The doctrine set forth in these lines by Mr. Charles Francis Adams is that of all the principal statesmen of America; all believe belligerence is a fact, and not a principle; and in support of this they say: "That it must be proved that the causes for making such declaration exist and are visible; it (belligerence) can therefore neither be imagined nor guessed at nor invented; its existence must be a fact, and be recognized as such by the world, or at least it must be of such a nature that it may be considered as a fact." And the same authorities add: "That it cannot be inferred from the fact that belligerence exists on land that it also exists at sea." "Such is the rule," says Mr. Sumner, "so simple, clear, and intelligible, as it has been established by Mr. Canning." Thus, then, the proof with regard to the facts of the causes for a declaration of belligerent rights must always precede the declaration; belligerent rights are not made on presumption; their existence must be proved. Again, considering the whole American doctrine on this important question, Mr. Richard H. Dana has defined in the following manner the conditions which must precede a declaration of belligerent rights. (See original texts at the end; extract from the Elements of International Law, by H. Wheaton.)

And why all these precautions? The same writers on international law, and the most illustrious American statesmen, both tell us in the following terms: "If a single one of those guarantees of impartiality fails to exist, the element foreign to the struggle is that which should take part in the cause of the insurgents and give them aid.”

If belligerence is a question of fact, and not of principle, how can an American statesman at once renounce his country's traditions of the policy of neutrality in the matter of the insurgents of Cuba?

I am not ignorant of the fact that their agents and emissaries in the United States publicly declare the existence of an established government. But has the truth of this assertion been investigated? Has an attempt even been made to do so? And if it has been done, if other documents are possessed which do not proceed from a suspicious source, why are they not published in the United States? In this way it would be possible to enlighten the opinion of the rest of the world, which is now in the most complete darkness with respect to the matter. It is certainly not in treating with the descendants of those who signed the declaration of their country's independence, and conquered their freedom at the price of so much blood, that I must longer insist upon the conditions which a new government just establishing itself requires.

The bands of rebels roaming throughout the eastern department of the Island of Cuba have not a single line of communication with the sea. Where, then, are their ports, or their ships, or their prize court? The fertile imagination of their agents in the United States has as yet furnished no reply to these questions.

I must now compare the policy pursued in 1861 by the Spanish government toward the United States with that which the government of this republic now appears inclined to put into practice with respect to Spain. At the outbreak of the civil war in this country, England and France took the initiative, granting belligerent rights to the so-called confederates, whom they considered as being organized. Prussia made the same declaration on the 13th of June. Spain could not, by reason of her geographical and maritime situation, longer abstain from making a similar concession, without exposing herself to the gravest complications; but she declared, in doing so, that she desired to maintain the mutual sentiments of friendship prevailing between Spain and the republic, these sympathies being clearly shown by the subsequent acts of the

!

Spanish government, which proved that its policy recognized as its base the most friendly feeling toward the cabinet at Washington. This conduct was so manifest that its proof is found in the diplomatic correspondence published by the federal government.

Mr. Perry wrote from Madrid, June 19, 1861, to the Honorable Mr. Seward, as follows: (See original at the end of the Spanish paper.)

Mr. Schurz, United States minister at Madrid, shortly afterward wrote to Señor Calderon Collantes, the Spanish minister of state, (July 31 of the same year,) as follows: (See original which accompanies the Spanish paper.)

If the present Spanish government is, to a certain extent, responsible for the political acts of the one which it replaces, much less can the honorable Secretary of State disregard the declarations made by his predecessor in the name of President Lincoln, and excuse to-day, by that course then appreciated in a manner so favorable for the United States by the President and Secretary of State, so grave a political act as the one in question, which cannot be explained, much less justified by the actual situation of Cuba. Nor can any distinction be made between an insurrection breaking out in an integral part of the national territory, and in a colony. Those publicists who have written upon this international point admit nothing of the kind; all adhere to the doctrine expressed by Vattel in the following form:

"When a nation," says he, "takes possession of a distant territory and establishes a colony there, this country, although separated from the mother country, forms a part of the state equally with its former possessions."

Therefore, neither can the American doctrine of neutrality, nor the precedents found in the federal policy, nor the situation of the Island of Cuba, nor the course pursued by Spain toward the United States, justify a resolution of this serious character, viz: the accordance of belligerent rights to the roving bands of insurgents in Cuba.

