-i;:,,,;;i;,si;:;i""""""" i
i pi s
"'~"""""~"::I1IIIPIIBliil::?::"~18
~r;lEl:"~IPlli 131@qg3 Ir;lill i~prE;IrA
P -r —i- -
i! iii...... I:..:I:. '.~.:"....:~!~:.'
~;li~i~;
~;ull ~~
r~:;~:
i;l ~B d 8
1BEiL
~1158.I~3~~~~
CB1
iicllEi
I;idl'g" "~
ii"ld"lni ili
'%'":~"' I~il~''";
5ll,~; ij4PI
CEnIIII:,I
In
1:i:1113
iill;ia
fllP,:a
iili;llil
T
Ql;i
iTI
IBa 1EEI
~I;
~1:13
P%I~9%: ~.A,'I~~i:l
118~Ip8,:'l:'~i~~:Q::I~~~:
iiBII: aim
IiDi9E
Ofrll,;,,;,
br"t
.:~PI isil 38"31-:8:1
%i:~I:~~:
~I~lliiii~liSFC """:"'l,~o,
~; ~~~ ~ ~  ~;:
~;n;:i
EIsFEa.::'~~~~"~1:~i~:I~1.
s:r;
~1:1~::,~~~n ~;~;,a~~;:i
lil
Id
':~
~ip,:g81:l~;i~W
Ill~a.;~l. ~1li"i1i 'Fll~'~I'~.ii;~~~:I
~~~~' ~'"IWli:~ ~~~~ ~;n:~:cl:~~ I:~;g.Bi
~ui~r i::naa
BB1:..,i *;~v P,~:~ ....:..~g:l:i:,l:E:IQI~i:.. 111
-~i~ 8-lra-~,p:$$$'"-"".'
11%1111:1:::111:11! 11
~~I:11;,:,;11"~'10
iii.i."'.."i "':.""" tlii:
Ei:i I,IBil"olE:lsliBIgiliil 'BI~~~~Ill~IP I; 11111;~81: i;l1i;pIlIli'lli;, n~~~:l8ii:Ilii
lpiilll;i:ssa~i~r    i , i~~l:~:~~: ~                                   ui  ii
r8~w~rir~np:l ~~I,I:~;i"'i:''"'.:''.:~: ~i?::"IW~:"~ ~:,:.i'i,.::':~.:~~::A'llrR:lli# E'~iii:i' ~:I:I"'~:I;:I;I::::: ~i~~:::i:,,z~"'I~  a~l~~~:~~*:~:l.:::~,~';~I:.~.: :~:I~IQ.~I:IW




I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-ax~
I



i
lI!








F.2' ^,


THE CUBAN STRUGGLE FOR LIBERTY.
AMBASSADOR BAYARD'S PARTISAN UTTERANCES.
VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
SPE'EChIIES
OF
HON. ROBERT R. tI1TT,
OFI I:LI.INOIS, H 
IN  Tll 
HOUSE O0 lt'i1iP.LSENTATI.VES,


December 13, 1895, and March 13 and April 3, 1896.
-# _1[   *. ---,
VAS -I I i    G'     N.
1896.




-  X
*7
It ~4 lik
I `




The Cnbian Struggle for Llberty.
SPEECH
OF
HON. Pt. li. HI1TT.
Friday, April CO, 189G.
The House having under consideration the report of the conference committee in reference to Cuban belligerencyMr. HITT.
Mr. SPEAKErR: I present a conference report from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Hotuses
jouching the Cubafl resolutions. I ask for the reading of the report, and( of the resolutions- recommended.
The Clerk read as follows:
TPhe committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two hiouses
on the amendmnents of the lbo)U50 of ReOPresentatives to tht,,emic( irrent resi Intions of the-, Seniate (coilcurielit resolutioti 19), pLrt 5), hiavfifg we)t, after fell
and f ree. confeorence have agreed to recommend and do recommnend to their
respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its amendments to the Senate concurrent
resolution, and agree to the samne.     RBR.11T
ROBER'JT ADAMS, Jn.,
JAMES B. McCREARY,
Managers on the part of thev 11onnqe o~fJepcottes
JOHIN S-HERMAN
J(-AN T'. MOR(4AI;,
H. C. LODG4E,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.
Resolved hg the, Renate (the Hfouse of ]?epreseottefives coflcfrTrlfg therein),
That, in thie opinion of Congress, a condition of public war exists bsetween the
Governme -nt of Spain noid the G4overnment proclaiiinied and f or some t m~e
maintained lby force of aqrms by the peopjle of (!iiba; and thiat then [United
S~tates of Amnerica should mafintain at strict neutrality between the contendling powers, accordin~g to each all the rights of belligerents in the ports and
territo ry of the Uied States.
Re(solc((l fort her, That the friendly offices of the United States should be
offered by the President to the Spanish Government for the recognition of
the independence of Cuba.
Mr. HITT. Mr. Spetaker, the two resolutions which have *jnst
been read, anid to which the Conferees on thie part of the House., in
commnittee, of conference, heave agreed lprolpose. first, that our (4oVermient should accord to the struiggling- jpeople( of Cubta belligeretit rights; and second, tender friendly oflices to the Spanish
Governinenft for the recognition of Cil mu i udependlence. These
resolutions, passed the ISlenate on the 28th of Februvary by the overwhelming majority of 58 voters. The House of Representatives a
few days later, oni the 2(1 of March, atloptedl by 245' majority. its, a
Bubstittite for theul. declarations very siniflar in 1)urport, including one additional resolution, that We ought to be prep~ared to pro



tect the interests of American citizens in Cuba by intervention
if necessary.
When they had gone back to the Senate that body asked of the
House a conference upon the disagreeing votes. In that committee of conference, after we had discussed the three resolutions
which had been adopted by the House and the two adopted by the
Senate, it was agreed by the Senate conferees that the House resolutions were in some respects preferable, and they yielded and
agreed to our resolutions.
