{"1": {"fulltext": "HO^ 4.6. 6ac\u00c2\u00a3 f^\\n1^^^", "height": "3703", "width": "2402", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0003.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "E 721\\n.B12\\nCopy 1\\nTHE RECOGNITION OF CUBAN INDEPENDENCE.\\nDiscussion on the effect of the vote on the report of the Conference\\nCommittee on the Cuban resolutions.\\nSPEECHES\\nOF\\nHON. A. O. BACON,\\nOF GEORGIA.\\nIN THE\\n-l^-\\nSENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.\\nAPRIL 16 AND 19, 1898.\\nWASHINGXOX.\\n1898.", "height": "3718", "width": "2184", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0005.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "72902\\nCo SPEECU\\n^iioN. ArcrsTUS o. bacon.\\nApril IG, ISDS.\\nTlui S\u00c2\u00bb nntc hiivlnp uiulor considerntion tlio joint resolution fS. R. 119) for\\ntil. I.. v!iiti ii f i!i- i!..;.pr-ii.l.-Tifr .,f tlio jK-uple of Cuba, deniandiun tbat\\n|i authority and Kovi-rnment in the\\n1 and naval for i-s from Cuba and\\n:,t of tbo Cnitod States to use tho\\nIn- .1 .11 1 i...\\\\.il i..r \u00c2\u00bb-^u! II, I lilt. -a Maus to carry thL-se resolutions into\\nrlfirt-\\nIr. BACON paid:\\nMr. 1 im.- ii j:nt: I request tbat the (hair will give me notice\\nwlu ii 1 n-adi one niiiiuto of the expiration of my time.\\nI rofjret that within tho limited time it will be necessary for me\\ntt) sj.eiik rajiidlv, and tbat what 1 sbalUaymust of necessity bo\\nN.ini wbHt disjointed and irreirnl.nr. If I had, however, but one\\nniinnte, I would wish to sav this, to which I am moved particu-\\nlarly by wliat has fiillcn from tho Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.\\nSrooNKiil. the Senator from Micliigan (Mr. Bnutows], and tho\\nH.i.at.r iVr.iii Connecticut [Mr. Pi.attJ 1 think it is the greatest\\ni; the part of Senators to attribute to unfriendliness and\\n;i irit everything which may bo said by Senators not in\\n!i with what may Le recommended by the President of\\nt Stales. I desire for myself to disclaim any such design\\nir ..;iv \\\\v\\\\x spirit. The President of the United States has his\\npn n gatiyes, and we have ours; ho has his duties, and we have\\nours; and ea h is responsible for the proper discharge of the same.\\nMr. I resident, 1 liave not been one of those who desired war. 1\\nthink it is very greatly to l)0 deplored. I know that it means\\ndeaili to njany of tlie pres nt generation, and tiiat it means a\\nru-youH burden of debt to the next generation. Therefore I have\\nenlirely Hvmpnthized with the efTorts of tho President to avert\\nwar, and if In- had not come to Congress and .said that his efforts\\nWere at an end. 1 would be willing, if he desired it, to give him\\nhtill further opportunity to avert war. It is apparent, however,\\nthat war must como, and it only remains to shape the issue prop-\\nerly.\\niJut, Mr. President, that does not relieve me from the necessity\\nof iiassiin; ui)on the grave (pustions which are submitted to-day,\\niti vii-\\\\v of my constitutional obligation to decide upon the ques-\\ntion jm nmeinU-rof tlie Senate whether tliere shall be war; and\\nif war, in what nuinner it shall be waj^ed. I nfortunately. I differ\\nfrom the Pn-Hideiit of the I nited State-* in his recommendations.\\nTil I re^iilentof the l nite l States asks that Congress shall clothe\\n\\\\\\\\\\\\u\\\\ with the power to wage war at his discretion. I think it\\nw.iuM 1k tmcon- titutional to grant him that ])ower, and conse-\\nquently 1 can not a;, ree witli liim. The resolutions ])assed by tho\\nII. .n\u00c2\u00ab of U. pif^i Illative-, in my opinion, practically propose to\\naso", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0006.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "J\\nconfer upon him this power. Tlierofore. under no circumstances\\ncould I. in view of my constitutional obligations, vote for those\\nVi resolutions. But that is not hostility to the President.\\nIn the same way I regard the recognition of tlio independence of\\nthe Cubans as an essential in case of intervention. The President\\nof the United States thinks it t^honld not be accorded to them.\\nThat diirerence does not constitute hostility on my part or on the\\npart of tho.-;o who agree with me.\\nIn addition to a groat many other reasons which I can not stop\\nto go over, I think the question as to whether recognition either\\naccompanies or precedes the act of intervention will have a most\\nmaterial bearing upon the possibilitj to put it nostronger, of this\\nGovernment being made liable for a part of the Spanish-Cuban\\nbonds in the future: and I only romind gentlemen who discuss the\\nlegal que.stion involved that that isaciuestion not to Ijo decided in\\ncourts, l.ut it mayhap be decided at the cannon s mouth.\\nMy colleague [Mr. Clay] has already spoken upon this subject\\nand will probably not agani have an opportunity to address the\\nSenate upon it. Therefore I take occasion to say for him that as\\nto these positions which would make it impossible for me to vote\\nfor the House resolutions he agrees with me.\\nThe Senator from Wisconsin Mr. Spooner] yesterday made a\\nver} long and elaborate and able argument on the subject as to\\nwhere resides the prerogative of recognizing the independence of\\na nation. I would have been glad, and had intended, to submit\\nsome remarks in reply. It is a subject upon which I have be-\\nstowed much labor in its investigation, and upon which I have\\nvery fixed opinions. But it is manifestly now impossible for me\\nto do so.\\nI desire simply to say one thing, which is that the assumption\\nthat it is exclusively an Executive prerogative implies necessa-\\nrily that the power is lodged in one man to decide with what peo-\\nple of the world this country will maintain or will not maintain\\ndiplomatic relations. I say, not to go into the argument, that\\nthat Is a position which is absolutely abhorrent to the genius of\\nour institutions, and absolutely inconsistent with the letter and\\nspirit of our Constitution, and that it can only find proper place\\nin monarchical and absolute governments, where the voice of the\\npeople and of their representatives is neither heard nor heeded.\\nBut, ^Ir. President, I can not go into it. However, I desire to\\nsubmit one further reflection in this connection.