File No. 437.00/40.
[Inclosure—Translation.]
The Cuban Secretary of
State to the American
Minister.
Department of State,
Habana,
July 9, 1912.
My Dear Mr. Minister: I have the honor to
acknowledge receipt of your note of the first instant, in which your
excellency was good enough to inform me concerning the recent call
of the French Ambassador at Washington upon the
[Page 287]
Secretary of State, Mr. Knox, in which
he asked that the latter should suggest to the Cuban Government that
it was highly desirably to settle by arbitration the fundamental
question as to whether or not the Republic of Cuba is responsible
for the damages which English, French and German subjects claim to
have suffered during the War of Independence of 1895–1898; and in
which at the same time your excellency is good enough to communicate
to me the opinion or advice of the Secretary of State of the United
States as regards the attitude and conduct which should be assumed
and followed by the Cuban Government.
From what I am able to deduce from your excellency’s note, Mr. Knox
explained to the French Ambassador practically all that was of
material interest in the interview which I had the honor to have
with him on April 13 last in the Hotel Telégrafo in Habana; although
I fear that, surely because I did not express myself well at that
time or did not exactly understand what was said in that interview
of April 13, there has arisen some misunderstanding; for at least it
does not seem that I remember that, instead of arbitration, I
suggested to Mr. Knox the advantage of submitting the matter in
dispute to one or more distinguished jurists whose designation could
be decided by agreement; unless my memory is faulty, it was Mr. Knox
who, in reply to the observation that an arbitration at The Hague
would be exceedingly costly, suggested the idea of the possibility
of resorting to a commission; I still remember although very vaguely
some observation which I then made relative to the difficulties
which might be found in such a course in the Cuban Congress, as it
might not be in accord with the stipulations of the first Transient
Provision of our Constitution.
After all, this doubt as to a mere incident has no importance
especially, as in the interview with Mr. Knox it does not appear
that the French Ambassador gave his assent or indicated his
acquiesence in any form of settlement which was not that of an
arbitration at The Hague.
The Secretary of State very opportunely remembered and brought to the
knowledge of the French Ambassador the apprehension and the fears of
Cuba in regard to an arbitration at The Hague that such an
arbitration might be more favorable to the powers than to Cuba. As
stated in your excellency’s note, “the ambassador replied that it
was his belief that Cuba would stand even a better chance at The
Hague than the European Powers,” and requested the Secretary of
State so to inform me. There are few among those unknown to him who
esteem and admire as I do the illustrious Ambassador of France in
Washington; but in this concrete case it is only right to state that
his belief has no more foundation that our fears; both are simple
impressions derived from anticipatory hypothetical judgments; and so
far is this true that if there were a better foundation for the
statements of the French Ambassador than for what I declared to be
our fears, it is logical and natural to believe that the French
Ambassador would not recommend resorting to an arbitration at The
Hague as, in his opinion, the Cubans would have a better chance than
the powers; that is to say, that Cuba would have a better chance of
success.
Be that as it may, it appears from the text of your excellency’s note
that Mr. Knox, as I take it, has designed to give us advice or
rather a simple suggestion; and your excellency will remember that
in the interview of April 13 already mentioned, when I explained to
the Secretary of State the diversity and conflict of public opinion
in Cuba concerning the European claims, I stated very frankly to him
that the only thing which to my mind would unite public opinion and
would relieve the Cuban Government of embarrassment in its future
conduct would be a frank and resolute declaration from the
Government of the United States which I should be authorized to
publish; and as I have no right to believe from anything in your
excellency’s note that this latter step has been taken, I consider
it my duty to continue to resist as strongly as possible and by all
the means in my power what I consider illegitimate European
pretensions; for I am convinced, Mr. Minister, that the Republic of
Cuba, because of the historical conditions which produced it, is not
and should not be considered responsible for the damages inflicted
upon foreigners by the Cuban revolutionists, during the domination
and rule of Spain and that consequently Cuba cannot and should not
be obliged by any one to pay damages and losses which, in justice
and reason, are not and cannot be chargeable to her.
I remain [etc.]