They and many other Senators made an earnest effort to have
them adopted by the Senate; but after weeks had passed away in
debate which appeared likely to be indefinite in length, the Senate, on the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, who had urgently pressed those resolutions, nonconcurred and asked for another conference. We met them again,
and they assured the House conferees that while they were as
earnestly of opinion as ever that the resolutions which the House
had adopted ought to pass, yet they could give no assurance that
they would at any time pass the Senate, as there was manifestly
an organized obstruction, which, under the antiquated rules of
that body, where there is no means of stopping debate and bringing on a vote, might continue indefinitely. They asked us to now
act in the same liberal spirit in which they had met us, to agree
to the Senate resolutions, take them back to the House, and pass
them. This would at once secure final and complete action and
defeat the dilatory debate.
Remembering the great majority by which the House had
adopted our resolutions and considering the vote an instruction,
we who were conferees for the House for a long time insisted upon
the action of the House being adhered to. The first resolution,
that which favors the recognition of the belligerency of those
struggling in Cuba, is substantially the same as passed by the
Senate and as passed by the House. The second, which relates to
the "independence" of Cuba, as stated in the Senate resolution,
and to "a government by the free choice of the people of Cuba,"
as stated more cautiously in the House resolutions, aimed at the
same thing, the tender of good offices to secure that purpose.
The third House resolution, which related to the protection of
American interests in Cuba, though wholly unobjectionable,
though in accordance with international law, the usage of nations,
and the practice of our Government, so plainly so that the only
objection to it would seem to be that it was hardly necessary for
Congress to make such a suggestion to the Executive-this resolution they asked us to drop.
It would be in no worse position if it were dropped than if we
persisted, and all of the resolutions would fail because there was
no limitation on debate there. All of them would be talked to
death if they once got back to the Senate, though there were not
a dozen votes that could be mustered against them. Accordingly
your conferees agreed to the two Senate resolutions. We now
ask their adoption by the House.
The second resolution differed from ours in that it proposed the
tender of the good offices of this Government to secure the recognition of the independence of Cuba by Spain. It was said-I said
it and others said it on this floor in the former debate-that the
expression "independence" seemed harsher than was necessary,
8318




8
and we said so to the conferees; but it was urged, and it is true,
that while a proposition to any Government in ordinary time of
peace to recognize the independence of a part of its territory as
independent would be offensive, the reason why it is offensive is
because it is on its face manifestly intended to offend.
A proposition by the British representative here that we should
recognize New England or California as independent would be
offensive; manifestly it would be intended as an offense. There
is no reason in the present state of our affairs, no excuse for such
a suggestion. But when war between a parent government and
a dependency has gone on for some time and separation is the
best solution of the war, it has often occurred that the mediation,
the tender of good offices by another to the parent government to
induce the recognition of the dependency has been an easy way
to peaceful arrangement and has so been received as a truly
friendly act. That has happened with us several times, and there
was no objection taken in cases parallel to this, and can be none
in this case unless there be a captious disposition to seek a
quarrel.
When the Spanish Government, in the early part of this century,
was at war with its colonies on this continent, in South America, and Mexico, our Government took the very step proposed in
this second resolution-tendered its good offices and friendly counsels with Spain, urging upon Spain the recognition of the independence of the colonies. That was done, bear in mind those of
you who think that we are going too fast in this, and that there
is danger of our being called jingoes, by the most cautious and
prudent of our Presidents, Mr. Madison. That is in the early
history, and is a precedent of great authority, made by the man
who more than any other may be called the father of the Constitution; and the Secretary of State who carried it out was Mr. Monroe, whose name is synonymous throughout the world with the
wisest and noblest feature of the foreign policy of the Republic.
That I may not misstate it in the least, I will read the words by
which the President stated exactly what action he had taken
touching the Spanish colonies in revolt on this continent after the
war had gone on for some time.
In Mr. Monroe's message, after he was elected President, November 14, 180, he relates the negotiations to adjust the differences,
and says:
That the colonies, in their Congress of Angostura, would accept of nothing
short of independence as a basis of negotiations.
And then states the action of our Government in these words,
which are almost the words of this resolution:
To promote that result (independence) by friendly counsels with other
powers, including Spain herself, has been the uniform policy of this Government.
There is the first, the great precedent, eighty years ago, for the
very action to which your conferees have assented and which they
recommend to you to-day. I will not follow through all the precedents, but I will come to one which is brought up so often in
this House in another light-that of General Grant, when the
Cubans were engaged in the ten years' war with Spain fromn 1868
to 1878. General Grant then made a proposition to Spain, that
she should recognize the independence of Cuba. Those of you
who care to read it at length will find the discussion in the inSS13




structions by Mr. Fish and the dispatches of Minister Sickles at
Madrid. It is the very case we have in hand. That was an insurrection or rebellion in Cuba not half so extensive as the present,
and it was near the beginning. Then the good offices of the
United States were offered to bring the war to a close on the basis
of Cuban independence, Spain to be paid an indemnity which the
United States should guarantee.
The ruler of Spain was General Prim, and he received that
proposition in the same friendly spirit in which it was made.
There was no rupture of relations. I will not read all his answers,
which are contained in and discussed through several dispatches
of considerable length, but only to show its spirit I will give a
few words. They may conveniently be found by members in
Senate Report 141, if anyone desires to read it. At the conclusion of his remarks, assenting to the proposition of Mr. Sickles, he
said:
I do not flatter myself that Spain will retain possession of the island. I
consider that the period of colonial autonomy has virtually arrived. However the present contest may end, whether in the suppression of the insurrection or in the better way of an amicable arrangement through the assistance of the United States, it is equally clear to me that the time has come for
Cuba to govern herself; and if we succeed in putting down the insurrection
to-morrow I shall regard the subject in the same light, that the child has
attained its majority and should be allowed to direct its own affairs. Wo
want nothing more than to get out of Cuba,,but it must be done in a dignified
and honorable manner.
