title: Cuba; speech of Hon. J. B. Foraker, of Ohio, in the Senate of the United States, Wednesday, May 19, 1897.
text: *0 • A jOt* • I? <V / *<$, '* ."fo V °o ♦ ,0 , >' •'» V v % »' • o- C> •tr <£ ^ ^ ’’aVa* *<f o ,\V«\ O^VT^^VW * C> ^rv J ^^wiiil^ 5, « > A» oVOT * A? 'Ccv • ^i|l^ * A 4 a ^ *o* V v^T*A o* 'V ,^ v , V a^ ♦ Vv * * A *1* - ■* ^ * * A v ^ A° ^ '••* v- 0 * rfSS*w_*r O A ■> 0 : ^ 6 * *<*^2£~ ^bv 1 *«<?* '. ait. .. + j£j> ^^\l\V\vy S V r ^ "ZL SS/IUSH j, , ’A V'*^/ <b'^-'<P V t,e> ' ^ aV \L!oL'* ^ v * Y • *<y »*••% * ■*- ^ A *. ,> Sjt&frf. %, J> ° ^ r o . .VA. • * \V ^ •> s?-n b_ C,^ * ° °b V * • • % » _.____, ; *a v ° -A'A*- o% 7 /^^VV^ “ A d\. ♦ ** T ■‘yJW*' *& %. *cr-r^ ^ ^ ^ . » s 5 A <\ 'O • A * « <Q> # t ' b -& r\ > -1* «W*?4’ %r 0° L Q> , - A* A ", ^ K ^P v\ n ° ^ *♦ O N '• \y .* 0 ^ 0 0 " ° -» ^o Tf 0 •_s^\T\V^. o ^ 0 « ; o Nf. A ° • * A V ^- o ^W V Os o ♦ ^ l*r %y V J. ' #♦ 5 * rV >- -. A - w o ^° ^ '*> ^ ^ ' ' 1 " 1 A° ' # V, ** O » »•' ^ -O c\ A V ,>• •', V" . > * o, *b .0 • ,* v ^ 'WMt: #*% -PsaP. A >^ : O A>^x y^mry ss*? ± /i\ O x ^ ^ * . * s 4 A <\ 'O , A < ^ , w » » -<^ A. )P ^ - ^ a ’-o.»*' <a ^ ^ r 0 .,r .c,^ ^ ,0 o o" °» ^o • 1 ' *» oT 0 ^ 0 •" • „ ^ 0 •eS^s^V^ O A f ’T fV .° --w. y>w >» 4 *C\n\\\ ^ i \ I j3f /////\?-> *~5T v ^ r\V\\V.; 4 4 O ?? y<v o M / / °A. °° ^ °*u ^ V ? ’ • °x c>. s 5 * *■ - ^ -“O' V o -V & ♦ r- rr :irm : r^ ^^ «| !•>♦ ♦♦ -.^»* y\ ‘.S ^ ^ r 0 ^ 6 ^L°%^o ^ . t# ** ^ &Tnl//s^> r 3 r » V; c^aaVvk^. _ v? vl ^ v ^ /yO^i-i t o - ^ V + f • cv .<y .*••» V * ’ *A * O • A --' «** v. * ,*♦ V V 4 • * S , ,* H °.o ’. • <L*’ o . . . ’ V 8 " °*. V *v°* o ; %■/ *’ ,** ^ \. ,\ v <X '••»• A *^T« a V v # t ' • <P ft v 0 « a ^ A > \N * ]&rP77?2* v* • c^55vW^ e o «* ^ iT K « ' woaYIY'^* 0 « o v . < v* cr ^ ^ -«S^. 0 *bcv <*■ ,. v^v’ v^ f, V‘ 'V • V ^ V f T • o, cv .0 »***/a ^> - o vP >-9 * • %<> A^ *,K\8» A.° V* (4 ♦ • ; *v , 'V * V *V • ----- A* V ->®5?. 4 «•* > - °o °o -iT ,-‘"» ,0* "of .7/-./^- '^d* • 0 o o5 ^ * \0 -7*. ^ + ,, %*U\Y\ S ^5* > fv > *** * ^^yv/ll) <3r > v ^ * r ,.., ^ y o •.,,.* f o° V'*...- ^ T> V v . * * O. v> QV^ t i", + ^ * v V<> .«• ^ A* ^ ^ *A\®A” * " ’ - a v ^ /V <\ 'o. * * * r* r C - *' O JP ^ >■ o \^aw*s o ^ ^ . o. °*U "' ^° ^ * ° - ° -v ^ t *°- C\ ,0 s s# *'- ^ O' . t . o ^ ym >'-- #c% .v^ b k ;t ^°*V -1 ^ r\ -<^ * *' 1 A u ^ 9 *» V. - A. A o * 4? *> ♦ 0 • - -a. v > a0 v *o ' , ''..s s A <. -o'. „ * ,0 0 ♦_ jr c^vv - o -r *« (r. * o'^0k: ^ ' 0 . * Or . l?Jr& - 1 V- Cr 0 ^ * -0 -y* • f“ * x- v«^a\\\vN> * (5" ^ ^ ^ .. v^‘O %‘^-’b o ° v ; ^‘y" %* v v »» f *°- o <o~ s »• • ^ t • „ " ^ *tf(\'|f/k- A ^ ^ A^ V /a^?/!.*. t : W ■ aM t °j>v »A=psl€ ^. * -.^FfW- •A V ’V • ^ ^ ° \K 4 4 • o ^ - _ ^ ^4 -O.V v% ivjgsr ^ a\ r <b * A o v V v^!T* a 0^0 O " O -» *^b .0 ^ 4 ~' 1 ^ , -r *c_ (. • r~C<N\ «► .,*d- 4 O ' o ^ * • o » ,> b^ ' C> -»? ^ V % . <••- V .0^ , LV., <> ’jC^s»A' -? n ♦ rjrfv^'' ^ 0^ .’aVa' v>. A® .YvK’V. - J> 0 ^ V. # o -vP- ,9 ’vPS * ^ *'V.T' A * ° ♦WZ?V' vx v *^ K JS'MtA b * -^. 4 o V . ^ Jl*4Zr /J\ - r\\ o V>. A ’^9 • aV*^* o ♦ ♦* ■> \9 v'. < 0 ^ - xji; LV^5» > ,o v V *^f!7* A <V 'o, * 0> c 0"°4 O A^ .S'*-. <^- c ° or ♦W%>^ v ^ K v*0* °^s C ~CT 33 SPEECH OF OK" OHIO, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, Wednesday, May 19, 1897. WASHINGTON. 1 8 9 7. <£Sr». ■V \o SPEECH OP HON. J. B. FOKAKER. Tlio Senate liaving under consideration the following resolution: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, etc.. That a condition of public war exists between the Government of Spain and the Government proclaimed and for some time maintained by force of arms by the people of Cuba, and that tho United States of America shall maintain a strict neutral¬ ity between the contending powers, according to each all the rights of bel¬ ligerents in the ports and territories of the United States. Mr. FOR AKER said: Mr. President: The question before the Senate is on the motion to refer the resolution of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] to the Committee on Foreign Relations. I have already spoken, briefly, it is true, but, nevertheless, sufficiently to show my favor for that motion. It has seemed to mo that a resolution of this importance, a reso¬ lution of the far-reaching consequences of this resolution, ought to tako the regular course, meet with thorough consideration at the hands of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and bo in the regular way reported to the Senate before the Senate should take action upon it; this to the end that we may havo on record as the predicate for our action the report of the committee embodying such facts as they might be able with propriety to present to this body. Having entertained that view and having expressed that opinion, I did not expect to speak to the merit of the resolution of the Senator from Alabama until after a vote had been taken on the motion to refer to the committee; but, sir, this debate has taken such range and such things have been said in this debate that