Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 1, 1873, Part I, General Correspondence; and Papers Relating to Naturalization and Expatriation, Volume II

No. 415.
General Sickles to Mr. Fish.

United States Legation in Spain,
Madrid, July 31, 1873. (Received August 21.)

No. 672.]

Sir: After my conversation with the minister of state on the 24th instant, I found an opportunity to discuss colonial policy with Mr. Carvajal, the minister of finance, an influential member of this cabinet. I will not trouble you with a recital of the argument since the conclusions seemed satisfactory. Mr. Carvajal assured me of his own hearty sympathy with the advocates of reform in the Antilles, and he added that Mr. Salmeron, the president, shared the same views. And after a full and frank interchange of opinion Mr. Carvajal suggested a further conversation with the president, with whom he kindly undertook to arrange an appointment.

Inclosed with this dispatch I forward official reports and translations of the debates of the 23d and 26th instant, respectively. In the latter you will see that a more mature reflection, aided possibly by the evidence I had furnished of the unhappy impression made by the policy announced on the 23d, has led to the modified attitude shown in the remarks of ministers in the subsequent discussions.

These impressions are confirmed by the action of the Cortes on the 28th, approving Mr. Suñer’s bill for extending to Porto Rico the ample bill of rights found in title first of the Spanish constitution. Further corroboration is afforded by the favorable reception given to the amended constitution reported by Mr. Castelar from the committee of twenty-five, in which it is proposed that Cuba and Porto Rico come in as States on an equal footing with the other members of the federation.

I am, &c.,

D. E. SICKLES.

[Inclosure A.—Translation.]

Extract from the debate in the Constituen Cortes July 23, 1873, on the hill empowering the government to levy forced contributions on reputed Carlists.

Mr. Romero Robledo. * * * * * * I shall add one more argument in conclusion. I should like to know how a contradiction is to he avoided in this proceeding on the part of the republic. To-day a forced contribution is levied upon those who aid the Carlists, while only the other day the estates of the Cuban insurgents were released from embargo and restored to them. [Mr. Betancourt interrupts the speaker.] Mr. Betancourt may say what he chooses, but it is the truth. The Carlists are enemies to liberty and modern progress, but after all they cry “Long live Spain!” We shall fight them and conquer them. And yet they do not attack the integrity of the nation. On the contrary, the Cuban insurgents, when all manner of reforms were offered to them, after the revolution of 1868, rebelled at Yara to the cry of “Death to Spain!” And when the republic was proclaimed, on the 11th of February, all sorts of offers were made to them, and it was thought the war would come to an end; but they only cried out the louder “Death to Spain!” That is to say, the Carlists, although the defenders of an abhorred cause, are our brothers and do not combat our nationality, while the others hate us and proclaim the extermination of ur race. How, then, can you explain this contradiction? You cannot indorse such a discrimination which only favors the enemies of Spain. The government and the assembly must weigh this well. I have done.

The Minister of Finance. * * * * *

Mr. Romero Robledo assumes that there is a contradiction between our conduct toward the Cuban insurgents and toward the Carlists because the restoration of the property of the former has been ordered. I am the first to be indignant at the attitude of a portion of the inhabitants of the island of Cuba, more blinded, per chance, by the continued absence of political liberty in harmony with their material status, than by any real need of independence; but is there anything in common between what is done to the insurgents in Cuba and what is done to the Carlists? The estates of the Cuban insurgents were not confiscated, but embargoed. Many persons hold that it is expedient to seize the enemy’s property, a principle repugnant to civilization, which nevertheless we have seen put in operation in our own time. Embargoes are contrary to the purpose in view, for they diminish the public wealth, and under this point of view we decided to restore to their owners the many estates now going to ruin. But has this anything to do with a war tax? It has been said that as an injury or punishment such measures may be taken toward communities. Experience shows their absurdity as a punishment, and therefore we employ them as an injury, establishing war taxes. We have applied the simple proverb which says, “Who breaks, pays,.” Those who break the national unity, those who break liberty and progress, should pay the damage they inflict upon the country. “Who breaks, pays.” The C artist, then, must pay.

