The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-01-22


tation of the treaty of 1895, and witt
that respect which the Spanish Govern
ment had for its obligations. These as
surances were repeated to you by Mr.
Ulloa, as reported in your note No. 95
under the date of September 7th, 1874
And in your note No. 15S, dated Novem
Der %, it appears that similal
statements were again made. Neverthe
less with all of these cases long since
brought to the attention of the Spanish
government, with the case of Mrs. Far.
res DeMora before the Ministry Of the
State, in connection with that of Mr.
Criado, Mr.. Ulloa took occasion to re.
ply in the case of Mr.. Crisdo alone, as
reported in your note No. SO, to the etfec,
that he was not bona tiie citizen Of the
United States. and thus to avoid deci-
sion of the issue before him as far as the
case was concerned MIR. CIisdo was but
an individual jointly interested with
others with the decision of the principle
and because some flaw supposed to have
been found as to his right TO claim the
benefit of the general principle when
decided, an oportunity was taken to de-
cline to makes decision on the princi-
pie itself. It is ascertained, however,
not only the claim that Mr.. Crisdo is not
a citizen is not well founded, but trial
of his CLAIM before a commission Is pro-
gresslng. This question has not thus been
raised, but an advocate on the part Of
Spain Is understood to have declared
himself satisfied as to Mr.Cr ado's citizen
ship. The Spanish government thus
avoiding the issue, you again argued the
question in case of Mrs. Fares De-
Mora and Mrs. Delgado, as reported in
yours No. 322 Subsequent to this date,
in several dispatches, viz: yours Nos 3S7,
442, 452 and Oil, the last being dated
September Sth ultimo, and several tele
grams, you have reported the progress of
q scheme Of settlement, which 1t was
thought was about to be accomplished,
when q change in the cabinet displaced
Mr.. Castro. Whether had Mr.. Castro re-
NAMED in Office general order or de-
cree would have been issued of the
character referred to in yours No. 5ll,
1t is impossible TO say, and whether, if
issued, it would have received more re-
spectful obedience than prior orders on
this question, must also remain unanswer-
ed. However you State that the question
has been reopened, and rs you inform
me, with some prospect Of an adjustment,
but as an adjustment has not yet been
reached, and the general question has
been pending for more than six years,
the kindred treaty question, in reference
to the trial of citizens of the United
States in Cuba by court martial, and
the arrest and punishment Of our
citizens withou. trial on that
Island, is violation of the
provisions Of the treaty ofl195 add IS sub
stantially in the same position. This
Government, prior to your appointment,
has unfortunately been compelled to in
teriere in behalf of its citizens on sew
eral occasions where the authorities in
Cuba had entirely disregarded not only
the provisions Of our treaty, but the
rules Of civilized warfare, After your
arrival at your post you addressed the
Government in reference to these viola
tlons on various occasions, bothln connec-
ton with conhscation and embargo cases
and separately. The authorities Of
Spain have been loud in their de-
nuncistions of acts of cruelty when
practiced by the Carlists, and while, in
some quarters, martial law has been
looked upon as a natural refuge of the
mother country or her colonial authorities
when deemed necessary and convenient,
still the same difficulty has occurred in
inducing any Minister of the State TO
fairly meet the question, and either
commit himself to the justification
OF such practices, or to frankly
admit that they were in violation
Of treaty obligations and pubic law. II
is true that in isolated cases where the
Spanish Government has been shown
that insis:ance on trial by Courts Martial
implied the state OF the war in Cuba,
which might lead to logical consequences,
the authorities have admitted the justice
of our position, as in orders sent 10 the
Captain General in 1863, proposing the
trial Of sailors of the Bark
Union by the ordinary tribunal,
pursuant TO the treaty OF 1875, as referred
to in my note NO. 2i6), but in general
when these questions have been presented,
the different Minister. Of State have con.
tented themselves with expressing their
intention TO fairly respond and the inten-
ton of Spain to perform all her treaty
obligations. Notably among them you
state, in your note No. 1851. that after
having addressed Mr.. Ulloa
upon this question, in the Dock
rev case, be promised 10 meet
tho issue. That promise remains unper-
formed. and although late negotiations,
by which it was hoped some solution Of
these questions might be reached, would
have also applied TO this question, the
matter remains undisposed ofand the au-
thorities of Cuba are enabled upon con.
venient occasions, IN obedience 70 sup
posed necessity, 20 again resort to such
military tribunal or 10 punish without
! trial.
Thn is a sinp'e narrstion Of ts"ts 70 N
these two question promises made and
repealed, and assurances is given from
/ time 10 time that something should be
done. The admission Of justice demands
of the United States, At least to go 70 the
extent Of expressing regre: for these
wrongs and promises Of redress, followed
m they have been by absolutely
no performance and no prsc'
tical steps towards the performances,
need no extended comments. In the
cases Of embargo and conascstion not
only have wrongs been long since done
but continuing and repeated wrongs are
daily inflicted The authorities of
Spain in Cuba during al this time have
been seizing the revenues Of conhscat-
ed or embargoed estates sPproprisiing z
much Of the property Itself and
in some cases executing long
leases or actually making sales either on
the allegation that. taxes were doe. o'
without any excuse whatever.
Turning to the question whict
arose from the capture Of the Vrginiui
and executions which followed, no eI
tended reference is required. The Partl'
cu..rs Of the delivery Of the vessel 70 thu
government and the payment 70 both
II