New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-11-29
ru,n POINTS OF TIEW.


The retributiye fact that the Neutrality Law
Amendment of 1917, which the Cubans have
made their chief argument against the Spanish
gunboats, was made at the urgency of Spain
has inspired a grave prediction. 1t Is aveIred
that even in default of the complaint oil Peru,
this amendment, made upon motion OF the
Spanish Minister, ought to make good the final
holding of the gunbOats. The essence Of the
amendment to which reference is made pro-
hibits the fitting out or arming of any vessel
with intent to employ it Gin the service OF any
"foreign Prince or State, or of any colony,
district, or people, to cruise or commit hostill-
"ties against the subjects, citizens or property
"of any foreign Prince or State, or of any
"colony, district or people, with whom the
Omitted States are at peace"
The Cuban application of this passage is OBJ
vious. Considered either as colony, district,
or people. the Republic of CeSpedeS may claim
all the advantage which appears upon the face
of it, What the lawyers may make OF IT. AFTER
ransacking precedents to show that reDelllOus
as well as non-rebellious colonies and districts
were comprehended in the prohibition, or to
establish quite the reverse, we VIII not now
undertake to say. All that occurs to us here
is that the Spanish side Of the case Will rally
mon the argument that no colony, district, or
people claimed by any unrecognlzable P1Wer
could have been covered by the meaning OF
the amendment From this point of view
Cuba would be regarded a Spanish province
or none at ALL and Camaguey Spanish juris-
diction or none whatever and only their leglt-
innate, that is to say, their recognized author
tiles could demand the benefit of the amend
ment. Gen. Cespedes might hold Camaguey,
Bayamo, Santiago, Trinidad, and Cienfuegos,
but until we recognized him as holding them,
at all events until we recognized him as bel
ligerent, he could not, under this showing, claim
that to him belongs the colony, district, or
people for whom provision is made.
Unfortunately, as it would seem, for this
view. the debated amendment was inserted at
the particular urgency of Spain against her
colonies in South America But now arises the
question of the precise situation of these col
onies with reference to belligerency, without
which character it is claimed they could have
no rightful recognition in an act OF neutrality.
This seems to be answered by he statement that
no recognition of belligerency was ever given
to the Republics of South America, but that they
were treated equally with Spain in our courts.
Much may have to be said upon both sides
before a decision is reached; but the Cuban
claim that the United States did, indeed,
establish precedent of neutrality in favor OF
revolted provinces no better than Cuba, and
that of Peru that q virtual state of war exists
between herself and Spain which should prevent
tho fitting out of Spanish gunboats from our
ports, constitute a strongly reinforced argu-
ment which the country of Prim and Serrano
will find it not easy to encounter, especially
with menaces or buster. Four independent
States have declared for Cuban belligerency !;
one of them is almost in the position of an ally,
and if not in precise terms actually at war with
Spain, still in a fair way Of being so. If the
recognition and aid of these States impart to
the Cuban cause tho Importance which was
given to any of the Spanish provinces at the
time of our neutrality act what is to be said
for Spain Perhaps she had better surrender
Cuba to the Cubans, and give us in exchange
for her gunboats receipt in full OF all
demands.