General Sickles to Mr. Fish
Sir: Your instruction No. 106 was received on the 5th instant. On [Page 736] the same day I sent a note to the minister of state asking for an interview. On the 7th, no answer having been received, I repeated the request in another communication to Mr. Sagasta, to which a reply was promptly returned, saying that he would receive me to-day at half past 2 in the afternoon, and stating that the note previously addressed to him had not reached his hands. Meanwhile the Madrid journals had published a telegram giving the purport of the allusion to our reclamation against Spain made by the President in his annual message. As soon as I presented myself this afternoon Mr. Sagasta expressed his regret that my note of the 5th had been inadvertently confounded with two others received from this legation at the same time, acknowledging invitations to accompany the minister on a visit to the palace of the Escorial. Mr. Sagasta at once proceeded to state that he had conferred with his colleagues, and was happy to assure me that we were quite in accord as to the proposal made in my note of October 14, for the adjustment of the claims of American citizens upon the Spanish government; that the minister of the colonies, Mr. Moret, had suggested some advantages to be found in two commissions, one to pass upon the legal questions, and the other to assess the damages in cases where the Spanish authorities should be adjudged in fault; and that he must also insist upon no case going before the commission that had not been first presented to a Spanish tribunal without obtaining due reparation. Expressing myself gratified by the prospect of an agreement between the two governments, I observed, with reference to the proposal for two commissions, that the same persons could as well, and perhaps more satisfactorily, decide all the questions involved in the respective cases; that this was the usual practice, and that whatever testimony the Spanish government might desire to offer on the subject of damages could easily be obtained through the authorities in Cuba or the consuls in the United States, and presented to the arbitrators; that two commissions would add unnecessarily to the expense of conducting the proceedings, besides inconveniently prolonging them; that to distinguish in the manner suggested between the functions of the one and the other might raise questions of jurisdiction that would prove troublesome; that while a commission chosen expressly to appraise damages might not be composed of persons best qualified to pass upon legal propositions, it would not be difficult to select commissioners entirely competent to settle the incidental as well as the principal differences to be considered, and that it was only necessary for both governments, in choosing their respective arbitrators, to bear in mind the duties to be performed, and all occasion for a separation of their functions would be avoided. Mr. Sagasta replied that he was inclined to the opinion that one commission was enough; he had acquiesced in Mr. Moret’s suggestion when it was made, but it would not, perhaps, be regarded as essential. With respect to the proposition that all cases must first be prosecuted before a Spanish tribunal, I said that I did not believe it would be accepted by my Government; it was not reasonable to ask that American citizens, most of whom resided in the United States, and who had suffered injuries at the hands of the Spanish authorities, should be remitted to Spanish courts for redress, to say nothing of the expense, the delay, and the personal risk the parties would incur in going to Cuba for such a purpose; it was not fair that such cases should be heard and decided by persons appointed exclusively by the government against which the reclamations were made; that if by tribunals the minister meant authorities, I presumed there would be no objection to a stipulation requiring claims to be first presented through the United States consul general at Havana to the superior political authority of [Page 737] the colony, or to the supreme government at Madrid, through this legation, but that I could not assent to the doctrine that the jurisdiction of the commission should depend upon a previous adjudication by a Spanish court. His excellency appeared to yield to the latter construction of the word “tribunal;” he said the Spanish government must first have cognizance of the cases; that it would not be prudent to permit parties to go before the commission with claims which the government had not investigated. I replied that all the cases had been brought to the notice of the captain general of Cuba, or of this government, and ample oportunities for reparation had been afforded; that the Spanish authorities were in possession of all the material facts of each case;that the main difficulty was to reconcile the conflicting views which so often separate the immediate parties to a controversy, and hence it was desirable to resort to the expedient of an independent, intelligent, and disinterested tribunal, so organized as to be able to dispose of the cases promptly and equitably. I added that it would, perhaps, facilitate a comparison of views if his excellency would prepare a memorandum of any stipulations he might desire, after further reflection, to make in relation to the organization and jurisdiction of the arbitrators; that I would hold myself in readiness to call upon him at any time he would indicate, and offer such amendments as might appear to me to be necessary upon a perusal of his propositions; and that I felt confident we could arrange the details of the matter in one or two conferences, more satisfactorily, not to say more expeditiously, than by the interchange of notes. His excellency intimated his concurrence in this suggestion and promised to act upon it at an early day. I did not allude to the remaining points mentioned in your No. 106, as they were not involved in the discussion opened by Mr. Sagasta. I may have occasion to do so in our next interview.
I am, &c.,