I now feel that it will be with propriety, at least, notwithstanding I am a member of the committee to which, according to this motion, this resolution should be referred, that I should speak as to tho merit of the resolution itself. And, coming to speak upon the merit of that resolution, I want to say at tho outset that I propose to vote for that resolution or some other resolution of kindred character whenever we come to the point of taking a vote. I want to say further, Mr. President, that, in order that I may support that resolution, it is not necessary, according to my judg¬ ment, that there should be any violation by this Senate of any principle of international law. On the contrary, in my judgment, ■we shall act strictly in accordance with the principles of interna¬ tional law in now taking tho step which this resolution provides shall be taken. And I speak at this time upon the merit of this proposition because, in view of that which has been said here, it seems to me very appropriate and important that it should be pointed out that the resolution of tho Senator from Alabama, if 2707 3 4 adopted by this body, will not be adopted in violation of inter¬ national law, but in recognition and in consistency with the prin¬ ciples of international law. Mr. President, there are just four ways in which a foreign power, acting at all, can take notice of internal dissensions and disturbances in another country. They are: First, by a recogni¬ tion of independence; in the second place, by a recognition of bel¬ ligerency; in the third place, by a tender of friendly offices as a mediator, and, in the fourth place, by the drastic method sug¬ gested by the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] yes¬ terday—intervention. Ho one pretends, I believe—at least I have not heard that any one does—that we could with propriety consider a proposition to recognize independence in Cuba. There can be no recognition of independence until independence shall have been achieved. No one claims that the independence of Cuba has yet been achieved. So far as mediation is concerned, that, too, may be considered beyond consideration in connection with the consideration of this proposition. We were told yesterday by the Senator from Massa¬ chusetts that he believed it to be the duty of this Administration to first propose mediation, and then, if mediation be not promptly accepted, to intervene and compel a cessation of hostilities and the establishment of peace. The Senator doubtless spoke in ignorance of the fact, which I feel myself, notwithstanding some restrictions that have been adverted to, at liberty to state to the Senate that mediation has been tendered by this Government and has been rejected by Spain. As long ago as April 4, 1898, Secretary Olney addressed to the Spanish Government, through the Spanish minister resident in this city, a communication, a copy of which I hold in my hand, of very considerable length and very great ability, in which he recounted the then existing conditions in Cuba, pointed out the necessity for a cessation of such practices as were then being re¬ sorted to in the prosecution of that war, and also pointed out the interests of the United States as prejudicially affected by that war, and, as the result of it all, upon that as a basis for it, ten¬ dered to the Spanish Government the friendly offices of the United States Government to secure peace in the Island of Cuba consist¬ ent with the dignity and the honor and the continued sovereignty of Spain in that island. I hold in my hand, also, part of the answer which some two months later was made by the Spanish Government to that com¬ munication. I read from it just one sentence. It is under date of June 4,1896. The answer is equally as long as the communica¬ tion of Mr. Olney. In it a great many things were said which I do not feel I should be justified in commenting upon here in public. At the conclusion of the argument he made in behalf of the posi¬ tion Spain took in rejecting that friendly mediation, the Spanish minister uses this sentence: In brief, there is no effectual way to pacify Cuba, unless it begins with the actual submission of the armed rebels to the mother country. That, Mr. President, was the end, so far as I have been able to discover, of the efforts on the part of our Government as a friendly mediator. Those efforts came to naught. They came to naught because of the rejection on the part of the Spanish Government of this friendly tender. 