Spain's colonial policy was, in every instance, the cause of Cuban revolt. In that policy, she violated a fundamental: principle of government. She assumed that the subject existed solely for the benefit of the sovereign. In establishing her colony she sought only her own financial advantage. Other colonizing countries learned, through experience, the folly of such a policy. Spain never learned it, and has now lost her insular possessions. Three factors have contributed to Cuba's frequent protests and occasional revolts. These are: Second. An arbitrary and unscientific system of taxation; Third. Retention of all government and of political patronage in the hands of Spaniards, to the exclusion of Cubans. To these causes may be traced a large measure of the long-existing Cuban disaffection. To them, also, may be attributed Cuba's failure to attain that position in the world to which, because of her natural resources, her people rightly aspired. At the very beginning of Spain's colonial history, closely restrictive laws were promulgated for the regulation of commerce with and between her colonies. In 1503, a royal ordinance established the Casa de la Contratacion, or House of Commerce, at Seville. This body was empowered to grant licenses, to despatch fleets, and to regulate and control Spanish colonial trade, of which it held an exclusive monopoly. In 1717, the institution was transferred to the port of Cadiz. The colonial trade was thus confined to a single Spanish port. Further restrictions prohibited both intercolonial trade and trade with any country other than Spain. For a period during the seventeenth century, such trade was made an offence punishable by the death of the trader, and the confiscation of the property involved. As a natural result, smuggling became an established institution. For the first fifty years of Cuba's history, Santiago was the only port on the Island through which merchandise could be either imported or exported without violation of the law. With the establishment of Havana as the capital of the Island, that city became the sole port officially recognized for over-sea trade. This condition held until the close of the eighteenth century, with the exception of the brief term of British occupation (1762-1763), during which Havana was made an open port. The limitation was removed by a royal order, issued in 1801, by which the Island ports were opened to foreign trade, subject only to the general conditions of world commerce. This system lasted only a few years. In 1809, foreign commerce was again prohibited. Much difficulty was encountered during the early years of the nineteenth century in the enforcement of prohibitive laws against a trade which had become fairly established, and no little opposition was manifested by the Island people. A new policy was then adopted, less harsh in its appearance but almost equally restrictive in its results. It took the form of a discriminating tariff, applied to both imports and exports. That continued, subject only to sundry modifications from time to time, until the execution, in 1891, of the reciprocity treaty with the United States. That treaty lasted for three years only. It proved a marked benefit to Cuban-American commerce, though detrimental to Spanish trade. With the termination of the treaty, in 1894, there came a reversion to the system of discriminating, differential, and special tariffs in favor of trade with the peninsula as against that of all other countries. The second of these factors in Cuban discontent was the Spain's colonial policy was, in every instance, the cause of Cuban revolt. In that policy, she violated a fundamental principle of government. She assumed that the subject existed solely for the benefit of the sovereign. In establishing her colony she sought only her own financial advantage. Other colonizing countries learned, through experience, the folly of such a policy. Spain never learned it, and has now lost her insular possessions. Three factors have contributed to Cuba's frequent protests and occasional revolts. These are: Second. An arbitrary and unscientific system of taxation; Third. Retention of all government and of political patronage in the hands of Spaniards, to the exclusion of Cubans. To these causes may be traced a large measure of the long-existing Cuban disaffection. To them, also, may be attributed Cuba's failure to attain that position in the world to which, because of her natural resources, her people rightly aspired. At the very beginning of Spain's colonial history, closely restrictive laws were promulgated for the regulation of commerce with and between her colonies. In 1503, a royal ordinance established the Casa de la Contratacion, or House of Commerce, at Seville. This body was empowered to grant licenses, to despatch fleets, and to regulate and control Spanish colonial trade, of which it held an exclusive monopoly. In 1717, the institution was transferred to the port of Cadiz. The colonial trade was thus confined to a single Spanish port. Further restrictions prohibited both intercolonial trade and trade with any country other than Spain. For a period during the seventeenth century, such trade was made an offence punishable by the death of the trader, and the confiscation of the property involved. As a natural result, smuggling became an established institution. For the first fifty years of Cuba's history, Santiago was the only port on the Island through which merchandise could be either imported or exported without violation of the law. With the establishment of Havana as the capital of the Island, that city became the sole port officially recognized for over-sea trade. This condition held until the close of the eighteenth century, with the exception of the brief term of British occupation (1762–1763), during which Havana was made an open port. The limitation was removed by a royal order, issued in 1801, by which the Island ports were opened to foreign trade, subject only to the general conditions of world commerce. This system lasted only a few years. In 1809, foreign commerce was again prohibited. Much difficulty was encountered during the early years of the nineteenth century in the enforcement of prohibitive laws against a trade which had become fairly established, and no little opposition was manifested by the Island people. A new policy was then adopted, less harsh in its appearance but almost equally restrictive in its results. It took the form of a discriminating tariff, applied to both imports and exports. That continued, subject only to sundry modifications from time to time, until the execution, in 1891, of the reciprocity treaty with the United States. That treaty lasted for three years only. It proved a marked benefit to Cuban-American commerce, though detrimental to Spanish trade. With the termination of the treaty, in 1894, there came a reversion to the system of discriminating, differential, and special tariffs in favor of trade with the peninsula as against that of all other countries. The second of these factors in Cuban discontent was the scheme of taxation. It was an unscientific system. Contrary to a prevalent idea, the taxation of real property, had it been honestly effected, would have given no ground for reasonable complaint. Such property was assessed upon its rental value, and, in normal times, a fair and honest assessment imposed upon real property in the city of Havana, a tax which amounted to less than $12 on the $1000 of fee value. This included State tax, municipal tax, and expense of collection.* The tax upon country estates was a variable institution depending upon the location of the property, its product, and its facilities for marketing its product. For an average illustration it may be said that an estate producing $100,000 worth of sugar, having fair facilities, in location and means of transportation, for marketing its product, would bear a tax of about $1,500 per annum. An increase or reduction in its output, or in the market value of its output, met a corresponding increase or reduction in the amount of the tax. A farm producing a crop of the value of $1,000 for *The basis was as follows: State tax, twelve per cent on three-quarters of the rental value; municipal tax, a sum equal to eighteen per cent of the State tax, or a little over two per cent on three quarters of the rental value; and five per cent of the total of the two added to them for the expense of collection. Thus, a property having a fee value of $10,000 would be taxed as follows: Ry special act, mun galdies were permitted to impose fun time to time, an extraordinary tax: known as the surtax, which vied the municipal rate from eighteen per cent to twenty thuve per cent of the amount of the State tax. An exception was made in the care of no called "@iame puošimas” or rural lands within the mucipal Inte These bowe a total rate of less than two and on hall por vent of the rental value, or about one seventh of the sum imposed upon the gocas wirkenan |