"In determining the course to be adopted on the demand thus made for a recognition of belligerency, the liberal and peaceful principles adopted by the "Father of his Country" and the eminent statesmen of his day, and followed by succeeding Chief Magistrates and the men of their day, may furnish a safe guide to those of us now charged with the direction and control of the public safety.

"From 1789 to 1815 the dominant thought of our statesmen was to keep the United States out of the wars which were devastating Europe. The discussion of measures of neutrality begins with the state papers of Mr. Jefferson when Secretary of State. He shows that they are measures of national right as well as of national duty; that misguided individual citizens cannot be tolerated in making war according to their own caprice, passions, interests, or foreign sympathies; that the agents of foreign Governments, recognized or unrecognized, cannot be permit ted to abuse our hospitality by usurping the functions of enlisting or equipping military or naval forces within our territory. Washington inaugurated the policy of neutrality and of absolute abstinence from all foreign entangling alliances, which resulted, in 1794, in the first municipal enactment for the observance of neutrality.

"The duty of opposition to filibustering has been admitted by every President. Washington encountered the efforts of Genet and the French revolutionists; John Adams, the projects of Miranda; Jefferson, the schemes of Aaron Burr. Madison and subsequent Presidents had to deal with the question of foreign eulistment or equipment in the United States, and since the days of John Quincy Adams it has been one of the constant cares of Government in the United States to prevent piratical expeditions against the feeble Spanish-American Republics from leaving our shores. In no country are men wanting for any enterprise that holds out promise of adventure or of gain.

"In the early days of our national existence the whole continent of America (outside of the limits of the United States), and all its islands, were in colonial dependence upon European powers.

"The revolutions which, from 1810, spread almost simultaneously through the Spanish-American continental colonies, resulted in the establishment of new states, like ourselves, of European origin, and interested in excluding European politics and the questions of dynasty and of balances of power from further influence in the New World.

"The American policy of neutrality, important before, became doubly so, from the fact that it became applicable to the new Republics as well as to the mother country.

"It then devolved upon us to determine the great international question, at what time and under what circumstances to recognize a new power as entitled to a place among the family of nations, as well as the preliminary question of the attitude to be observed by this Government toward the insurrectionary party, pending the contest.

"Mr. Monroe concisely expressed the rule which has controlled the action of this Government with reference to revolting colonies pending their struggle, by saying, 'As soon as the movement assumed such a steady and consistent form as to make the success of the provinces probable, the rights to which they were entitled, by the laws of nations as equal parties to a civil war, were extended to them.'

"The strict adherence to this rule of public policy has been one of the highest honors of American statesmanship, and has secured to this Government the confidence of the feeble powers on this continent, which induces them to rely upon its friendship and absence of designs of conquest, and to look to the United States for example and moral protection. It has given this Government a position of prominence and of influence which it should not abdicate, but which imposes upon it the most delicate duties of right and of honor regarding American questions, whether those questions affect emancipated colonies or colonies still subject to European dominions.

"The question of belligerency is one of fact not to be decided by sympathies for or prejudices against either party. The relations between the parent state and the insurgents must amount, in fact, to war in the sense of international law. Fighting, though fierce and protracted, does not alone constitute war; there must be military forces acting in accordance with the rules and customs of war-flags of truce, cartels, exchange of prisoners, &c.-and to justify a recognition of belligerency there must be, above all, a de facto political organization of the insurgents sufficient in character and resources to constitute it, if left to itself, a state among nations capable of discharging the duties of a state, and of meeting the just responsibilities it may incur as such toward other powers in the discharge of its national duties.

"Applying the best information which I have been enabled to gather, whether from official or unofficial sources, including the very exagger ated statements which each party gives to all that may prejudice the opposite or give credit to its own side of the question, I am unable to see, in the present condition of the contest in Cuba, those elements which are requisite to constitute war in the sense of international law. "The insurgents hold no town or city; have no established seat of Government; they have no prize courts; no organization for the receiv ing and collecting of revenue; no sea port to which a prize may be carried or through which access can be had by a foreign power to the limited interior territory and mountain fastnesses which they occupy. The existence of a legislature representing any popular constituency is more than doubtful.

"In the uncertainty that hangs around the entire insurrection there is no palpable evidence of an election, of any delegated authority, or of any Government outside the limits of the camps occupied from day to day by the roving companies of insurgent troops. There is no commerce; no trade, either internal or foreign; no manufactures.

1

Me lule commander in chief of the insurgents, having recent come to the Lund State, publicly declared that all commercial iAKAKAMARK OF Uude with the exterior world has been utterly cut off,” and he further added, "Today we have not ten thousand arms in Cuba"

"It is a well-established principle of public law that a recognition by a fokign whale of belligerent rights to insurgents under circumstances Burhan now exist in Cuba, if not justified by necessity, is a gratuitous demonstration of moral support to the rebellion. Such necessity may yet bocatter arrive, but it has not yet arrived, nor is its probability clearly to be bren.

"I be war between Spain and Cuba, and be so recognized, it is our duty to provide for the consequences which may ensue in the embar Lussment to our commerce and the interference with our revenue.

"If belligerency be recognized, the commercial marine of the United Slates becomes liable to search and to seizure by the commissioned cruisers of both parties they become subject to the adjudication of prien counts.

