The incident to which the instructions refer occurred prior to my arrival
here, and, on reading the dispatches of Mr. Adee on the subject, which
were of a nature to invite instructions, it seemed to me most discreet,
before acting, to hear from the Department.
Meanwhile I had conference on this incident of the matter of the
Virginius, as well as in regard to the question of indemnities, and the
result [Page 495] of these interviews was
to convince me that the circumstance of the action of the British
government having preceded ours was of great advantage to the United
States. * * * *
Mr. Adee informs me that he was influenced by the same consideration.
A report had been current of the promotion of General Burriel. I learn,
upon inquiry, that this report is false, and that the promoted officer
was another person, although of the same surname.
It may be worth noting that the newspaper published at Madrid, entitled
La Iberia, and which is understood to be the
especial mouth-piece of Mr. Sagasta, did editorially deny the assertion
of General Burriel, Mr. Sagasta being at that time minister of
state.
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Cushin to
Mr. Ulloa.
Legation of the United States of America,
Madrid, June 27, 1874.
Sir: The Government of the United States,
on learning that General Juan Burriel had published in one of the
newspapers of Madrid, on the 14th of April last, a communication
which, in the vain effort to defend his atrocious act of the summary
execution at Santiago de Cuba of fifty-three persons of the crew and
passengers of the Virginius had rested his defense mainly on the
pretended authority of a certain decree issued by Captain-General
Dulce, of the 24th of March, 1869, might well have supposed that the
Spanish government would have hastened, in some convenient form,
official or unofficial, to contradict the assertion of General
Burriel. No such contradiction having appeared, however, it becomes
my duty to address your excellency on the subject.
Immediately on receiving information of the issue by Captain-General
Dulce of the above-mentioned decree, the Secretary of State of the
United States addressed the Spanish minister at Washington, Mr.
Lopez Roberts, regarding the same, as follows:
“It is to be regretted that so high a functionary as the
captain-general of Cuba should, as this paper seems to indicate,
have overlooked the obligations of his government, pursuant to the
law of nations, and especially its promises in the treaty between
the United States and Spain of 1795.
“Under that law and treaty the United States expect for their
citizens and vessels the privilege of carrying to the enemies of
Spain, whether those enemies be claimed as Spanish subjects or
citizens of other countries, subject only to the requirements of a
legal blockade, all merchandise not contraband of war. Articles
contraband of war, when destined for the enemies of Spain, are
liable to seizure on the high seas; but the right of seizure is
limited to such articles only, and no claim for its extension to
other merchandise, or to persons not in the civil, military, or
naval service of the enemies of Spain, will be acquiesced in by the
United States.
“This Government certainly cannot assent to the punishment, by
Spanish authorities, of any citizen of the United States for the
exercise of a privilege to which he may be entitled under public law
and treaties.
“It is consequently hoped that his excellency the captain-general of
Cuba will either recall the proclamation referred to, or will give
such instructions to the proper officers as will prevent its illegal
application to citizens of the United States or their property. A
contrary course might endanger those friendly and cordial relations
beteen the two governments, which it is the hearty desire of the
President should be maintained.”
Subsequently to this, the Government of the United States received
official information from its officers at Havana, that for the
decree of Captain-General Dulce, Captain-General Caballero de Rodas
had substituted a new decree, that of July 7, 1869, which in effect
and language annulled that issued by Captain-General Dulce. But the
sixth article of the decree of July 7, 1869, being considered by the
Government of the United States to imply a wholly inadmissible claim
of right to seize neutral vessels on the high seas contiguous to
Cuba, representations in that sense were addressed to the Spanish
minister, Mr. Lopez Roberts, the consequence of which was the issue
by Captain-General Caballero de Rodas of a new decree of July 18,
1869, as follows:
[Page 496]
[From the Official Gazette, Havana, July 20,
1869.—Translation.]
“Superior Political Government of the Province of
Cuba.
“In view of the determinations adopted by the Government of
the United States of America, as reported by his excellency
the minister of Spain in Washington, under date of the 15th
instant, and which were published in the Official Gazette of
the following day, and in order, at the same time, to
relieve legitimate commerce from all unnecessary
interference, in the use of the faculties which are
conferred upon me by the supreme government of the nation I
have determined to modify my decree of the 7th instant,
leaving the same reduced to the first five essential
articles.
“CABALLERO DE RODAS.
“Havana, July 18, 1869.”
Thus it was impossible for the Government of the United States to
entertain any doubt whatever of the fact, not only of the annulment
of General Dulce’s decree, but of the non-existence of any decree on
the subject, except as in the five subsisting articles of the decree
of Captain-General Caballero de Rodas.
The President of the United States still presumes that no authority
whatever exists for the assertion of General Burriel in this
respect, and that his action at Santiago de Cuba was not only in
flagrant violation of the law of nations, but also a criminal
infringement of the laws of Spain.
But in consequence of the uncontradicted assertion of General
Burriel, the President instructs me to inquire of your excellency
whether it be true that the decree of March 24, 1869, had not been
abrogated when the executions in question took place at Santiago de
Cuba? Also, whether that decree or anything equivalent to it,
respecting jurisdiction on the high seas, is regarded by the Spanish
government as still in force? Also, whether the executions made by
General Burner’s orders are regarded by that government as having
been made under authority of law?
The President also supposes that, if the Government of Spain has
omitted hitherto to institute steps for the punishment of General
Burriel and his associates in the executions at Santiago de Cuba, or
to exhibit any marks of its displeasure, by military degradation or
otherwise, the omission must have been caused by the extraordinary
political condition of thp Peninsula. If this supposition is
incorrect, it is important that the same should be known. He
therefore directs me to inquire whether proceedings of the character
above mentioned have been instituted, and when and where they will
probably take place.
Permit me to assure your excellency that these inquiries are not
intended or presented in other than respectful spirit toward the
government of Spain. Nevertheless, my Government feels that the
maintenance of good relations with Spain depends upon the adherence
of the latter to the statements and assurances hitherto given to the
United States regarding the abandonment of the objectionable
decrees, and upon the disavowal and punishment of those who, under
the guise of forms of trial, shocked the civilized world by the
executions in Santiago de Cuba.
I have, &c.,