That was in response to General Grant's proposition that the
independence of Cuba should be recognized and that an indemnity
should be made to Spain, which would be guaranteed by the
United States. General Prim, however, made a condition that the
Cubans must first lay down their arms, and after that there might
be a vote by the people of Cuba on the question of separation.
But the Cuban people would not consent to lay down their arms.
They knew those with whom they were dealing. They thought
they knew them too well to do that, and that stopped the negotiations, together with the fact that the matter became public
and created excitement in Spain. Subsequent events showed that
the distrust of the Cubans was a wise one. No offense was taken
by General Prim at the friendly counsel of our Government that
the independence of Cuba should be recognized.
I mention this as showing why we can, with reason, come to the
suggestions of the Senators whom we met in conference, and adopt
that resolution which passed the Senate by so great a majority.
It is only advice that we give to another Government. It is not a
matter of great importance. It is all in the future anyhow. It
is possible that Spain will not heed the advice; but whether she
heeds it or not, we know how events are moving, that the car of
destiny is bearing the cause of freedom to triumph, and the success and the independence of Cuba with or without the counsel of
the stranger or the consent of Spain will soon be achieved, accorded
ahd established. [Loud applause.] But the matter now most
important is not giving advice, it is the proposition for immediate
action. That is in the first resolution proposing that our Government at once recognize the belligerency of those who in Cuba are
struggling for their liberty.
Mr. HENDERSON. If it will not interrupt the gentleman,
wish to make a suggestion.
2313




7
Mr. HITT. Not at all.
Mr. HENDERSON. Most of ns. I think, understand the mean.
ing of the recognition of belligerency, but the country at large
does not know just what is to be gained by the revolutionists from
a recognition of their right of belligerency, and if it will not break
into the line of the gentleman's thought, I wish he would explain
that.
Mr. HITT. I will endeavor to answer the question as clearly
and practically as I can. The gentlenan has struck the essential
question-the one that transcends all the rest. That question of
recognizing Cuban belligerency is the one on which the Alierican
people have been fixing their attention most earnestly. This
House has been flooded with petitions and memorials by thousands from legislatures, chambers of commerce, societies, from
churches, from associations of every kind, and from individual
citizens by tens of thousands. Your committee room has been
choked with them. There is no other subject for years on which
there has been so vast and multitudinous an expression of the
people's will as this question of recognizing the belligerency of
the Cubans who are struggling for freedom. They go to the very
heart of the question. The people know just what is most wanted
and they ask us to do it.
Some individuals, generally those who call themselves business
men, brokers, and financial men, write us letters deprecating action
of any kind, opposing any agitation or discussion on any foreign
question that may disturb the market. They are not in favor of
the Spaniard; they are not in favor of the Cuban. They care
nothing whatever foreither side. They simplydeprecateany action
which will affect the markets in which their hearts are bound up.
But the unmistakable voice of the people of the United States as
expressed in the enormous majority given in this House a month
ago-262 to 17-and in the Senate-64 to 6-is in favor of immediately recognizing the belligerency of the Cubans.
Now, to answer the gentleman from Iowa, the effect of recognizing the belligerency of the Cubans will be, first, to give them a
flag and a status. If a ship should enter New York Harbor this
afternoon belonging to the Cuban insurgents, flying the Lone
Star flag, she would be liable to be treated as a pirate and all on
board might be treated as criminals, as violators of law, as enemies of mankind. With recognition, the belligerents will have a
flag with the same status as that of any other country, and a vessel flying that flag can go into New York Harbor right alongside
of a Spanish frigate. But as we stand now, if they should go in
there this afternoon, the Spanish minister would be at the State
Department immediately asking to have them seized and treated
as pirates.
Why, his predecessor made that very request, that high-handed
and bloody request, of our Secretary of State eighty years ago,
when a ship of one of the Spanish colonies, bearing its independent
colors, entered our port, the minister claiming that they were
pirates and demanding that they be treated as such. Pronounce
that magic word "belligerency, recognize those as belligerents
who are truly belligerents, who are carrying on war, and you at
once give them that advantage and that status among nations in
our ports. The word "belligerency " exactly defines and describes
what they are doing. They are carrying on war. Recognize
2als




8
them as belligerents and you enable them at once to do all that
other nations are entitled to do-to carry a flag, to purchase in
our markets munitions of war and supplies of every kind, to purchase them openly and take them out openly, just as the Spanish
Government now does-not hiding and skulking in obscure and
distant ports by night to escape seizure, dogged every hour by
spies and informers to give notice to our Government and have
them arrested. Then men could go openly to join them, if not in
armed expeditions. They could negotiate loans and sell bonds
just as the Spanish Government is doing now.
Mr. SWANSON. May I ask the gentleman a question for information? Does he mean to say that if this resolution, as we are
going to vote upon it to-day, is passed it will enable the Cubans
to do all that?
Mr. HITT. I believe that it will, because I believe that the
President of the United States is not so recreant to his duty as an
agent and servant of the people that he will disregard the vote of
the people of the United States as expressed through the House
of Representatives and Senate by vast majorities. [Applause.]
The House has already given a majority of 245 upon this question,
but it has been null because, the action of the two Houses not
being in accord, it has been in the air; but when these Senate resolutions have passed both Houses I have faith that we have a President who will act as the elect of the people of the United States,
the agent of the people of the United States, and not their "ruler."
Therefore I say that I believe that [the passage of this resolution
will secure the recognition of the belligerency of the Cubans.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Would not another result follow the recognition of belligerency-that the war between the two parties in
Cuba would have to be a humane war, that prisoners captured
from the Cuban ranks by Spanish troops would have to be treated
as prisoners of war?
Mr. HITT. That is argumentative. I am   speaking of the
immediate effect of our resolutions-of things completely within
our power-which we can determine absolutely ourselves.
Mr. NORTHWAY. I hope that the chairman of the committee
[Mr. HITT] will not be further interrupted while he is stating the
effect which a recognition of belligerency would have. We desire to have his statement on that point in compact form for the
information of this House and the public. I hope gentlemen will
defer their questions until the gentleman from Illinois is through
with his statement.
