No. 672.]

No. 415.

General Sickles to Mr. Fish.

UNITED STATES LEGATION IN SPAIN,

Madrid, July 31, 1873. (Received August 21.)

SIR: After my conversation with the minister of state on the 24th instant, I found an opportunity to discuss colonial policy with Mr. Carvajal, the minister of finance, an influential member of this cabinet. I will not trouble you with a recital of the argument since the conclusions seemed satisfactory. Mr. Carvajal assured me of his own hearty sympathy with the advocates of reform in the Antilles, and he added that Mr. Salmeron, the president, shared the same views. And after a full and frank interchange of opinion Mr. Carvajal suggested a further conversation with the president, with whom he kindly undertook to arrange an appointment.

Inclosed with this dispatch I forward official reports and translations of the debates of the 23d and 26th instant, respectively. In the latter you will see that a more mature reflection, aided possibly by the evidence I had furnished of the unhappy impression made by the policy announced on the 23d, has led to the modified attitude shown in the remarks of ministers in the subsequent discussions.

These impressions are confirmed by the action of the Cortes on the 28th, approving Mr. Suñer's bill for extending to Porto Rico the ample bill of rights found in title first of the Spanish constitution. Further corroboration is afforded by the favorable reception given to the amended constitution reported by Mr. Castelar from the committee of twenty-five, in which it is proposed that Cuba and Porto Rico come in as States on an equal footing with the other members of the federation.

I am, &c.,

D. E. SICKLES.

[Inclosure A.-Translation.]

Extract from the debate in the Constituen Cortes July 23, 1873, on the bill empowering the gor. ernment to levy forced contributions on reputed Carlists.

Mr. ROMERO ROBLEDO.

I shall add one more argument in conclusion. I should like to know how a contradiction is to be avoided in this proceeding on the part of the republic. To-day a forced contribution is levied upon those who aid the Carlists, while only the other day the estates of the Cuban insurgents were released from embargo and restored to them. [Mr. Betancourt interrupts the speaker.]. Mr. Betancourt may say what he chooses, but it is the truth. The Carlists are enemies to liberty and modern progress, but after all they cry "Long live Spain!" We shall fight them and conquer them. And yet they do not attack the integrity of the nation. On the contrary, the Cuban insurgents, when all manner of reforms were offered to them, after the revolution of 1868, rebelled at Yara to the cry of "Death to Spain!" And when the republic was proclaimed, on the 11th of February, all sorts of offers were made to them, and it was thought the war would come to an end; but they only cried out the louder "Death to Spain!" That is to say, the Carlists, although the defenders of an abhorred cause, are our brothers and do not combat our nationality, while the others hate us and proclaim the extermination of ur race. How, then, can you explain this contradiction? You cannot indorse such a odiscrimination which only favors the enemies of Spain. The government and the assembly must weigh this well. I have done.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.

Mr. Romero Robledo assumes that there is a contradiction between our conduct toward the Cuban insurgents and toward the Carlists because the restoration of, the property of the former has been ordered. I am the first to be indignant at the attitude of a portion of the inhabitants of the island of Cuba, more blinded, per

chance, by the continued absence of political liberty in harmony with their material status, than by any real need of independence; but is there anything in common between what is done to the insurgents in Cuba and what is done to the Carlists? The estates of the Cuban insurgents were not confiscated, but embargoed. Many persons hold that it is expedient to seize the enemy's property, a principle repugnant to civilization, which nevertheless we have seen put in operation in our own time. Embargoes are contrary to the purpose in view, for they diminish the public wealth, and under this point of view we decided to restore to their owners the many estates now going to in. But has this anything to do with a war tax? It has been said that as an injury or punishment such measures may be taken toward communities. Experience shows their absurdity as a punishment, and therefore we employ them as an injury, establishing war taxes. We have applied the simple proverb which says, "Who breaks, pays,." Those who break the national unity, those who break liberty and progress, should pay the damage they inflict upon the country. "Who breaks, pays,' The Carlist, then, must pay.

