The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-13
Tho Administration and tho Cuban
AmASfi0n.

The Administration and tho Cuban
Question.
The publication of the text Of the corre-
spondenoe between Secretary Fish and our
Minister at Madrid, as given in the HERALD
yesterday, relative to Cuba, and particularly
slavery in that island, is suggestive
Of several pertinent and important question:
First, then, why was the correspondence
given to the public just nowa The first presa
despatch, giving in brief the substance of the
most important part of the correspondence
that is, of the letter of the Secretary Of State
of October 80 to our Minister at Madrid
created q little sensation in Wash
ington. It was reported indeed, that
Mr.. Fish denied the existence Of
such communication, and Admiral
Polo. the Spanish Minister. pretended to treat
it lightly and as thing of the past-as
something which later circumstances and
communications had superseded or thrown
in the shade. The October letter Of Mr. Fish
is, in fact, SO strong and decided in terms
that both the administration and Spanish Min
lister seemed to be little startled when the
Substance Of it became known to the public.
But there could hardly have been any real
cause for surprise on the part of the admins
tration. unless the Information had been OBJ
tanned at first without the consent of the State
Department Surprising it was so obtained
the Secretary might have thought it neces-
t<>, 1soht IL
order to prevent Misrepresentation as to its
contents or Misrepresentation. But was not
the first information given to the press as o
prelude to the publication of the full text of
the correspondence? In that case the question
recurs, why was the correspondence published
just now?
While we admit that the question at issue
and the conduct of the Spanish authorities at
home and in Cuba justified the decided and
strong language Of Mr.. Fish's October letter.
it seems TO rs that the Secretary touched the,
verge Of ainicab1e diplomatic intercourse,
We are not blaming him, and think that even
stronger language would have been tustifable,'
but we do not think he could have said to the
British government or some other powerful
governments, without serious consequences,
''that the trial to our impartiality by the want
of success in suppressing the revolt (the
Cuban insurrection) is necessarily so severe
that unless she (Spain) shall soon be more
successful it will force upon this government
the consideration of the question whether duty
to itself and to the commercial interests of it's
citizens may not demand some change in tho
line of action it has thus far
pursued Great Britain would have
demanded, no doubt what this meant Why
was such language used to Spain? We must
understand the Secretary as being seriously in
earnest. It cannot be mere wordy demon
stration without meaning and determined
purpose. But what is meant by so change in
the line of action thus far pursued2" We
suppose it means neither more nor less than
that our government might be constrained
to recognize the state of war that exists in
Cuba and the belligerent character of the
Cubans. In this there would be no cause Of
war between Spain and the United States. In
fact, it ought not to be considered o cause of
suspension Of diplomatic relations President
Grant has asserted the right of the United
States, when it deems proper, to take such
action. ALI nations do that when policy and
humanity dictate, and where a war like that
in Cuba is prolonged for years without any
prospect of the revolt being suppressed. Firm
and decided as the October despatch Of Secre-
tary Fish is, there is no cause for alarm.
Firmness alone on the part of our government
in the course therein indicated can solve the
problem of Cuban difficulties.