Mr. Bertancourt. It was very far from my purpose to take partin the discussion, and I only do so because, having been alluded to by Mr. Romero Robledo, I was forced to interrupt him. If all those who speak here for the first time implore your benevolence, I fancy I need it more than any of the deputies I have yet heard. Your lips wont to express all the inspirations of patriotism, know all the riches of the beautiful tongue of Castile, while I have had to make a special study of forgetting even the very language of a certain class of feelings, the most natural and most generous of the soul, and whose simple enunciation has hitherto sufficed in Cuba to draw down exile or martyrdom on my fellow-countrymen.

I look upon this palace as the hearthstone of the great family of Spaniards. Here we are all assembled to discuss our most sacred interests, the interests of the country. You know the outgoings and incomings of it; you are as though in your own house. But I am a stranger here. From my childhood I have been told that these doors were closed to Cuba; that my brothers had been expelled hence unjustly and ignominiously, and I learned to believe that you would never heed our rights until we should be received into the bosom of this family and called to partake of all the rights possessed by our brethren of the peninsula. Just now, therefore, on hearing, when I least expected it, Mr. Romero Robledo compare the embargoes put upon the Cubans with the war contribution it is proposed to levy on the Carlists, I could not help exclaiming in an undertone to my friend Mr. Corchaclo, “Ya parecio aquelló!” And, with my usual frankness, I shall explain these words. I had received information from Cuba that Mr. Romero Robledo would come before you for the express purpose of speaking on the colonial question; and as, in my opinion, he dragged the question most inopportunely into this debate, I expressed my opinion about it to Mr. Corchado.

Mr. Romero Robledo has hinted that everything was permitted to the Cubans because they raised at Yara the banner of “Death to Spain,” and I now rise simply to give a plain statement of the facts. Gentlemen, what the Spanish people did in Cuba on the 10th of October, 1868, was the same as had been done in the peninsula in September of the same year, when the standard of liberty was raised against the tyranny of the old régime. And the truth of this is proved by the fact that as soon as the Cubans knew of the downfall of the throne of Doña Isabel II, they asked Captain-General Lersundi to convoke a junta, which was done, and when it met, Messrs. Modet and Meestre asked that a telegram should be sent to the peninsula stating that the Cubans supported the movement of their brothers in the peninsula, and aspired to the enjoyment of all the liberal conquests of the revolution.

The reply was in the sense of a postponement of all reforms, so that it was soon seen that the conquests of the revolution were not for Cuba. Thus three months passed by until Mr. Lopez de Ayala, approving the stationary policy of General Lersundi, by his last telegram shattered the remaining hopes of the Cubans. Nevertheless, when General Domingo Dulce arrived at Havana, another junta was held, and the insurgents of Camaguey, with one single exception, agreed to lay down their arms if in reality liberal reforms were given to Cuba.

The Vice-President. I beg that you will confine yourself to the matter under debate.

Mr. Bertancourt. A most serious charge has been made against Cuba, and I wish to set the facts right.

Many Deputies. Let him speak!

Mr. Bertancourt. I was saying that in the junta held at the plantation of Clavel-linas, all those present, with but one exception, voted to accept their liberties and lay down their arms to attain this end. And this is shown by a celebrated manifesto published in the journals of Havana when General Caballero de Rodas was in command. Afterward General Dulce named commissioners to confer with the Cubans. And what happened then? That the insurgent chief, Don Augusto Arango, being charged with carrying to Puerto Principe the basis of an arrangement, was treacherously assassinated by the volunteers, it was said, at the very entrance to the city, while upon his body was found the gaceta containing Ms pardon by General Dulce and the basis of the agreement or compromise.

In another junta held in the house of the Marquis of Campo Florido, in Havana, it was likewise agreed that if Cuba were granted the right of autonomical government peace and happiness would soon be restored to the island.

This resolution so exasperated the volunteers that they thereupon decided to crush the Cubans to prevent their union; and then began the assassinations of Viilanueva, of the Louvre, and even in the streets, which resulted in the flight of the native islanders and the embargo of their property. And thus it came to pass that the liberals, who were preparing for the election of deputies, tied terrified on seeing that Spain did not force the volunteers to respect her will. From that time the jails were crowded with Cubans, and the papers were filled with lists of embargoed estates without any procedure or form of law, but by executive orders. Such are the embargoes so justly annulled by Mr. Suñer.

