the recognition of a state of belligerency or a declaration of war. We do not know what is or will be the policy of the President in the Cuban imbroglio. Acting, then, as representatives of States that memorialize Congress and the people who shower petitions upon us, it is wiser that our response to them should indicate clearly the opinions of Congress rather than some decisive act to which the Executive might dissent. When the people and Congress have expressed their opinions in a way that is practically unanimous, if the President does not concur, he will assume the responsibility.

The letter to which I referred, Mr. President, is that of Mr. Fish to Admiral Polo de Bernabé, who was at that time the minister of Spain to this country. Mr. Fish says, in some of the places which I will quote, what I will read. I will put the entire part of the letter referring to this matter in the RECORD as an appendix to my speech. On the 10th of September, 1869, the minister of transmarine affairs at Madrid, in an official paper, said:

A deplorable and pertinacious tradition of despotism, which, if it could ever be justified, is without a shadow of reason at the present time, intrusted the direction and management of our colonial establishment to the agents of the metropolis, destroying, by their dominant and exclusive authority, the vital energies of the country and the creative and productive activity of free individuals. And although the system may now have improved in some of its details, the domineering action of the authorities being less felt, it still appears full of the original error, which is upheld by the force of tradition, and the necessary influence of interests created under their protection, which, doubtless, are deserving of respect so far as they are reconcilable with the requirements of justice, with the common welfare, and with the principles on which every liberal system should be founded. A change of system, political as well as administrative, is therefore imperatively demanded.

Mr. Fish says, after quoting this remark:

But while admitting the existence of the injuries which had provoked the outbreak at Yara, the government of the revolution of 1868 refused to remedy them until the armed insurrection should be suppressed. Spain would already have given all constitutional liberties to Cuba," said Mr. Silvela to General Sickles, "if the unfortunate insurrection of Yara, and the cry of 'Death to Spain,' uttered by some Cubans, had not alienated the sympathies of the nation, and obliged the government to accept the impolitic contest to which it was provoked. The government considers that it can come to no definite decision in regard to the political situation and future government of the Island of Cuba until the insurgents lay down their arms and cease the struggle."

That is the quotation. Then Mr. Fish says:

This would indicate that it is the resistance to admitted wrongs, and not the wrongfulness of resistance, which Spain is endeavoring to repress. I pass on to some few other extracts. Mr. Fish says:

It must be frankly confessed that there were many persons in the United States who shared the theoretical opinions of the Spanish statesmen, but who could not agree in the diametrically opposite policy which Spain pursued toward Cuba under their directions.

It was natural for the people of the United States to feel an interest in the prosperity of Cuba. This and the reasons for it were well understood at Madrid. Mr. Martos, in the presence of his colleagues, Mr. Becerra and Mr. Rivero, had officially spoken to General Sickles of the common interests shared by the United States and Spain in Cuba." He said "that whatever retarded the prosperity of the island was injurious alike to both countries; that the welfare of Cuba was of more commercial importance to the United States than to the mother country."

Mr. Fish says upon this quotation:

This wise statesman might have added that the interest of the United States in Cuba was heightened by a desire that the deadly struggle on the island might end in the acquisition of self-government (whether under or free from Spanish rule was, of course, immaterial to an American) and in the abolition of slavery. Such was undoubtedly the fact. The undersigned feels convinced that these views were shared by the mass of the liberal statesmen

of Spain, modified probably by the patriotic wish that the island should retain its political connection with Spain. But it could not be expected that foreigners would share in the full warmth of this wish of Spanish statesmen. The mass of the people of the United States certainly gave little heed to the matter beyond the natural preference that a disturbing element of European politics should be removed from the American system.

I must pass on, because the time is drawing near when I must take my seat.

On the 24th of March, 1860

Said Mr. Fish

the Captain-General of Cuba issued a decree, which is referred to by Admiral Polo, and from which the following is an extract:

Vessels which may be captured in Spanish waters, or on the high seas near to the island, having on board men, arms, and munitions, or effects that can in any manner contribute, promote, or foment the insurrection in this province, whatsoever their derivation and destination, after examination of their papers and register, shall be de facto considered as enemies of the integrity of our territory, and treated as pirates, in accordance with the ordinances of the navy.

"All persons captured in such vessels, without regard to their number, will be immediately executed."

A copy of this decree was received at this Department on the 2d of April, 1869, and the undersigned, although but then just entered upon the duties of his office, and greatly pressed with other public matters requiring immediate attention, put everything aside, by direction of the President, and on the next date wrote as follows to the minister of Spain at Washington:

I will only quote from that one paragraph:

"This Government certainly can not assent to the punishment by Spanish authorities of any citizen of the United States for the exercise of a privilege to which he may be entitled under public law and treaties."

Mr. President, that is the law of Spain to-day in this war. Mr. Fish says further:

The order to indiscriminately slaughter "all persons captured in such vessels, without regard to their number," could not but shock the sensibilities of all humane persons. The undersigned felt, however, unwilling to object to the execution of the order except when proposed to be enforced against citizens of the United States.

