637.0023/67
The Chargé in Cuba (Howell) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 4.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatch No. 273 of August 2230 and previous correspondence relative to the Tarafa project.
[Page 860]Press reports received here are to the effect that a compromise has been reached in New York between Tarafa and the American sugar interests, relieving the United States Government of much further concern in the matter by the elimination of the confiscatory clauses in the bill.
Opposition in Cuba to the project is becoming more formidable. Even though the confiscatory clauses may be removed, the project is severely criticized as being monopolistic and otherwise objectionable. The manner of its passage in the lower House is condemned. The attempt to adjust the matter in New York and Washington instead of here is very much resented by the Cuban people. The Veterans’ movement has crystallized public opinion against the bill. As a result of this project, the Chambers of Commerce and Industrial Associations of the Province of Santa Clara have resolved in the future to take part in Government affairs by joining political parties in order to protect their economic interests.
The Government will find it very awkward to make the Tarafa project a law, in any form at the present time.
I transmit herewith enclosed another letter from the Association of Sugar Mill Owners and Planters to the President of the Senate, making a forceful argument against the bill, relative especially to the manner in which the railroads would be consolidated. (Enclosure l.)31
Doctor Pablo Desvernine, ex-Secretary of State, and one of the most distinguished and respected lawyers of Cuba, has written a very able letter against the bill, and it was published in El Mundo on August 29. He declares the bill monopolistic as to the railroads and their sub-ports, unconstitutional in parts, and not for the best interests of Cuba. A brief summary is attached. (Enclosure 2.)31
Doctor Cancio, Secretary of Treasury in the Cabinet of General Menocal, has also published in El Mundo a strong article against the bill, maintaining principally that a law in such monopolistic terms is not necessary to bring about an amalgamation of railways, as the latter can be accomplished under existing laws.
I also attach a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba to the President of the Senate in which that organization energetically opposes the bill, principally because of its monopolistic tendency. (Enclosure 3.)31
I have [etc.]