No. 273.
Mr. Fish to Mr. Cushing.

No. 108.]

Sir: Your dispatch No. 177, with which was inclosed a copy of the elaborate note of Mr. Ulloa on the question of the Virginius, in reply to your communications, and of his private note forwarded at the same time, has been received. I have read the note of Mr. Ulloa with interest and careful attention.

While I cannot agree with many of his assumptions and arguments, I must express satisfaction with its general tone and tendency, and with its temper and conciliatory expressions.

In this view, it is in marked contrast with some of the papers which have in the past emanated from the officials of Spain.

* * * * * * *

I must, however, express my regret that Mr. Ulloa should have deemed it necessary, even if in deference to public feeling in Spain, to refer to the executions at Santiago as “the strict fulfillment of the laws in special circumstances,” or as called for by “the imperious voice of duty,” or to take from the moral effect of the indemnity proposed by characterizing the reparation as actuated by sentiments of pity consequent on a “duty fulfilled,” and as caused by a desire to alleviate the misfortunes of those who suffer through punishment imposed on others by the law. I could have hoped that a review of all the facts attending the executions, and a consideration at this late day of those barbarous and cruel acts, happily without parallel, would have deterred the accomplished minister of state from the use of any expressions, and from allowing himself to be committed to any view, tending to justify those executions.

* * * * * * *

Without considering what supposed necessity may demand such an apparent justification, I cannot but believe that, had Spain joined the civilized world in a denunciation of these executions, and had she long since visited prompt and effective punishment on the guilty parties, the moral support she would have gained thereby would have largely exceeded any corresponding detriment.

* * * * * * *

I am, &c.,

HAMILTON FISH.