Mr. Fish to General Sickles
First point in telegram of 30th inadmissible, if construed as forbidding us to question judgments in violation of international law or [Page 765] of treaty, or if made in the absence of parties. The second and third points seem to exclude naturalized citizens who have not asserted their nationality before Spanish tribunals. My telegram of 28th explains our views. Are these changes, which are inconsistent with telegram of 26th, made for the purpose of delay? Answer, in order that instructions may be given in such case. If Spanish government desire to settle in same manner as in Aspinwall case, why not give Roberts full powers as in that case?