I have heard with pleasure the minister of finance distinguish between embargoes imposed as a punishment, and therefore indefensible, and enforced war contributions. It is evident, therefore, that property embargoed by executive order is illegally and arbitrarily held, and for this reason Mr. Suñer ordered its restitution; it is evident that there is no relation between those embargoes and the war tax now under discussion, a tax which Cuba also supports without complaining.

But there is more to be done in this question of embargoes. In Cuba the government still holds innumerable estates belonging to the mothers, widows, and orphans of insurgents condemned to death by military or other courts, and who have perished on the scaffold or on the field of rebellion; and is it possible, gentlemen, that the republic can sustain such measures a single day longer?

I think I have said enough to demonstrate that the Cuban insurgents have not raised the standard of “Death to Spain!” That they have only desired and still desire the liberties and reforms you have here, and that, as these have never been granted them, it is unjust to charge them with ingratitude. What franchises in point of fact have been given to Cuba? What reforms has the republic essayed? Until now, nothing save the promises of Mr. Pi y Margall in his executive programme, and the disembargo of the property embargoed by executive order; which last is due to the uprightness of Mr. Suñer’s principles during the few days he filled the ministry of ultramar.

Mr. Romero Robledo, therefore, has no grounds for saying that the insurgents chose the moment when reforms were given to them to break into open rebellion. No! The Cubans have been waiting for thirty years, and are waiting still; and if Spain carries thither the liberties enjoyed in the peninsula, I have the firm belief that Cuba will remain to Spain! [Applause.]

Mr. Romero Robledo. I regret that your applauses hamper me somewhat at this moment, for Mr. Bertancourt has with great adroitness made an argument in favor of the Cuban insurgents, and arraigned the revolutionary Spain of 1868 and the republican Spain of to-day. Mr. Bertancourt, who says that by reason of his sufferings he has learned nothing, knows enough to put himself, as no one else could have done, in the position best adapted for dealing the strongest blows.

He has said that on asking why there were no representatives from Cuba here he was answered that they had been expelled in 1837; and those who answered him thus answered him wrong, since they should have replied that Cuban representatives were absent from the Spanish Cortes because Argüelles, Sancho, and Calatrava, patriarchs of the liberal party, deemed that they should be absent, for they had taken seats in the previous Cortes and sold their country, and then demanded the reward of the speeches they had made and the boasts they had uttered. [Rumors.] I do no more than repeat what Agustin Argüelles said in the Cortes of 1837, resulting in the denial then of representation to the Cubans.

Moreover, I do not understand how I compelled Mr. Betancourt to ask the floor, interrupting me, when I spoke of the insurgents, by saying, “Ya aparecio aquelló,” since neither he nor any one else needed intelligence from Cuba to know that I would defend in this parliament, as in any other to which I may be sent, the interests of Spain in the colonies; in doing which I am no more than faithful to my antecedents.

He says I have brought a groundless charge against Cuba. This is not correct. I incriminated the rebellious and ungrateful sons of Cuba who are fighting against Spain. The question of the insurrection must not be confounded with that of the reforms offered by all the governments before and since the revolution. Mr. Betancourt says that the rebels continue in rebellion because reforms have not been given them, but in reality they get no reforms because they will not lay down their arms; and reforms are not to be demanded by armed force. The rebels of Yara rose to the cry of “Death to Spain!” and that is still their cry. And when you speak to them of reforms, and offer them the republic, they answer through their official papers in New York, that they wish from Spain neither liberty nor the republic, they will accept nothing!

Consequent the conduct of those insurgents is not to be excused, nor the policy of Spain impugned. I have ever resolved that whenever an incident arises here concerning this unfortunate question, there should he at least one person to raise his voice in favor of the Spanish Cubans, and against the insurgents and traitors, who, while begging reforms, really seek to rend the heart of the nation.

