I shall interpose no objection to that; but I feel it my duty to
suggest that it does seem to me that a discussion of that question is
premature, and for this reason: there is no information with regard to
those gun-boats now before the Senate, except what we derive from the
newspapers. I understand that the Department of State will in a few
days, as soon as the documents can be copied, communicate to the Senate
all that it has with reference to our relations with Cuba, which will
probably cover the question of the gun-boats. There is a question of
fact and of law, and I for one am indisposed to approach its discussion
until I have all the information now in the possession of the
Government. At the same time my friend from Wisconsin will understand
that I have no disposition to interfere with any desires he may have.
If he wishes, therefore, to go on, I shall content myself with the
suggestions that I have made.
Mr. Carpenter’s motion prevailing, he proceeded with an
argument in support of the resolution in question, to which Mr.
Sumner replied as follows:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Wisconsin closed by saying that he
understood that eighteen of the gun-boats would leave to-morrow. I have
had put into my hands a telegram received last night from New York,
which I will read, as it relates to that subject:--
“The vessels delivered by Delamater to the representatives of
the Spanish Navy have their officers and crews on board and
fly the flag of Spain. They are now as completely the property
of that Government as is the Pizarro. Unless something not
foreseen occurs, they will be at sea to-morrow morning, if not
already gone.”
“To-morrow morning” is this morning.
But there are eight other boats, that are still unfinished, on the
stocks, to which the resolution of the Senator from Wisconsin is
applicable.
* * * * *
I have no disposition now to discuss the great question involved in
the speech of the Senator from Wisconsin; but the Senator will pardon
me, if I venture to suggest that he has misapprehended the meaning of
the statute on which he relies. Certainly he has misapprehended it or
I have. He has misapprehended it or the Administration has. I do not
conceive that the question which he has presented can arise under the
statute. The language on which he relies is as follows:--
“If any person shall within the limits of the United States
fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to
be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in
the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel,
with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the
service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony,
district, or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against
the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or
state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the
United States are at peace,” &c.[188]
The operative words on which the Senator relies being “any colony,
district, or people,” I understand the Senator to insist that under
these words Spain cannot purchase ships in the United States to cruise
against her Cuban subjects now in revolt. That is the position of the
Senator. He states it frankly. To that I specifically reply, that the
language of the statute is entirely inapplicable. Those words, if the
Senator will consult their history, were introduced for a specific
purpose. It was to meet the case of the revolted Spanish colonies
already for eight years in arms against the parent Government, having
ships in every sea, largely possessing the territories on the Spanish
main, and with independence nearly achieved.
There was no question of belligerence. It was admitted by all the
civilized world. Nation after nation practically recognized it. Our
Government, our courts, every department of the Government, recognized
the belligerence of those Spanish colonies. Their independence
was recognized more tardily, after ample discussion in these two
Chambers as late as 1820; but their belligerence was a fact perfectly
established and recognized by every branch of the Government. To meet
their case, and for no other object, as I understand it, Mr. Miller, a
Representative of South Carolina, on the 30th day of December, 1817,
introduced the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the
expediency of so amending the fourth section of the Act passed
on the 3d of March, 1817, entitled ‘An Act more effectually to
preserve the neutral relations of the United States,’ as to
embrace within the provisions thereof the armed vessels of a
Government at peace with the United States and at war with any
colony, district, or people with whom the United States are or
may be at peace.”[189]
The important words “any colony, district, or people” were introduced
to cover the precise case of the revolted Spanish colonies and
their precise condition at that moment, there being no question of
belligerence. Now the practical question is, whether these words,
introduced originally for a specific purpose, having an historic
character beyond question, can be extended so as to be applied to
insurgents who have not yet achieved a corporate existence,--who have
no provinces, no cities, no towns, no ports, no prize courts. Such is
the fact. I cannot supply the fact, if it does not exist; nor can the
Senator, with his eloquence and with his ardor enlisted in this cause.
We must seek the truth. The truth is found in the actual facts. Now do
those facts justify the concession which the Senator requires?
The Cuban insurgents, whatever the inspiration of their action, have
not reached the condition of belligerents. Such, I repeat, is the fact,
and we cannot alter the fact. Here we must rely upon the evidence,
which, according to all the information within my reach, is adverse.
They do not come within any of the prerequisites. They have no
provinces, no towns, no ports, no prize courts. Without these I am at a
loss to see how they can be treated as belligerents by foreign powers.
Before this great concession there must be assurance of their capacity
to administer justice. Above all, there must be a Prize Court. But
nobody pretends that there is any such thing.
MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator now allow me to ask him one
question?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. CARPENTER. My question is, if it be not the most favorable
opportunity to obtain the facts to libel those boats and get
proof on the question?
MR. SUMNER. The Senator will pardon me, if I say I do not think it is.