\\nThere are two ways in which a declaration of independence may\\nhe regarded: one where there is no dispute about the fact of inde-\\npendence, the other where there is a dispute about the fact. In\\nthe one case recognition is a formality; in the other case it is the\\nhighest act of governmental power. An illustration of the latter\\ncase is to be had in the declaration of our own independence.\\nWhen we say that a people are free and independent we do not\\nnecessarily mean that there is no dispute over it or that there is\\nno contest over it. We mean to say that thereafter sovereignty\\nshall rest there in tlie new nation, and that wo dispute that it\\nrests, or that it shall thereafter rest, where it formerly rested.\\nWhen the people of the Colonies decideil in 1 770 and proclaimed\\nthat they were free, they did not pretend that there was no further\\ndispute about that fact, but they simply meant that thenceforth\\nthey repudiated and denied the sovereignty of the governmeni\\nwhich had theretofore been over them. SVhen France throe years\\nthereafter recognized the tiovernment of the United States as freo\\na2C0", "height": "3645", "width": "2028", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0007.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "ami iiulrpenrlent, it did not mean to say that all doubt as to\\nwht tht-r that independence had been established was remcved,\\nbut it simply meant to say that thereafter France recognized the\\noverei;;nty of this people, and denied that thereafter there was\\nor that thereafter there should be, in the recognition of France,\\nany K ivereignty in the British Government over this territory.\\nThert-fon when we say to-day that we recognize the independ-\\nfiiif of th\u00c2\u00ab Cuban peoi)le, we mean to say that we deny that\\nthf reafter there is or shall be, in our recognition, any sovereignty\\nof Spain in that island.\\nMr. President, one word more on the siabject of the rules with\\nrefen-nto to what shall justify a government in recognizing the\\nJn l\u00c2\u00bb |)fndt ii(o of a new government. All the rules with reference\\nto wliat shall ju-tify a government in recognizing the independ-\\ni-nce of aiiotlxT nation are made for the benefit of the parent na-\\ntion from which the n(;w government is to be sundered. It is to\\njirevi-nt injustice to that parent government; and therefore the\\nrare and partinilarity witu which it is laid down that so long as\\nIhero is n possibility, if you please, that that government can re-\\nrity, independence of the new government shall not\\nli I -MMiit, one-half of the argument of the learned Senator\\nfrom \\\\Vis( onsin yesterday was devoted to that question. While\\nI would gladly reply in detail, I think it can all be disposed of\\nwith one single comment, and that is that, applj-ing as it does\\nonly to the (luestion of maintaining the rights due to the parent\\nI .it on, to 8\u00c2\u00ab t} that no injustice is done to the sovereignty of the\\njar. lit nation, it has no place in a consideration where we avow\\nlit t same time our purpose to strike down the power andsover-\\nt y of that nation in that connection.\\nMr. President, I would be glad if I could elaborate this subject,\\nbut it is manifest that I can not do so. I want to say one thing\\nmore. There never was a man who sat in the Presidential chair\\nluoro zealous of the Executive prerogative than Andrew Jackson,\\nniid here is what he said about it in bis message to Congress about\\nTexas. 1 can not read all of it, only a part of it:\\nIt Is to lx prosnmoil that nn no future occasion will a dispute arise, as\\nf-nrrr-.l, l ftween tlip F:xocutive and Legislature in the\\nrfC(.;, iiition. It will always be considered consistent\\nristitution, and ranst safe that itshould be exercised,\\nwar, with a previous understanding with that body\\nIk- declared, and by wh m all the provisions for sus-\\nIx* furnished. Its submission to Congress, which\\nl^ran.hes the States of this L nion and in the other\\n1 tin- L luLod States, whore there may bo reasonable ground to\\n1 grave a. c(.nse |Henco, would certainly afford the fullest satis-\\nr r wn country and a perfect guarantvto all other nations of the\\nju. iitc uiiU prudence of the measures which might bo adopted.\\nAnd thereafter he sent a message, the last message he ever sent\\nto Congress, in which he said he recognized the Republic of Texas\\nin resjionse to the resolution which had been passed by Congress,\\nr. fo-uizing it, as he said, as a decision of the question. Utter-\\naiK-. s to the same effect are found in other state papers, and the\\ndoctrine has been repeatedly asserted by Congress, and in one or\\ntlie other House thereof.\\nMr. President, aside from the suggestions which have been so\\nstrongly urged, that it is to our personal interest to recognize the\\nindependence of the Cubans, the merest justice requires that we\\nshould do 80.", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0008.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "There has never been a more heroic struggle for liberty than li;ir\\nbeen made by that pet)plo. There have never been greater sacri-\\nfices made by a people to obtain their liberty than have been made\\nby them. Thoy have not made the ordinary sacrifices that other\\ncontestants for liberty have made. Many of us in this Cliambrr\\nhave known what it was to face the dangers of battle, but no ono\\nhere has ever faced a danger of battle such as the Cuban patriots\\nthrough long years have faced. No man here has ever entered\\nbattle knowing tliat if he escaped the bullet and became a captive\\nhe would meet with death by execution. Yet that has been the\\ncase of the Cubans in their ten years war, as well as in the present\\nwar.\\nI read from the American Cyclop?edia, Volume V, page 555, as\\nto the execution of Cuban soldiers in five years between 18G8 and\\n1)H72, inclusive. I have not the records for the succeeding years of\\nthat war, or of the present war.\\nAccording toofticiul rojiorts forwarded from Madrid by the United States\\nminister, 13,0(K) Culjaus liad been killed in battle up to August, 187:i, besides\\n4; )(K) i)risoiicrs whom the Spanish minister admitted to have been put to\\ndeath.\\nJly God, Mr. President, can we turn our backs upon men who\\nhave shown si;ch heroism and such lieroic sacrihcel For one I\\nwill not, either by my voice or by my vote.