2767 6 Reference was made yesterday to the Republican platform in regard to Cuba- Mr. HOAR. Before the Senator leaves that point, will lie allow mo to ask him a question? Mr. FOR AKER. Certainly; with pleasure. Mr. HOAR. I desire to ask the Senator from Ohio whether the tender of mediation was a tender of the good offices of this Gov¬ ernment to secure the independence of Cuba, or whether it was limited to a tender of the good offices of our Government to secure pacification there by the adoption by Spain of certain legislative or other reforms? Mr. FORAKER. I have not been honored with the attention of the Senator from Massachusetts that I complimented myself I was being honored with. Mr. HOAR. Yes; the Senator has. Mr. FORAKER. I stated distinctly that the tender by this Government to the Spanish Government was to use the good offices of this Government to secure peace to the island of Cuba on terms consistent with the dignity, the honor, and the continued sovereignty in Cuba of the Spanish Government. Mr. HOAR. If the Senator will pardon me, I understood it ex¬ actly so; and I wish to call the attention of the Senator—because the Senator perhaps has not honored me with the attention which I should have deemed a very great compliment if I had received it- Mr. FORAKER. I did not know that I was bound to be watch¬ ing the Senator while l was addressing the Senate. Mr. HOAR. The Senator quoted what I said yesterday. Mr. FORAKER, Yes. Mr. HOAR. What I said yesterday was that I w r as in favor of an offer of mediation of this Government to secure the independ¬ ence of Cuba. The Senator then, undertaking to take up what I said yesterday and referring to it, objects to that proceeding by quoting an offer to mediate on the terms made four or five months ago or a year ago, an offer to mediate on the terms of the con¬ tinued authority of Spain; and I asked him to restate the offer in that letter, in order that he might see the distinction between my proposition and the offer of our Government through Mr. Olney. When I said that the honorable Senator had not exactly listened to me, I referred to the remark which he was quoting, and not to what is going on now. Mr. FORAKER. The Senator from Massachusetts is laboring under a misapprehension when he supposes I did not understand him. I was speaking as to the four ways in which we might take notice of the fact that there was a disturbance, not to use the term war, in Cuba at this time. I had spoken of the fact that inde¬ pendence was not to be considered, for the reasons I gave. I was just now speaking of the fact that mediation was not to be con¬ sidered properly, because that effort had been made and had been rejected. I have appealed to the record to sustain me in that rospect. What is it the record shows—the letter of Mr. Olney and the answer thereto? It shows that what this Government offered to do was to intervene as a friendly mediator, to secure a peace con¬ sistent with the honor, the dignity, and the continued sovereignty of Spain in Cuba. Does the Senator from Massachusetts suppose that the Spanish Government, having rejected that proposition, 2767 would entertain one now based upon tlio proposition that we should become a friendly mediator to secure peace on condition that the Island of Cuba should be given independence? Mr. HOAR. I do. Mr. FORAKER. You do? You think Spain would entertain more favorably a proposition that she should abdicate than that she should continue sovereign? I submit to Senators that I need not dwell upon the idea I am seeking to advance, that the greater includes the less, and that, if Spain would not entertain a proposi¬ tion continuing her sovereignty, we could not expect her to enter¬ tain a proposition based on a condition precedent of abdication of authority. Mr. HOAR. If the Senator will pardon me one moment, I shall not interrupt him again- Mr. FORAKER. I shall be delighted to have the Senator inter¬ rupt me at his pleasure. Mr. HOAR. I shall say what I wish to say on the general sub¬ ject after the Senator gets through. It seems to me, whether reasonably or unreasonably, that Spain now, a year and three months or four months later, might entertain a proposition for intervention to secure independence, or, if she did not, we should have some reason to know where we stood, not¬ withstanding the fact that she declined to permit the mediation of a foreign country to determine what laws she should make for her subjects. Now, I conceive it would be a much greater loss of dignity on the part of the United States, if one of our States were in revolu¬ tion, to permit a foreign government to dictate or suggest what laws we should pass while she continued ours than it would be to suggest the impossibility of our longer maintaining our control at all. So, not only are the two propositions separated from each other by a year and three months of time crowded with important events, but they seem to me, with great deference to my honor¬ able and distinguished friend, to be different from each other in point of acceptability to Spain. However, I will say what I have to say about that later. Mr. FORAKER. I quite agree with the Senator from Massa¬ chusetts that what Spain refused to do a year or more ago she might be willing to do to-day- but is it reasonable—for we are to consider what is reasonable here—taking into consideration her past history with respect to this matter, to expect that a change of mind has overcome her? We