I noticed, in the course of that conversation, that Mr. Calderon,
although he denied the receipt of official communications from the
captain general of Cuba, seemed to be well informed of what had happened
there, while I had no other knowledge of the facts referred to in your
despatch than a general impression gathered from newspaper statements,
which, in this case, had been distressingly indefinite and
contradictory.
You will notice that, in my conversation with Mr. Calderon, I confined
myself entirely to putting questions, partly because I was ignorant of
what actually had happened, and partly because I consider it impolitic,
under present circumstances, to join issue with foreign governments on
things
[Page 286]
which may or may not
happen. The latter is especially applicable to the case under
consideration.
Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Memorandum of a conversation between Mr.
Calderon Collantes and Mr. Schurz on October 16,
1861.
Mr. Schurz informed Mr. Calderon that the original of Mr. Seward’s
despatch [No. 30,] a copy of which had been forwarded by Mr. Tassara
to him, (Mr. Calderon,) had not reached the American legation, and
that he was therefore unable to lay before Mr. Calderon the reports
of the consular officers of the United States alluded to in the
despatch; but that he considered it important that a matter which
was so apt to lead to disagreeable consequences should be promptly
disposed of, and that he therefore requested Mr. Calderon to state
the views of the Spanish government in a general manner, even if it
was impossible, in the absence of special information, to judge of
the exact merits of the cases which had occasioned Mr. Seward’s
despatch.
Mr. Calderon replied that he had received no official communication
on this subject from the captain general of Cuba, but that he was
prepared to make the following statement:
Spain had followed, in relation to vessels coming from the ports of
the so-called Southern Confederacy, the same rules of action which
she had adopted in the case of vessels clearing from the ports of
the kingdom of the Two Sicilies after the assumption of royal
authority in that kingdom by King Victor Emanuel. It was well known
that Spain had not recognized the so-called kingdom of Italy, and
that the consular agents of King Francis I were still exercising
their functions in the Spanish ports. Nevertheless, Spain did not
oblige the masters of vessels arriving in Spanish ports from the
ports of the kingdom of Naples to submit to the authority of the
consuls of Francis I, but permitted them to address themselves
either to these or to the consular officers of King Victor Emanuel,
as they saw fit. But this permission given to vessels coming from
the Neapolitan ports to transact their business with the consuls of
Victor Emanuel was by no means intended to imply a recognition of
the Italian kingdom; for Spain recognized in the kingdom of the Two
Sicilies no other authority as lawful and legitimate than that of
King Francis I.
In like manner it was permitted to vessels coming from the ports now
under the control of the so-called Confederate States, upon their
arrival in Spanish ports, to address themselves to the consular
authorities of the United States, if they saw fit to do so; but, as
in the case of vessels coming from Neapolitan ports, Spain did not
think proper to oblige them to do so. This practice, however, was by
no means intended to imply, in any manner, a recognition of the
so-called Confederate States as an independent nation.
But in the case of these vessels the action of Spain was still more
justifiable than in the case of the Neapolitan vessels. The
government of the United States was, with its naval forces,
blockading the southern ports, and it was their business to see to
it that no vessels should escape from the ports thus guarded. It
could not be expected of Spain to supply the deficiencies of the
maritime police of the United States, nor was it reasonable to
expect
[Page 287]
that she should
turn away from her ports vessels engaged in ordinary peaceful
commerce, and which had not been able to obtain regular papers even
if they had wanted to do so. Nor could Spain oblige such vessels by
force to submit to the authority of the consular officers of the
United States. Spain was acting solely with a view to the protection
of her commercial interests, and nothing else.
Mr. Schurz replied that the only ground upon which such proceedings
could legitimately be placed was that of necessity, and asked Mr.
Calderon whether this was the ground taken by the government of
Spain.
Mr. Calderon replied that it was. It was nothing but an ex necessitate proceeding, and that as soon
as that necessity ceased the Spanish government would cease to
follow that rule of action.
Mr. Schurz asked whether the Spanish government would admit into its
ports vessels without papers regularly issued by the authorities of
the United States as soon as the authority of the government of the
United States should be re-established in the southern ports.
Mr. Calderon answered that they would not, because then the necessity
would cease. But he would not admit the ground taken by Mr. Seward
in his despatch, that the admission of vessels without regular
papers under the actual state of things depended on a “concession”
on the part of the government of the United States, which might be
granted or withdrawn at pleasure. The Spanish government claimed a
right to adhere to its rule of action as long as the necessity
existed. But he protested most emphatically against the construction
placed upon this rule as implying a recognition of the so-called
Confederate States; the government of Spain did not think of taking
such a step and of interrupting the friendly relations existing
between the two countries, the preservation of which was undoubtedly
considered important by the United States, and had always been
sincerely desired by Spain.
Mr. Schurz replied that, as to these peaceful relations, the United
States desired to preserve them with equal sincerity, not because
they were afraid of a conflict, but because they loved peace. He
added that if Spain in this case followed an established policy,
founded on precedent, he did not wish to carry the discussion
further at present, especially in the absence of all reliable
information as to the recent occurrences in the ports of Cuba; but
he wished to say that while the United States would set up no
unreasonble pretensions, any act on the part of a foreign government
which might be justly interpreted as a recognition of the
independence of the States now in rebellion against the legitimate
government of the North American republic would necessarily and
inevitably lead to a rupture.
Mr. Calderon repeated that no such intention was entertained by the
government of Spain, which entertained none but friendly feelings
towards the United States. He informed Mr. Schurz that he was about
to address a despatch on this subject to Mr. Tassara, which the
latter would be instructed to read to Mr. Seward.