Mr. BERTANCOURT. It was very far from my purpose to take partin the discussion, and I only do so because, having been alluded to by Mr. Romero Robledo, I was forced to interrupt him. If all those who speak here for the first time implore your benevolence, I fancy I need it more than any of the deputies I have yet heard. Your lips wont to express all the inspirations of patriotism, know all the riches of the beautiful tongue of Castile, while I have had to make a special study of forgetting even the very language of a certain class of feelings, the most natural and most generous of the soul, and whose simple enunciation has hitherto sufficed in Cuba to draw down exile or martyrdom on my fellow-countrymen.

I look upon this palace as the hearthstone of the great family of Spaniards. Here we are all assembled to discuss our most sacred interests, the interests of the country. You know the outgoings and incomings of it; you are as though in yourown house. But I am a stranger here. From my childhood I have been told that these doors were closed to Cuba; that my brothers had been expelled hence unjustly and ignominiously, and I learned to believe that you would never heed our rights until we should be received into the bosom of this family and called to partake of all the rights possessed by our brethren of the peninsula. Just now, therefore, on hearing, when I least expected it, Mr. Romero Robledo compare the embargoes put upon the Cubans with the war contribution it is proposed to levy on the Carlists, I could not help exclaiming in an undertone to my friend Mr. Corchado, “Ya parecio aquelló!" And, with my usual frankness, I shall explain these words. I had received information from Cuba that Mr. Romero Robledo would come before you for the express purpose of speaking on the colonial question; and as, in my opinion, he dragged the question most inopportunely into this debate, I expressed my opinion about it to Mr. Corchado.

Mr. Romero Robledo has hinted that everything was permitted to the Cubans because they raised at Yara the banner of "Death to Spain," and I now rise simply to give a plain statement of the facts. Gentlemen, what the Spanish people did in Cuba on the 10th of October, 1868, was the same as had been done in the peninsula in September of the same year, when the standard of liberty was raised against the tyranny of the old régime. And the truth of this is proved by the fact that as soon as the Cubans knew of the downfall of the throne of Doña Isabel II, they asked Captain-General Lersundi to convoke a junta, which was done, and when it met, Messrs. Modet and Meestre asked that a telegram should be sent to the peninsula stating that the Cubans supported the movement of their brothers in the peninsula, and aspired to the enjoy ment of all the liberal conquests of the revolution.

The reply was in the sense of a postponement of all reforms, so that it was soon seen that the conquests of the revolution were not for Cuba. Thus three months passed by until Mr. Lopez de Ayala, approving the stationary policy of General Lersundi, by his last telegram shattered the remaining hopes of the Cubans. Nevertheless, when General Domingo Dulce arrived at Havana, another junta was held, and the insurgents of Camaguey, with one single exception, agreed to lay down their arms if in reality liberal reforms were given to Cuba.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. I beg that you will confine yourself to the matter under

debate.

Mr. BERTANCOURT. A most serious charge has been made against Cuba, and I wish to set the facts right.

MANY DEPUTIES. Let him speak!

Mr. BERTANCOURT. I was saying that in the junta held at the plantation of Clavellinas, all those present, with but one exception, voted to accept their liberties and lay down their arms to attain this end. And this is shown by a celebrated manifesto pub lished in the journals of Havana when General Caballero de Rodas was in command. Afterward General Dulce named commissioners to confer with the Cubans. And what happened then? That the insurgent chief, Don Augusto Arango, being charged with carrying to Puerto Principe the basis of an arrangement, was treacherously assassinated by the volunteers, it was said, at the very entrance, to the city, while upon his

body was found the gaceta containing his pardon by General Dulce and the basis of the agreement or compromise.

In another junta held in the house of the Marquis of Campo Florido, in Havana, it was likewise agreed that if Cuba were granted the right of autonomical government peace and happiness would soon be restored to the island.

This resolution so exasperated the volunteers that they thereupon decided to crush the Cubans to prevent their union; and then began the assassinations of Villanueva, of the Louvre, and even in the streets, which resulted in the flight of the native islanders and the embargo of their property. And thus it came to pass that the liberals, who were preparing for the election of deputies, fled terrified on seeing that Spain did not force the volunteers to respect her will. From that time the jails were crowded with Cubans, and the papers were filled with lists of embargoed estates without any procedure or form of law, but by executive orders. Such are the embargoes so justly annulled by Mr. Suñer.

