This is an extract from the London Standard.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BLACKBURN in the chair). Will the Senator from Alabama yield? The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which will be stated.

The SECRETARY. A bill (S. 502) to approve a compromise and settlement between the United States and the State of Arkansas. Mr. BERRY. I ask that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside, without prejudice.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I do not object

Mr. CULLOM. I want to say that I shall insist, as soon as the Senator from Alabama concludes his brief remarks, as I understand he desires to speak briefly, that the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill shall be taken up for consideration. I hope there will be no opposition to that course.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas asks unanimous consent that the unfinished business which has just been laid before the Senate may be passed over without prejudice. Is there objection?

Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to that.

Mr. HALE. I merely want to say that I do not object for the purpose of taking the Senator from Alabama off his feet; but I call attention to the fact that yesterday, at the request of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], in charge of this subject-matter, it was withdrawn from the consideration of the Senate and recommitted practically to the committee of conference, with the general understanding, I suppose, that debate would be suspended until the conference committee should again report. I did not object to the Senator from Texas coming in upon his joint resolution, and I do not now, as I have said, seek to take the Senator from Alabama from the floor; but I do insist that at the end of his remarks upon the joint resolution it shall take its parliamentary course and go to the Calendar. I make the point now, so that if I am not here at the end of the Senator's remarks, the joint resolution shall take that course.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no objection to the request of the Senator from Arkansas, and it is agreed to.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has brought forth a new phase of this subject, one that has not hitherto been in charge of the Senate or before the Senate. He proposes that we shall go to the Government of Spain and demand of her that she shall give autonomy to Cuba, a government corresponding, I suppose, in some of its characteristics perhaps very closely, in the contemplation of the Senator from Texas, with that of Canada on the north, and, in the event that Spain refuses to grant such autonomy to Cuba, that the American Government will use whatever force may be necessary to expel Spain from that island and take possession of it, so that the people there may have a fair opportunity to determine for themselves what form of government they will have.

That subject has not been before the Senate of the United States in that form, or in any form, up to the present moment of time. Up to the time when the Senator from Ohio asked in the Senate a disagreement to the amendment of the House, after an agreement had been suggested by the committee of conference on the resolutions, we had expressed nothing but opinion. We had confined

ourselves entirely to that domain. We had proposed no measure which would be binding upon the people of the United States in any sense whatever. It was the response of Congress to the opinion of the people as expressed in the petitions sent to us that we chose to utter.

Now, for that cause, as we expected would be the case, only because the Senate and the House have concurred in the opinion that a state of public war does exist in the Island of Cuba and that those people are entitled to belligerent rights-for that and for nothing more-came from the Spanish authorities in Madrid the declaration which I have just read to the Senate, showing that they regard this as an act of hostility on the part of the Government of the United States. We have disclaimed in every form that it was possible to make a disclaimer that we had any hostile intentions toward Spain, that we were acting outside of the line of our duty, even if we had progressed to the extent that I claim we shall progress, to a resolution that is now lying upon the table, of a pure recog nition of belligerency and the existence of war in Cuba, and the rights of Cuba and Spain as belligerents, and our rights and our duties as neutrals in that war.

My object in taking the floor this morning is to call attention to a matter of history with which I was not familiar at the time that it was occurring. Unfortunately the people of the Southern States at that time were themselves occupying the attitude of belligerents in what was termed by the Government of the United States a treasonable insurrection against the flag and Constitution of the country, so that what transpired in the United States at that time with the Government of the United States was entirely unknown to us.

Spain came forward at an early moment, as I am informed, before a gun had been fired, or at least before any great battle had been fought, and she recognized not the independence but the belligerency of the Confederate States. She did not undertake in that recognition of belligerency to demarcate the States or the parts of States that were regarded by the United States as being in insurrection, but she took the whole area without reference to State boundaries, and wherever the Government of the United States had recognized the fact that insurrection existed Spain recognized the fact that lawful belligerency existed, thereby entirely dissipating the argument which has been made here, I believe by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. CAFFERY], that the recognition of belligerency extended only to the area where war actually prevailed, and that we had to make a demarcation of boundary before we could recognize that the Cuban Republic was engaged in a state of belligerency.

Mr. President, what I rose for was to call the attention of Congress to the situation of the United States at the time that she was conducting war for the purpose of putting down the rebellion and after Spain had recognized the belligerency of the Confederate States. I confess when my mind was first brought to consider this question I was somewhat puzzled to understand why it was that Spain should have been so magnanimous toward the Confederacy and should have been so active in her disposition to recognize the belligerency of the Confederate States.

