202 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



' little ' but no ' prospect of a termination of 

 the struggle.' And it is to be noticed, espe- 

 cially, that the resolutions proposed follow the 

 specifications of Mr. Adams in another essen- 

 tial point that it contemplates a continuance 

 of the struggle on the land, and not 'upon the 

 ocean.' It is perfectly within the power of 

 the Government to maintain the neutrality of 

 the United States within this limit under the 

 resolutions for which we ask the favor of the 

 House. 



" But, while the resolutions are thus within 

 the almost bloodless schedule of 'facts' pre- 

 scribed by Mr. Adams, it is gratifying to know 

 that they approach at least the elevated stand- 

 ard of action which this Government has hith 

 erto adopted whenever and wherever the cause 

 of liberty has been involved. 



"The' principles which have governed the 

 American people in cases of this character are 

 stated by Mr. Webster in his letter, as Secretary 

 of State, to the representative of the empire 

 of Austria, at Washington. December 21, 1850. 

 No State paper was ever more enthusiastically 

 or unanimously approved by the American peo- 

 ple than the 'Hulsemann letter.' 



" It carries us back to the doctrines of the 

 founders of our Government. It recalls tho 

 declaration of Phillimore, the ablest of English 

 commentators on international law, that the 

 right of a Government to protect its citizens 

 wherever commorant, and the right of one 

 Government to recognize the existence of 

 another, constitute the foundation of the law 

 of nations. It is the American protest against 

 the doctrines of the Holy Alliance, as expressed 

 in the Lay bach circular, that new States could 

 only be tolerated when recognized by existing 

 Governments. Had Mr. Webster only lived 

 to make this declaration, his life would have 

 been a victory. 



'' 'It is the right of every independent State," 

 said Mr. Webster, ' to enter into friendly rela- 

 tions with every other independent State. Of 

 course questions of prudence naturally arise in 

 reference to new States, brought by successful 

 revolution into the family of nations ; but it is 

 not to be required of neutral powers that they 

 should await the recognition of the new Gov- 

 ernment by the parent State. No principle 

 of public law has* been more frequently acted 

 upon within the last thirty years by the great 

 powers of the world than this. Within that 

 period eight or ten new States have estab- 

 lished independent Governments within the 

 limits of the colonial dominion of Spain on 

 this continent ; and in Europe the same thing 

 has been done by Belgium and Greece. The 

 existence of all these Governments was recog- 

 nized by some of the leading powers of Eu- 

 rope, as well as by the United States, before 

 it was acknowledged by the States from which 

 they had separated themselves. If, therefore, 

 the United States had gone so far as to acknowl- 

 edge the independence of Hungary, although, 

 as the result has proved, it would have been a 



precipitate step, and one from whicli no benefit 

 would have resulted to either party, it would 

 not, nevertheless, have been an act against 

 the law of nations, provided they took no part 

 in her contest with Austria.' (Works of Daniel 

 Webster, vol. vi., pp. 498, 499.) 



" These are indisputable American doctrines ; 

 but we do not go so far as to ask the House to 

 apply them in the case of Cuba. 



" Mr. Canning said, upon the same subject, in 

 the House of Commons, February 4, 1825, that, 

 " as to the propriety of admitting States, which 

 had successfully shaken off their dependence 

 on the mother-country, to the rights of nations, 

 there could be no dispute. There were two 

 ways of proceeding: were the case more ques- 

 tionable, recklessly and with a hurried course 

 to the object, Avhich might soon be reached, or 

 almost as soon lost; or by another course, so 

 strictly guarded that no principle was violated 

 and no offence given to other powers.' (Han- 

 sard's 'Parliamentary Debates,' second series, 

 vol. xii., p. 78.) 



" ' It is not by formal stipulations or solemn 

 declarations,' said Sir James Mackintosh, in 

 speaking of the proposed acknowledgment of 

 the Spanish-American colonies by Great Brit- 

 ain, ' that we are to recognize the American 

 States, but by measures of practical policy, 

 the most 'conspicuous part of which is the act 

 of sending or receiving diplomatic agents. It 

 implies no guarantee. No alliance, no aid, no 

 approbation of the successful revolt, no inti- 

 mation of an opinion concerning the justice 

 or injustice of the means by which it has been 

 accomplished. The tacit recognition of a new 

 State, not being a judgment of the new Gov- 

 ernment or against the old, is not a deviation 

 from a perfect neutrality, or a just cause of 

 offence to the dispossessed ruler.' (Mackin- 

 tosh's Works, p. 749.) 



" But we do not ask the assent of the House 

 to such self-evident and patriotic doctrines. We 

 ask only that in the armed contest in Cuba, 

 the existence of which it would be a crime to 

 question, the neutrality of the United States 

 shall be proclaimed and enforced. We ask for 

 Cuba nothing but justice ; that justice which, 

 it is said, is the chief concern of mankind." 



Mr. Orth, of Indiana, said : " Mr. Speaker, 

 the report of the minority recommends the 

 adoption of a permanent foreign policy for the 

 future, in reference to contests that may spring 

 up on the American Continent, or in the ad- 

 jacent islands, between the colonies and the 

 parent Governments. That policy is this: 

 that in all such contests we shall say through 

 our national Legislature that our Government 

 and citizens shall not take any part whatever. 



" If struggles arise, we are to remain strict- 

 ly neutral between the contending parties. 

 Should any of the British provinces, for in- 

 stance, revolt against the home Government, 

 it is not our interest or our duty to lend them 

 any assistance; and so, on the other hand, 

 should Great Britain attempt to subjugate the 