General Dulce gave them all manner of liberties——[Interruptions from the left.] It is difficult to speak in the midst of these interruptions. Is it or is it not true, that General Dulce went to Cuba because his being in command there was a guarantee that reforms would be asked for? Gentlemen, this is notorious. I have in my possession a letter from General Dulce, a letter I will show to anyone who wishes to see it, in which he tells me that he had become fully convinced that the cry for reforms was a mere pretense—a mask—and what they wanted was independence, and nothing else. [Mr. Labra addresses a few words to the orator in an undertone.] Those who interrupt me would do better to ask the floor, and for that purpose I now allude directly to Mr. Labra. [Mr. Labra asks the floor.] I am in no way under pledges; my position here is perfectly clear, and I proclaim it frankly: I am with the republic in everything if it be necessary to the salvation of liberty and the country; I am ready to die with you while your sole guide is the integrity of the nation; but never will I be with those who seek the dismemberment of my country. This is a national question which ought to affect us more deeply than mere internal bickerings.

The minister of finance, seeing the impossibility of demonstrating the justice of the law now under consideration, has said very plainly that the motive of this measure lies in the fact that the government presented a law against the republicans a few days ago, and so it is now necessary to bring forward another against the Carlists. But I maintain that there is no equality in the two cases; and I may now add that, according to the principles he enunciates, quoting the proverb, “Who breaks pays,” the minister should lose no time in submitting a bill proposing that all the republicans should pay for all the damage they have done in all their insurrections. This is not just; political parties are not to be subjected to penalties of this kind, for in such case we would all be exposed to the lex talionis, since we are not eternal in our rule.

The minister speaks of the laws of war. I have heard with sorrow the application he proposes to make of these laws to civil warfare. I fancy that none of the writers on international law he may have consulted establish a parallel between a war among nations and an internal insurrection, which we should not even confess to be a war.

If the foreign powers were to recognize the Carlists as belligerents to-morrow, in accordance with the minister’s doctrines, how could the government protest when it could be answered in the very words of the finance minister? His excellency, in speaking of embargoes and of war contributions, tells us that the latter recognize property-rights. So do embargoes too. And he adds that the embargoes have been raised because they were detrimental to the public fortune. This is no argument; I am not discussing the question of embargoes. What I say is, that the insurgents who belong to the New York junta, and who say that they would like to know in which of their veins Spanish blood runs so that they might open it, have had their property restored to them, while a contribution is levied on the Carlists. This is a contradiction; and I repeat that you should not impose a contribution on a particular party because it is equivalent to making a law of caste.

The Minister of Finance. A distinction must be made between a state of warfare and a character of belligerency. The government, the chamber, the country, and the facts of the case may give rise to a state of war, and yet one of the parties may not be a belligerent. I believe that we are in a civil war, but this does not involve myself, or any one else, conceding a belligerent character to the Carlists. This depends on the conditions of the war and on other principal and accessory circumstances which are perfectly well known to the honorable gentleman. And so it cannot be inferred from my language that I deem the Carlists entitled to recognition as belligerents either by ourselves or by foreign powers.

Mr. Labra. I have no intention of making a speech on the grave question inaugurated by Mr. Romero Robledo, but when the problems are vast, and the difficulties that burden our minds great, I think that they should be made the subject of a special debate, in which theories may be brought forward and abstract facts set right with respect to a political question like that of Cuba, and with respect to a legal question like that of colonial reforms. I do not wish to disturb the course of the debate. If Mr. Romero Robledo is justified in saying that interruptions make discussion impossible, it is incumbent on me to explain why I interrupted him, adding that in my judgment it is also impossible to discuss when gratuitous assertions are made on the part of one of the contestants. This is both a question of fact and a question of judgment, and it is incumbent on me to oppose a distinct protest to the assertions of Mr. Romero Robledo.

He says that the insurrection in Cuba was from the outset in the interest of separation, and that its development has continued in this same sense up to the time when Mr. Suñer issued his decree concerning embargoed property in favor, as has been here said, of the very persons who form the insurgent junta in New York. The two extremes are false. The decree in nowise refers to that junta, since it only affects property embargoed by executive, act, and not of estates sequestered by a judicial decision. Neither was the insurrection of Yara secessionist at its outbreak; still less is it true that General Dulce proclaimed in Cuba in 1868 the liberties of the Peninsula.