I am sorry he was unwilling to do that, but he had a great motive, or the President had, which held him in check.

In regard to the second point thus stated by Admiral Polo's esteemed predecessor, the undersigned was constrained by a due regard to universally recognized principles of international rights and duties to declare that, in the absence of a recognized state of war, it was no offense in the sailing vessels and steamers of the United States to carry arms and munitions of war for whomsoever it might concern.

I am sorry that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] is not present to hear this overturning of the sedate and sage enunciation of the law made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee two or three times in this debate.

The undersigned has uniformly said that no government can by the law of nations be held responsible for shipments of arms, munitions, or materials of war, made by private individuals at their own risk and peril. If a state of war should exist, if Spain should be entitled to the rights of a belligerent, parties concerned in the shipment of arms and military supplies for her enemy would incur the risk of confiscation by her of their goods; but their act would involve no ground of reclamation against their government in behalf of Spain; and consequently no right to invoke the aid of that government in preventing the perpetration of the act. Such it is believed is the established law of nations, and such the received rule even when the shipment of arms and munitions is made from the territory of the country whose citizens may be the parties engaged in the introduction of these supplies for the use of one of the belligerents.

Further on Mr. Fish says, when speaking of the decree of the 24th of March:

The objectionable decree of the 24th of March was soon followed by a proc lamation of Count Valmaseda still more abhorrent to the sense of the civilized world. By this proclamation, made at Bayamo on the 4th of April, 1869,

which reached the Department of State on the 9th of May, the following announcement was made to Cubans who believed, with Mr. Castelar, General Prim, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Silvela, Mr. Martos, Mr. Rivera, and other Spanish statesmen, that Cuba was suffering under oppression and wrong which ought to be remedied:

Frst. Every man, from the age of 15 years upward, found away from his habitation (finca), and does not prove a justified motive therefor, will be shot.

That is Weyler's decree now, with a little sugar coating:
Second. Every habitation unoccupied will be burned by the troops.
That is in full force under Weyler's decree.

Third. Every habitation from which does not float a white flag, as a signal that its occupants desire peace, will be reduced to ashes.

Women that are not living at their own homes, or at the house of their relatives, will collect in the town of Jiguani, or Bayamo, where maintenance will be provided. Those who do not present themselves will be conducted forcibly.

What will happen to them on the way God only knows. Mr. Tish further says:

The courses of trade and of social intercourse had carried many citizens of the United States into Cuba. When, therefore, this proclamation reached the undersigned, the President thought it right toward Spain that, although scarcely crediting the genuineness of the document, the undersigned should send the following notice to Mr. Lopez Roberts:

"In the interest of Christian civilization and common humanity, I hope that this document is a forgery. If it be indeed genuine, the President instructs me, in the most forcible manner, to protest against such a mode of warfare, and to ask you to request the Spanish authorities in Cuba to take such steps that no person having the right to claim the protection of the Government of the United States shall be sacrificed or injured in the conduct of hostilities upon this basis."

Mr. MILLS. Mr. President, I wish to announce to the Senate that in the morning, after the disposal of the routine business, I wish to address the Senate on the Cuban question, if there be no objection. I have been waiting for several days, and I am compelled to leave the Chamber now, or I would remain and take the floor after my friend from Alabama has concluded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The notice will be entered. Mr. MORGAN. In my comments upon this matter I shall be very brief, and shall conclude in a few moments. I desire to omit everything except what is absolutely essential to my purpose to show that there exists in Cuba to-day the same condition of affairs, the same decrees, issued even by the same men, that Mr. Fish_was denouncing in this letter to Admiral Polo in 1874. That was long after the message of the President of June, 1870, from which the Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] read a brief extract:

The United States were in a state of war when the orders referred to were issued.

That is, the orders of our people.

Spain had not been slow in forcing upon them in the very incipiency of the rebellion her recognition of a state of war. She does not now recognize that she is herself at war, but appeals, as a precedent for her conduct, to rules prescribed for armies in the field. If she claims the rights, it is but logical that she accept the consequences of a state of war.

I have pointed out in the course of this debate, from the reports of our own consuls, that the Spaniards treat our exports from this country into Cuba as being contraband of war at their will and pleasure. So they claim all the rights of war, but are not willing to submit to any of its disabilities, the very case that Mr. Fish is commenting upon. Says Mr. Fish further:

The undersigned is confident that Admiral Polo will feel a sincere pleasure in thus knowing that his information respecting these instructions has been

incorrect. Even had it been correct, the accomplished and generous minister from Spain and the undersigned would alike feel unwilling to contend that two wrongs could make a right.

Even in such case, however, it would be remembered that a worthy precedent might be found in the practice of the United States during a rebellion of the most mighty proportions, pending which not a prisoner was killed in cold blood; not a political crime, however grave, was visited with capital punishment. The soil of the United States remains to this day unstained by the first drop of blood taken from a political offender. Had this example been followed wherever a political insurrection had arisen, many might now be living whose blood cries aloud against the cruelty of some rulers. Christendom generally applauds the example of clemency and generosity which the United States thus exhibited.

