The herald., 1898-12-01
A CAUSTIC CRITICISM
ON THE WORK OF THE PEACE
COMMISSION
TAYLOR, Ex-MINISTER TO SPAIN
Characterizes the Arrangement Which
Has Been Concluded as a Vast
Ravishment of Spain
Associated Press Special Wire


NEW YORK, Nov. 3O.-Iiannis Taylor,
late American minister to Spain, publishes
in the December number of the North Amer
lean Review, scathing criticism OF the
work of the American peace commission.
Mr.. Taylor contends that in the negotia-
tions with Spain respecting Cuba, Porto
Rico and the Philippines, the members OF
the commission should have been guided by
the precedent established by this country IN
its dealings with Mexico, after the victorious
issue Of the Mexican war. Then, he says,
we refused, as Mexico lay helpless at our
feet, to take from her single square mile OF
territory by right of conquest. Our commls-
sioners were instructed to offer her Sll, ,000,-
600 in cash, and the assumption on our part
of more than S3,000,000 due from her to
American citizens as compensation for the
area out of which have been carved Califor-
MIA, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona.
"And thus" says Mr.. Taylor, was estab
lished new principle of moral law, which
stands alone, perhaps, in the annals of ma
tions."
Mr.. Taylor contends that now, when for
the first time since the conquest of Mexico,
we have another vanquished nation at our
feet, we owe to Spain all the consideration
and justice that can be due to the weak from
the strong, and especially as Spain has been
an old and good friend, with whom we had
never before broken off diplomatic relations
The arrangement which has been con-
cluded by the American commission Mr.
Taylor characterizes as wash ravishment.
1--WE have refused arbitration. We have
summarily demanded the surrender of the
entire Philippine archipelago and as salve
to Spain we have rendered $20,0O0OOO.
The war cost us directly about Sl65, ,000,-
900, and as compensation for that outlay
we have appropriated Porto Rico, which can
hardly be valued at much less than double
that amount 1t is difficult to understand
therefore, why, in dealing with Cuba and the
Philippines, we should have been unwilling
to recognize these reasonable and natural
equities which follow acquired territory.
''In the case of the Philippines we have
admitted that, so far as the debts of the
islands represent expenditures for the i'm
provcment Of the country they must run
with the land and constitute charge upon
it. Upon what grounds have we rejected
the application of that elementary principle
of law and common honesty in the case of
Cuba! The pretense that it cannot be there
applied because we do not intend to accept
sovereignty over Cuba will not avail, for as
soon as Cuba is evacuated by the Spanish
troops the United States will exercise a
qualified sovereignty over the island, and
bring a military government there, and
rigidly enforce all laws for the purpose of
collecting revenues, both external and in.
ternal condition which must exist until
congress orders otherwise. In the case of
Cuba, as well as that Of the Philippines, the
amount OF pacific expenditures made by
Spain for the permanent improvement of the
islands should have been recognized as a legal
charge upon it"