Whence arises, then, the resolution which the federal government is apparently on the eve of adopting? These are questions which, with all due delicacy, I will take the liberty of answering in the following terms:

First. Certain malcontent Cubans have established themselves in the United States, especially in New York, and these are endeavoring by every means in their power, not to conquer their independence by their own efforts, but to gain at present the sympathies of the American people in order afterward to seek the aid of this government for their cause. The history of what has taken place in the last few months is the clearest proof of this. In a state of peace, it has been seen with astonishment that associations were publicly organized in many ports belonging to a friendly nation, said associations being composed of the agents of the insurgents, with no other object than that of directing their attacks against Spain. Enlistments of men have also taken place during whole weeks, as if the object were to form expeditions authorized by law, and consequently with the consent of the authorities. These emissaries have carried their spirit of speculation so far as to take advantage of the good faith of emigrants from Europe, sending them to fight in Cuba under command of the so-called General Jordan, and other officers who fought on the side of the South in the civil war. Hostile demonstrations have likewise been suffered to take place against a nation which in 1861 had not even allowed (in order not to wound the susceptibility of the United States) the title of belligerents to be given to an insurgent population numbering six or seven millions of whites, who occupied a third of the territory of the republic, and were in possession of such resources that

་

they were only conquered by prodigies of valor, military talent, and heroic perseverance; and, after having seen the departure of various filibustering expeditions in broad day-light, and unmolested, from New York and other federal ports, the minister of Spain finally found himself obliged, by the incomprehensible apathy of the authorities, to take the initiative in order to prevent these repeated infractions of the neutrality laws; but he will not now insist on these facts, to which at the proper time he will call the attention of the honorable Secretary of State.

Secondly. If the duties of every foreign power, with respect to a rebellion carried on against a regular and legitimate government, oblige said power to abstain from all participation in such rebellion, as was so aptly said by the Hon. Charles Francis Adams, avoiding in this manner the exercising of any influence on the result by the element foreign to the struggle, the honorable Secretary of State must have deeply regretted the extravagant demonstrations which have been seen in a large portion of the country, and which have been echoed by the press. He will also sincerely regret that the Cuban emissaries have gone so far as to compromise the reputation for impartiality (without doubt well deserved) of persons holding high official positions, boasting, doubtless without any reason, of being in possession of important confidential information with regard to political affairs, and to have knowledge of plans, the accomplishment of which they predicted with great confidence. With this view, I take the liberty of calling your attention to a letter from Mr. Dallas, (May 2, 1861,) then minister of the United States in London, to Mr. Seward. (See original texts for what is designated above, and for Mr. Seward's reply.)

Thirdly. Finally I am about to treat of the question of belligerent rights, which is the most important matter of these observations. Why do the Cuban agents solicit these with so much urgency? Why do they not hesitate to employ calumny in order to compromise the government of the United States in favor of their cause? Why do they not recoil (so that they may accomplish their object) at the danger of employing means which are punished by the laws? The reply to these questions is, that the Cuban agents stand in the most pressing need of the aid of the United States; that what they seek and require is the moral participation, at least, of the American Union in their struggle with Spain; which, hitherto, has attained no proportions save those given it by the reports of victories of the Cuban insurgents, manufactured at Key West and in New York, and which, under pretext of obtaining the title of belligerents, only tend to cause the United States to abandon that policy, the strict observance of which is dictated by the law of nations as taught and practiced by themselves. Thus, then, before closing these considerations relative to the announcement of the concession of belligerent rights to the insurgents of Cuba by the United States, it seems fitting to me to copy, in addition, the words addressed, September 18, 1865, by Mr. Charles Francis Adams, minister of this republic in London, to Lord John Russell. (See end of Spanish document.)

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to reiterate to the honorable Secretary of State the assurances of highest consideration. MAURICIO LOPEZ ROBERTS.

Hon. SECRETARY OF STATE of the United States.

[Inclosure.]

Extract from the correspondence of the Hon. C. F. Adams, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, with Lord Russell, minister for foreign affairs of England, respecting the Alabama, on September 18, 1865.

