File No. 837.00/1166
Minister Gonzales to the Secretary of State
Habana, March 2, 1917—6 p.m.
Department’s March 1, 5 p.m. Instructions complied with 11 o’clock this morning. President has lost voice from severe cold. Promised written reply to-morrow morning but he said that amnesty to the rebelling officers would mean ruin of army as all self-respecting officers would resign. Seemed indifferent as to the elections. Would be willing to have General Crowder investigate and pass on whole election question.
I beg make the following statement; yesterday Ferrara cabled leader of Conservative Party in the House of Representatives practically same proposal for himself as made by revolutionists in Santiago.
Yesterday Gómez sent a message to commander of U. S. S. Paducah that unless arrangements made for reholding partial elections with fairness he would proceed with destruction of property. The revolution began five days before the partial elections.
Two weeks before the elections on inquiry from Zayas I offered to cable the Department any request he would make for supervision of elections. He made none.
Several days before the revolution General Emilio Nuñez, Secretary of Agriculture and Conservative Vice-Presidential candidate, having charge of party affairs in Santa Clara published a statement declaring liberals were raising false cry of contemplated coercion and frauds by the Government. He made a solemn promise of free ballot and safety of all who wished to vote, declaring Government’s purpose solely to preserve order. On the same day President Menocal made to me similar declarations. But the liberal press continued publishing assertions that Government intended shooting liberals who attempted to vote. For weeks before the general elections in November press and rumor carried similar stories but after elections there was not one allegation of coercion by the army. The charge made after November elections by the liberals was that the courts would not decide justly on pending questions but the liberals were beneficiaries of the court’s rulings. The courts I understand are open to appeal from results in partial elections.
The same leaders of the revolution of 1916 are the leaders of this revolution. They then succeeded in their object and suffered no punishment.
I assume recommendations by naval officers at Santiago are made without knowledge of intricate past political history or consideration of the future political effect nor of the almost certainty that officers of the army who turned against the Government deserted because promised high promotions for becoming traitors.
The revolution has failed. Outside of Santiago city rebels are reduced to condition of bandits. But they are destructive bandits. If Cuba is to live as self-governing, if revolutions destructive of life and property are to cease, there is one policy—the letter and spirit [Page 374] of the Department’s reply of February 23 to Chamber of Commerce of Santiago. That means unconditional submission. Anything like compromise would be acclaimed victory by revolutionists and another step away from stable government.