New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-02-12
CERA IN TILE SENdTE.

CUBA IN THE SENATE.
The speech of Senator Carpenter for Cuban
freedom and American honor. which we pub
lish at length to-day, must win him regard as
one of the ablest of our statesmen. 1t Is IN
it's way IA great speech, and will demand Mr.
Summers best capacity of response. So far
as we can now perceive, it meets most of the
positons taken by that gentleman. These are
very nearly summed up in the statement Of
Mr.. Sumner some time since in answer to MIR.
Corpenter, that the law of 1918 was passed TO
suit the case Of the Spanish Colonies, already
90 for eight years in arms, having ships III
"every sea, largely possessing the territories on
" the Spanish Main, and with their independence
| "nearly achieved" This law Of 1918 prescribed
punishment for any one 10 the United States
who should supply arms or vessels with intent
that they should be used by any foreign prince
or State TO commit hostilties against the peo-
nile of any province, district or colony in insur-
rectiOn.
Mr.. Summers view of this act as applying
only to belgerents, was sustained by Attorney
General Hoar, who declared that as Cuba was
not recognized beligerent she could not
claim the benefit of the law IS colony
district, or people," and that it would be
beneath the dignity OF tho United States
"to submit 20 court and allow
" TO be acted upon in such an indirect manner
"u,bts and duties toward foreign nation
which the Government is not prepared distinct
CIV and upon its own responsibility to ayow ana
maintain In other words, a state of bellger-
ency affirmed by the United States was
necessary to make the principle OF the
law of 1918 operative for Cuba. Other
wise any district. province or people,
no matter how small or mean, might, by the
misapplied terms OF the law, insist upon
practical recognition. or at least. what we may
term for want of better words, full grown
rights. If the law belonged TO the case OF
Cuba, it WAS just a. applicable thereto
wear and half ago ~ now. HAD
Great Britain adopted such law along
with the Cuban view of IT, she would
have felt herself justified in placing the South
and North on the same plane OF neutrality two
months earlier than she did. Under such view
her right to affirm bclgercnt rights not merely
of the South in general, but of the single SOW
ereign rampant State of Alabama, equal to
those of the whole loyal Union, would have
been in one sense clear
Here is one view of the case, and the view
which in general Senator Carpenter opposes.
The points of his answer to Mr.. Sumner are,
first, that the statute of 1918 was not passed
simply for specific purpose and to meet the
case of the Spanish Colonies; second that
the statute can only apply to state OF
contest or beligercncy; third that Cuba Is truly
at war with Spain; fourth, that be!hgerency
has been virtually recognized by the United
States, fifth. that the libeling OF the gun
boats would not have been a recognition OF
Cuba sixth, that can more cheaply aud
safely disregard the Alabama claims than the
interests of American liberty
The Senator shows that the debated statute
was applied to the case of the ilibuster LOPEZ,
to that of Texas struggling against Mexico.
and to that OF Canada during the patriot re-
belon and III either instance to parties not in
"A condition of recognized bciligerency. In
stead of being specific, the act has been
in force from 1918 to the present time,
the war in Cuba making the exception in its
application. The law. says Senator Carpenter,
" is a pledge of neutrality in existing wars
and in all wars that shall exist between other
d" parties but it is more than this and every
nation is forbidden to lit out vessels here
" either for existing or intended wars
This is ground of the broadcast kind, and
is fair challenge to bIr. Sumner. The essence
of Mr.. Carpenters treatment of the Alabama
claims is that our proper complaint would be
not that Great Britain was neutral, but that she
diled TO be neutral, failed to carry out her
own laws. failed to act in good faith with
herself and us. The law of 1918 has now been
revived in tie Senate by "A bill which is sub
stantially the same and which has been offered
by Senator Morton. 1t rests with Senator
Sumner to tell us what the effect of this act
will be, and TO answer Senator Carpenters
eloquent and admirable plea for Recognition.