I have heard with pleasure the minister of finance distinguish between embargoes imposed as a punishment, and therefore indefensible, and enforced war contributions. It is evident, therefore, that property embargoed by executive order is illegally and arbitrarily held, and for this reason Mr. Suñer ordered its restitution; it is evident that there is no relation between those embargoes and the war tax now under discussion, a tax which Cuba also supports without complaining.

But there is more to be done in this question of embargoes. In Cuba the government still holds innumerable estates belonging to the mothers, widows, and orphans of insurgents condemned to death by military or other courts, and who have perished on the scaffold or on the field of rebellion; and is it possible, gentlemen, that the republic can sustain such measures a single day longer?

I think I have said enough to demonstrate that the Cuban insurgents have not raised the standard of "Death to Spain!" That they have only desired and still desire the liberties and reforms you have here, and that, as these have never been granted them, it is unjust to charge them with ingratitude. What franchises in point of fact have been given to Cuba? What reforms has the republic essayed? Until now, nothing save the promises of Mr. Pi y Margall in his executive programme, and the disembargo of the property embargoed by executive order; which last is due to the uprightness of Mr. Suñer's principles during the few days he filled the ministry of ultramar.

Mr. Romero Robledo, therefore, has no grounds for saying that the insurgents chose the moment when reforms were given to them to break into open rebellion. No! The Cubans have been waiting for thirty years, and are waiting still; and if Spain carries thither the liberties enjoyed in the peninsula, I have the firm belief that Cuba will remain to Spain! [Applause.]

Mr. ROMERO ROBLEDO. I regret that your applauses hamper me somewhat at this moment, for Mr. Bertancourt has with great adroitness made an argument in favor of the Cuban insurgents, and arraigned the revolutionary Spain of 1868 and the republican Spain of to-day. Mr. Bertancourt, who says that by reason of his sufferings he has learned nothing, knows enough to put himself, as no one else could have done, in the position best adapted for dealing the strongest blows.

He has said that on asking why there were no representatives from Cuba here he was answered that they had been expelled in 1837; and those who answered him thus answered him wrong, since they should have replied that Cuban representatives were absent from the Spanish Cortes because Argüelles, Sancho, and Calatrava, patriarchs of the liberal party, deemed that they should be absent, for they had taken seats in the previous Cortes and sold their country, and then demanded the reward of the speeches they had made and the boasts they had uttered. [Rumors.] I do no more than repeat what Agustin Argüelles said in the Cortes of 1837, resulting in the denial then of representation to the Cubans.

Moreover, I do not understand how I compelled Mr. Betancourt to ask the floor, interrupting me, when I spoke of the insurgents, by saying, "Ya aparecio aquelló,” since neither he nor any one else needed intelligence from Cuba to know that I would defend in this parliament, as in any other to which I may be sent, the interests of Spain in the colonies; in doing which I am no more than faithful to my antecedents.

He says I have brought a groundless charge against Cuba. This is not correct. I incriminated the rebellious and ungrateful sons of Cuba who are fighting against Spain. The question of the insurrection must not be confounded with that of the reforms offered by all the governments before and since the revolution. Mr. Betancourt says that the rebels continue in rebellion because reforms have not been given them, but in reality they get no reforms because they will not lay down their arms; and reforms are not to be demanded by armed force. The rebels of Yara rose to the cry of "Death to Spain!" and that is still their cry. And when you speak to them of reforms, and offer them the republic, they answer through their official papers in New York, that they wish from Spain neither liberty nor the republic, they will accept nothing!

Consequent the conduct of those insurgents is not to be excused, nor the policy of

Spain impugned. I have ever resolved that whenever an incident arises here concerning this unfortunate question, there should be at least one person to raise his voice in favor of the Spanish Cubans, and against the insurgents and traitors, who, while begging reforms, really seek to rend the heart of the nation.