Mr. HITT. After we have recognized the belligerent rights of
the Cubans men can openly leave our shores to aid the Cubans.
The Cubans can go upon the stock boards in this city or anywhere
else and publicly offer a loan-offer to negotiate their bonds, as
our fathers did, during the Revolution, in Amsterdam. They can
negotiate loans either with other Governments or with private
citizens.
I will give the House a definition of belligerent rights in words
that will not be questioned. Mr. Canovas, the prime minister of
Spain, made public last summer a statement in which he discussed
this very question. No one will accuse him of straining the definitionin favor of the Cubans. I will read his words. What I am
about to read is no "fake." This is no unsubstantial or unauthenm2n




9
ticated paper. It comes tons from the President, and is a part of
House Document No. 224. Says Minister Canovas:
From the moment of their recognition they can send out vessels upon the
ocean under the flag of the lone star; raise funds in foreign countries; move
about with a freedom that otherwise they could never enjoy; and they could
even carry on privateering.
That does not state all that the recognition of belligerency
would accomplish, but it states the great and important advantages that such an act would give to the Cubans. The Spanish
Government to-day is doing all those things. It sends its agents
to Hartford to buy arms; they buy them also in Philadelphia.
Any man can openly go from this country to join the Spanish
forces. He may, if he chooses, announce the fact in the newspapers and have a reception before he starts, yet go unmolested.
The Spanish Government is, in fact, buying supplies here.
Why, sir, the United States is at this hour a base of operations
of the Spanish Government in crushing the Cubans who are struggling for their freedom. Under the pretense of neutrality we are,
every time the Spanish minister gives intimation to the State Department, running to capture men who may be about to start to
Cuba or to seize supplies of arms intended for the Cubans, in any
port, in any remote corner of the country anywhere. We have
not even confined our assistance to our own ports. In the case
of the Hawkins we pursued the Cubans out upon the high seas at
the behest of Spain. Is that real neutrality? Is that fairness?
Is it justice? Are we not in spirit and in fact the efficient oppressors of the Cubans ourselves?
Much has been said about this proposed action being a departure
from the custom of our fathers-from the course pursued by former
Presidents. Why, sir, this is nothing new. That great man to
whom I referred a few moments ago dealt with this question so
practically that there is little more left to be said as to the duty
and the right of a nation to recognize belligerency in such a case.
In 1815, after Mr. Madison had issued his proclamation touching
the Spanish-American colonies-the ordinary proclamation of neutrality to forbid armed expeditions-the Spanish minister, Chevalier De Onis, demanded that our President should send orders to
seize in our ports any ship that came from any of the rebel colonies. He denounced the men on any such vessel as pirates, bandits, and brigands.
Do you observe, gentlemen, that these phrases now so glib upon
Spanish tongues and in the mouths of friends of the Spanish cause
are not new at all? When a man is not an humble follower of
oppressive authority, he is a "brigand." When he is not on their
side, but fighting with such resources as God has given to him to
save the liberty that God gave him, then he is a wandering bandit.
That minister demanded that these ships should be seized and the
men treated as pirates. He demanded that our ports be closed to
the revolutionists under the flags of Buenos Ayres, Carthagena,
and the Mexican Congress, and other places which have, he says,
"revolted against the authority of the King, my master." It is a
pleasure to read the dignified and noble language in reply by a
great patriot and statesman. Let me read the words; Mr. Monroe wrote them January 19, 1816, as Mr. Madison directed:
The President thought it proper some time past to give orders to the collectors not to make the flag of any vessel a criterion or condition of its admission into the ports of the United States
W2




10
And again, in reply to that haughty demand of the Spanish
minister, he said:
All that your Government had a right to claim of the United States was
that they should not interfere in the contest or promote by any active service the success of the revolution, admitting that they continued to overlook
the injuries received from Spain,and remained at peace. This right was
common to the colonists. Witth equal justice might they claim that we would
not interfere to their disadvantageWho thinks of that now in this great contest, where we are doing
all that we can to the disadvantage of those with whom every true
heart now sympathizes?that our ports should remain open to both parties as they were before the
commencemenlt of the strlugle; that our laws regulating commerce with
foreign nations should not be changed to their injury. In these principles
the United States have acted.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could say to-day that on these principles the United States have acted within the last year.
Now, do not say that this action of President Madison was limited simply to letting the ships come into the ports of this country.
It was to do more than that. It was a direct practical recognition
of belligerency with all of its consequences. Afterwards Mr.
Monroe, when he had become President, recited these events and
their consequences, and stated what had been the conduct of the
United States toward the participants in the conflict. Mark these
words; this was the way the great American acted eighty years
ago to men situated as the Cubans are now situated:
They have enjoyed an equal light to purchase and export arms, munitions of war, and every other supply, the exlportation of all articles whatever
being permitted under laws which were passed long before the commencement of the contest. Our citizens have traded equally with both, and their
commerce with each has been alike protected by the Government.
That is what we ought to do to-day. There is a sentence a little
farther on which I commend to the attention of the House. I will
not detain you by reading at length even the words of this great
man, save to give an extract here and there:
As soon as the movement assumed such a steady and consistent form as to
make the success of the provinces probable the rights to which they were
entitled by the law of nations as equal parties to a civil war were extended
to them. Each party was permitted to enter our ports with its public and
private ships and take from them every article which was the subject of
commerce with other nations.
And then he recites again with emphasis and fullness our conduct toward both parties in the contest. Now, what is the situation? Is not the success of the province of Cuba probable? Have
not these men there in arms shown that they can not be subdued? The Spanish minister made public an address to the people
of the United States on the 22d day of February, in which he said
that Spain had sent 125,000 troops. The Spanish war publications
show that there were 21,000 troops already in Cuba as a permanent army, holding the people said to be so loyal to the Spanish
Government before this great army went.