Our large coast wise trade between the Atlantic and the Gulf States, and between both and the Isthmus of Panama and the states of South America (engaging the larger part of our commercial marine) passes, of necessity, almost in sight of the Island of Cuba. Under the treaty with Spain of 1.90, as well as by the law of nations, our vessels will be Itablo to visit on the high seas, In case of belligerency, the carrying ef contraband, which now is lawful, becomes liable to the risks of seizure and condomination. The parent Government becomes relieved from Responsibility for acts done in the insurgent territory, and acquires the Fight to exercise agamust neutral commerce all the powers of a party to 4.414ŬTANO WAL To what consequences the exercise of those powers may lead, is a quosden, which I desire to commend to the serious consideration of Congress.

~ by view of the gravity of this question, I have deemed it my duty > suv to thọ acren, on of the war-making power of the country to all me velit vas and beannigs or dhe q lesten 13 connection with the declare noa og nedeaty and granting về belligerent #2978.

and are being pressed for the proper reparation of every indignity complained of.

"The question of belligerency, however, which is to be decided upon definite principles and according to ascertained facts, is entirely different from and unconnected with the other questions of the manner in which the strife is carried on on both sides, and the treatment of our citizens entitled to our protection.

"These questions concern our own dignity and responsibility, and they have been made, as I have said, the subjects of repeated communications with Spain, and of protests and demands for redress on our part. It is hoped that these will not be disregarded; but should they be, these questions will be made the subject of further communication to Congress."

President Grant, Special Message of June 13, 1870.

"It is to be regretted that the disturbed condition of the Island of Cuba continues to be a source of annoyance and of anxiety. The existence of a protracted struggle in such close proximity to our own territory, without apparent prospect of an early termination, cannot be other than an object of concern to a people who, while abstaining from interference in the affairs of other powers, naturally desire to see every country in the undisturbed enjoyment of peace, liberty, and the blessings of free institutions.

"Our naval commanders in Cuban waters have been instructed, in case it should become necessary, to spare no effort to protect the lives and property of bona-fide American citizens, and to maintain the dig nity of the flag.

"It is hoped that all pending questions with Spain growing out of the affairs in Cuba may be adjusted in the spirit of peace and conciliation which has hitherto guided the two powers in their treatment of such questions."

President Grant, Third Annual Message, 1871.

Senate Ex. Doc. No. 32, 42d Cong., 2d sess., gives Mr. Fish's report of Feb. 9, 1872, with accompanying papers. See supra, § 57, for Mr. Fish's report of July 14, 1870.

"The present ministry in Spain has given assurance to the public, through their organs of the press, and have confirmed the assurance to you personally (as you have reported in recent dispatches), of their intention to put in operation a series of extensive reforms, embracing among them some of those which this Government has been earnest in urging upon their consideration in relation to the colonies which are our near neighbors.

"Sustained, as is the present ministry, by the large popular vote which has recently returned to the Cortes an overwhelming majority in its support, there can be no more room to doubt their ability to carry into operation the reforms of which they have given promise, than there

can be justification to question the sincerity with which the assurance was given. It seems, therefore, to be a fitting occasion to look back upon the relations between the United States and Spain, and to mark the progress which may have been made in accomplishing those ob jects in which we have been promised her co-operation. It must be acknowledged with regret that little or no advance has been made. The tardiness in this respect, however, cannot be said to be in any way imputable to a want of diligence, zeal, or ability in the legation of the United States at Madrid. The Department is persuaded that no persons, however gifted with those qualities and faculties, could have better succeeded against the apparent apathy or indifference of the Spanish authorities, if, indeed, their past omission to do what we have expected should not be ascribable to other causes.

"The Spanish Government, partly at our instance, passed a law providing for the gradual emancipation of slaves in the West India colonies. This law, so far as this Department is aware, remains unexecuted, and it is feared that the recently issued regulations, professedly for its execution, are wholly inadequate to any practical result in favor of emancipation, if they be not really in the interest of the slaveholder and of the continuance of the institution of slavery. While we fully acknowledge our obligation to the general rule which requires a nation to abstain from interference in the domestic concerns of others, circumstances warrant partial exceptions to this rule. The United States have emancipated all the slaves in their own territory, as the result of a civil war of four years, attended by a vast effusion of blood and expenditure of treasure. The slaves in the Spanish possessions near us are of the same race as those who were bondsmen here. It is natural and inevitable for the latter to sympathize in the oppression of their brethren, and especially in the waste of life, occasioned by inhuman punishments and excessive toil. Nor is this sympathy confined to those who were recently in bondage among us. It is universal, as it is natural and just. It rests upon the instincts of humanity, and is the recognition of those rights of man which are now universally admitted. Governments cannot resist a conviction so general and so righteous as that which condemns as a crime the tolerance of human slavery, nor can Governments be in fault in raising their voice against the further tolerance of so grievous a blot upon humanity. You will, consequently, in decisive but respectful terms, remonstrate against the apparent failure of Spain to carry into full effect the act referred to. We acknowledge that this may be a difficult task. The reproaches, open or covert, of those whose supposed interests may be affected by it, to say nothing of other underhand proceedings, must be trying to the patience and highly embarrassing to the statesmen who may be the best disposed toward the measure. All, however, who countenance lukewarmness or neglect in carrying it into effect must, more or less,