I do not understand how Mr. Romero Robledo invokes the decrees of General Dulce, since they introduced no reforms. He only issued two decrees: one concerning the liberty of the press, with two lamentable restrictions, first, that nothing could be said against religious unity—which was bad enough, since in Cuba religious liberty has existed de facto for a long time; and second, the prohibition of attacks, not on the integrity of the country, but on slavery! And thus it was permitted to attack the national integrity, but forbidden to attack that to which no civilized nation now consents. The second decree of General Dulce recognized the right of re-union but limited its exercise solely to the voters; that is to say, he revived the decree issued by Mr. Vaamonde (Bahamonde, as it is more generally spelled,) in 1864, and which led to the retirement of the progressistas.

I had occasion at that time to speak with General Serrano and Mr. Ayala, who said to me that public order in Cuba would not be disturbed by sending General Dulce thither, and I told them that they were mistaken, and that General Dulce’s appointment was insufficient to repress the insurrection. Moreover, in all the history of America it has been observed that while the first movements of colonies have never been toward separation, the second and subsequent movements have always been secessionist; and this is not to be wondered at, since it depends on the radical difference of status between the colonies and the provinces of the mother country. In the present insurrection I have always condemned the idea of separation, for I think it prejudicial to colonial autonomy. It is certain that if the insurgents had laid down their arms, or would lay them down as I had advised, the Cortes would concede that autonomy, and Cuba would obtain all the advantages of liberty without separation from the mother country.

I am fatigued, and taking up the time of the chamber, and so I will conclude by saying that we are discussing a question of facts, and I defy Mr. Romero Robledo to prove his assertions.

Mr. Romero Robledo. It is proper that I should expose the error into which Mr. Labra has fallen in saying that I provoked this debate on the colonial question. I simply adduced an argument applicable to the bill under discussion, and an impatient deputy, doubtless to provoke this question, interrupted me. Not only have I not originated this colonial discussion, but, in the interpellation I had the honor to explain a few days ago to the chamber, notwithstanding that several deputies had taken up this question, I deliberately avoided touching upon it for fear that affirmations would be made contrary to my own convictions, and knowing this to be a question not to be taken up incidentally. This has been my course on the colonial question, notwithstanding Mr. Navarrete took it up rather ill-advisedly and mistakenly, in my judgment, and notwithstanding, also, that Mr. Suñer, then minister of the colonies, uttered words I could not approve.

Mr. Labra denies Mr. Dulce’s reforms, and between my affirmation and his negation the public mind cannot but be perplexed; but a time will come for ample discussion on this matter, and then it will be seen whether General Dulce did or did not grant reforms. I shall read the journals published at that time in Cuba, and then we will see the effect certain of their articles will produce on Spanish ears.

With respect to the last fact we will debate it too; and if Mr. Labra asks for proofs I guarantee to show him that the Cortes of 1837 closed their doors to the American deputies because of the perfidious and traitorous conduct of their representatives in previous Cortes; for, as Arguelles said, they had even demanded the prize and reward of the speeches they had made, and which, they claimed, had aided the independence of the American colonies. I shall adduce proofs of this, and meanwhile Mr. Labra is at liberty to persevere in his denial.

As to the rest, why should I weary you? It is said, “When a party confesses, proofs are needless.” I applaud Mr. Labra’s patriotic words, and his vehement desire that the rebels should lay down their arms. I rejoice that Mr. Labra and Mr. Betancourt differ, as it is a difference we all appreciate; but the truth is that Mr. Labra has said to us that the Cuban insurrection is separatist in its character. Is not this what he said? You all know it; the Cuban rebels are separatists, and I, as a Spaniard, addressing a parliament which is also Spanish, tell you that the insurrection is kept up by a few ingrates, an insignificant minority, as is shown by the fact that during the four years they have been in arms under the protection of the United States they have never been able to seize a single town. It is therefore our duty to support the majority in Cuba, and to uphold their rights.