And yet, Mr. Spe:aker, in spite of the coming of these men,
125,000 in number-with infantry, cavalry, and artillery, and
besides that 40 ships of war-to crush the Cubans, they have baffled
them and defied them. Yes, and General Weyler, it is said, has
just asked for 40,000 more troops. More than that: Beginning in
the eastern provinces at Santiago, these revolutionists have swept
westward, steadily, resistlessly, fighting, avoiding, gaining all the
2313




11
time, choosing their own ground of battle, commanded by leaders
whose ability now has long been vindicated, ability which none
will question, until province after province has fallen before them;
and they have passed through 700 miles of vanquished Spanish
territory and Spanish armies. To-day they hold three-fourths of
the Island of Cuba.
The Spanish troops are practically penned up in the cities. They
have only detachments outside of towns. The country is Cuban
and the Cuban army holds it. The Cuban capital, Cubitats. is
more secure than Habana is to-day. It is not a war of similar
dimensions to the ten years' war of 1868 and 1878. TThat never
extended far beyond the eastern province of Santiago, and even
that it was impossible for the power of Spain to subdue. Tley
held that monarchy at bay for ten years, although they had
not an armed force one-fourth as great as that now under the
commands of Generals Gomez and Maceo.
They never were subdued at all. They were induced to treat,
and General Campos, who had not beeni successful in subduing
them, made a compact with thenm-the peace of Zanjon. This was
done upon the suggestion of the Government of the United States.
By that compact the Cubans were to have self-government, reduced taxation, taxation only with representation. They were to
have the expenditure of those taxes at home in large part. They
were themselves to share in full proportion in administering the
government.
On that pledge, on those promises, they laid down their arms.
Every promise was violated. Every pledge in that compact, followed by submission, though kept to the ear, was broken to the
hope; though kept in form in many cases, was utterly disjregarded
in fact, and they were subjected to op)pression as harsh as ever.
They were promised freedom of elections, representation in the
Spanish parliament, self-government in the provinces and in the
cities, the control of the taxation laid upon themselves. There is a
paper which has been sent to every member of the House, I understand, and I had a copy of it, purporting to be signed by a number
of Spaniards in New York. They do not pretend to be Cubans,
but Spaniards, who say in this letter that they know about these
affairs. They seem to have read up or learned in some way, or
think they have, and they assert that Cuba is a free country; that
those people are entirely mistaken in thinking they are not free;
that Cuba is as free as Canada, and Cubans have ample representation in the Cortes or Spanish )parliament.
Now, we have before us a document sent by the Secretary of
State in Senate Document 166, prepared, not by Spaniards nor by
our own people, but by Cubans. They know of what they speak;
and while I will not go over the details, I will give the statement
of one of the real Cuban members of the Spanish parliament,
who himself tells just what a mockery is the pretended voting or
suffrage and representation of Cubans. Only a little over 9 per
cent of the people of Cuba are Spaniards-that is, Spanish residents in Cuba whose homes are in Spain; yet that electoral law is
so framed that as a matter of fact there are only 53,000 of the
1,600,000 people of Cuba who are on the electoral lists, and the
Spanish elementt, with only 9 per cent of the population, have a
preponderence of the men elected to parliament and everywhere
else. They administer it all. Here is a specimen: In the municipal
Z3W




12
district of Giiines the population is 13,000, of whom 500 are Spaniards. On the electoral list, out of the 13,000 native Cubans, there
are 62, and out of the 500 Spanish residents there are 400 who are
voters.
Now, to clinch this whole business, there is a permanent commission to revise the electoral list and settle all disputes, and that
commission is appointed by the captain-general, by Weyler, a nice
officer to appoint a reviewing board for an electoral list. Here
are numbers of instances stated of the flagrantly arbitrary conduct by which the people were disfranchised. There are several
scores of members of the Cortes sent from Cuba, but they are not
Cubans. They are the bitterest enemies of the Cubans. There
are sometimes Cubans elected to the Spanish Cortes, but the men
who are elected under these forms as Cuban members of that parliament and representing Cuba are of that envenomed class that
is the most bitterly hostile to them all, the resident Spaniards.
Says Mr. Varona, himself long a member, in the most favorable
epochs the number of Cuban representatives, out of the dozens
that are sent, has not exceeded six.
Now, as to the local government, what kind of self-government
have they? This gentleman states that of which Cubans knownot newspaper tales, nor official falsehoods and bulletins. Lately
in the board of aldermen in Habana there was not a single Cuban.
In the board at Giiines, with a population of 12,500 inhabitants,
there was not one Cuban found in the council of that province.
So, too, in Matanzas, there were two, and in Santa Clara there
were two. These are the most populous provinces in Cuba. That
is the I self-government' to which they have been treated!
Mr. PATTERSON. Will my friend allow me to interrupt him?
Mlr. HITT. Yes.
Mr. PATTERSON. I understand that the population of Cuba
amounts to about 1,600,000. Now, what information have the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, what officialinformation, in respect
to the proportion of that population engaged in the effort to throw
off Spanish authority or in sympathy with that element?
Mr. HITT. We have a, document that was sent to this House
at the request of our committee, which gives scores of statements
from our consular officers in Cuba, giving the number of armed
men. As long ago as last August the force of Cuban insurgents
in the field was given at 30,000, of whom 10,000 were pretty well
armed. They have increased steadily since. If the gentleman
desires information on that subject-and of course the essence of
it all is, what is the scope, extent, and force of the military power
of the insurrection-I will say to him that I hold in my hand a
detailed statement, handed to me since the House was called to
order to-day, giving the number of troops who are now organized, and a large part of whom are in active campaign for the
Republic of Cuba. I will have the statement read at the desk if
the gentleman desires it.
Mr. PATTERSON. Will the gentleman state the substance
of it?
Mr. HITT. In the Province of Santiago de Cuba the total is
13,900. The divisions and the names of the commanding officers
and the posts at which they are located are given. In the Province
of Puerto Principe, which is a small province, there are 2,500. In
the Province of Santa Clara there are 5,000 troops in the field.
2313




13
Mr. PATTERSON. Let us have the aggregate.