\\nThe Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Pl.vtt] who has just taken\\nhis seat, sneers at Gomez. Mr. President, if there is a certain\\nfact, that fact is the independence of Cuba, and as certain as is\\nthe independence of Cuba, so certain will it be that in the future\\nthe name of this man Gomez will be foimd on the list of those im-\\nmortal names that were not born to die. It will go down in his-\\ntory with the names of Washington and Bolivar, the great libera-\\ntors of men from the bondage of tyranny and oppression.\\nMr. President, in the histories of peoples a time comes for sacri-\\nfice. Such a time seems now at hand. I doubt not that the North\\nis equally ready to make sacrifice with the South, but in the con-\\ndition of things the sacrifice to be made in this war must be more\\nserious in the South than in the North. The great volume of\\nmoney which is to be spent in carrying on this war will be spent\\nat the North and West and will quicken their industries.\\nWe have few or none of the factories at the South which will\\nmake the munitions of war necessary to furnish the clothing and\\nsupplies for the armies, nor are we the large producers of the\\nfood crops which will be needed to supply them. On the con-\\ntrary, our enterprises will be largely paralyzed by war, and our\\ngreat product of cotton is to be put to a price that will not only\\nnot be remunerative, but be an absolute disaster to the man who\\nproduces it.\\nIf communication with Cuba, through those who come and go,\\nbrings the yellow fever to our shores, the South will be the prin-\\ncipal sufferer from this cau-se. The first hostile gun that is fired\\nwill find its echoes in our hills and valleys. If disaster should by\\npossibility come, the seaports of the South will be those to bo\\nravaged.\\nNevertheless, Mr. President, our people will not be laggards in\\nthe struggle. But we do ask this: If we are to make this sacri-\\nfice, let it not be a sacrifice in the interests of the holders of the\\nSpanish bonds, but let it be a sacrifice in the interest of humanity.\\nIf this sacrifice has to be made, let it not be for the purjjose of iii-\\nvasion and comjuest, but let it be becau.se the great clock of tlie\\na;80", "height": "3645", "width": "2028", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0009.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "6\\nworld lias strnck the morning hour when there shall be born to in-\\ndepeudciico and freedom a new and heroic people.\\nThe VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Georgia has one\\nminute left of his time,\\nMt. bacon. Mr. President, I utilize that moment by asking\\nthat there may he read from the desk what I desire to have placed\\nin tho perniaiiont records as a piece of evidence relative to the\\n((ni stion whtthir tho Maine was hlown up by torpedoes furnished\\nbv the Spanish Government. I desire to call attention simply to\\nthe fact that what is to be read by the Secretary are extracts from\\ntwo Spanish nf^wspapers published in Madrid. One of them is an\\ninterview with the former minister of marine under the ministry\\nof Canovas, which, of course, preceded by several months the\\ntime of the explosicm of the Maine. The other is the comment of\\nthe Imparcial upon the publication of that interview, and express-\\ning regret for it for the reason that it might give rise to the very\\nuse winch I now make of it.\\nTho VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as requested.\\nThe Secretary read as follows:\\nMadrid. April il, ISOS.\\nEl ITeraliloDo M.atlrid pulilisbesan interview with Admiral Beranger, for-\\nmer minister of inariuo, in tho course of which he expressed hiscontidencein\\nthe nl.ility of tho Spanish navy to win in the event of a war with the United\\nI l .^m i no fear, said Admiral Beranprer, of onr Cuban ports being ex-\\n1 lit attack, inasmuch as Havana, Cienfuegos, Nuevitas, and San-\\nt I are defended by electric and automatic torpedoes with a large\\nI ::f n.\\nSofii.r Panovas del Castillo, who paid attention to these matters,\\nurd with invself to send to Cuba 190 torpedoes, whicJi must have\\n1- Ill those liarbors. Chacon, the well known torpedo expert, un-\\nuir;^ ic ;oc. .nvev and jilace these engines.\\nI have alroaily s;iid that by sea we shall bo victorious. I will give you\\nrny r :i- ns. The first is tho excellent discipline maintained on our ships;\\nt that on board the American vessels as soon as firing is opened,\\nt in, since it is common knowledge that their crews comprise\\n1 iy nationality. Pitted ship against ship, we have nothing to\\nKl Imparcial, commenting on this interview, says:\\nIMPARCIAL RKGRETS TOE CONFESSION\\nTliat those torpedoes should be sent in case war should break out is very\\nnatural: Imt that as inurh should be admitted at this moment constitutes a\\ntwi.i ..i iiiijirndcni e; in the tir.-^t place, because it warns the enemy, and the\\nwarned, it will do its best to cripple those defenses; and sec-\\ntho jinifiMvs. availing themselves of the evidence afforded by\\nt r of marine of tho late Sefior Canovas, will assert that one of the\\ntorpLJL.c.1 ho describes caused the Maine explosion.\\nDI.SCLSSIU.N IN THK SF.NATF. OF THE U.VITFD STATES, ArRII., inTH,\\nIHOS, O.N THE KKFIXT OF THE VOTE ON THE REPORT OF THE CON-\\nrrni:NrK committee on the cuban resolutions.\\nMr. r.AC ijN. I simply desire to say one thing. The Senator\\nfroiu Maine |Mr. IIai.e) and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.\\nSr t Nr.K| are evidently illuming themselves upon the fact that\\ntliey si din-d the jiassage of these resolutions. I want to call\\nnttontion to tho fact that neither the Senator from Maine nor the\\n{M-nntor from Wisconsin has ever voted for these resolutions, and\\nthe liEfoKi) will not show that they did.\\nMr. TELLER. They voted against the resolutions.\\nMr. IJACON. They voted against them every time, and there", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0010.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "is no place which either of the Senators can pnt his finj?er iipon to\\nsliow that he ever voted for the resolutions, and I will prove it\\nri j:ht here.\\nI\\\\Ir. HOAR. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me?