Mr. Betancourt. Mr. Romero Robledo says that it is not he who has raised this question about Cuba, but my impatience. The truth is that nothing was more out of my path than the idea that the colonial question could be brought into a debate on a question of finance. And that is why, when Mr. Romero Robledo dragged it in, I, addressing Mr. Corchado in private conversation, could not resist saying in an undertone, “Ya pareció aquello!” (There it is at last.) Mr. Romero Robledo thereupon addressed me, telling me I ought to ask the floor. I did so; and that’s the whole story. Afterward I stated, in explanation of my remark, that I had heard that Mr. Romero Robledo was engaged to take up the Cuban question in this parliament. It was not I, therefore, who provoked this incident, but Mr. Romero Robledo. This is perfectly clear. The honorable gentleman was, doubtless, impatient to fulfill his pledges, and it was in reality he who brought the matter into this debate.

I shall not take up the words “perfidious, vile, and traitorous,” used by the honorable gentleman in speaking of the insurgents. I shall only say that the men of the old régime who carried tyranny to Cuba were the only ones well acquainted with the art of making traitors. When all the paths to liberty are shut for a people—and you yourselves, republicans, have most unmistakably proclaimed that they are shut—the right is on the side of that people if they resort to the only appeal left to them, the appeal to force.

Mr. Labra. Mr. Romero Robledo says: “Mr. Labra asks me for proofs of a certain fact, and I will give them to him,” and, remaining silent with respect to the proofs I explicitly demanded, he offers me other proofs I did not ask for.

He has spoken of several topics, and among others the attitude of the American deputies in the Spanish Cortes. I have not denied that Mr. Arguelles said what Mr. Romero Robledo says he said; what I have denied, or would have denied, is the fact that such was their attitude; and it would be most absurd if, when a historical fact was mentioned and proof thereof demanded, the words of such and such a historian were cited as sufficient proof.

The honorable gentleman has spoken to us of the Cortes of 1837. I know that the deputies from Cuba and Porto Rico were expelled from those Cortes, but by a small majority, for opposed to Mr. Arguelles were other men not less illustrious than he, like Caballero, Quintana, and others, who stood up for the rights of those colonies.

In order to convince the assembly that the expulsion of the American deputies from the Spanish Cortes was due to their perfidy, Mr. Romero Robledo has adduced arguments of much authority. But I in turn can oppose to these arguments those of the persons who fought against that resolution. Moreover, all the world knows the motives and passions which led Mr. Arguelles to make those speeches, and I can prove that there were American deputies who gave great examples of patriotism and love for Spain.

And now I turn to my second correction, also brief. The deputies from America in the legislature of 1811 gave due notice to the government that if reforms were not carried into effect the separatist movement would triumph. This can be shown from their motions and speeches. Mr. Romero Robledo with some ability made use, as an argument in his favor, of an explanation I had proffered. I said that in colonial history all insurrections bore a separatist character in their second stage, and this would have been the case with Cuba and Porto Rico had there been previous insurrections, as however there were not; and Mr. Romero Robledo says: “When a party confesses, proofs are no longer needed.” But I added that it is the duty of statesmen, firstly, to prevent insurrections from reaching that stage; and, secondly, when it is reached, to put down the insurrection. That of Cuba is in its second stage, and yet it is still possible to effect political reforms there like those in Canada, and Cuba will then remain under the dominion of Spain.

Mr. Romero Robledo. I shall be extremely brief in my replies. To Mr. Labra I shall simply say that since the rebellion in Cuba is in its second stage, let us first overcome the rebels and then we will discuss reforms. Mr. Betancourt asks me what my desires or pledges are respecting colonial issues. I have no other desire than to behold the triumph of the Spanish flag, nor other pledges than those imposed by my conscience and my patriotism. I am not a deputy from these provinces. I have therein neither interests nor passions, nor any kind of aspiration incompatible with my country’s good. And Mr. Betancourt—what pledges does he obey? Because when he supposes that I am under pledges he leads me to suspect that he himself may be so bound. I therefore repel his question, and address him another in the self-same terms.

Mr. Betancourt. When I said that Mr. Romero Robledo had treated the Cuban question as he was accustomed to treat it, I did not deem I was speaking of desires and pledges in the sense in which he has understood me. If there be any pledges he must know it. I shall now give the pledges I contracted on taking my seat here. I did not seek to be a deputy. I was spontaneously elected from Porto Rico, which thereby wished to confer upon me an honor which I endeavor to deserve. Moreover, all the pledges I have are these: obey the sentiments of my heart, the love I bear to my country, and justice and liberty, ever wounded by the lips of Mr. Romero Robledo when he takes up the question of the Antilles.