Mr. HITT. I will come to that in a moment. In Matanzas
there are 8,900; in Habana, 8,160; in Pinar del Rio, 5,562. and in
the armies of Generals Gomez and Maceo, 16,700. The total is
60,722 men. I will insert the whole statement:
CUBAN ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
Province of Santiago de Cuba.
Maj. Gen. JosB Maceo (black) -....... —.-    3,000
Brig. Gen. Perico Perez (white)                -. --- —---..  -----  2, (XX)
Brig. Gen. Matias Vega (white)....-.. ----,-.. -—.  1,000
Gen. Augustin Ceureco (mulatto) --- —---------—. --- —----------------- 1, )00
Gen. Carnelio Rojas (white)............-. ----.       600
Gen. Jos6 Rabi (Indian). —.. --- — - - ---- - 1,200
Gen. Manuel Capoti (white) -—.. --- —----- -----------—...   800
Col. Felix Ruen (mulatto) -......-..-   -----—....-    800
Col. Francisco Delgado (white) -....-.. --- —.. — ---------------------  400
Colonel Carthagena (black) —...-.... ---. ---. —.   500
Colonel Heabovaria (white)... --- —-—. ----...-....... ---... ----.-   40)
Col. Joaquin Planao (white) -.....2.................-. —.  )00
Col. Remegio Mariero (white).......... ---.._  200
Colonel Rodrigues (Spaniard) (white)....-.. --- —--- - -—. --- —----—.  40)
Col. Salvo Reos (black) -----...-..-,......-............ ----- --  600
Col. Pedro Popa (black)...................................   200
Total-. --.....................................    13,900
Province of Puerto Principe.
Maj. Gen. Mayia Rodrigues (white).............................-.-... 1,500
Brig. Gen. Lope Recio (white) ---------—.. --- ---—.-. ---. --- —--- 1,000
Total.................................. -.......... —.., 500
This force serves as escort to the officials of the Cuban Republic,
who, like the first Congresses of America, as after the burning of
Washington in the war of 1812, are compelled to move by the
exigencies of war, but they remain within a zone about equal to
the area of our State of Delaware. The Marquis of Santa Lucia,
president; the vice-president, Bartolo Masso; Minister of War
Roloff, Minister of Treasury Pina, and all others are white.
Province of Santa Clara.
Maj. Gen. Serafin Sanchez (white). --- —.. --- —-.-..      2,000
Colonel Roban (white). --- —-—. --- ——.. --- —-. --- —-------------—. ---  X)
Colonel Rego  (white)...................................................  1,
Colonel Cortefia (white)...... —300
Col. Felipe Toledo (white) — _.-. -—.. --- —. ----. --- -----------------  00
Col. Lino Perez (white).. --- —-- ---- --------—. --- —---. —. — —. ---  3)0
Lieut. Col. Leon Cio Vedal (\white) —.. ---.-..-......- -—.......... 00
Lieut. Col. Sixto Roque (white)......... --..............................  )00
Total..........................................     5, 000
Province of Matanzas.
Maj. Gen. Francisco Carillo (white)..................................... 3, 0
Brigadier General Lacret (white) ----—..... --- —-. --- —-------------- 1,500
Gen. Pancho Perez (white) ---...... --- —..... --- ——.... 1, 5OX)
Col. Clotilde Garcia (black) -------—. --- —------—. --- —. --- —-------  400
Col. Joseph Roqne (white). —F...-. WX)
Colonel Oulet (white) -—.... —.. —.. —..                  2. --- —----------—.
Colonel Morijon (mulatto)...-...-.. --- —-----—.... --- —-------------—..  0)
Col. Demas Martinez (black).-. --- —-—...-. --  -.. --- — 
Col. (Alfred Godoy) "E1 Inglesito (white) --- —-—. —0 --- —... —. --- —--.RX)
Col. Edward Garcia (white)......-............. 400
Total............................................................. 8 8
2318




14


ftabana Province.
IMaj. Gen. J3tos Marila Agtirre (white).. --- —----......-.., 2,000
Gte. Rafael de Cardenas (white)... —... --- —---------. --- ——. --- —---- 2,5 0
Col. Juan Macso Parra (white)-1 5.. ----..... --- —-------
Colotlel CastilIo (white).-. --—,,.- -----—. —.-. — —. --- —--- 1, 2
Colonel Aranguerena (white) -.. --- —  -----------—. --- —- --- -. —.- 300
Major Villanueva (black).. --- —---------—. --- —. ----------—. --- —--  200
Col. Diaz Hornandez (white) -..-...-............. --- —-—.. --- —---  200
Lieutenant-Colonel Co rbo (White) ----------------------------------—..  60
Lieutenant-Colonel Palacios (black) --- —-—.... --- —-----—.. --- —  200
Total —...... ---.. —       —......             8,10
Pinar del Rio Province.
Maj. Glen. Diohiosio Gil (white). --- —...i......... 1,000
Gen. PelCico Diaz (black)..... --- —. —. --- ——. —. —..... --- —.-.-.  800
Col. Perico Delgado (white) —. --- —------.. —....   -      00
Col. Rtfael Socorro (white). --- —----—. —... —
Col. Frederico Alphonso (white) (recruits). --- —----------—. ----....
Colonel (livia (Whito) ---------------- -------— 300
Col. Miguel Laso (white)-.... ----.0...........      0)
Col. Eistaban Varona (white) -....... -.. ---...-.   — 1,500
Major Castillo (black) -.............................,  O
Total                                                    50..................................  -........., 6 


ARMIES OF INYASION.
General-in-chief, Maximo Gromnez (white).0.....0..0.......... 5, 0
Lieut. (4en. Antonio Macco (mulatto) -—.....-..............*.,a.....  t 1000
tirigt. Cetn. Quinton Bantdera (bltc k) -. -----—. ----............... 2 500
tri'g. (oIl. Jos Miliro (8panliard, white) —,...         3,000 
irig. C(n. Birun: Zayus (white),.                           1. 000
enl. Estabeo Tanayo (white) -,.....      bO0
Colonel N^unea (white)              ----—. ---- ------------------  600
Col. Cayito Alvarez (white).......................     400
Coi. Btoerto Bermndez (white)                                00....................................00
Total army invasion-,-.i- —.....................16,700
Total army occupation.. --- —. ---------—.-......-.....  44,022
Total of all forces In arms —... ---.. ---............................ 60,, 722




Color.
