204 



CONGRESS. (CUBAN AFFAIRS.) 



trality on the 13th of May following, before it had 

 received official information that war existed, ex- 

 cept as a blockade of certain insurgent ports. The 

 French Government acted in concert with Great 

 Britain, but delayed the official announcement 

 until June. The Spanish Government issued its 

 proclamation of belligerency June 17, and the first 

 battle of our war was not fought until July 21, or 

 known at Madrid until August. 



" In this great instance the outbreak of insurrec- 

 tion and the recognition of belligerency were simul- 

 taneous. The United States protested against the 

 precipitancy of the act, and have never admitted 

 its justice or legality. Neither in 1869 nor in 1895 

 did the President enforce the precedent against 

 Spain in regard to the insurrection in Cuba. Not 

 even in 1875, when the insurgents held possession 

 of a great part of the island and seacoast, with no 

 restraint but the blockade, did the United States 

 recognize their belligerency. 



" Yet belligerency is a question of fact, and if 

 declared at all it should be declared whenever the 

 true character of neutrality requires it or the exi- 

 gencies of law need it. The nature of such action 

 may be political or legal, or both. As a political 

 act, impartiality requires that belligerency should 

 be recognized whenever, existing in fact, its denial 

 is equivalent to taking- part with one of the bellig-' 

 erents against the other. In such cases the unrec- 

 ognized belligerent has just ground for complaint. 

 The moral support of the neutral government is 

 given wholly to its opponent. That the Cuban in- 

 surgents were belligerents in fact as early as 1869 

 was expressly stated by Mr. Fish when he explained 

 the meaning he attached to his phrase regarding 

 ' the civil war now ravaging the island.' The word 

 ' war ' in such conditions necessarily implies the 

 fact of belligerency. President Cleveland, in his 

 annual message of last month, informs us that the 

 present war is more active than the preceding one. 

 " Nevertheless, our Government has still re- 

 frained from what Mr. Fish called ' any public 

 recognition of belligerent rights to the insurgents.' 

 No legal necessity arose to require it, and the po- 

 litical exigency was not absolute. Yet, after the 

 victory of Bayamo, in the month of July last, when 

 the insurgents defeated and nearly captured the 

 Captain General, Martinez Campos, and gained 

 military possession of the whole eastern half of 

 the island, the fact of their belligerency was estab- 

 lished ; and if further evidence was needed it was 

 fully given by the subsequent victory at Coliseo, on 

 Dec. 24, when the insurgents drove the Captain Gen- 

 eral back to Havana and gained military control 

 of the western provinces. 



" If the Government of the United States still re- 

 frained from recognizing the belligerency of the 

 insurgents after this conclusive proof of the fact, 

 the reason doubtless was that in the absence of any 

 legal complications the question became wholly po- 

 litical, and that its true solution must lie not in a 

 recognition of belligerency, but in a recognition of 

 independence. 



' In 1875, when the situation was very far from 

 being as serious as it is now, President Grant, after 

 long consideration of the difficulties involved in 

 public action, decided against the recognition of 

 belligerency as an act which might be delusive to 

 the insurgents, and would certainly be regarded as 

 unfriendly by Spain. He decided upon a middle 

 course. The documents above quoted show that he 

 proposed to the Spanish Government a sort of in- 

 tervention which should establish the independence 

 of Cuba by a friendly agreement. In doing so he 

 not only necessarily recognized both parties to the 

 conflict as on an equal plane, but he also warned 

 Spain that if such mediation should not be ac- 



cepted, direct intervention would probably be a 

 necessity on the part of the United States. 



" Spain preferred to promise to the insurgents 

 terms so favorable as to cause for a time the cessa- 

 tion of hostilities. Since then twenty years have 

 passed. The insurrection, far from having ceased, 

 has taken the proportions of a war almost as de- 

 structive to our own citizens as to the contending 

 parties. The independence of Cuba was then re- 

 garded by the President of the United States as 

 the object of his intervention, and has now become 

 far more inevitable than it was then. Evidently 

 the Government of the United States can do no 

 less than to take up the subject precisely where 

 President Grant left it, and to resume the friendly 

 mediation which he actually began, with all the 

 consequences which would follow its rejection.'' 



The committee reported, Feb. 5, a substitute for 

 the majority resolutions given above. It read : 



"Resolved by the Senate (the House of Repre- 

 sentatives concurring), That in the opinion of Con- 

 gress a condition of public war exists between the 

 Government of Spain and the government pro- 

 claimed and for some time maintained by force of 

 arms by the people of Cuba ; and that the United 

 States of America should maintain a strict neu- 

 trality between the contending powers, according 

 to each all the rights of belligerents in the ports 

 and territory of the United States." 



Debate began Feb. 20, when speeches in favor of 

 the resolution were made by Senators Call, Cam- 

 eron, Lodge, and Morgan. 



Senator Call, of Florida, after reviewing the his- 

 tory of revolt in Cuba in recent years and giving 

 reports from the United States consul at Santiago 

 as to the status of the insurrection, said : 



" And the statements from this consul go on up 

 to the present time, showing almost every day a 

 battle between the insurgent forces and the armed 

 and regular forces of Spain, and they exhibit the 

 fact that in all these cases he reports victories on 

 the part of the insurgent forces, contrary to the re- 

 ports which we see in the newspapers of Spanish 

 engagements, and he reports that the people of 

 Cuba are unanimous that in these different con- 

 tests they have maintained by force of arms their 

 superiority and their control of the island. These 

 facts are to be found in this diplomatic correspond- 

 ence of the consul of the United States at Santiago 

 de Cuba. 



" Mr. President, if this be so and that is the in- 

 formation we have from a reliable authority, from 

 our own consular agent, giving dates, giving num- 

 bers, and giving the circumstances that surround 

 the case and confirming his statements I ask the 

 question : Spain having acknowledged the bellig- 

 erent rights of the Southern Confederacy, and Eng- 

 land having acknowledged the belligerent rights of 

 the Southern Confederacy in its very inception, we 

 having acknowledged the sovereign right of the 

 new Government of France in the very first days 

 of its existence, having these examples before our 

 eyes of the action of our own Government in recog- 

 nizing the independence of the revolted Spanish 

 colonies, what reason can we now give for with- 

 holding our recognition of the independence of 

 Cuba, when we see that blood is running from the 

 cruel and brutal outrages committed upon the 

 people of Cuba for the purpose of suppressing by 

 cruelty, and not by force of arms, what? Their 

 aspirations for freedom under the lessons we have 

 taught and the advice we have given to them. 



" What grounds of public policy are there to be 

 considered in this matter? Can Spain preserve 

 her dominion of Cuba? We have said for many 

 years that she can not. Is it to her interest that 

 she should continue this terrible war f Is it to our 