We had an institution in the South in common with one that existed in Cuba and Puerto Rico at that time, the institution of slavery. But, sir, Spain very soon after, if not even before, the time that she recognized the belligerency of the Confederate States

had set about with a determined purpose, as it appeared, to do two things. One was to establish a republic and the other was to emancipate the slaves. So General Grant when he came into power afterwards recognized that the war that was being conducted there was really a war for the emancipation of slaves, and it was conducted by the Spanish Government with that pledge attending every act of hostility that was inflicted upon the people of Cuba.

The consultation of the authorities, the correspondence between our minister in Spain and the Government of the United States during the struggle of which I have been speaking, discloses the reasons why Spain recognized the Confederacy. She thought, first of all, that she would have an ally in the Confederacy to protect and preserve slavery, after she had consented, even in Spain, that it should be abolished, that it would be restored, for, mark you, in regard to political rights and rights of war and rights of conquest Spain acts and has always acted upon the theory that once she has been stripped of a province or of a power she has always a right to go to war to recover it.

What did she do in the case of Mexico? Thirteen years after the Republic of Mexico had been recognized, without any pretext of war at all arising in the course of her relations or transactions in Mexico, she sent her fleets and her armies there to try to recover that territory. Her declaration of war against Mexico was based entirely upon the fact that Mexico had once been her property, and having once been her property was always subject to reclamation.

But Spain went further than that, Mr. President. Very soon after our war began Spain went and took possession of San Domingo, occupied it, and held it until the war with the United States was closed or was about to close. Why did Spain invade San Domingo while our war was going on? Because she expected by establishing her power in San Domingo to check the power of the United States or the influence of the United States in Cuba, and through that instrumentality, getting on the flank of the United States and of Cuba, she expected, if the war resulted in favor of the rebellion, that everything would be straight on principle and on sentiment; if it resulted, however, in favor of the United States Government, that she would then have a military possession in San Domingo that would enable her to check any advance of the United States in that direction.

Spain was not alone among the European governments in assailing the United States on that occasion. She had a number, if not of allies, at least of sympathizers in Europe who took advantage of the struggle in the United States to come and plant themselves or attempt to plant themselves on different parts of the American Hemisphere. We find that Great Britain had already occupied, in the name of the Mosquito King, the mouth of the San Juan River to command our communications with the Pacific. We find that Austria and France and Great Britain and Spain started out together for the purpose of hunting Mexico to death and reclaiming that territory while our war was going on. After a while Spain and Great Britain dropped off. They came under the pretext of collecting interest on bonds, when everyone knew that their determination was not merely to do that, but to acquire the territory of Mexico and put it under some sovereign crown, to be ruled by a prince of the blood brought from Europe. Maximilian, having been elected, as he said, under a plebiscite in Mexico, came at

last, under the auspices and protection of the Emperor of France, to occupy Mexico. But on all hands everywhere our great Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, had to wrestle with almost every important European power except Russia in trying to maintain the integrity of American soil for the government of her own people according to their own will in trying to maintain the integrity of republics on this hemisphere and to prevent them from being supplanted with monarchies.

Mr. President, I want to read a very few selections from some of the correspondence that took place at that time upon this question. The charge was made by Spain against the United States that we had negotiated a secret treaty for the purpose of acquiring the Bay of Samana, a very important piece of water, surrounded by a very important piece of land, when considered either in respect to its commercial value or its strategic value for naval war purposes. Mr. Seward, on the 23d of November, 1863, a time of very great anxiety with the Government of the United States, said, in a letter to Mr. Koerner, our minister at Madrid:

The idle calumny that the United States have stirred up and are giving aid to the revolutionary movements now occurring in the Island of San Domingo would not be thought worthy of notice if it had not been presented to me by Mr. Tassara. I give you for your information a copy of the correspondence which has been held on that subject between him and this Department. I am further not unwilling to have an occasion to let it be known to Spain, as well as to other nations, how faithfully we practice the duties as well as assert the rights of a sovereign state. The United States neither contrive, nor aid, nor encourage, nor mix themselves up in civil or international wars of other nations. They submit their record on this matter to the examination of the world and challenge contradiction of its verity. You may express yourself to this effect, and even to this extent, if occasion should arise in your conversations with the Marquis of Miraflores.

That is dated November 23, 1863. There Mr. Seward discovered in the correspondence that was being conducted that the Government of the United States was being accused of improper interference for the purpose of acquiring some occupancy in the West India island. On the 14th of February, 1864, Mr. Koerner writes to Mr. Seward as follows:

It is reported upon pretty good authority that a commission will be sent there to make a thorough investigation into the condition of affairs.