The same spirit of generous regard for life and forgiveness marks the policy of the United States in other respects, and makes their penal codes look to the prevention more than to the punishment of crime, and often with. holds the enforcement of penalties when the danger against which they are denounced is supposed to have passed. It is with much regret that it is seen from the correspondence with the representatives of Spain for the past five years, and from the frequent complaints (in the note of Admiral Polo, now acknowledged) of the omission of the United States to enforce penalties and inflict punishment, that Spain does not sympathize with the policy of clem ency and forgiveness, and seems to regard punishment as the test of the sincerity with which crime is denounced and as the sole means of preventing at least political offenses. The examples of the condition of the two countries must be the criterion to determine the comparative merits of the antagonistic systems.

He then goes into an extensive discussion here of the rights of vessels on the high seas, and speaking of the restrictions imposed upon them and also of restrictions imposed upon land, he says:

In consequence of these severe measures against the persons and properties of Cubans who shared the opinions of the liberal statesmen of Spain respecting the injuries which had been inflicted upon their native country, many fled from the island to the United States. And the undersigned can not disguise from himself that these Spanish subjects, driven from their native country, have attempted to abuse the hospitality of the United States

The very accusation that is made here now by the present minister from Spain against the refugees from Cuba

that they have tried to make use of their safety here in order to regain what they had lost in Cuba, and that they have been restrained only by the perpetual vigilance and zeal of the officers of the United States. Alas! if the ears of the ministers of Amadeo and of the Republic could have been opened to the complaints of their Cuban friends, what criminations might have been spared us!

I believe, Mr. President, that I shall refrain from further quotations from this very remarkable and very able letter, which covers the whole subject of the present Cuban insurrection. I noticed while that war was in progress Mr. Fish called the attention of the Spanish Government in this letter to twenty-two cases of serious outrage against the property and lives of American citizens which remained to be adjusted after the war was over. I do not want to pile up a docket of that kind under these circumstances; I do not want to stand by until murder has been perpetrated, attended with extreme cruelty and outrage, and to wait until some future time when, possibly, this revolutionary movement may be crushed out, for us to demand of Spain as many even as twenty-two cases of reclamation and damages for wrongs we have suffered.

We have suffered enough; we have spent enough money in standing guard for Spain, and in keeping our people out of Cuba, and in restraining them, and in capturing their property and confiscating it when the slightest proof of conspiracy could be found to exist in regard to a purpose of invasion of Cuba-we have spent enough, and we have suffered enough, and have stood these out

rages long enough; and, now that Spain is engaged in a war with Cuba that, evidently, is hopeless, I think, sir, that we may be pardoned if we express our opinion, to say the least of it, that war prevails there, and that those people ought to be entitled to the rights of belligerency, and our people ought to be entitled to the rights of neutrality, and be allowed the benefits of neutrality.

I regret, Mr. President, that I have had to spend so much time in the discussion of this question; I never went into anything with more reluctance; but I have felt compelled to take all this toil upon myself simply because, in the accident of the passage of the resolutions through the committee it devolved upon me to make the report of the action of the committee, which put me in charge virtually of these resolutions.

Sir, when we met in conference we found that the disagreement in these opinions of the two Houses related only to verbal criticisms, and nothing more. I have said before, and I repeat it, that the resolutions of either body would be entirely satisfactory to me; but in the House of Representatives, immediately after we sent our resolution to them, there was reported a resolution which involves a mere difference in stating an opinion and caused no jar upon my feelings or sensibilities. I remembered that we were attempting to do nothing but to express our opinions.

After the resolution of the Senate went over to the House it there met the resolution reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which, of course, the House of Representatives felt naturally disposed to adhere. They passed their resolution; it was brought here; we disagreed to the amendment which they proposed to the Senate resolution; and that disagreement brought us into a conference. In that conference we considered both of the resolutions, in fact, the whole programme of our previous action in both committees; and I think that we came to a patriotic conclusion when we determined that the two Houses of Congress, in taking this mild but firm action on our part, would do injustice to the will, to the honor, to the express professions and belief of the people of this country if we should recede and find that we were incapable of agreeing in the method of the expression of our opinions.

There is no preference in favor of the one over the other, except that I believe, as I said to the committee at the time the resolutions were before it, that the passage of the amendment which was offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CAMERON], to the effect that the President of the United States shall use his good offices with the Government of Spain to induce that Government to recognize the independence of Cuba, might be considered by that Government, and very naturally I think would be considered by that Government, as an intrusive overture on our part, irritating to their feelings. I have not any doubt that such would be the fact.

Now, I repeat what I have said on several occasions since I have been on my feet to-day. I do not wish to give to Spain or to any nation of this earth any apparent ground for criticising our action. I want us to stand on a line that includes our rights beyond dispute. That is the reason I have been willing to put up with opinions when I believed that acts ought to have been the expression of our opinions. I have never had any doubt that even the expression of an opinion unfavorable to the fanatical and deluded monarchy would be regarded as an act of hostility that would compel Spain to throw down the gage of war.