No. 347.

General Sickles to Mr. Fish

No. 230]

Sir: This afternoon I called to present my respects to the minister of state, it being his reception day, and finding his excellency alone, I took occasion to refer to his note of the 19th instant in relation to our reclamations. I said that I had immediately sent to you by post the text of his communication, and had, besides, forwarded by cable a synopisis of the several articles proposed by the Spanish government; that I had not yet received specific instructions as to the answer it would become my duty to make, but that with reference to the first and third articles, and the second and third clauses of the second article, I might at once state that they were quite inconsistent with the principles that had been already indicated for my guidance in the negotiation; that I had sought a frank conversation with his excellency on the subject, under the impression that if the bases contained in his note were entirely unalterable, further correspondence would be useless, and if they were open to modification we could more readily come to an understanding in one or two conferences than by the interchange of elaborate arguments at long intervals. Mr. Sagasta said he would be happy to hear my objections to the articles I had mentioned, premising that the Spanish government could not consent to submit the judgments of its courts to the revision of any other tribunal. I remarked that it would not be expected, on the part of the United States, that the Spanish government would submit the adjudications of its courts to be reviewed by foreign tribunals; that the jurisdiction of an international board of commissioners over the claims of American citizens to be presented to it would rest upon principles often recognized in the intercourse of sovereign states, and that the doctrine upon which these conventions were founded was quite distinct from that to which his excellency referred; that is to say, it is the duty and the right of every nation to see that justice is done to its citizens or subjects by foreign states; that if the authorities of a foreign state failed, in the judgment of the state to which the aggrieved party belonged, to do justice in any particular case, it is competent for that state to demand a suitable reparation or indemnity of the government in fault; and if [Page 749] the two governments fail to agree in the premises it is the better practice of our times, in place of resorting to reprisals, to refer the questions to a mixed commission, with an impartial umpire, for final adjustment.

I then proceeded to state some additional reasons which would forbid the acceptance of the particular stipulations I had enumerated. In the first place I observed that the bases proposed by the Spanish government put the adjudications of civil and military tribunals on the same footing of infallibility, that whatever degree of authority might be claimed abroad for the judgments of the civil magistracy of Cuba, a question I would not then discuss, it could scarcely be expected that the decrees of courts-martial and military commissions, often proceeding summarily (sin formation de causa) would be accepted by the United States Government as a compliance with the seventh article of the treaty of 1795, which guarantees to American citizens within Spanish territory, in all cases, a fair trial according to the laws of Spain, before a regularly constituted judicial tribunal. Mr. Sagasta answered that military courts regularly constituted, and proceeding in conformity to law, had always held a recognized place in Spanish jurisprudence, and, when acting within the prescribed legal channel, their jurisdiction should be recognized as valid; that he would not, however, claim for the acts of a military court, proceeding summarily and without regard to judicial forms, the respect he insisted should be accorded to the regular tribunals. I then alluded to another class of adjudication in which the courts of Cuba had pronounced sentences confiscating the property of citizens of the United States not within the jurisdiction of the court, nor present at the trial, and remarked that such proceedings were so far in conflict with our notions of justice that it would be in vain to hope for the acquiescence of the United States Government in any decree of that kind affecting the persons and property of American citizens.

To this suggestion Mr. Sagasta replied that such judgments were not executory according to Spanish law; that, as regarded property, they were in the nature of attachments, and with reference to persons they were to be considered as informations or indictments; that at all events they were not final, and would not be deemed to exclude the matter from the jurisdiction of a mixed commission. Having satisfied myself that the minister was not disposed to insist, without modification, on the bases he had proposed, I yielded to his suggestion to submit in the more precise form of a written communication the amendments I might desire, to which he promised to give immediate attention. I shall, therefore, answer his note of the 19th instant as soon as I receive your instruction in reply to my telegram of that date.

At this moment the cabinet is more than usually preoccupied with domestic questions; the Cortes will adjourn without day on the first of next month; the reign of the new dynasty will be inaugurated at the same time, and with it a new ministry, and almost certainly a new secretary of state will be named. There is now pending in the Cortes a proposition to give the executive certain extraordinary powers until the election of the first congress to be chosen under the constitution of 1869. This measure has provoked a parliamentary conflict that has already occupied several sittings of the chamber. Mr. Sagasta intimated that he expected to take part in the debate this afternoon, and for that reason, among others, I forbore proceeding further with the discussion I had, perhaps, somewhat irregularly prolonged in view of the informal occasion of our interview.

I am, &c.,

D. E. SICKLES.