Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-04-11


mise between the contestants. and inter-
vention in favor Of one or the other party.
I speak not Of forcible annexation, for
that cannot be thought OF. That. by our
code of morality, would be criminal ag-
gressien.''
Grants Words In 1S7S.
Thereupon I reviewed these alternatives,
in the light Of President Grants measured
words, uttered in 1876. when after seven
years of sanguinary. destructive and cruel
hostilities in Cuba he reached the conclusion
that the recognition of the independence OF
Cuba was impracticable and indefensible;
and that the recognition Of belligerence was
not warranted by the facts according to the
tests of public law. commented especially
upon the latter aspect of the question.
pointing out the Inconvenience and positive
dangers Of a recognition of belligerence,
which, while adding to the already onerous
burdens of neutrality within our own juris-
diction, could not in any way extend our
influence or effective Offices in the territory
of hostilities.
Nothing has since occurred to change my
visw in this regard-and recognize as
fully now as then that the issuance of a
proclamation Of neutrality, by which pro-
cess the so-called recognition of belliger-
eLce is published, could, Of itself and un-
attended by other action, accomplish moth
ing toward the one end for which we Ia
bor. the instant pacifcation of Cuba and
the cessation of the misery that affiicts the
island.
Turning to the question Of recognizing at
this time the Independence of the present
insurgent government in Cuba, we find safe
precedents in our history from an early
Gay. They are well summed up in Presi-
dent Jacksons message to Congress, De-
cember q, 1896. on the subject of the rec
ognition of the independence Of Texas.
He said: I'm all the contests that have
arisen out of the revolutions Of France,
out of the disputes relating to the Crowns
of Portugal and Spain, out of the sep
aration Of the American possessions of
both from the European Cover 1ts, and
out Of the numerous and Co. lily oc-
curing struggles for dominion in Span
ish-America, SO wisely consistent with our
just principles has been the action of our
Government that we have, under the most
critical circumstances, avoided all censure,
and encountered no other evil than that
produced by transient estrangement of
good will in those against whom we have
been by force of evidences compelled to de-
eide.
1t has thus made known to the world
that the uniform policy and practice Of the
United States is to avoid an interference
in disputes which merely relate to the tl-
ternal government of other nations, and
eventually to recognize the authority of
the prevailing party without reference 10
our particular interests and views or to
the merits of the original controversy.
But on this, as on every other trying
occasion. safety Is to b found in a rigid
adherence to principle
In the contest betweenSSpain and the re-
volted colonies we stood aloof, and waited
not only until the ability OF the new states
to protect themselves was lully estab-
lshed, but until the danger of their being
again subjugated had entirely passed away.
Then, and not until then, were they recog-
nzed.
Such was our course in regard to Mexico
herself. 1t is true that with regard
to Texas the civil authority of Mexico has
been expelled, it's invading army defeated.
the Chief of the Republic himself captured,
and all present power to control the newly
organized government of Texas annihiliat-
ed within its confines. But, on the other
hand, there is. in appearance at least, an
immense disparity Of physical force on the
side of Texas The Mexican republic. un-
der another executive is rallying It's forces
under a new leader. and menacing a fresh
invasion to recover it's lost dominion.
Upon the issue of this threatened inva-
sion the independence Of Texas may be
considered as suspended; and were there
nothing peculiar in the relative situation of
the United States and Texas. our acknowl-
edgement of it's Independence at SUCH
oOn16 ha Iod
sistent with that prudent reserve with
which we have hitherto held ourselves
bound to treat all similar questions.
The Case of,Texas.
Thereupon Andrew jackson proceeded to
consider the risk that there might be i'm
puted to the United States motives of
selfish interest in view of the former claim
on our part to the territory of Texas, and
of the avowed purpose of the Texans in
seeking recognition of independence as an
incident to the incorporation Of Texas in
the Union. concluing thus:
Prudence, therefore, seems to dictate
that We should still stand aloof and MAIN
tain our present attitude, If not until Mexi-
CO itself, or one Of the great foreign powers
shall recognize the independence Of the new
government, at least until the lapse of time
or the course of events shall have proved
beyond cavil or dispute the ability Of the
people Of that country to maintain their
separate sovereignty and to uphold the goy-
ernment constituted by them.
Neither of the contending parties can
justly complain of this course. BY pursu-
ing it we are but carrying out the long-es-
tablished policy of our government, a pol
icy which has secured to US respect and in
fiuence abroad and inspired confidence at
home' 5a
These are the words of. the resolute and
patriotic jackson. They are evidence that
the United States, In addition to the test
imposed by public law a. the condition Of
the recognition Of Independence by a neu-
trail state Ito wit, that the revolted state
shall constitute in fact = body polite, hav-
Ing government in substance as we'll as
in name. possessed Of the elements of sta
bility," and forming de ncto, ''if left to 1t
self, state among the nations. reasonably
capable OF discharging the duties Of a
state'), has imposed for It's own govern
ance In dealing with cases like these the
further condition hot ~ Sn1a