\\nMr. BACON. Pardon me for a moment. Permit mo to com-\\nplete mv statement, and I will viold to the Senator with pleasure.\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER The Senator from Georgia de-\\nclines to yield.\\nMr. BACON. There has been but one occasion xipon which the\\nSenate has voted on the resolutions whicli finally passed tlie Sen-\\nate, and that was on Saturday last, wlien the identical resolu-\\ntions were passed by a vote of 07 yeas to 4?1 nays, the only differ-\\nence between the resolutions and those which came baciv from\\nthe House being the amendments to the first resolution. Tlio\\nfirst resolution related exclusively to the independence of Cuba,\\nand of the Rejiublic of Cuba. Now. t4:t first resolution, which is\\nthe only one that ever came into dispute, had no reference what-\\never to intervention or to any action on the part of this Govern-\\nment. It related exclusively to the simple question of the recog-\\nnition of the independence of the peo])le of Cuba and to the rec-\\nognition of the Republic of Cuba. The other resolutions are\\nthese, and I want to read them in order that the point may be\\nmade clear. I begin with the secor.d resolution that passed the\\nSenate on Saturday night last:\\nSecond. That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Gov-\\nernment of the Uniti d States does licreby demand, that the (lovernmont of\\nSpain at once rolmqnish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba\\nand withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters.\\nThii d. That the President of the United States be, and ho 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.\\nFourth. That the United States hereby di.sclaims any disposition or inten-\\ntion to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except\\nfor the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is ac-\\ncomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people.\\nI assert as a fact, and as a parliamentary fact, that the Senate\\nvoted on those three resolutions which I have read but once, and\\nthat was last Saturday night, and that upon that occasion there\\nwere G7 yeas and 21 nays, and the Senators who then voted in the\\nnegative have never had an opportunity since to vote in the\\naffirmative on it. and have never voted in the affirmative since.\\nMr. SPOONER. Mr. President\\nMr. BACON. Will the Senator from Wisconsin pardon me for\\na moment? Among those 21 nays are the names of the Senator\\nfrom Maine [Mr. H.\\\\leJ and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.\\nSpooner].\\nMr. SPOONER. That is right.\\nMr. BACON. The nays aro as follows\\nMr. SPOONER. That is ri^ht\\nMr. BACON. Pardon me. Tlie 21 nays who voted against\\nthose three resolutions, and who have never since voted for them,\\nand who will never again have an oi)portunity to vote for them,\\nare as follows:\\nWellington,\\nWelmoro,\\nWhite.\\nAldrich,\\nMale.\\nMorrill.\\nAllison,\\nHanna,\\nPiatt. Conn\\nBurrows,\\nliawley.\\nPiatt, X. V\\nCaflfery,\\n}Joar.\\nPritchard,\\nElkins,\\nMcBride.\\nSew ell.\\nFairbank.s.\\nMcMillan,\\nSpooner,\\n3l C0", "height": "3645", "width": "2028", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0011.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "That is the only reoor l that can be found up to the present date\\nwhc-re the iu-stion whether the Senate should or should not pass\\nthosi? thrt O resolutions was ever acted upon by the Senate, and\\nupon that occasion the twenty-one names wliich I have mentioned\\nwere re )rde(l in the ne;, ative.\\nMr. HOAR. Will theSenator yield to me for a moment?\\nMr. liAt ON. I will yield for a question, but I do not propose\\nto occupy the Hoor any length of time. I do not desire to yield\\nfor the purpo.se of a .speech.\\nMr. HOAK. I do not wish to make a speech and I do not want\\nexactly to i)ut a question. I want to rei)eat a verse of Dr. Watts.\\nMr. BA( (JN. I prefer that the Senator should indulge in his\\npoetical diversions in his own time and not in mine, and I object.\\nMr. HOAK. It is so exceedingly apt that 1 should like to do it\\nnow.\\nMr. BACON. I object to the Senator s proceeding.\\n1^1 r. HOAK. Of course, if\\nMr. IJACON. The Senator will have ample oppoi tunity. He\\nis gifted in that direction. He has very large resources. I prefer\\nthat he use his own time for that purpose.\\nMr. ALLISON. Will the Senator from Georgia yield to me for\\na question?\\nMr. BACON. Yes. sir; for a question.\\nMr. ALL1S(JN. What becomes of those who voted for the\\nthird reading of the joint resolution and its passage?\\nMr. BACON. The passage? The question of its passage was\\nnever before the Senate except that one time.\\nMr. ALLISON. Did it not i^ass the Senate after its third read-\\ning vesterdav?\\nMr. TELLER. Mr. COCKRELL, and others. No, no.\\nMr. SPOONER. Mr. President\\nMr. BACON. And the Record will not show it.\\nMr. COCKRELL. It was read the third time but once. No\\nmeasure ever is read the third time but once.\\nMr. SPO: )NEK. Could it possibly have become a law withotit\\nthe ailoption of the conference report by both Houses?\\nMr. BACON. Of course I am coming to that point. Yester-\\ndav the fpiestion was on the conference report.\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes.\\nMr. BACON. And so the conference report\\nMr. SPOONER. Could it ever possibly have become a law. I\\nask the Senator from Georgia, without the adoption in both\\nllonse.s of the conference report?\\nMr. COCKRELL. Yes; another conference could have been\\nordered and another conference report adopted.\\nMr. BAC( )N. I am coming to the conference report. The con-\\nference report had no relation whatever to either of the three\\nre.solutiDHs which I have read\u00e2\u0080\u0094 none whatever. The conference\\ncoinniittee luid no relation to that, and no vote upon the confer-\\nence report could have any relation or any reference to the\\nthree resolutions which I have read. I repeat that the Record\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nand everything tliat was done is in print can not show the place\\nwhere either of the twenty-one Senators whose names I have read\\never voted for either of these three resolutions.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Mr. TILLMAN. Yet the Senator from Maine now claims thev\\ndid.