Officers.       No.
White. Black. Mulatto. Indian.
Generals — -.... --- —-------  24  19    8        1   1
Colonels...... --- —---- - -- ----  83  27  6      2
Lien ti nant-colonels.......  41........M.ajos —11........ ---..... -  1 -Total —. -  -------— 5               10       3        1
In ranks bearing armns, 40 per cent black and 00 per cent white.
This is a table of officers commanding operaticolumns. Each
of their separate columns is regularly officered as in the United
States Army, the tables showing color and strength of leader,
lr. PATTERSON. Now, one further question. What number
of Cubans-I mean citizens of the island, not resident Spaniards-what number of Cubans have enlisted in the cause of
Spain in an effort to put down the insurrection?
Mr. HITT. It is said there are many Cubans-it is even stated
officially. But I understand from Cubans who are in earnest in
behalf of their cause that those who are thus entitled Cubans and
who are in the Spanish armed forces are the same class as those
men called' "volunteers." Perhaps the gentleman is aware of what
2813




16
is misnamed a " volunteer " in Cuba. The Cuban "volunteer"
means a Spaniard in Cuba who is subject to military duty under
the Spanish law in Spain; but by a provision of the lawhe is allowed
the choice of performing service in Cuba, and that is called "volunteering " to do duty abroad instead of at home. These are the
bitterest men, the most implacably hostile and cruel, that the
Cubans have to meet. They are the men who form the cloud of
vultures, of officeholders, speculators, privileged spoilers, who have
made the island poor. It pays $206,00,000 a year in taxes, and besides that the exactions and peculations.
Mr. PATTERSON. From what source do you get that information?
Mr. TUCKER. The gentleman from Tennessee means the
information about the number of troops.
Mr. HITT. That was handed me by a gentleman who returned
from Cuba within a day or two-a very responsible gentleman,
who was introduced to me by members of the House who knew
and vouched for him as a man of intelligence, integrity, and high
character. I have not permission to use his name, but it will be
given me in a moment, if desired, by the gentleman who presented
him. I am assured that the figures are from General Gomez himself.
Mr. PATTERSON. Then, if I understand it, substantially it is
about this: The native population of Cuba have contributed about
60,000 men to resist the authority of Spain, that that army is
maintained by the native population of Cuba, and that the natives
of Cuba have directly contributed no soldiers to the Spanish
cause.
Mr. HITT. Well, I would not answer that I know that fact
one way or the other. That is a question in dispute. But we
can infer some things which are so plain that by the laws of moral
evidence and reason we can not but be convinced. I see the
point of the gentleman's question. What is the tendency and
wish of the people? There is every reason to believe, I think,
that the people of Cuba are most earnestly devoted to the cause
of independence and are determined to separate from Spain. The
insurgent forces have worked in perfect harmony; the people
recruit them spontaneously as fast as they fall away from exhaustion on the march or perish in battle. They have no uniforms,
no rations. They have all the hardships of war and none of its
splendors. Their. arms were simply rough chopping knives of
the plantations, called machetes, until they captured better arms
from the Spaniards whom they overthrew and stripped of their
Mauser rifles. If the Spanish Government believed what its officers
constantly say and publish abroad in bulletins, that Cuban armies
only represent brigands, incendiaries, and marauders, why do not
they arm the good citizens and let them drive out the brigands?
They would do it if these were brigands. Our people di(d it in
the West; did it often in my youth. They organized to catch the
brigands and executed them. But instead of that being the fact
in Cuba, we have every evidence that the Cuban people regard
the Spanish rule with the utmost detestation.
Mr. PATTERSON. If my friend will pardon me for a moment.
I will tell him the thought I have in mind.
Mr. HITT. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. PATTERSON. And that is this: If the people of Cuba, the
23B3




16
inhabitants of the island, are practically united, or substantially
united, in an effort to secure their autonomy and their liberty,
in my judgment they are entitled to it. And if this Government
would interpose its authority to prevent Spain from acquiring by
force of arms territory contiguous on the North American continent, I do not see why Spain should be permitted to retain territory by means of subjugation. [Loud applause.]
Mr. HITT. The gentleman speaks to a point which is not now
proposed for action, and as I am simply explaining a conference
report the gentleman will not expect me torespond to his remarks.
Mr. POWERS. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?
Mr. HITT. With pleasure.
Mr. POWERS. I observe the gentleman from Illinois is thoroughly conversant with the facts touching this interesting matter;
interesting not only to Cuba, but to this nation. I would like to
request him to state to the House what the form of government is in
Cuba thatis directing the action of those insurgents. It has been
stated, as the gentleman no doubt is well aware, that there is no
such thing as any form of government there in an organized
capacity, but that the army is made up of a band of marauders
fighting for spoil. Now, if it be true that the army is made up of
soldiers fighting for civil rights, is there a central power, is there
a council with an administration that directs the movements of
that army?
Mr. HITT. Mr. Speaker, the government of the insurgent
movement, the revolution, in Cuba is a republican government,
with a president; but in its beginning, like all revolutions, the
very essence is the military power; that overshadows all other.
They have an organization of civil officers. They have secured
possession of province after province. In some cases they have
almost the whole of the territory of a province in peaceful occupation administered by their officers. I have here an official copy
of the constitution of the Cuban Republic. They have worked
harmoniously from the beginning, each obeying his superior,
showing the highest confidence-a real organization. Organization does not lie in words nor in printed papers. It is a fact.
They obey their officers; their officers work in harmony. It is a
consistent political and military movement, such a one that it
can carry on war, and has carried it on vigorously, successfully,
victoriously, from the very start.
