean that the process was going on for twenty-three months, or any period you please. Mr. GRAY. You said it was approaching a conclusion. Mr. LODGE. That was what we were told at the beginning of February, when we took the matter up—that it was approaching a conclusion. As the Senator well knows, we postponed the mat¬ ter from week to week on that account. 2613 45 I did not mean to be drawn into this discussion. What I de¬ sired to say was that the committee did not have the information which the Senator from California attributed to it. I know noth¬ in"’ about the counsel except from the dispatch read by the Sena¬ tor from Maine. I did not then know that the Mr. Dominguez who is named in the dispatch was the counsel for Sanguily. * * * * * * Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I do not wish to incommode tho Senators who have charge of the appropriation bills, and I do not intend to do so, and I will say but a very few words. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge] seems to think there has been a personal onslaught of some kind upon himself, and he was led to call my attention to the lack of enthusiasm created by my remarks made to the Senate yesterday. I presume his ob¬ ject in thus informing us was designed to excite my envy when contrasting my position with the enthusiastic demonstrations which ever attend his eloquent and relevant statements. However, I have lived long enough to know that there are many great men in this world and that I have no claim to greatness, and it is enough for me even temporarily to rest in the shadow of the mighty intellectual power whose instruction has been so generously given. I, perhaps, might survive some of the com¬ ments of the Senator, but I do' not know how I can exist in view of his criticism upon my pronunciation of the name of the party mentioned in the joint resolution. I ventured to call him Julio Sanguily, and the Senate has been informed that I mispronounced his name, and this I did in a disrespectful manner. If it were not for my faith in the abilities of the Senator from Massachusetts and my consequent belief that all of the Spanish scholars I have ever met have been mistaken as to the pronunciation of such names, I would, perhaps, hesitatingly venture to adhere to my own view. 1 will, however, study the lesson proffered by the Senator from Massachusetts and shall endeavor to absorb some of that learning which must be useful to the Senate, pertinent to this debate, and natural to the Senator from Massachusetts. I regret that my friend the Senator from Florida [Mr. Call] also accuses me of having taken up too much time. It is seldom that I take the floor save for an inquiry, whereas the Senator from Florida is a chronic speaker upon the subject of Cuba. He is not in a position to rebuke me for my single infraction. Now, that Julio Sanguily (I hope I may be permitted to continue to so pronounce his name) is free, we are treated to the case of Ruiz, and are told upon the authority of a newspaper, infallible, of course, before all tribu¬ nals, that Ruiz was badly treated, murdered in a dungeon. Com¬ ments on this topic are directed at me, and, as far as I am able to appreciate the Senator’s meaning, the insinuation is conveyed that I and other Senators who do not favor declaring war without ascertaining what we are to right about are guilty of the murder of Ruiz, and this because Sanguily has been pardoned. This conclusion might be considered slightly illogical by some, but not by the Senator from Florida. Mr. HALE. Let me ask the Senator whether any motion has been made to substitute any other island for Cuba? Mr. WHITE. I will say to the Senator from Maine that no motion has been made, but there are insinuations that something of the kind is coming; that if it be true that Sanguily has con- 2613 46 fessed his guilt, nevertheless there is suffering elsewhere, and it will be urged that while we were mistaken in the case of Sanguily, a valid cause of complaint must exist as to some one. There must be an oppressed innocent somewhere, and we will be fully informed regarding the outrage by illustrations in the newspapers and magnificent orations in the ►Senate. Mr. HALE. But no motion has been made to substitute any other island for Cuba? Mr. WHITE. Not yet. Mr. GALLINGER. We are going to put in the State of Maine next instead of Cuba. Mr. WHITE. The Senator from Florida, after commenting upon the immense amount of time that I took in discussing the Cuban question yesterday, in order to be truly consistent, pro¬ ceeded to make a speech upon the subject himself. I yielded to the appropriation bills, and I will do so again in the hope that these important measures may be passed, and that we may establish a field day for the discussion of Cuba, and give notice to all alleged suffering patriots, wherever found, that their cases will be taken up as soon as the Calendar will permit, and our Navy increased correspondingly to the necessities of our bellig¬ erency. o 028 001 805 3