That is, to Santo Domingo.

Letters from the island, freely published in the papers here, represent a thorough conquest and the restoration of lasting tranquillity there as impossible. It is easy enough for the Spanish troops to subdue the insurgent places near the coast, where such troops can be subsisted by the fleet. But the interior is said to be so thinly peopled, so little cultivated, so densely covered by primeval forests, so destitute of roads, that no armies can penetrate into the country, where bands of natives exist with ease, ready to issue forth whenever an opportunity offers to assail the Spanish ports.

That gives the state of the war between Spain and Santo Domingo while our war was progressing, February 14, 1864. What was Spain doing there making war upon Santo Domingo? That will appear a little later.

I have a number of extracts which I should like to read, but under the admonitions in regard to the waste of time here and considering other matters, I shall not do it; but I could not forbear the opportunity of laying these matters before the Senate and the country in order to show that the motive of Spain toward the United States, while our war was going on, in recognizing the belligerency of the Confederate States, was a motive connected with her determination to sieze whatever of territory she could in the

time of our distress and paralysis and hold it after our struggle had ended.

On January 31, 1865, Horatio J. Perry, who was then our minister at Madrid, wrote to Mr. Seward as follows:

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Madrid, January 31, 1865. SIR: The debates in the Spanish Senate, which have run over a period of about twenty days, have been unusually interesting.

On the question of the reply to the Queen's speech, senators of the opposition have taken occasion to review the whole policy of the Government.

Attacked on the questions of the abandonment of Santo Domingo and the plan for the relief of the treasury by the adherents of O'Donnell, with that feader at the head, and on the question of the encyclical letter of the Pope and general policy of ministers toward Rome and Italy by the new Catholic orators, I have rarely witnessed a debate in which there has been more vigor and persistence shown in the attack, or a cooler and more solid ability displayed in the defense. The orators of the Government have had the best of the argument on every point, but the struggle has been severe.

The name of the United States has been used as a bugbear by the orators of the opposition, who claimed that the occupation of Santo Domingo by the Spaniards was the only way of averting the annexation of Dominica to the United States and the consequent ruin of Spanish interests in the West Indies. The Duke of La Torre, the same Captain-General of Cuba who made the arrangement with the Dominican general, Santara, was the loudest in this argument.

The Marquis of Valdeterrazo, minister of Spain to London in 1860, made the declaration of which I inclose a translation.

The Marquis of the Habana (General Concha), who has been twice CaptainGeneral of Cuba, and is now out with O'Donnell, defended the policy of abandonment, and said that the United States had long ago refused the annexation of Dominica (referring to the Cazneau treaty), and that Spain had taken them up only after they had been refused by other powers.

The Duke of La Torre (General Servaro) spoke strongly in favor of a declaration by Spain that the slave trade is piracy, and wanted steps to be immediately taken for the abolition of slavery in Cuba.

The Marquis of Habana desired the extinction of slavery, but preferred measures like those which Brazil had taken to suppress the slave trade, and which had been successful in two years.

He said that if there were anything to be apprehended from the side of the United States, or from any quarter, as a military man he must say that he thought the policy of Spain ought to be to concentrate her power as much as possible; and the possession of Santo Domingo added no strength to Spain, but was a decided source of weakness. The resources of Cuba were uselessly employed in Santo Domingo, and they might be needed in that island itself. The debate was closed last evening, and the reply to the Queen's speech, being put to the vote, passed the Senate by a vote of 102 for and 58 against the policy of the Government.

This is not a direct vote upon the bill for the abandonment of Santo Domingo, this bill not being before the Senate, but before the lower house, to come up afterwards to the Senate; but the question is thus already debated and settled indirectly so far as the Senate is concerned, the house having done little else except to adjourn over from day to day to give the members an opportunity to be present at the Senate debates, and allow ministers also to be all present in the upper house.

This great trial of parliamentary strength over, all the interest now centers in the lower house, and the Senate adjourns over to allow ministers to be all present in the other house, as well as the Senators themselves.

But the question of Santo Domingo is already prejudged, and the bill for the abandonment is already virtually carried by the Government.

With sentiments of the highest respect, I remain, sir,
Your obedient servant,

Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State, Washington.

HORATIO J. PERRY.

Here is a translation, which Mr. Perry sends to his Government, of the declaration of the Marquis of Valdeterrazo:

[Translation.]

A mistake has been made in saying that the United States have made a treaty of annexation with Santo Domingo. This is not the fact..

When I was in London I was authorized by the Government of Her Majesty to occupy myself in this question, all the necessary facilities being conceded