\\nMr. BAC 3N. Of course.", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0012.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "Mr. TELLER, I sujjgest to the Senator from Georj:;ia that of\\nthose three propositious the conference committee had uo possible\\ncharge.\\nMr. BACON. None on earth.\\nMr. COCKRELL. They conkl not touch them.\\nMr. BACON. It is a matter of elementary knowledge known\\nto every Senator here and to every tyro elsewlure that matters of\\ndifference between the two Houses are the only things which go\\ninto conference. Nobody can dispute that fact.\\nWhat was the difference between the two Houses? Was there\\nany difference between the two Houses as to the three resolutions\\nI have read? Not a particle. We passed a joint resolution here\\ncontaining those three resolutions, and our action so far as those\\nthree resolutions were concerned was final. The joint resolution\\nwent to the House, and the House passed the same three resolu-\\ntions without amendment, and their action as to those three reso-\\nlutions was final, and they had no further opportunity to act upon\\nthem. As to the first resolution\\nMt. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President\\nMr, BACON. Will the Senator from Indiana pardon me for a\\nmoment? I will then yield with pleasure.\\nAs to the first resolution, there were two differences. We had\\npassed the first resolution on Saturday last in these words:\\nThat the people of the Island of Cnba arc, and of ri^ht ought to lie, free\\nand independent, and that the Government of the United States hereby\\nrecognizes the Republic of Cuba as the true and lawful government of that\\niiiland.\\nThat is what we passed. When it went to the House, as to that\\nresolution, and that alone, the House made a disagreement. It\\nmade no disagreement as to either of the other three resolutions\\nor any part of them, any line or letter of them, but they did make\\na disagreement as to the \u00c2\u00a3rst resolution. They made two dis-\\nagreements. They said, in the first place, that the words are,\\nand ought to come out, so that it would simply read That the\\npeople of the Island of Cuba of right ought to be free. That\\nwas one difference. We said the words are, and ought to be in.\\nThey said they ought to be out.\\nAnother difference was that they said that part of it which rec-\\nognized the Republic of Cuba ought to come out. We said it\\nought to be in. There were two differences, and a conference com-\\nmittee was asked of the two Houses. For what? To pass on the\\nthree resolutions I have read? Certainly not. Each House had\\nagreed to them. The Senate had agreed to them, although the\\ntwenty-one gentlemen whose names I have mentioned voted against\\nthem, and the House had agreed to those three resolutions; but as\\nto the fii-st resolution there were two differences, and we had a\\nconference for the purpose of settling the differences on the first\\nresolution, and that alone.\\nNow, I repeat that it is a principle which no man can dispute\\nthat a conference committee has no jurisdiction over anything ex-\\ncept as to the differences between the two Houses, and that those\\ndifferences were such a.s I have here statod and related in no man-\\nner to anything else. Therefore when the conference committee\\nreported\\nMr. SPOONER. If my friend the Senator from Georgia will\\nallow me\\nMr. BACON. Permit me to complete the sentence. Therefore\\n326U", "height": "3645", "width": "2028", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0013.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "10\\nwlifii the conference committee reported, they could report noth-\\niu;^ bev \u00c2\u00bbn l their jurisdiction.\\nMr. SP(J( )NEK. Of course not.\\nJlr. BACON. Tliey attempted nothing heyond their jurisdic-\\ntion. Tlit-y simply attempted to compose the differences between\\nthe two Hou.ses, to comi)osc the differences as to those two amend-\\nments to the lirst resolution, and when thoy came in and when\\nwo refused to agree to the recommendation of the conference com-\\nmittee, we made no refusal as to the three resolutions with which\\nthey had nothing to do, and when we agreed to their recommen-\\ndation we did not agree to anything which related to the three\\nresolutions with which thoy had nothing to do.\\nMr. SPOONER. My friend the Senator from Georgia, who is\\nnot only very able, but always frank, will agree that whatever\\nmeasure may be passed by the two Houses of Congress, whether\\nthere may be one resolution or two or three or four or ten, wlien\\nas to one of them there arises a difference, none can become\\neffective without an agreement as to that difference. If there is\\na deadlock between the two Houses as to a single difference con-\\ncerning one of a dozen resolutions, it kills the whole business.\\nMr, BACON. Unless there is a final agreement, of course.\\n31 r. SPOONER. I say if there is a failure to agree.\\nMr. COCKRELL. There was no failure to agree. It went right\\nback into conference.\\nMr. BACON. When the Senator from Wisconsin wishes to ask\\nme a question, I am glad to yield, but I do not think he ought to\\nstop me to argue the matter.\\nMr. SPOONER. That is right.\\nMr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President-\\nMr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senator from Georgia\\nMr. BACON. Tiie Senator from Indiana some time ago asked\\nme to yield, and I now yield to him.\\nMr. FAIRBANKS. I ask the Senator from Georgia whether or\\nnot a vote in favor of concurrence in the final conference report\\nwas not in eft ect a vote for the various resolutions to which the\\nSenator has just alluded?\\nMr. BACON. It might have been in spirit; it was not in fact.\\nMr. FAIRBANKS. Was not a vote for or against concurrence\\nin the final conference report in efl ect a vote for or against the\\nresolutions?\\nMr. BACON. No; bv no means.\\nMr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President\\nMr. BACON. The Senator will pardon^ jne for just a moment.\\nIt was by no means, as 1 was ondea\\\\ oring to show when I yielded\\nto the Senator from Wisconsin. The conference committee has\\nno jurisdiction outside of the differences between the two Houses,\\ntlie matter in difference between the two Houses. Their report\\ncan cover notliing except as to matters of difference between the\\ntwo Houses; and therefore, inexorably, our vote can not have ref-\\nerence to anything except as to matters in difference between the\\ntwo Houses.