must all remember in this connection that when the ten years’ war was in progress there the friendly offices of this Government were tendered to the end that peace might be secured, and they were then re¬ jected, but with the reservation that Spain appreciated the friend¬ ship manifested toward her by the United States, and would, if circumstances should change later in the progress of that war, avail herself of our friendly offices; but the whole ten years of that fearful struggle passed, and nothing more w*as heard from Spain. Now, in view of that fact, and in view of the manner in which these friendly offices were rejected, I for one deem it entirely unreasonable to suppose that Spain would entertain with any¬ more favor now than she did one year ago a tender of the friendly offices of this Government; and I remain yet to be convinced that it would add to the agreeableness, in the estimation of Spain, of 2767 7 this tender if it should he based on the condition of abdication instead of a continuation of sovereignty. Therefore, to resume the argument'I was making, I, for the purposes of the discussion in which I intend to engage this after¬ noon, consider as beyond our right of consideration here two of the recognized methods of intervention, or taking notice of that which transpires in another country of a warlike character—in¬ dependence and mediation are to be set aside. There remains but the two other ways I have specified. We can take notice of that condition of things by the recognition of belligerency, according to the belligerents belligerent rights, or wo can intervene. It is my judgment, Mr. President, that intervention is the better, the shorter, the more Christian-like way to settle the difficulty in Cuba. I think the time has come when the United States Government would be justified in saying to Spain that the proceedings which have been there going on so long should, in the name of civiliza¬ tion, in the name of humanity, as well as because of their de¬ structive influences upon our interests, come to a stop, and come to a stoj) immediately. That is what I think. [Manifestations of applause in the galleries.] But, Mr. President, the author of this resolution has not seen fit to go so far. He has simply proposed by this resolution that we shall recognize the belligerent rights of the contending Cubans. That does not necessarily involve war. The insurgents in Cuba have no right to demand of us that we give them this recognition, and, on the other side, Spain has no right to complain of our action if we see fit to give it to them. It is an action, Mr. Presi¬ dent, which is to be taken at our option, having regard to our own interests, whenever circumstances are such as to justify us in do¬ ing so; and when I say whenever circumstances are such as to justify us in doing so, 1 mean justify us under international law— the international law applicable to such a case. What are the conditions, Mr. President, that will justify us in adopting the joint resolution recognizing the belligerent rights of the Cubans? According to all international text writers two con¬ ditions precedent must coexist. There must be in the first place war in the international sense, and in the second place we must have rights or interests prejudicially affected by that war, and if there be war and if our rights and interests bo prejudicially af¬ fected, then tho only remaining question is one of expediency. Is it expedient to do it? Is it to our interest to do it? I propose, in the first place, to show that there is war in Cuba within the meaning of international law applicable to such a case. I had not supposed until I heard the discussions in this Chamber that it was necessary to read out of lawbooks on that proposition, but inasmuch as that seems to be a necessity, I desire to call at¬ tention to what is said on this subject by one of the ablest of the writers on international law. I read from Professor Pomeroy’s book on International Law at section 230, page 287. After re¬ viewing other text writers who had written on that subject pre¬ viously, and after distinguishing their various views, he then, as a summing up of the whole argument and as a statement of the con¬ dition necessary to constitute war in its international sense, says: This, then, is the solo criterion. The measures which tho parent state uses to repress the rebellion must be something more than the ordinary civil means of arrest and punishment; more than the aid of the civil officers by 2767 the posse comitatus; more, even, than the aid of the civil power by the mili¬ tary. The civil means must be for a while suspended, and all coercive efforts must be made by the military arm. On the other hand, the resistance of the insurgents must be something more than the energies of a tumultuous mob or of unorganized multitudes.