206 



CONGRESS. (CUBAN AFFAIRS.) 



of our sufferings and of our wrongs, wrongs to our 

 own people which have been inflicted upon them 

 through the cruelties of Spanish dominion in Cuba, 

 is a record which, if it were written up consecutive- 

 ly, would astonish the world." 



Senator Platt asked : 



" Does the Senator understand that the passage 

 of the pending concurrent resolution by the two 

 Houses without its sanction by the President 

 amounts to anything? Does he understand that it 

 amounts to a recognition of belligerent rights?" 



Senator Morgan said : 



"I think it does, if the concurrent resolution is 

 adopted. I do not deny the delicacy of that ques- 

 tion, nor do I deny the fact that we have never set- 

 tled it by a statute in the United States. That 

 question is left open simply as a constitutional 

 question, and the measure of the rights of Congress 

 and of the President of the United States in respect 

 to it is found only in the Constitution. What the 

 proper interpretation of that instrument is as bear- 

 ing upon the particular right or matter that the 

 Senator from Connecticut suggests is something 

 not really necessary in this debate, because the 

 form of the resolution is not such as to evoke the 

 question. 



" Nevertheless, if it becomes necessary, or if the 

 Senate of the United States desires to pass a resolu- 

 tion of the actual recognition of the independence of 

 Cuba on this occasion, then we would have to give 

 consideration necessarily to the question whether a 

 recognition by a concurrent vote of the two Houses 

 would be a full recognition or whether the President 

 of the United States must participate in the act be- 

 fore it becomes a full recognition. 



" I will refer the Senator again to the language 

 of this resolution, which has been very carefully 

 drawn. If he will refer to that language I think 

 he will discover that the action of the House and 

 Senate, if the resolution shall be adopted just as 

 it is, amounts to an absolute and irrevocable de- 

 claration in favor of belligerency and neutrality, 

 and in favor of the Republic of Cuba." 



Mr. Platt : " Then the question arises whether 

 the two Houses can do that?" 



Mr. Morgan: " Then that would be a question as 

 to whether the two Houses in passing a bill have 

 the right to instruct the President of the United 

 States as the Commander in Chief of the Army 

 and Navy to see that its will in regard to war is 

 executed, and that would throw it back to where I 

 suggested when I first set out to a question which, 

 not being regulated by statute, as it ought to be 

 regulated by statute, is a question which must look 

 for its solution alone to the Constitution of the 

 United States ; and there is no other source of law 

 or power and no regulator in that case except the 

 Constitution of the United States." 



Mr. Platt: "I wish to say that I think there is, 

 to say the least, very great doubt as to whether the 

 action of the two Houses alone can change in any 

 sense our relation with other countries." 



Mr. Morgan : " Perhaps the Senator from Con- 

 necticut will be prepared to admit that there is 

 still greater doubt as to whether the action of the 

 President of the United States, Congress being in ' 

 session, can change the relation of the people of the 

 United States to Spain. There might, be still 

 greater doubt. It is a question, after all, that has 

 to be settled, I will remark again, by a proper con- 

 sideration of the bearing of the Constitution of the 

 United States upon it ; and there is no other law 

 that controls it." 



Mr. Frye : " What is the Senator's own opinion ? " 



Mr. Morgan: " My opinion is that Congress has 

 the perfect, independent, absolute right to make this 

 recognition of belligerency or a declaration of inde- 



pendence, and if it is necessary to enforce it by any 

 military movement at sea or on land, it has the 

 right to command the Commander in Chief of the 

 Army and Navy to go on the field if it is necessary 

 and in person to see to the execution of that order. 

 That is my opinion." 



The subject was debated further Feb. 24. Sen- 

 ator White, of California, offered a resolution as a 

 substitute, expressing sympathy with the Cubans 

 and trust that the executive department would 

 recognize their belligerency as soon as the facts 

 should warrant, and on Feb. 26 Senator White 

 spoke on his resolution, in reference to leaving the 

 declaration to the President. He spoke of the right 

 of the Executive to withhold information, and said: 



" The executive right to withhold delicate diplo- 

 matic correspondence is incidental to the Presi- 

 dential office. Can it be that the Constitution has 

 placed upon Congress the burden of deciding and 

 the duty to determine issues concerning belligerent 

 or other relations to foreign powers and has not at 

 the same time compelled the President to give us 

 everything within his knowledge? 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 evidence 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. He 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 all 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. 



" Mr. President, I refer to this controversy not be- 

 cause of its bearing upon this isolated case, but to 

 show that under the governmental scheme pursuant 

 to which we are acting, it is improbable that it ever 

 was the intention to place the power to recognize 

 either belligerency or independence in such a con- 

 dition that a conflict could arise between Congress 

 and the Executive for the settlement of which no 

 adequate remedy is provided." 



Senator Morgan asked : 



" Will the Senator from California insist or argue 

 that the President of the United States in his dis- 

 cretion may withhold information from Congress, 

 and then when he withholds the information he 

 can act upon it himself without informing us of it, 

 and conclusively bind this Government either to a 

 declaration of belligerency or any other condition 

 he wishes to impose upon us ? " 



Senator White said : 



" Not so broadly as that, but the President of the 

 United States has" the power to withhold informa- 

 tion. This the Senator does not deny. From the 

 beginning of this Government the Executive has 

 recognized or refused to recognize belligerency, and 

 his determination has passed unchallenged. No 

 one has heretofore disputed executive authority to 

 accord belligerency. There is not a case, and I do 

 not think the Senator from Alabama can discover 

 an instance, where the belligerency of a country 

 has been recognized by Congress despite the Ex- 

 ecutive. 



" During the efforts of the South American re- 

 publics to gain their freedom the President recog- 

 nized belligerency, and for many years thereafter 

 consistently refused to acknowledge the independ- 

 ence of the revolted territory. 



" This recognition of belligerency was always ex- 

 ecutive. Subsequently Congress ratified presiden- 

 tial liberality, but such action was a mere affirma- 

 tion of that which was already conclusive. No one 

 ever disputed the adequacy of presidential action. 