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Mr. SP(JONER. Unless it is composed, the whole business\\ndrojis.\\n.M r. P..\\\\Ct )N. I yield now to the Senator from New Hampshire.\\nM r. CHAN DLEK. I should like to ask the Senator from Geor-\\ng-a t.) state liero why lie and I and other Senators voted not to\\nconcur in tlie House amendments?", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0014.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "11\\nMr. SPOONER. I riso to a point of order. I do not exactly\\nknow how the Senator from Georgia can tell why the Senator from\\nNew Hampshire did anything,\\nMr. BACON. I will state why I did, and will leave out tho\\nSenator from New Hampshire.\\nMr. CHANDLER. Ihat does not concern tho Senator from\\nWisconsin.\\nMr. SPOONER. If the Senator from New Hampshire\\nMr. CHANDLER. The Senator from Geor.i,na and I had a com-\\nmon purpose in those votes, and I propose to ask the Senator a\\nquestion about it, if the Senator from Wisconsin will let me.\\nMr. SPOONER. Mr. President\\nMr. CH^ySTDLER. If tho Senator from Wisconsin would not\\ninterrupt me except with my consent, I would be very much\\noblin;ed to him.\\nMr. SPOONER. I beg pardon.\\nMr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senator what the assumed motive\\nwas in voting to nonconcur in the House amendments?\\nMr. SPOONER. I rise to a parliamentary inquirv.\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator fro m Wisconsin\\nwill state it.\\nMr. SPOONER. I should like to ask the Senator from New\\nHampshire, if it will not be an unparliamentary interruption,\\nwhat he means by an assumed motive as a basis?\\nMr. BACON. I will ask that both Senators will\\nMr. CHANDLER. If the Senator from Wisconsin is done and\\nwill kindly sit down, I will go on with my business.\\nMr. SPOONER. I will sit down when the Senator answers tho\\nquestion.\\nMr. BACON. Mr. President, I claim the floor.\\nMr. TILLMAN. If the Senator from Georgia will\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has\\nthe floor.\\nMr. TILLMAN. Mr. President\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has\\nthe floor.\\nMr. BACON. It is very much easier for each gentleman to\\nargue in his own time\\nMr. TILLMAN. I am merely trying to answer the Senator\\nfrom Wisconsin.\\nMr. CHANDLER. I will ask the Senator\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia\\nyield to the Senator from New Hampshire?\\nMr. BACON, Yes, if I may yield to him alone.\\nMr. SPOONER. Mr. President\\nMr. BACON. But I see that that contingency has already fallen\\nthrough,\\nMr, SPOONER, Mr. President\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must sustain the right\\nto tho floor of the Senator who has it. The Senator from Georgia\\nhas the floor, and he yields to tho Senator from New Hampshire\\nfor a question.\\nMr, SPOONER, Mr. President\\nMr. CHANDLER. I do not yield to the Senator from Wiscon-\\nsin.\\nMr. SPOONER. I have not asked the Senator to.\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hamp-\\nshire declines to yield,\\no2r.O", "height": "3645", "width": "2028", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0015.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "12\\nMr. CDANDLER. I will ask ray question of the Senator from\\nGforKia in an^.ther form. Was it not the object in voting not to\\nrnncnr in the Hou.se anienflments to .secure, if possible, action by\\ntill- III. use receding from those amendments?\\nI^Ir. BACON. Most undoubtedly. It could have been nothing\\ncl. ^e.\\nMr. CH ANDLER. Was not that the object of every vote agamst\\nconcurring and in favor of insisting?\\nMr. HA( )X. Undoubtedly.\\nMr. CHANDLER. Then I will ask the Senator this question:\\nWheth.T, no matter how long that voting continued, tlfe object\\nand purpose of it was not the same\u00e2\u0080\u0094 to secure, if possible, the ac-\\ntion of the House receding from those amendments?\\nMr. BACON. The purpose in each case was to secure the action\\nwhich wc had originally taken, and to embody that as law, which\\naction was tlie only part about which there was any difference,\\nand which action was one relating exclusively to the question of\\nthe independence of the people of Cuba and of the Republic of\\nCuba.\\nMr. President. I did not ri.se with any expectation\u00e2\u0080\u0094 I am occu-\\npvitig the floor bv the courtesy of the Senator from Missouri\\nMr, COCKRELL. Proceed.\\nMr. BACON. I rose with no expectation of occupying so much\\nt ime. I desired to call attention from the Record to the fact that\\ntlie Senat(.rs who now claim that they alone passed the joint reso-\\nlution, that tho.se who have occupied the floor of the Senate for\\nthis purpose, have had but one opportunity to vote for the resolu-\\ntion, and that then, so far from availing themselves of that oppor-\\ntuiiitv, the RiX ORD shows they voted against it.\\nMr! SPOONER. Will my friend the Senator from Georgia\\nallow me to interrupt him for a moment?\\n:^Ir. liACON. For a question?\\nMr. SPO(3NER. No.\\nMr. BAC( )N. Then I decline to yield.\\nMr. SPOONER. The Senator does me injustice if he imputes\\nto me the jiosition or declaration that I voted for these resolutions.\\nMr. MONEY. The Senator from Georgia says the Senator from\\nWisconsin did not.\\nMr. SP(,)ONER. I have not said that I voted for the resolu-\\ntiims.\\nMr. BAC( )N. Very well.\\nMr. SPOONER. 1 do not want the Senator\\nMr. 15A( )N. I will take it back, if the Senator admits he did\\nnot. If ho admits that he did not, what I said does not apply to\\nhim.\\nMr. SPOONER. Of course, when these resolutions\\nMr. BA( )N. Now, Mr. President\\nMr. SPO()NER. If my friend will i\u00c2\u00bbermit me as a matter of\\nfuirne.-.s, I will state that when these resolutions were before the\\nSfiiate I did not vote for tl .em.\\nMr. BA( )N. The Ri;c HiD shows that the Senator did not.\\nMr. SIM )NI:R. I voted against them.\\nMr. B.\\\\( )N. So the RixoKD shows.\\nMr. Sl OoNKR. I voted against the first one becaiase I regarded\\nit as a legislative falsehood, declaring a fact which 1 did not be-\\nlieve tu be a fact.\\nMr. B.