The New York herald., 1876-01-21
Cuban CorresPOnde@ve-singu Com
plicatIons.

Spain. Madrid despatch, given to-day,
gives peculiar aspect to the whole case.
Hitherto it was doubtful whether there was
point of veracity involved in Mr.. Fishs
denial of one of our dispatches or whether
the solemn diplomatist merely quibbled.
He denied that circular note" in regard
to Cuba was sent to the various governments
OF Europe, and elaborately answered our
article on that subject by endeavorlng to
show that if such a circular had been sent
the fact would not have constituted any vio-
lation of the Monroe doctrine" In this he
detailed with the air of discoverer the now
trite conversations of Rush with Mr.. Can
ming Mr.. Fish, however, admitted that the
substance of an important despatch to Mr..
Cushing was sent to our ministers at the
several European courts, with instructions to
read them to the respective authorities, "but
not to leave copies. Between this and the
statement made in our Vienna despatch there
is Just the little difference that affords field
for bubble, and under cover of that quib-
BILE it was thought safe, apparently, to deny
the statement of our despatch.
Mr.. Fish, then, has only quibbled, if this
is all. But this is not all. In our Madrid
despatch to-day it is reported, as given out in
that city on semi-offcial authority, that our
government has not Officially communicated
at Madrid the contents of the American cir 1
cular note TO the European Powers" In
fact, the Spanish government declares that
some note has been sent from Washington to
the other capitals in Europe that has not
been sent to Madrid. Here is direct issue
with Mr. Fish involving veracity. He says
that only note previously sent to Madrid
has been communicated to other Powers
they say a note has been sent to other
Powers that has not been sent to them.
Does the Madrid government know what
notes have been sent by us to other Powers
AS they are in communication with other
Powers on this very point, there can scarcely
be any doubt of this Yesterday we published
letter from Berlin, dated January 5,
which stated that the Spanish Minister in
that capital was in 'almost daily conference"
with the Secretary of State for Foreign AT
fairs, and as there were no complications be-
tween Germany and Spain this unusual fact
was supposed to touch the case of the rela-
tions of the United States and Cuba. Our
correspondent further says:-'Some four
weeks ago the American Charge d'Affaires,
Mr. Nicholas Fish, in the absence of the Min
lister, informed the Foreign Office of a note
from his government on the Cuban affair,
without, however, leaving an official copy of
the same. This note, simultaneously COM
mn Tod 10 oil he 1aad EurO h.
inets, signifies the Spanish government is
unable to quell the insurrection in Cuba;
shows the necessity in the interests of all
nations entertaining commercial relations
with the island of putting an end to it, and
asks whether it were not practicable to make
joint friendly remonstrance with Spain"
Here is evidently described the document
which our Vienna correspondent called q cir
cular note and which Mr.. Fish says was
transcript of one of his dispatches to Mr..
Cushing; and certainly if the proposition to
make "a joint friendly remonstrance with
Spain" was part of a despatch sent to Madrid
our diplomatic style is peculiar. But
our Berlin correspondent gives us fur
ther particulars of this despatch. He says
that on the 23d of December the Madrid gov
ernment addressed to all the foreign Powers
o reply to this American note, and that this
reply from Madrid was delivered at Berlin
on the day of the date of his letter, January
5. In the same letter is given a summary of
the contents of this Spanish reply, by which
it is clearly identified with the document re-
ferred to in the despatch from Madrid pub
lished by us on Sunday last and used by the
Associated Press the next day.
Our despatch of that date Madrid,
January Unpublished on Sunday last, was
referred to by Mr.. Fish in recent CONVEX
sation. He said7-'I perceive in it several
passages which are responsive to those in my
note to Mr.. Gushing which l sent just after
my return from hurried visit to New York
on the 5th of last November" So far, then,
the case is clear enough that Mr.. Fish
has sent to several capitals in Eu-
rope the substance of note sent to
Mr.. Gushing at Madrid; that the
Spanish government has addressed the
same foreign governments in reply to
that communication, although, if we take Mr..
Fishs words literally, those foreign govern
ments are not in possession of his note; and
that this Spanish reply, published in our
columns-our Madrid and Berlin CORE
spondents agreeing as to its .eontents-is rec
ognized by Mr. Fish himself as responsive"
in part to his note to Mr.. Cushing. How,
then, are we to account for the semi-official
statement just received from Madrid to the
effect that our government has not yet "ofh-
cially communicated" there the contents of
this very circular to which it has sent an
answer to every Court in Europe9 Were we
to follow the tactics of the supporters of Mr..
Fish we would throw this statement out of
court altogether as incredible, if not ridic-
nlnns ailnnlv hacansn II does not nnran with