The disavowal of General Burriel’s, publication in this communication is
positive and explicit, and so, also, is the declaration that the decree
issued by Captain-General Dulce was wholly repealed by that of
Captain-General Caballero de Rodas.
In what remains of this communication, the minister of state, in assuming
that the conduct of General Burriel is to be regarded as but an incident
of the capture of the Virginius, and so discussed, affords all possible
advantage to the United States.
It is the more impossible for the Spanish government to escape these
conclusions at the present time, inasmuch as it is earnestly appealing
to the sympathy of other governments as against alleged acts of cruelty
committed or threatened by the Carlists in the existing civil war.
I propose, therefore, in conformity with instructions, to prepare and
present, as soon as possible, a suitable reply to this communication of
the minister of state.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Mr. Augusto
Ulloa to Mr. Cushing.
Ministry of State, Madrid, July 8, 1874.
Sir: I have acquainted myself thoroughly
with the note you were pleased to address me, under date of the 27th
ultimo, with respect to a writing published on the 14th of April in
a Madrid journal, and subscribed by Brigadier Burriel, late governor
of the Oriental department of the island of Cuba, in which it
appears that its author affirms, among other things, that the decree
issued by General Dulce, on the 24th of March, 1869, has never been
abrogated.
Concerning this portion of your note, I have the honor to state to
you that the appreciations and assertions which Mr. Burriel may have
deemed it expedient to publish in that or in any other communication
to the press of Spain, or of foreign parts, after ceasing to hold
the official post he filled in Cuba, are of his own exclusive
responsibility, and it does not pertain to the executive power to
restrain, in any way whatever, the right, conceded by the laws to
every Spanish citizen, of freely emitting his ideas through the
medium of the press.
Neither does the government regard as one of its duties the difficult
task of correcting the errors into which, voluntarily or
unconsciously, those may fall who, devoid of all official character,
and on their own private account, may have recourse to the
battle-ground of the press to explain their own acts or discuss
those of others. But, even were this not so, in the case which now
occupies us, this spontaneous intervention on the part of the
government, of which you remark the omission, and which that of
Washington awaited, considering it as a fulfillment of a duty, would
have been, in my judgment, something more than an act contrary to
right procedure, (un acto improcedente.) It
would have signified that the veracity and good faith which govern
all the declarations of the Spanish government were at the mercy of
the assertions of any private party who might make them a subject of
controversy, making in consequence an official rectification
necessary to re-establish the truth. It would signify, in a word,
that what the government of the nation had officially and solemnly
notified to the country, and to the representatives of friendly
powers, only deserved credit so long as it was not placed in doubt
on individual authority, by any person whatever.
As you can do no less than comprehend in your enlightened
discernment, the government neither can nor ought to descend, motu proprio, to this ground.
The Government of the United States assuredly did not fix its
attention on these considerations when it expressed surprise at our
delay in spontaneously hastening to correct what had been
erroneously said by Brigadier Burriel; but persuaded at last that it
was neither just nor possible to expect from the Spanish government
the abdication of its decorum or any proceedings contrary to its
dignity, it has adopted the right path, in which several friendly
nations have already preceded it, by resorting to us directly to
obtain fitting explanation, which there is no objection to giving
it, and which, on the contrary, I have the greatest satisfaction in
communicating to it through the authorized medium of yourself.
As early as the 30th of April, my worthy predecessor in this ministry
gave a full explanation of this very matter to Her Britannic
Majesty’s representative, who was pleased to request it in a note of
the 23d of the same month; an explanation which it will suffice for
me to reproduce in order to satisfy the desires of the Government of
the United States.
[Page 498]
As soon as the government had cognizance of the decree issued on the
24th of March, 1869, by General Dulce, it communicated to the same,
under date of April 22, the requisite orders, to the end that the
decree in question should not take effect, (para
que quedase sin efecto,) and under the same date it brought
this to the knowledge of our representative in Washington, who in
his turn imparted it to the Government of the United States.
General Dulce having been relieved, and General Don Antonio Caballero
de Rodas having been appointed in his place, one of his first acts
was the publication of the decree of the 7th of July, in the
preamble of which the orders and decrees of the 18th and 26th of
February and the 24th of March, of the same year, were positively
declared repealed, (subrogadas.) The new
decree of General Caballero de Rodas contained six articles; and in
view of certain observations which were made to the government
respecting the difficulty of applying the prescriptions of the last
of the said articles, it was deemed fitting to leave, reduced to
five, the enacting clauses of the above-mentioned decree in
co-operation with the captain-general of Cuba, of all of which
information was given to the United States and to the other friendly
nations.
To this succinct statement the Spanish government has only to add the
assurance that not one of the captains-general who have succeeded
Mr. Caballero de Rodas in the government of the island of Cuba has
exhibited the slightest doubt with respect to the repeal and
annulment of the decree of the 24th of March, 1869.
With respect to the legislation referring to jurisdiction on the high
seas, the Spanish government only regards as in force that
established by international maritime law, and accepted by all
nations, as well as that agreed upon in existing treaties.
As explicitly as I have had the honor to reply to the two preceding
questions, would the Spanish government wish to answer the remaining
points contained in your note; but all these being so intimately
bound up with the main question of the seizure of the Virginius, it
would be impossible to do so without prejudging many facts of which
proof is still pending, and which, as I have had occasion to state
in my note of yesterday, it is best should be previously cleared up
and settled. When this is done, each of the two governments, with
the loyalty which distinguishes them, will accept for its part the
obligations imposed upon them and the rights conceded to them by the
final result of this important question.
I improve this opportunity to repeat to you the assurances of my most
distinguished consideration.