\\\\C(JN. I voted for it because I regarded it as a legisla-\\ntive truth.", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0016.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "13\\nMr. 8P00NER. I voteil against the last one, wliicli is what is\\ncalled an ultimatum, upon the jrround\u00e2\u0080\u0094 I may have been mistaken,\\nbut 1 was sincere about it, and as Rood a friend of Cuba, too,\\nas my friend the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. ChandlekJ,\\nnot talkini? so much about it. however\\nMr. BACON. Mr. President\\nMr. SPOONER. Pardon me for a moment.\\nMr. BACUN. I thought the Senator from Wisconsin was\\nthroui^h.\\nI*Ir. SPOONER. No. I did that because I believed it was not\\na function of Congress to declare an ultimatum against a foreign\\ngovernment, and that it was in no .sense a law. But when the time\\ncame that there was an agreement on the main proposition be-\\ntween the two Houses and a disagreement as to one point, even\\nthough, if it had been left to me, I would not have voted for it, I\\nyielded.\\nMr. BACON. But the Senator never had the second oppor-\\ntunity to vole for it.\\nMr. SPOONER. Wait a moment. I yielded. I voted at the\\nend, when the conference committee had reported an agreement,\\nfor the report in order to compose the dilTerences, in order to bring\\nabout a legislative adjustment between the two Houses, when I\\nfeared there might be no other way. In a sense I voted for some-\\nthing which I did not believe. I voted for something which I had\\ndenounced upon the floor of the Senate; and I did it not because I\\nam fond of swallowing, or am willing to do so ordinarily, my own\\nwords, or in any sense stultifying myself; but I did it\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and I thank\\nmy friend the Senator from Georgia for permitting me to say it\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nbecause I regarded it as a great and momentous transaction. I\\nthought small differences of opinion ought not to hold us apart, and\\nthat we should, if it were possible to do it, come to an agreement\\nthat something might emanate from the legislative department to\\nthe President, that the reconcentrados who were starving might\\nbe relieved, and that the people who claim to love Cuba so much\\nmight afford the President an opportunity to aid Cuba.\\nMr. BACON. I want to make two remarks in regard to what\\nthe Senator has just said. In the first place, I have labored with\\nconsiderable earnestness to prove that the Senator has never voted\\nfor these three important resolutions. 1 think I have proved it;\\nand in the second place the Senator has admitted it that he never\\ndid.\\nMr. SPOONER. If the Senator\\n]\\\\Jr. BACON. I object to the Senator taking me entirely off\\nthe floor. _\\nMr. SPOONER. If the Senator will allow me one moment, I\\nwill not interrupt him again.\\nThe PRESIDING- OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia\\nyield to the Senator from Wisconsin?\\nMr. BACON. I said I was going to make two remarks, and he\\nhas allowed me to make one. I will repeat the lir.st one, as the\\nSenator was engaged in the conference he was having with the\\nSenator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoarJ, and possibly did not\\nhear it. I said that I had labored with considerable earnestness\\nto endeavor to prove that the Senator from Wisconsin had never\\nvoted for the three important resolutions.\\nMr. SPOONER. I admit it. o v,\\nMr. BACON. And I went on to say, which the Senator did not\\n32C0", "height": "3645", "width": "2028", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0017.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "14\\nhcar.anfl which I am now repeating? for his benefit, that I had not\\noiilv i.rovea it. Imt that the Senator now admitted it.\\nMr. SP( )ONEK. I admitted it from the beginning.\\nMr. BACCJN. Very well.\\nThe second remark I desire to make in regard to the Senator s\\nremarks during the interrxipti m is this: The Senator in the course\\nof his interject ion. and in the latter part of it, went on to say why-\\nhe had voted for the resolutions, although he did not agree with\\nthem. I say the Senator is mistaken. He never voted for them.\\n]\\\\Ir. SPO( )NER. I never said I did.\\n]\\\\Ir. BACON. I think the Record will show that the Senator\\ndid.\\nMr. SPOONER. I said I voted for the conference report, Avhich,\\nif adopted, would adopt the three resolutions for which 1 had not\\nvoted.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator i8 entirely wrong. The conference\\nreport had no reference to these three resolutions, and if there is\\nanything which can be demonstrated in logic it has been demon-\\nstrated and need not be repeated, that the conference report had\\nnf. thing to do with these three resolutions, because there was no\\ndifference between the two Houses on the three resolutions. The\\nconference report was limited to the differences on the first reso-\\nlution.\\nMr. SPOONER. How could they have been passed without an\\nagreement to some conference rei^ortV\\nMr. BACON. The conference report simply related to those\\ndifferences as to\\nMr. Si OONER rose.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator will certainly permit me to make a\\nstatement without interrupting me before I got through a sentence\\neven. The trouble is, the Senator is engaged in a colloquy, and\\nin the midst of a number of his advisers around he does not hear\\nwhat I reply, and then he makes an interruption which relates to\\nsomething 1 did not sav.\\nMr. SPOONER. I did not utter a word. I simi)ly shook my\\nfinger.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator shook it in a way so that I thought\\npossibly it might go off. The proposition is a plain one, that the\\ntime when the Senate passed upon these three resolutions, which\\nhave probably now become a law by the signature of the President,\\nwas on the evening of Saturday, the Itith day of April; that the\\nSenate voted upon^hein then, and has never voted upon them at\\nany other time.\\nMr. FAIRBANKS. If the Senator from Georgia will allow me\\n.just a (juestion, I will ask him whether the resolutions which have\\nnow probably become a law would have become a law except\\nin i)ursnance of the vote found on page 44G1 of the Congres-\\nsional Record?