Mr. Snowden to Mr. Foster.
Madrid, January 6, 1893. (Received January 23.)
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, acting upon your instruction No. 53, of December 20, inclosing a joint resolution offered in the Senate by Senator Dolph, I sought an interview with the minister of state, the Marquis of Vega Armijo, on the 3d instant.
The substance of that interview was cabled you the same day.
In view of the voluminous correspondence between the two Governments now on file touching the origin and progress of this claim, and as the minister of state was thoroughly familiar with the subject in all its bearings, I did not deem it necessary to go back of the proposition of Señor Moret as presented in his note to the legation under date of November 29, 1886. The more so as there appears to be no contention as to the leading facts or their significance up to the date of that proposition.
In reply to my observations in which I gave the substance of the proposed joint resolution of Congress in regard to the claim, the minister of state made a résumé of the case up to and including the plan of settlement as proposed by Señor Moret, and amongst other things said that whilst the proposition of Señor Moret was to settle the claims for a given sum, it reserved to the Spanish Government the right to determine the most practicable method of payment, and that of this the Government of the United States was to be duly advised.
The marquis further added with much emphasis that in his judgement no minister would again present to Parliament a proposition in settlement of this claim unless it embraced the claims of Spanish subjects against the United States, and certainly that no appropriation would ever be made by the Cortes without the admission of such claims.
[Page 415]Replying to the inference he intended me to draw, to wit, that the rejection of Señor Moret’s proposition by the Cortes left the matter as it was before the proposition was made, I observed that as the plan of settlement presented by Señor Moret and made with the concurrence of his colleagues in the ministry, was accepted by the United States as a finality, it followed that neither the resignation of Señor Moret from the cabinet, nor the refusal of the Cortes to appropriate the money agreed upon in settlement of the claims, released his Government from the moral and legal obligation it had assumed.
He replied that whilst in theory this might be true, the fact remained that the Government was unable to carry out any proposition or obligation it might assume involving the expenditure of money without the assent of the Cortes, which alone had the authority to appropriate money. That in the case of Señor Morets proposition the Cortes had refused to appropriate the amount agreed upon, and that, therefore, that plan of settlement might be considered as dead, or at least suspended.
Whilst still insisting that the moral and legal obligation rested upon Spain to carry out the plan of settlement as presented by Señor Moret and accepted by our Government, without reference to any claims that might be presented by Spanish subjects against the United States, which could be taken up and adjusted subsequently, I ventured, in conformity with your cablegram of the 2d instant, to ask whether the Spanish Government was willing, provided our Government consented, to reopen negotiations, and in this connection whether it would empower Señor Dupuy de Lôme, the present minister at Washington, to act for his Government in arranging a convention through which a final settlement might be reached. He replied, as indicated in my telegram herewith appended, by declining to allow Señor Dupuy de Lôme to act, giving as a reason that the new minister would shortly be in Washington. He further stated that he would have no objection to submit the claims of both countries to a convention.
I shall endeavor to have the new minister carry with him to Washington the authority to arrange a convention, and shall seek an interview with him before he leaves here.
I have, etc.,