General Dulce gave them all manner of liberties—[Interruptions from the left.] It is difficult to speak in the midst of these interruptions. Is it or is it not true, that General Dulce went to Cuba because his being in command there was a guarantee that reforms would be asked for? Gentlemen, this is notorious. I have in my possession a letter from General Dulce, a letter I will show to anyone who wishes to see it, in which he tells me that he had become fully convinced that the cry for reforms was a mere pretense—a mask-and what they wanted was independence, and nothing else. [Mr. Labra addresses a few words to the orator in an undertone.] Those who interrupt me would do better to ask the floor, and for that purpose I now allude directly to Mr. Labra. [Mr. Labra asks the floor.] I am in no way under pledges; my position here is perfectly clear, and I proclaim it frankly: I am with the republic in everything if it be necessary to the salvation of liberty and the country; I am ready to die with you while your sole guide is the integrity of the nation; but never will I be with those who seek the dismemberment of my country. This is a national question which ought to affect us more deeply than mere internal bickerings.

The minister of finance, seeing the impossibility of demonstrating the justice of the law now under consideration, has said very plainly that the motive of this measure lies in the fact that the government presented a law against the republicans a few days ago, and so it is now necessary to bring forward another against the Carlists. But I maintain that there is no equality in the two cases; and I may now add that, according to the principles he enunciates, quoting the proverb, "Who breaks pays," the minister should lose no time in submitting a bill proposing that all the republicans should pay for all the damage they have done in all their insurrections. This is not just; political parties are not to be subjected to penalties of this kind, for in such case we would all be exposed to the lex talionis, since we are not eternal in our rule.

The minister speaks of the laws of war. I have heard with sorrow the application he proposes to make of these laws to civil warfare. I fancy that none of the writers on international law he may have consulted establish a parallel between a war among nations and an internal insurrection, which we should not even confess to be a war. If the foreign powers were to recognize the Carlists as belligerents to-morrow, in accordance with the minister's doctrines, how could the government protest when it could be answered in the very words of the finance minister? His excellency, in speaking of embargoes and of war contributions, tells us that the latter recognize property-rights. So do embargoes too. And he adds that the embargoes have been raised because they were detrimental to the public fortune. This is no argument; I am not discussing the question of embargoes. What I say is, that the insurgents who belong to the New York junta, and who say that they would like to know in which of their veins Spanish blood runs so that they might open it, have had their property restored to them, while a contribution is levied on the Carlists. This is a contradiction: and I repeat that you should not impose a contribution on a particular party because it is equivalent to making a law of caste.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE. A distinction must be made between a state of warfare and a character of belligerency. The government, the chamber, the country, and the facts of the case may give rise to a state of war, and yet one of the parties may not be a belligerent. I believe that we are in a civil war, but this does not involve myself, or any one else, conceding a belligerent character to the Carlists. This depends on the conditions of the war and on other principal and accessory circumstances which are perfectly well known to the honorable gentleman. And so it cannot be inferred from my language that I deem the Carlists entitled to recognition as belligerents either by ourselves or by foreign powers.

Mr. LABRA. I have no intention of making a speech on the grave question inaugu rated by Mr. Romero Robledo, but when the problems are vast, and the difficulties that burden our minds great, I think that they should be made the subject of a specia! debate, in which theories may be brought forward and abstract facts set right with respect to a political question like that of Cuba, and with respect to a legal question like that of colonial reforms. I do not wish to disturb the course of the debate. If Mr. Romero Robledo is justified in saying that interruptions make discussion impos sible, it is incumbent on me to explain why I interrupted him, adding that in my judgment it is also impossible to discuss when gratuitous assertions are made on the part of one of the contestants. This is both a question of fact and a question of judgment, and it is incumbent on me to oppose a distinct protest to the assertions of Mr. Romero Robledo.

