New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-22

"iustly bring war upon us if Cuba had the
strength to enforce her rights"
The logic of Mr.. Summers brief reply to Mr..
Carnenter has not been well represented, but
if nossesses unmistakable force. He declared
that the statute of 1918 was made to meet
the case of the revolted Spanish colonies
already for eight years IN arms anu
nearly Independent. He believes that at
that time Buenos Ayres had no Spanish
force, Mexico but slight one ana Dut
few forts were held throughout that extensive
country. "TheTe was no question OF belllger-
"ence," says Mr.. Sumner. ct was admitted
"by all the civilized world. Nation after ma
" ton practically recognized it," Belligerence
was "a fact perfectly established and recog-
"nized by every branch of our Government
How, then, can we apply the principle Oh the
act of 1918 to the Cubans who have no
cities, no towns, no ports, no prize
courts which in October last held Sibanlcu
and Guaimaro, two villages which, says
an agent of the Government, were subsequently
burnedP But why not have allowed the ques-
ton of bellgerence to be tested in our courts,
so that we could definitely understand 10 What
extent the Cubans met or failed to meet the
requirements of belligerencyY Mr. Sumner re-
plies that the better plan is to send TO our
authorized agents in Cuba, accredited though
they be to Spaniards, and not to Cubans Per
haps it were best, indeed, that the evidence OF
our agents should be taken along with that OF
the Cubans to the high court Of Congress, and
there decided upon. At all events, Judge Hoar'
to whom, with Mr.. Sumner more than any one
else. we owe the decision arrived at IN the
affair Of the gunboats, has held that the am
davits of the Cuban Junta are inadmisslble as
sufficient to form case.
One remarkable inference suggested by Mr.
Summers speech will help to illuminate the
question of our Alabama claims. Accepting
the theory that we are obliged by our tradl-
tional neutrality to extend to an insurgent
province or colony which holds no capital or
ports the same treatment that we give to an old
and recognized nation, we have already practl-
cally recognized Cuba. If the law of 1878 APP
plies to Cuba, the belligerence of the Island
has been in some respects, at least recognized
by the law itself; for the effect of recog-
milton in any case is that strict ana
impartial neutrality which the Cuban view
of the law implies. But still
more significant consideration is the permissible
inference that if the aforesaid province or
colony can claim the benefits Of the law of
1918, so too could the South, as recognized by
England. IN other words, the Southern Con-
fedcracy, with its forts, cities, armies, States,
Governments, had claim which Cuba, with
few of these requisites, has not IL the law
would have operated from the start to secure the
effects of recognition for any province, district
or people, why should it not have operated in
justification of the premature recognition OF
the South, which surely was something more
than province or DISTRICT Mr.. Sumner
is to be thanked if he does no more than
suggest this view to US; but it is
well also that the position of the
friends of Cuba should be understood
They thought-with what earnest reason MIR.
Carpenters speech illustrates-that the law of
1918 furnished sufficient ground for testing the
question of belligerence. AS it is, no court
but Congress can now make the test.