I think that the better way of ascertaining the facts is to send to
our authorized agents in Cuba,--we have consuls at every considerable
place,--and direct them to report on the facts. I understand such
reports have been received by the Department of State. They will be
communicated to the Senate. They are expected day by day, and they are
explicit, unless I have been misinformed, on this single point,--that,
whatever may be the inspiration of that insurrection, it has not yet
reached that condition of maturity, that corporate character, which in
point of fact makes it belligerent in character.
MR. HOWARD. I do not wish to interrupt the Senator, but I
should like to ask a question at this point.
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. HOWARD. I wish for information on this subject, and I
think we all stand in need of it; and I should be very much
obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts, if he is able to do
so, if he would give us a statement of the amount of military
force actually in the field in Cuba, or the amount of force
that is available; and whether the insurgents have established
a civil government for themselves,--whether it be or be not
in operation as a government. On these subjects I confess my
ignorance.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator confesses we are in the dark, and on this
account I consider the debate premature. We all need information, and
I understand it will be supplied by the Department of State. There is
information on the precise point to which the Senator calls attention,
and that is as to the number of the forces on both sides. I understand
on the side of the insurgents it has latterly very much diminished; and
I have been told that they are now little more than _guerrilleros_,
and that the war they are carrying on is little more than a guerrilla
contest,--that they are not in possession of any town or considerable
place. Such is my information.
MR. HOWARD. Have they any government?
MR. SUMNER. I understand they have the government that is in a camp.
With regard to that the Senator knows as well as I; but that brings us
back again to the necessity of information.
MR. HOWARD. Any civil government, any legislative power for the
actual exercise of legislative functions?
MR. SUMNER. I think there is no evidence that there is a legislative
body; and I must say I await with great anxiety the evidence of
their action on the subject of Slavery itself. What assurance have we
that slavery will be terminated by these insurgents? Have they the
will? Have they the power? I know the report that they have abolished
slavery, but this report leaves much to be desired. I wish it to be
authenticated and relieved from all doubt. It is said that there are
two decrees,--one to be read at home, and another to be read abroad.
Is this true? And even if not true, is there any assurance that the
insurrectionists are able to make this decree good? But while I require
the surrender of slavery from the insurrectionists, I make the same
requirement of Spain. Why has this power delayed?
MR. MORTON. I ask the Senator if Spain has not recently
affirmed the existence of slavery in Cuba and Porto Rico,
especially in Porto Rico, by publishing a new constitution
guarantying the existence of slavery?
MR. SUMNER. I am not able to inform the Senator precisely on that
point. I do know enough, however, to satisfy me that Spain is a laggard
on this question; and if my voice could reach her now, it would plead
with her to be quick, to make haste to abolish slavery, not only in
Cuba, but in Porto Rico. Its continued existence is a shame, and it
should cease.
* * * * *
I have no disposition to go into this subject at length. There is,
however, one other remark that the Senator from Wisconsin made to which
I shall be justified in replying. He alludes to the case of the Hornet,
and the proceedings against that vessel.[190] It is not for me now
to vindicate those proceedings. They may have been proper under the
statute, or may not; but it is very clear to me that the cases of the
Hornet and the Spanish gun-boats are plainly distinguishable, and, if
the Senate will pardon me one moment, I will make the distinction, I
think, perfectly apparent. We all know that two or three or four or a
dozen persons may levy war against the Government, may levy war against
the king. A traitor levies war against the king. The king, when he
proceeds against the traitor, does not levy war. He simply proceeds
in the exercise of his executive functions in order to establish
his authority. And in the spirit of this illustration I am disposed
to believe that the United States were perfectly justifiable, even
under this statute, in arresting the Hornet; but they would not be
justifiable in arresting the Spanish gun-boats. The Hornet was levying
war against Spain, and therefore subject to arrest. The gun-boats are
levying no war, simply because the insurrection against which they are
to be used has not reached the condition of war.
MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to ask one other
question?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. CARPENTER. What I want to know is this: whether the
condition of neutrality does not necessarily depend upon the
fact that war is progressing between two parties? Can there
be any neutrality, unless there is a contest of arms going
on between two somebodies? Now, if it be a violation of our
Neutrality Act for one of those bodies to come in and fit out
vessels in the United States, is it not equally so for the
other?--or is our pretence of neutrality a falsehood, a cheat,
and a delusion?
MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, I do not regard it as a question of
neutrality. Until the belligerence of these people is recognized, they
are not of themselves a power, they are not a people. Therefore there
can be no neutrality on the part of our Government between Spain and
her revolted subjects, until they come up to the condition of a people.
They have not reached that point; and therefore I submit that there is
at this moment no question of neutrality, and that the argument of the
Senator in that respect was inapplicable. When the belligerence of the
insurgents is recognized there will be a case for neutrality, and not
before.