He says that the insurrection in Cuba was from the outset in the interest of separation, and that its development has continued in this same sense up to the time when Mr. Suñer issued his decree concerning embargoed property in favor, as has been here said, of the very persons who form the insurgent junta in New York. The two

extremes are false. The decree in nowise refers to that junta, since it only affects property embargoed by executive act, and not of estates sequestered by a judicial decision. Neither was the insurrection of Yara secessionist at its outbreak; still less is it true that General Dulce proclaimed in Cuba in 1868 the liberties of the Peninsula. I do not understand how Mr. Romero Robledo invokes the decrees of General Dulce, since they introduced no reforms. He only issued two decrees: one concerning the liberty of the press, with two lamentable restrictions, first, that nothing could be said against religious unity-which was bad enough, since in Cuba religious liberty has existed de facto for a long time; and second, the prohibition of attacks, not on the integrity of the country, but on slavery! And thus it was permitted to attack the national integrity, but forbidden to attack that to which no civilized nation now consents. The second decree of General Dulce recognized the right of re-union but limited its exercise solely to the voters; that is to say, he revived the decree issued by Mr. Vaamonde (Bahamonde, as it is more generally spelled,) in 1864, and which led to the retirement of the progressistas.

I had occasion at that time to speak with General Serrano and Mr. Ayala, who said to me that public order in Cuba would not be disturbed by sending General Dulce thither, and I told them that they were mistaken, and that General Dulce's appointment was insufficient to repress the insurrection. Moreover, in all the history of America it has been observed that while the first movements of colonies have never been toward separation, the second and subsequent movements have always been secessionist; and this is not to be wondered at, since it depends on the radical difference of status between the colonies and the provinces of the mother country. In the present insurrection I have always condemned the idea of separation, for I think it prejudicial to colonial autonomy. It is certain that if the insurgents had laid down their arms, or would lay them down as I had advised, the Cortes would concede that antonomy, and Cuba would obtain all the advantages of liberty without separation from the mother country.

I am fatigued, and taking up the time of the chamber, and so I will conclude by saying that we are discussing a question of facts, and I defy Mr. Romero Robledo to prove his assertions.

Mr. ROMERO ROBLEDO. It is proper that I should expose the error into which Mr. Labra has fallen in saying that I provoked this debate on the colonial question. I simply adduced an argument applicable to the bill under discussion, and an impatient deputy, doubtless to provoke this question, interrupted me. Not only have I not originated this colonial discussion, but, in the interpellation I had the honor to explain a few days ago to the chamber, notwithstanding that several deputies had taken up this question, I deliberately avoided touching upon it for fear that affirmations would be made contrary to my own convictions, and knowing this to be a question not to be taken up incidentally. This has been my course on the colonial question, notwithstanding Mr. Navarrete took it up rather ill-advisedly and mistakenly, in my judgment, and notwithstanding, also, that Mr. Suñer, then minister of the colonies, uttered words I could not approve.

Mr. Labra denies Mr. Dulce's reforms, and between my affirmation and his negation the public mind cannot but be perplexed; but a time will come for ample discussion on this matter, and then it will be seen whether General Dulce did or did not grant reforms. I shall read the journals published at that time in Cuba, and then we will see the effect certain of their articles will produce on Spanish ears.

With respect to the last fact we will debate it too; and if Mr. Labra asks for proofs I guarantee to show him that the Cortes of 1837 closed their doors to the American deputies because of the perfidious and traitorous conduct of their representatives in previous Cortes; for, as Arguelles said, they had even demanded the prize and reward of the speeches they had made, and which, they claimed, had aided the independence of the American colonies. I shall adduce proofs of this, and meanwhile Mr. Labra is at liberty to persevere in his denial.

As to the rest, why should I weary you? It is said, "When a party confesses, proofs are needless." I appland Mr. Labra's patriotic words, and his vehement desire that the rebels should lay down their arms. I rejoice that Mr. Labra and Mr. Betancourt differ, as it is a difference we all appreciate; but the truth is that Mr. Labra has said to us that the Cuban insurrection is separatist in its character. Is not this what he said? You all know it; the Cuban rebels are separatists, and I, as a Spaniard, addressing a parliament which is also Spanish, tell you that the insurrection is kept up by a few ingrates, an insignificant minority, as is shown by the fact that during the four years they have been in arms under the protection of the United States they have never been able to seize a single town. It is therefore our duty to support the majority in Cuba, and to uphold their rights.

Mr. BETANCOURT. Mr. Romero Robledo says that it is not he who has raised this question about Cuba, but my impatience. The truth is that nothing was more out of my path than the idea that the colonial question could be brought into a debate on a question of finance. And that is why, when Mr. Romero Robledo dragged it in, I, ad