\\nMr. BACON. The question which the Senator from Indiana\\nasks mo is, in sitbstance, exactly the same question that the Sena-\\ntor from Wisconsin asked me, and which I was trying to answer\\nat the time when the Senator from Indiana interrupted me for the\\npurpose of asking it again. It is necessary to have a logical se-\\n(lueiico in a statement of a proposition, and before I can get to the\\nc(3nclus;on tho Senator repeats identically the same question. I\\nwa.s coming exactly to the (juestion as to w^hat was the effect of\\ntlje vote of last night, if the Senator will permit me to get that\\nfar.\\na:. 00", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0018.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "15\\nMr FAIRBANKS. I am wiUin- that the Senator should an-\\nRwPr ono incniirv or the other. Either will satisfy lue.\\nYlr B VCON^ I will certainly do so if tlie S^Muitor will give ino\\nanoppoHunity.at least to the best of my abihty; whether satis-\\nfactorily to others or not, they must ]udu 0.\\nI reneat the proposition in order to state it properly. The only\\ntimrtKethrJo resolutions which relate to intervention in Cuba\\nL.^e ever boon passed upon by the Senate was Saturday evemng;\\ntlmt thronly diirerences between the two Houses were as to the\\nfiSt resoli^t ion i-elatinir entirely to the matter of independence,\\n^nd t itt thev did not relate in any manner to either of those tlireo\\np??posu\\\\onsTthat\u00c2\u00b0tipon those differences the -n \u00c2\u00abjnce c^^^^^^^\\ntee was appointed, wliose duties were limited to those dim rences\\nwho e?epoXmust havebeea limited to those differences, and that\\nvhe?itc^imftothe Senate for a vote the votes were limited to\\ntboS differences. In other words, when we had the vote last\\nni-ht we dkl not vote for these three resolut .ons in any manner\\nSfeectlv or indirectly. We could not change them. Our action\\n\u00c2\u00abi to theS h d been final. The action of the House as to them\\n\u00c2\u00a3ad beertina We could not amend them. The House cou d not\\namend them The conference committee could not amend them.\\nM? f uRbSks^ wIII the Senator allow me t^o a^c h;m a\\nnuest\\\\on^ Woiild the ioint resolution have gone to the T resident\\nfor his signature and have become a law without the vote of last\\nMr BlCON. Mostnndoubtedlynot: and if the Senator had\\npermitted me. that was the next step which 1 was about to take\\ntl FlmSNKrS ask the Senator, then, if the joint resolu-\\nticmwoillnofha?ebecomealaw\\nvvhether he aided in making it a law by his vote aga nst it.^\\nilr B \\\\CON If we had prevailed, it would have become a law\\n.iust ihe same. Those three resolutions would have become a\\n\\\\V^ #n^VMr%POOXER Mr. CULLOM. and others. Oh, no!\\na;--1?c\u00c2\u00a7N iS^xol^^^^^^^^ pardon. Possibly I might\\nhe alioTvedVo state aVoposition before the Senators enter their\\niudgment and verdict finally. n t f^ f o+ lihprtv to\\nMr. SPOONER. It was so plain a case that I fe.t at libeitj to\\ndo it.\\nMr E lCON Tlv?c^fferences between the two Houses rehjted\\nexclush-eiy to he first resolution. If we had prevailed he mat-\\nters S which the House objected would ^l^i^f J A^^t\\\\er\\nin ,it resolution and it would have become law ^yltll that 1^61\\nnt So the^oint resolution would not have been defeated it\\nwe hid prevailed I am speaking about the Turpie amendment.\\nOn he other h?nd when the Turpie amendment was not per-\\n,i-iP7if l^nt under our action, whichever side pievaiieu. int luilc\\nSSolutimis wouM have become law, just as they have becoino\\nNow, Mr. President, one other word and I will stop, iue bui", "height": "3645", "width": "2028", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0019.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "LIBKRKY Uh CUNbKLbb\\nll illllllilllllllllllll\\n013 785 907 5\\n16\\nator from ]\\\\Iaine in the course of his remarks twitted the Senator\\nfrom ^Missouri with the fact that tlie Democrats in the House had\\nvoted in the affirmative on the conference report and the Demo-\\ncrats in the Senate had voted in the negative on the conference\\nreport. I desire to point, I think with perfect ease, to the fact\\nthat in each case the Democrats, both in the Senate and the House,\\nvoted for the accomplishment of practically the same purpose.\\nWhen the House agreed to the conference report, they had no vote\\nto make on the Turpie amendment, becaiise they had never agreed\\nto the Turpie amendment. Consequently, it not having been\\nrecommended that they should agree to that amendment, it was\\nnot before them in any way. Tlie House had stricken out the\\nwords are and, and they were called upon by the conference\\nreport to restore those words. Now, when they voted to restore\\nthose words, they voted that the resolutions should declare\\nMr. H(JAR. Who has stricken them oiit?\\nMr. BACON. Pardon me a moment. When they voted to re-\\nstore the words are and they voted that the declaration should\\nread that the people of Cuba are and of right oxight to be free.\\nConseqiiently their vote in that instance was in the interest of\\nthe independence of Cuba.\\nOn the other hand, when the report came to the Senate for our\\naction, we had nothing to do with the voting on the question as to\\nrestoration of those words, because we had already put them in\\nand we were not called upon to restore them. What wo were\\ncalled upon to do was to recede from the proposition that the Re-\\npublic of Cuba should be recognized as free and independent:\\nand when we voted nay, we voted in the interest of the inde-\\npendence also of the Ciiban Republic.\\nSo, while the House voted in the affirmative on the conference\\nreport, they voted in the interest of the independence of Cuba; and\\nin the Senate, while we voted in the negative on the conference re-\\nport, we equally voted in the interest of the independence of Cuba.\\nThey voted on one proposition and we voted on another, and both\\npropositions were included in the conference report.\\nC-2IJ0", "height": "3656", "width": "1924", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0020.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\ni ii||| ill nil 1 1 Mil\\nI III III!\\n013 785 907 5 P\\nHollinger Corp.\\npH8.5", "height": "3682", "width": "2278", "jp2-path": "recognitionofcub00baco_0022.jp2"}}