Mr. Romero Robledo. I do not wish Congress to be impressed by any reticence on my part with respect to pledges I may have contracted regarding the colonial question. And I only know that when the insurrection of the traitor Lopez took place, the Betancourts and the Agüeros rose with him.

The Minister of Finance, (Mr. Carvajal.) With a melancholy facility we have strayed away from the question under discussion. Nevertheless, Mr. Betancourt has made a remark I cannot pass over in silence. He says that the people of Cuba had a right to rebel under former governments, which has most harshly censured. Without disputing this insurrectionary right, which, in my judgment, can only exist in extreme cases, I must say that the government to-day considers the Cuban insurrection as criminal as that of the Carlists or of the Intransigentes; [Good! Good!] that it will hold it the more criminal in proportion as the Cubans know that this government stands ready to give them all manner of liberties as soon as they lay down the arms wherewith they endeavor to extort them from us; and that while arms are in their hands we cannot give them those liberties. [Marks of approval.] Mr. Suñer’s bill is intended to say so distinctly. Under this point of view it is evident, therefore, that the government should dispel the possible effects of Mr. Betaneourt’s words addressed to the assembly, which is before all Spanish, and to a government whose mission is to defend the national integrity, and to make this question one with the development of our liberties on every foot of national soil. [Applause.]

But let us define the principal basis of the question now being ventilated. I have maintained that the bill under discussion tends to soften and modify in the interest of civilization and progress all that is hard, severe, and energetical in the necessities of warfare. The Roman precept, adversus hostem œternas auctoritas esto, is now abolished and separated from the same condition of warfare under which it was first established, but there is a general principle which we cannot lose sight of—that war should be paid for by the enemy. In barbarous times this was done by confiscation of property and person; in the present century it is effected by means of contributions. But in a state of war such exactions are enforced by arbitrary proceedings, such as the Carlists now employ, and we cannot face such a situation without weapons. For this reason, let us modify and regulate this state of things by means of law, giving to the popular corporations this natural right, and thereby fix the mode in which the war is to be paid for by the enemy.

Guided, therefore, by a principle more civilized than arbitrary, we have presented this measure with perfect independence and uprightness. Amendments are coming in from all sides of the chamber, and, in view of this, the government leaves the house free to adopt with respect to the bill under debate such resolution as it may deem most expedient.

Mr. Betancourt. I am very well aware, Mr. Minister of Finance, that I am not here in a Cuban parliament. How could I be ignorant of it on seeing that Cuba has no representatives here?

The Vice-President, (Mr. Pedregal.) Although I regret to do so, I must notify you that you are limited to making a correction.

Mr. Betancourt. I am endeavoring to correct an erroneous impression as to what I said. I am a representative of the Spanish nation, and as Cuba is a part of Spanish soil, I hold that it was my duty to defend that island. As for the statement that the Cuban insurgents will have no liberties as long as they do not lay down their arms, I shall reply in the words of one of the most authoritative representatives of the republican party, who said: “The Cuban question is a faulty circle of reasoning; Cuba waits for liberties to be given her before laying down her arms, and Spain waits for the insurgents to lay down their arms before giving them their liberties.” The minister of finance says that the insurgents are without excuse, because they do not abandon their arms in view of the offers of liberties now made to them. Offers have been made to them since 1837; Cuba wishes the fulfillment of these promises, and, if after their fulfillment, the insurrection continues, then, and then only, would you have the right to say to her: “Thou art a traitor to the mother country!”

The Minister of Finance. In saying to Mr. Betancourt that the republic has given to Porto Rico all our liberties, an answer is given to him and to this insurrection which has not a single explanation, in whose favor not a solitary voice can justly be raised, and against which all of us will rise together, for we are determined that it shall cease. While the actual government exists, as also while that of which Mr. Suñer was a minister lasted, no notice will be taken of the demands of the insurgents in Cuba as long as they do not lay down their arms; and Mr. Suñer’s opinion was the same as that I have expressed before. We offer the insurgents liberty, individual rights, representation in the national Congress, and political and economical reforms, as soon as they lay down their arms; and they know, and should know, that the republic is honest and does not fail in its promises or in obedience to the law of its own existence, as it has not failed with respect to the noble island of Porto Rico, which already sends a most enlightened representation to this Congress. [Great applause.]

