No. 345.
Mr. Foster
to Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Madrid, February 14, 1884. (Received March 4.)
Sir: On the morning of the 9th instant I received your telegram of the 8th, in which you state that the President’s proclamation will be made public as soon as you have notice from me that royal action is taken to put in execution Articles I, IV, and VI, on the 1st of March next.
On the day of the receipt of your telegrams, I called on the Minister of State and informed him of your approval of his proposition to put in operation the articles mentioned. The question then arose as to the best method of carrying them into effect. Señor Elduayen said that he [Page 478] was embarrassed in the matter by the action of his predecessor in submitting the agreement of January 2 to the Cortes. If that step had not been taken, he would have been left free to put into operation such of its stipulations as he felt authorized to execute, and ask authorization of the Cortes for those which required the approbation of the legislative power. But while Señor Ruiz Gomez may not have intended to submit to the Cortes more than Article III, the project of law prepared by him did in fact submit the whole agreement, and so long as it was pending before the chambers he would not feel authorized to act upon it. He suggested, however, that in view of the fact that the sessions of the Cortes had been suspended and that no action could be had upon the agreement before the 1st of March, it seemed to him that the most practicable thing to do was to make a new agreement embodying the stipulations of the one of January 2, and separating it into two parts, embracing in the first those articles which the Government of Spain had the power to carry out on the 1st of March, and in the second those articles which would require the authorization of the Cortes.
I responded that while I had objected in our previous interview to his suggestion of annulling the agreement, I was quite ready to join him in any action which would relieve his Government from the embarrassment which he had explained, provided the stipulations of that agreement were not impaired. It was not the form but the substance of that instrument which I was interested in preserving, and since he had approved of all its articles upon their merits, I would very cheerfully accept his suggestion, if it would facilitate his Government in executing the stipulations.
It was accordingly agreed that the minister would have a draft of a new agreement prepared in the sense indicated, and that I should call at the ministry on the 11th instant to examine it with him. This I did at the hour indicated, and Señor Elduayen submitted to me the draft substantially as signed. He said that he had omitted Article V of the agreement of January 2, for the reason that it appeared that it had been suggested by the Spanish Government under a misapprehension that a discriminating tonnage duty was charged in the United States on Spanish vessels. This, it appeared, was not the case and there seemed no necessity for retaining it. Article VIII was also omitted from his draft for the reason that in separating the new agreement into two parts, namely, the stipulations which were to be carried into effect March 1 and those which required the approbation of the Cortes, in neither of which this article could be embraced. The two Governments were always authorized to negotiate on the subject of commercial matters; and the minister said he very heartily indorsed the views of his predecessor as specified in the article, and was prepared to act upon it at the convenience of the United States.
I told the minister that as the two articles omitted in his draft had been originally inserted at the request of the Spanish Government I would not object to their omission in view of his declarations respecting them. After some further conversation as to the preparation of the new agreement for signature and fixing upon yesterday, the 13th instant, as the time for that purpose, I took my leave.
On yesterday at 3 p.m. I called at the ministry of state, accompanied by Mr. Reed, secretary of legation, who compared with the sub-secretary of state the duplicate original agreement. While this was being done I said to the minister of state that while it had been my desire to preserve intact the agreement of January 2 last, I had yielded to his (the minister’s) request to modify it in order to obviate what he conceived [Page 479] to be insuperable constitutional and parliamentary objections to its enforcement on the 1st of March, with the understanding that the original agreement was not to be essentially changed in substance, but only in form and in the time of its execution. In the agreement, however, about to be signed there were omitted articles 5 and 8 of that of January 2, and while his reasons given for their omission had been accepted by me as satisfactory I thought it well to place these reasons on record in writing. I accordingly handed him the memorandum, of which I inclose a copy, accompanied by a Spanish translation.
The minister, after reading it, said that it was a perfectly correct statement, and he was gratified that I had prepared it, as it was a document quite pertinent to and explanatory of the modified agreement. He further stated that in order that there might be no misunderstanding he would address me an official note acknowledging its receipt and express his conformity with its statements.
The new agreement was then signed by the minister and myself, in the presence of the secretary of legation and the sub-secretary of state. I now transmit herewith the original agreement belonging to our Government, and I trust that my action in connection therewith may meet with your approval.
At 7 o’clock last night I sent you a cablegram advising you of the signing of the new agreement, also that the royal decree putting it in operation March 1 on the part of Spain would be published on Saturday next, the 16th, and that I had agreed that the President’s proclamation should appear at as nearly the same time as possible.
I am, &c.,