^ The very idea of the resistance amounting to war does demand that the insur¬ gents should occuny some territory which they claim as their own, and over which they exercise some jurisdiction; that these insurgents should be organ¬ ized into some form of political society, acknowledging some government that exercises over them supreme authority. But it can not bo necessary that this government should be anything more than provisional. Finally, the resistance itself must be military in its character. I might read further to the same point, but without shedding any additional light. The truth of the matter is, therefore, ac¬ cording to this authority—and I submit, without fear of success¬ ful challenge, that it is a standard authority, recognized all over the world—it is sufficient to constitute, war in the international sense in which we are now using that term when it is required, in order to enforce civil authority, that the military powers shall be invoiced in the sense in which the author here describes. Is not that true in Cuba? Much solicitude has been manifested as to the character of the civil government of the insurgents in Cuba. Has anybody de¬ scribed the civil government of the Spaniard in Cuba? Tho Spaniard has no civil government in Cuba. He has throughout the island, wheresoever he asserts authority at all, only martial law and military force. There is no pretense of any other kind of government. On the contrary, although it has been said that this is but a paper government, the fact is found and reported to the Senate by the Committee on Foreign Relations, and estab¬ lished also by communications of an official character on file in the State Department, that the insurgent Cubans have a thor¬ oughly organized Government, in the sense that they have a written constitution, a president and other officers of state; they have a cabinet; they have all the machinery necessary, if it were only left to itself, to administer the civil affairs of tho people and to entitle them to take a place among the nations of the earth. That is the character of the situation in that respect. What is it in others? We are told wo must not rely upon newspaper re¬ ports. I am happy in the fact that I do notliave to rely on news¬ paper reports. I have in my hand again the official communica¬ tion from the then Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, dated April 4, 1896. in which, under all the solemnities of his official position, in the discharge of the high duty upon which he had entered, he de¬ scribes the existing conditions in Cuba as they had been thereto¬ fore made known to him by official communications on file in the Department of which he was the head. When a newspaper article is referred to, and a Senator says, “I do not choose to believe it,” that is his privilege; it is unofficial; it is unauthorized. You may believe it; I may disbelieve it. We may have different opinions about its credibility. But, Mr. Presi¬ dent, when the duly authorized agents of this Government in their official communications state facts to us, we are all alike bound to believe them. Secretary Olney believed that there existed in Cuba the con¬ ditions which he described. I shall read only briefly and shall ask permission that this paper, inasmuch as it has never been printed, may be published in the Record in connection with my remarks. 2767 9 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that order will b8 made. Mr. FORAKER. Secretary Olney says to the Spanish minister: It is now some nine or ten months since the nature and prospects of the insurrection were first discussed between us. In explanation of its rapid and, up to that time, quite unopposed growth and progress you called atten¬ tion to the rainy season, which from May or June until November renders regular military operations impracticable. Spain was pouring such num¬ bers of troop3 into Cuba that your theory and opinion that when they could bo used in an active campaign, the insurrection would be almost instantly suppressed seemed reasonable and probable. In this particular you believed, and sincerely believed, that the present insurrection would offer a most marked contrast to that which began in 1868 and which, being feebly en¬ countered with comparatively small forces, prolonged its life for upward of ten years. It is impossible to deny that the expectations thus entertained by you in tho summer and fall of 1895, and shared not merely by all Spaniards but by most disinterested observers as well, have been completely disappointed. The insurgents seem to-day to command a larger part of the island than ever bofore. Their men under arms, estimated a year ago at from ten to twenty thousand, are now conceded to be at least two or threo times as many. Meanwhile, their discipline has been improved and their supply of modern weapons and equipment has been greatly enlarged, while tho mere fact that they have held out to this timo has given them confidence in their own eyes and prestige with the world at largo. In short, it can hardly be questioned that the insurrection, instead of being quelled, is