Mr. Dupuy de Lôme to
Mr. Olney.
Legation of Spain,
Washington, December 7,
1895.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I beg to call your
attention to a telegram which is published in page 6 of to-day’s New
York Herald.
I thank you most sincerely for the real good work that the authorities
are doing there to prevent disobedience to the President’s commands. At
the same time, as it is said in the telegram, that the authorities are
waiting further instructions from Washington, I beg you to communicate
what you will think proper in order to end the scandal that a military
expedition intended to sail against Spain is camping on United States
soil.
I take the liberty of including the letters from Florida relating to the
arms taken in Cedar Keys. My information points to the fact that those
arms are still in possession of the parties that are trying to ship them
to Cuba and are connected with the men at Cape Sable.
I believe that the blow received by the expedition of Collazo at Cape
Sable, and a little care, will prevent their shipment. By the fact that
Collazo was a pupil of our Royal Artillery College. He failed three
times in his examination. If he had been able to get his commission as
officer, surely he would be now fighting on the side of Spain, as many
other loyal Cuban officers are.
Thanking you again, I remain, etc.,
[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Gundy to Mr.
Pedro Solis.
Tampa, Fla., November 30, 1895.
Dear Sir: I have the honor to inclose you
herewith letter of Mr. J. Emmet Wolfe, United States attorney for
the northern district of Florida, bearing date November 23, 1895,
informing me that it is his duty to abstain from further legal
proceedings in the matter of the prosecution of the case of the
United States against the arms and ammunition seized near Cedar
Keys, in which case I had the honor to represent you.
As on my return from Pensacola I informed you that Mr. Wolfe had
signed and would that day file a new information for the forfeiture
of these arms and ammunition, it will, of course, be only proper
that I should express to you my surprise at the receipt of a letter
dated two days after my departure from Pensacola announcing that he
declined to take any further action until after the matter should be
[Page 1208]
submitted to the
Attorney-General of the United States. The facts of the case are
simply these: Mr. Wolfe, as district attorney, filed an information
against the arms and ammunition, in which he charged that the
seizure was made on land within the limits of the northern district
of Florida, and after he brought the suit on the admiralty side of
the court, and the charge under which he expected to have the goods
forfeited was not, in my opinion, clearly and legally set out in
such a manner as [to show] that the information itself was not
clearly open to objection by way of exception, and in fact
exceptions were formally filed by the attorneys representing the
claimants to the property. I went to see Mr. Wolfe, and after he was
convinced that the first information, or rather the second
information, was insufficient, I, at his request, drew and presented
to him the information asking for the forfeiture of the arms and
ammunition for the violation of section 5283, Revised Statutes, a
copy of which I inclose you herewith, and Mr. Wolfe signed the same
as district attorney and agreed to file it and have process issued
the next day. Of course, the only information of fact that I could
give him was the information which I had from you as to the
character of the testimony which yon expected to produce, and I had
previously written him, on October 16, giving him the names of the
captain and cook of the vessel that took the arms from Tampa to
Cedar Keys. I have no information that Mr. Wolfe summoned or
examined these witnesses or had any reason to know what their
testimony on a trial of the cause would actually be, and I informed
him most positively that I should be able, in my opinion, to produce
satisfactory proof of the facts charged in the information, and
further proof that Knight and Wall and the other claimants of the
goods in question had no right or title to them whatever, but that
the arms and ammunition had been sold and delivered and paid for by
the people who intended to use them for the purposes charged in the
information. You must understand, then, what was my surprise when I
received the inclosed letter, and I desire to say to you that Mr.
Wolfe must have had from some other somce information, the character
of which he did not deem it necessary to disclose to me, which
caused him to abandon this case and deliver the goods to the
claimant without a trial of the facts. The dismissal of the
information on exception was essential, as it would have been
dismissed on argument beyond doubt.
Yours, very truly,
[Inclosure 2.]
Mr. Gunby to Mr.
Wolfe.
Tampa, Fla., October 16, 1895.
Dear Sir: In the matter of the attachment
and information against the arms and ammunition recently seized near
Cedar Keys, the witnesses whose names you desire are S. B. Crosby
and Harry Dolphin, both of Tampa, Fla. Please let me know when the
case will be called for trial, and oblige,
Yours, truly,
[Inclosure 3.]
Mr. Wolfe to Mr.
Gunby.
Pensacola, Fla., November 23, 1895.
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of a letter from
the Attorney-General relating to the Cedar Keys seizure, in which he
says:
“If you have reasonable grounds to believe that on the merits of this
controversy judgment in accordance with the contention and claim of
the United States should and could be recovered, it would seem to be
your duty clearly to institute a new proceeding; if, on the other
hand, you are of the opinion, after thorough consideration of the
facts and the law, the United States is not entitled to recover
judgment and should not further prosecute this action, you are at
liberty and it is your duty, in the exercise of your official and
professional discretion, to act in accordance with the opinion you
have reached.”
After a thorough consideration of the neutrality law, and an
examination of the facts in the Cedar Keys case so far as they have
been submitted to me, it is my opinion that the Government will
ultimately fail in this action for lack of sufficient testimony.
I have therefore considered it my duty to abstain from further legal
proceedings in this cause, and have directed the return of the
property to the claimants.
Very truly, yours,
J. Emmet Wolfe,
United States Attorney.