* * * * * * *

[Inclosure C.—Translation.]

[Extract.]

Sundry interpellations touching Spanish colonial policy, in the Constituent Cortes, July 26, 1873.

Mr. Betancourt. I have asked the floor in order to address two inquiries, one to the government and the other to the minister of the colonies. For many years various republics in either hemisphere have entreated Spain to denounce as pirates slave-trading vessels, their crews and their outfitters; and now that this step has been taken against the insurgent vessels at Cartagena, does not the government deem that the time has come when the decorum of the nation demands that a like declaration be made against all those engaged in the abominable traffic of human flesh, and who have enjoyed and are enjoying an impunity which is a dishonor to Spain and an injury to the human race? The question I put to the minister of the colonies is simply, Is his excellency disposed to lay before us the law for the immediate and absolute abolition of slavery in Cuba, which for five years past has been under consideration, and for five months past has been daily promised to us by the republican ministers, none of whom have yet presented it? If the government wishes to reserve to itself the glory of taking the initiative, I beg that it will do so as soon as possible, since, in the contrary case, there will not be wanting in this chamber a few men to join their names with mine in beseeching that Spain shall be freed from the stigma of slavery. [Many deputies: “All of us!”]

The Colonial Minister. Mr. Betancourt’s inquiry has been answered in advance by the telegram I sent to the captain-general of Cuba on taking charge of my department, in which I said that it was my purpose to extend to that island the political, administrative, and social reforms advocated by the republican party while in opposition. And I shall do so because it is neither politic nor honorable to agitate public opinion under a party standard and to ignore it as soon as power is attained. And, in particular, the measure abolishing slavery is well advanced, and I cherish the hope that it will be presented to the Cortes before I cease to hold this office.

* * * * * * *

Mr. Sorni. I sought to lay before you the bill for the abolition of slavery in Cuba, and to this end I had already arranged with the slaveholders, who agreed to the measure, and without indemnification nevertheless, as I had to write to Cuba and await a reply, time passed, and meanwhile I ceased to be minister. Had I remained in the ministry a few days longer I would have presented the abolition bill to the Cortes.

Mr. Cala.* * * * * * * * * And now I would like to know if the colonial minister is prepared to extend to the Antilles all the reforms proclaimed by the republican party while in opposition. Is he prepared to grant them without in anyway considering the state of insurrection in which those islands now are or may be; or is he, on the contrary, in conformity with the statements of the minister of finance a few days ago to the effect that no reforms whatever would be conceded while any one should remain in rebellion? I was about to put the same question to the minister of finance, but in an inverse sense, namely, whether he agreed with the colonial minister, or if he still maintained the opinion he expressed the other day which is so opposed to federal republican principles.

The Colonial Minister. In answer to Mr. Cala I shall limit myself to referring him to my explicit statements previously made to Mr. Betancourt. If Mr. Cala thinks that my ideas and those expressed by the minister of finance are in conflict, I am bound to tell him that I think he is mistaken. When these reforms come up in the council of ministers their discussions will show whether or no the minister of finance and myself are agreed in respect to them.

The Minister of State. I think Mr. Cala will be satisfied if I inform him in reply to his question of the other day that I am unable to furnish the documents referred to because, fortunately, they are not of record in the ministry of state.

* * * * * * *

The Minister of Finance. I propose to reply to Mr. Cala’s remarks in reference to me, made during my absence. I shall simply say to him that if he wishes to acquaint himself fully with the matter in question, I beg to refer him to the Diario de Sesiones, where he may thoroughly inform himself of the precise words I used to Mr. Betancourt concerning the Antilles, or to the opinions of his own companions in the chamber, and then he will see if there is any difference of opinion between the colonial minister and myself respecting the reforms which are to be carried out in the Antilles. There is no such difference, Mr. Cala, nor, indeed, has there been any with respect to the measures submitted to the late cabinet by Mr. Suñer y Capdevila. I have nothing more to say.