to-day moro formidable than ever and enters upon tho second year of its existence with decidedly improved prospects of successful results. Whether a condition of things entitling tho insurgents to recognition as belligerents has yet been brought about may, for the purposes of the present communication, bo regarded as immaterial. Then lie passes on to say that it is the desire of this Govern¬ ment, as I have stated, only to interpose as a friendly mediator; but lie does not say, on the contrary, by implication—he plainly says the opposite—that a condition of war doe3 not exist, one that would justify this Government in the recognition of belligerent rights. Now, that was the warlike condition of the island one year ago, when tho Secretary of State spoke on the subject, and spoke from official information. I now have in my hand all that I am allowed to have under the limitations and restrictions which have been imposed upon U3 with respect to the information that has been given the Commit¬ tee on Foreign Relations, but it is sufficient to show that all the then Secretary of State said is true, only in a stronger degreo at this time. There is no official communication on file in any De¬ partment of this Government which is not in harmony with the few lines I shall read; there is no communication which is not confirmatory of all I shall read, and there is so much on file that, as it has been stated in this Chamber to-day, the State Department will be several weeks engaged in the labor of copying and prepar¬ ing for the Senate the correspondence called for by the resolution which lias been adopted. But I say it is all comprised in tho lit¬ tle I shall read. This is of recent date, being only a few days old. It has refer¬ ence to a proclamation issued by General Weyler, in which ho claimed that the entire island, except only the province of Santiago do Cuba, had been pacified; and I call attention now, as I should have done a moment ago, to the fact that it is admitted by Spanish authority that the insurgents have control of the largest of tho six provinces of the island, and therefore they have tho footing necessary, according to some international law-text writers, to a recognition of belligerent rights. 2707 10 They are not only in possession of the larger part of that prov¬ ince, but let me say further, while it is in my mind, that the offi¬ cial information of this Government sustains that which has been said unofficially, that the government, which it is claimed exists only on paper, has a postal system in operation with a high degree of success under the trying circumstances attending the operation of such a system. It has a fiscal system more satisfactory, meas¬ ured by the results in money in the treasury, than was the fiscal system of the thirteen colonies during the war of the Revolution. I now wish to read what I referred to a moment ago: I can not understand tlie truth of the claim that all the provinces of the island are in the main pacified, except that of Santiago de Cuba, because there are more insurgents under arms at this time than— I will leave out a word or two here to avoid identification— “than there were” will give the sense of it— ten months ago. That would carry you back to the time when Secretary Olney wrote: I do not think it is a fair inference to draw from existing conditions that the war is approaching a termination. This writer does not hesitate to say there is war, and to use the term— because in pursuance of an established policy the insurgents avoid as far as possible all serious engagements. The impossibility of expelling the Spanish troops from this island by force of arms is well known to them, and they do not propose to risk the lives of their men and the success of their cause upon one or more pitched battles. I conclude, therefore, that the war will drag its weary length along so long as the insurgents can dig sustenance from the ground on the one side, or money be obtained by the other, with the con¬ tinued result of untold human suffering, loss of human life, the murder of innocent men, women, and children. There is more that I might read to the same effect. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Davis] calls my attention quite properly to the fact that in a communication other than the one from which I read, but a communication with which the Senator is familiar, the organization and the number of troops of each and every province is given in a detailed way, and in such a way as to show beyond all controvertibility that there is not only in Cuba perhaps more than 40,000 men under arms, but that they are distributed over the island throughout all the provinces, each having its own army, and that the army of 40,000 men, now an army of veterans, is armed chiefly with repeating rifles; that it is organized not only into companies but also into regiments, bri¬ gades, divisions, and corps, thoroughly officered and thoroughly disciplined. Not only that, but they tell us further that the troops and the insurgents throughout the island are to-day not only stronger but that they are more encouraged, more hopeful, more deter¬ mined on ultimate and triumphant success than ever before in the history of the insurrection. Mr. WHITE. Will the Senator from Ohio yield for a question? Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. Mr. WHITE. The Senator from Ohio is a member of the Com¬ mittee on Foreign Relations. I desire to ask him whether it is contemplated to give to the Senate the information to which ho 2767 11 alludes, and which ho now says he is prevented from disclosing becanse of an injunction of secrecy imposed, presumably, by the State Department. Mr. FORAKER. If I had my way about it, I would give it to the world before to-morrow morning. [Applause in the galleries.] The PRESIDING- OFFICER rapped with his gavel. Mr. FORAKER. But what will bo done about it further I do not know. I know simply that we are possessed of certain infor¬ mation, controlled by certain limitations and restrictions, and beyond that I can not state, except as I have already stated in the progress of this argument, that I have been informed bythe State Department that they are now engaged in the work necessary to enable the State Department to comply with the resolution of the Senate requesting all the correspondence on the subject. Mr. WHITE. I merely wish to call attention to what I con¬ sider to be the right of the Senate to any information possessed by its Committee on Foreign Relations. Of course, as to whether it is to be disclosed in executive session or publicly is an entirely different matter. I think we ought to have the information, so that we may judge for ourselves, as the Senator is able to judge for himself, with respect to the facts. Mr. FORAKER. I think so too, and I will not for a minute stand in the way of the Senate having it in executive session or otherwise when the proper time comes. But I am not the judge, and I have not any disposition to criticise anybody who is a judge, of what should be done or what is to bo done in that respect. I can only give the Senator the benefit of what information I have. So, therefore, without pursuing the matter further, I think we are safe in concluding that there is war in Cuba. As was said by the senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Lindsay] , when speaking a few minutes ago, the Spanish Government has sent into that island for the suppression of the insurrection, as they call it, nearly 200,000 drilled and disciplined veterans of the Spanish army, a greater military force than the combined armies of Grant and Lee in the battles of the Wilderness, and yet wo are told that it is a debatable question whether or not there is war in Cuba. I am not speaking about the effect upon this question of the ac¬ tion already taken by the Executive. Surely it is not a condition of peace that prevails in an island only 00 miles distant from our shores when its condition is such that six to eight hundred Amer¬ ican citizens, in company with thousands of the natives of the is¬ land, are impounded like so many cattle, there to be literally and purposely starved to death. Mr. ELKINS. Let me ask the Senator from Ohio where is the proof of the fact that they are impounded? Mr. FORAKER. The proof of that fact is on file in the State Department, and it was upon that information that the President acted when he sent the message. Mr. ELKINS. We do not know it officially in the Senate. Mr. FORAKER. I tell it to the Senator officially. Mr. ELKINS. We do not take it from you officially. We do not take facts from another Senator. Each Senator has his rights here- Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. Mr. ELKINS. Equal as to every other Senator. Mr. FORAKER. It is in the message. 2767 12 Mr. ELKINS. What message? It does not say they are im¬ pounded, to he starved to death. The President of the United States said nothing of the kind. The Senator from Ohio said that. Mr. FOR AKER. I will say it to the Senator, and he can go to the State Department and ascertain it, as I have done, or he can wait until the State Department sends it here. If he has any compunction about receiving it at my hands, lie is not bound to, I suppose. But I state it as a Senator who obtained hi3 informa¬ tion in the performance of a duty. Mr. ELKINS. Let me ask one other question. Will the Sena¬ tor pardon me? Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. Mr. ELKINS. Does each one of us have to walk up Pennsyl¬ vania avenue to the State Department, be admitted there, with the blinds pulled down, while the Secretary of State tells us to hush, and have to come back to the Senate and get up and pro¬ claim that we have these facts? Is that the way we get facts from the State Department or from the Executive? Mr. FORAKER. I have not been a member of the Senate long enough to give the Senator from West Virginia the informa¬ tion. Mr. ELKINS. Why do you not report those facts as all other resolutions or bills are reported upon from the Foreign Relations Committee? You belong to the committee. You have facts that I do not have. Mr. FORAKER. Yes. Mr. ELKINS. What! Are you afraid to assemble those facts and put them before us? This is a great transaction. The world is looking on. We are asked to vote without a fact in the world being submitted. We are asked to vote upon what Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee learn by going to the State De¬ partment. Hid away in a room, they get the facts, and, slipping out, they come to the Senate and dole out this information, and then say “filibuster ” if we do not vote right off, blindly and with¬ out the facts. Mr. FORAKER. The Senator should not use the term “fili¬ buster” with respect to myself. Mr. ELKINS. I have heard that word used. Mr. FORAKER. I am on the side that is asking the reference of the joint resolution to the committee. The Senator from West Virginia certainly could not have been in the Chamber listening during the whole of my remarks. What I said at the outset was that I had not purposed to speak on this question until a vote had been taken upon the motion to refer, and if the resolution shall be referred, as I have hoped it might be, it is my purpose then to speak in support of the report we may make. I said I desired a reference in order that the matter might take the usual course and in order that we might present to the Senate the facts which I am giving now, not by way of report from the committee, but as a Senator in the discharge of my duty. Of course the Senator is not bound to accept any statement I may make, but he should not become irritated about it when he has the delicious privilege of rejecting it. [Laughter.] Resuming my argument, I assume that the first of the two con¬ ditions precedent to the recognition of belligerency, namely, the existence of war, does exist. 27G7 13 Now, the next question is whether or not the rights and the in¬ terests of the United States are so prejudicially affected thereby as to justify us in taking any notice of it. All text writers are agreed that if there be rebellion in a country with which we have no transactions, or a rebellion that does not in any way whatso¬ ever affect us, there would be no justification in our taking any note of it; but, on the other hand, all text writers are in accord that when we do have rights and interests that are prejudicially affected, it is not only our right, Mr. President, but our duty to act, and to act seasonably, in the language of the text writers. The question is whether or not our interests and rights are affected. Let me again recur to an authority which those who are oppos¬ ing the resolution of the Senator from Alabama should not dis¬ pute. I read again from Secretary Olney. I read from him now as to the interests of the United States which are affected by the war. He says: The situation thus described is of great interest to the people of tho United States. They are interested in any struggle anywhere for freer political in¬ stitutions, but necessarily, and in special measure, in a struggle that is rag¬ ing almost in sight of our shores. They are interested, as a civilized and Christian nation, in the speedy termination of a civil strife characterized by exceptional bitterness and exceptional excesses on tho part of both combat¬ ants. They are interested in the noninterruption of extensive trade rela¬ tions which havo been and should continue to be of great advantage to both countries. . , . , ,.. They are interested in the prevention of that wholesale destruction of property on the island which, making no discrimination between enemies and neutrals, is utterly destroying American investments that should be of immense value and is utterly impoverishing great numbers of American citi¬ zens. On all these grounds and in all these ways the interest of the United States in the existing situation in Cuba yields in extent only to that of Spain herself, and has led many good and honest persons to insist that intervention to terminate the conflict is the immediate and imperative duty of the United States. And then lie goes on to say that he does not now propose to discuss the question of intervention, but only the question whether they will permit the United States to act as a friendly mediator. , , _ But, Mr. President, not to detain the Senate unduly, if I have talked to any purpose thus far, I have shown that war exists by authority that no Senator has a right to question, becanso it is official; and I have shown, also, that interests and rights of the very highest character, property rights, commerce rights, the right to life and liberty, all are prejudicially affected by the war that is proceeding in Cuba. If these things he established, then there remains, as I said awhile ago, but one further general ques¬ tion, and that is whether it is expedient for us to adopt the pend¬ ing resolution. . ,. 