New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-08
NnLTpIL HONTLL[IIES.

The case of the Spanish guhDoalS was post
poncd from Saturday until to-day. We think
it will be abundantly proved that though
Perm and Spain have almost reversed their
positions i'm the course of year on the
question as to the existence of war between
then. Spain has only her own declarations
TO blame for her present dilemma When the
porrvion Minister argued for leave to send
away his grnboats, on the ground that the
condition of neutral hostilities between his
country and Spain called for a suspension OF
regular neutral obligations, the Spanish Min
lister Conf earnestly objected. His precise terms,
rs contained in n letter written in June last
wear. declared "the assertion that the Sit
"uation between the two countries was not
a." state of war entirely without foundation"
This conviction he evidently inherited from
his predecessor, Minister Tassara, who, fearful
flat the vessel Cuyler on leaving the United
States would pass from Colombian hands into
those of the South American allies, hoped that
the Bogota Government would retain it during
" thc continuance of the state of war; on con-
edition that the Spanish Government WITH
Z" drew its force of observation from Cartagena."
At date of June 80 Mr. Conf complained that
the Government of Peru had not up to that
time even accepted the good Offices OF the
United States hence, how could peace existf
But he was far more emphatic when'
on July 90 1868, lie wrote: ITO say
I" that state of war does not exist
when nevertheless, no proposition of peace
" has been accepted, is an affirmation equally
gratuitous and new" The argument of tho
Gillian Minister Garcia, that the tacit agree
ment entered into by the CHILEAN and Spanish
representatives in London, in order to effect
the release of their war vessels, was equivalent
TO n declaration Of peace, was secuted 10y Mr.
Gohi. "To pretend" said he. that the con-
/" sent TO the departure of the vessels respect
"ively means q declaration of n state of peace.
"would be equal to maintaining that any
Especial agreement of two belligercnt States,
"whether about an exchange of prisoners or
furnishing supplies, or any other partial and
Limited points, would imply the termination
"of the war" Language could not be palmer
than this. Spain did insist then upon the
logical continuance Of state of war between
herself and the Allies. and among them Peru.
In accusing Peru of having rcaped the bene-
fits of relaxation of that neutrality, the strin-
Cency of which she now claims against Spain,
il ought not to be forgotten that SPANS own
words are in her favor Peru, it is certain,
succeeded in getting out her monitors; but
Spain gained by our hospitality as well in re-
pairing her ships and sending off forty thou
sand rifles. Spain, less than any other Power,
can complain that she has not been permitted
to profit magniiiccnty by our neutrality,
whether as the neutrally-hostile hatcr of Peru
or the decidedly murdcrous enemy of Cuba.
Mr.. Stewards comment on the question mt issue
is suggestive: "Ihe proceedings of Spain
"and Chill require an explanation on
"thc part of either Of these Powers that the
condition of war still exists" That cXplana-
ton, as it affects the case of Spain and Peru,
is still wanting; for though Peru. through
Mr.. Garcia, held that war did not exist, she
was not certain of peace, and it is conclusive
that Spain, through Mr.. Goni, insisted upon n
state of war. That chivalrOus but morbid and
| perturbed power has, it is plain, taken an OBJ
stinate stand on the war platform Her prece-
dent is q little unhappy. Peru may evade the
effect of her Minister'S former special pleading,
but Spain meant war or nothing.