Page 155. "Whenever an insurrection against the established government of a country takes place, the duty of governments under obligations to maintain peace and friendship with it appears to be at first to abstain carefully from any step that may have the smallest influence in affecting the result." Whenever facts occur of which it is necessary to take notice, either because they involve a necessity of protecting personal interests at home, or avoiding an implication in the struggle, then it appears to be just and right to provide for the emergency by specific measures precisely to the extent that may be required, but no further. It is, then, facts alone, and not appearances or presumptions, that justify action. But even these are not to be dealt with further than the occasion demands. A rigid neutrality in whatever may be done is of course understood. Such appears to me to have been the course rigidly adhered to by the government which I have the honor to represent in the long struggle that took place between Spain and her colonies in South America. On which side of it the sympathies of the people were, cannot admit of a doubt, yet the respective dates which your lordship has been kind enough to search out and record in your note, sufficiently established the fact how earefully all precipitation was avoided in judging of the issue in regard to the mother country.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Extract from the Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton, LL. D.

PART 1.-NATIONS AND SOVEREIGN STATES.

Page 23. It is certain that the state of things between the parent state and insurgents must amount in fact to a war in the sense of international law-that is, powers and rights of war must be in actual exercise-otherwise the recognition is falsified, for the recognition is a fact. The tests to determine the question are various.

*

*

*

Among the tests are the existence of a de facto political organization of the insurgents, sufficient in character, population, and resources, to constitute it, if left to itself, a state among the nations, reasonably capable of discharging the duties of a state; the actual employment of military forces on each side, acting in accordance with the rules and customs of war, such as the use of flags of truce, cartels, exchange of prisoners, and the treatment of captured insurgents by the parent state as prisoners of war.

Extract of a note written by Mr. Perry to Mr. Seward, dated Legation of the United States,

Madrid, June 17, 1861.

The minister of state has to-day, while acknowledging that its provisions are in great part taken from the French decree, drawn my attention to the fact that he has avoided the use of the expression belligerents as far as possible, or any other which could be considered as prejudging the question of right in any manner.

Extract from a note of Mr. Schurz to Señor Calderon Collantes, dated Legation of the United

States, Madrid, July 31, 1861.

SIR: Yesterday I received a dispatch from the Secretary of State of the United States, informing me that the President has read with the greatest satisfaction the proclamation of her Catholic Majesty's concerning the unfortunate troubles that have arisen in the United States, and it affords me the sincerest pleasure to express to your excellency the high sense which the President entertains of her Majesty's prompt decision and friendly action upon this occasion.

Extract from a note of Mr. Dallas to Mr. Seward, dated Legation of the United States, London, May 2, 1861.

He (Lord Russell) told me that the three representatives of the southern confederacy were here; that he had not seen them, but was not unwilling to do so unofficially.

*

#

Extract from a note of Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, dated Department of State, Washington, May 21, 1861.

The President regrets that Mr. Dallas did not protest against the proposed unofficial intercourse between the British government and the missionaries of the insurgents.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Intercourse of any kind with the so-called commissioners is liable to be construed as a recognition of the authority which appointed them. Such intercourse would be none the less hurtful to us for being called unofficial, and it might be even more injurious, because we should have no means of knowing what points might be resolved by it. *

*

*

You will in any event desist from all intercourse whatever, unofficial as well as official, with the British government, so long as it shall continue intercourse of either kind with the domestic enemies of this country.

Extract from the correspondence between the Hon. Mr. C. F. Adams, American minister, and Earl Russell, Minister for Foreign Affairs of England, respecting the Alabama, dated Legation of the United States, London, September 18, 1865.

But entertaining as I do a strong impression that in the matter now at issue is involved a question of international comity based upon grave principles of morals of universal application, the decision upon which is likely to have a very wide bearing upon the future relations of all civilized nations, and especially those most frequenting the high seas, I feel myself under the necessity of placing upon record the views of it held by the government which I have the honor to represent.

No. 93.

Mr. Fish to Mr. Lopez Roberts.

WASHINGTON, October 13, 1869. The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. Roberts, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Spain, under date of 18th September, which was received on the 25th of that month, on which day the undersigned left Washington for a temporary absence.

Mr. Roberts states the object of his note to be the submission of "certain important considerations relative to the declaration of belligerent rights which, as it appears, it is intended to grant to the insurgents of Cuba."

Mr. Roberts does not state how or whence appears the intention, which in various parts of his note, with more or less force of expression, but always with equal and entire absence of proof, or of facts in support thereof, he assumes to be formed, and attributes to this government.

:

It might be a sufficient answer to say, that no intention to grant belligerent rights to the insurgents of Cuba has been announced by this government. It is a more perfect answer to say that no such intention has been reached by this government.