The question as to the unity of the Cubans is a serious one. As
to their sincerity in opposing Spanish domination, whether they
are brigands or whether they are patriots, they have a great army
against them, armed with all the appliances that the modern art
of war can furnish. They are without pay. No Cuban soldier
has ever received a day's pay in all this long year of battle and
march and suffering. They have no uniforms. They can be
described in the same language that Cornwallis applied to Washington's army when he followed its trail through New Jersey and
described the soldiers of that army as "tatterdemalions." Barefooted, half-clad, armed only with the weapons they have torn
from their conquered enemies, those Cuban soldiers have marched
on from fight to retreat and from retreat to fight.
Their generals have not let the Spaniards set for them the places
of battle. I do not know but that the Spanish generals have been
able men. It is not my part to speak of them otherwise than with
m3




17
respect as to their abilities. But if they are able men, then the
Cuban generals are men whose names should be placed beside that
of Touissant, who organized the black army in Haiti which defeated the French, or by that of Hannibal, who organized savage
tribes into armies that defeated the finest infantry in the world.
Their generals have created out of the humblest raw material
soldiers who have borne what our troops could not bear-delay,
defeat, retreat, return to action, reattack, and victory. That is the
proof of ability in the generals and in every individual soldier.
They have shown all these high qualities and done all these
great deeds without the sordid hope of reward, bearing themselves more patiently through this incessant struggle than our
fathers did during the saddest period of our Revolutionary war,
when they had to change their capital nine times in the course of
the struggle, when the troops were without pay and clothing and
were sometimes on the verge of disorder and mutiny. There has
been no such complaint on the part of the Cuban soldier, who
humbly took what he could get, ate what he could find, and went
forward with unfaltering heart, with bare and bloody feet, to
meet the enemy and fight again. [Applause.] Such a people
deserve liberty. They earn it. General Campos complained, and
General Weyler has repeated the' complaint, that their want of
success in many instances was owing to the fact that they operated in a country where they could get no trustworthy information and where they never could rely upon their guides. Mark
that significant testimony.
Remember that the guide was in the clutch of those cruel hands
that love to strangle, and yet, looking death in the face, those
humble, lowly men and women in the cabins and by the wayside
in Cuba who were taken as guides would rather face death than
lead the Spanish troops to the slaughter of their brethren in arms.
Could there be a more striking testimony than this from the mouth
of the Spanish commanders themselves of the devotion of the
Cuban people to their cause, like that of the early martyrs to the
Christian faith?
Mr. Speaker, I have endeavored to explain the reasons which
led your committee to accept these resolutions, and in doing so I
have been drawn into talking longer than I had intended. The
suggestion has been made more than once that our action, if it
led to the recognition of the Cuban Republic and its independence,
would be but an introduction to a period of revolutions and anarchy, as in the other South American colonies of Spanish origin.
But bear in mind one fact, which is never mentioned by those
who make this prediction. There are only two spots in America
where the Spanish race in considerable numbers really colonized
as did the Anglo-Saxons in our country. One is Chile; the other
Cuba.
In most of the Spanish-American countries the population has
been, and is to-day, very largely Indian, with a minor per cent
of Spanish blood ruling. But few Spanish women or families
ever came. In Chile the Spaniards transplanted themselves
actually. The European race went to live there, as it did in Cuba,
and in Cuba to-day there are a million people of the European
race and only 600,000 others. Forty years ago the securities of
Chile were good in the markets of the world. It has a comparatively stable government. Let the people of Cuba, who are of a
2Z81 —8




18
fiber and spirit that knows how to work, a people with heads that
know how to think-let them once become free and they will soon
know how to rule themselves and to organize a government which
will be stable and prosperous and which will earn our heartiest
good wishes for its permanent success.
It is our duty to pass these resolutions. These peole are imitating us. All the traditions of Americans, all our past, everything in our own history, appeal to us to cheer and encourage
rather than aid to trample upon these men in Cuba who are struggling to become what we are. Why, Mr. Speaker, the very men
who are now blackening the characters of the "bandits" will be,
or their grandchildren will be, among those who will show themselves most anxious to prove that they are descendants from some
of Gomez's captains [laughter]; just as in the cities along the
Atlantic coast one hundred and twenty years ago, at the time when
the barefooted soldiers of Washington were marching over the
Jersey hills and plains, there were persons not overcharged with
devotion to the cause of freedom, but whose descendants are most
active in their efforts to discover or to invent stories of pedigrees
showing descent from those soldiers, organizing "Sons" and
"Daughters" of the Revolution. [Laughter and applause.]
I do not care to prolong these remarks much further. I will
simply answer one suggestion which has been made. It has been
frequently urged that we are under friendly obligations to Spain
and that the action here proposed would be ungrateful on our part,
as everybody knows that Spain is most intensely averse to our
taking this step.
Sir, not long ago the Spanish Government had an opportunity
to show its friendship for us when we were embarrassed by the
war of the rebellion. The Spanish Government at that time organized a fleet, arranged a movement with two other Governments,
made a naval demonstration in the West Indies, and seized upon
the Island of Santo Domingo. They held that island for a considerable time while our country was engrossed in the war of the
rebellion. Afterwards they were expelled by the people there. It
was disclosed subsequently in a debate in the Spanish Cortes by
the men who as ministers had conducted that business that they
did it in order to " drive out the Yankees "; that that whole movement was organized to prevent our getting the naval station of
Samana; that it was carried on in concert with Louis Napoleon,
who was organizing a movement on Mexico to overthrow a republic there and set up an empire while we were engaged in a great
duty that prevented our interfering with him.
Such is the friend that the Spaniard was to us. We are under
no obligations to favor Spain and oppression as against Cuba and
freedom. The truth is that in such matters as these there are no
friendships. Friendship is no sentiment, any more than would
be aversions and hates, on which to base a national policy or a
national movement. The prime consideration in a question like
this is justice-fairness to all. Enlightened self-interest as to our
own people and all that concerns them should guide us in the discharge of our duty. It is our duty now to say we believe that
these people, struggling as did our fathers, should be recognized
as men carrying on war, as belligerents. When this utterance
has gone from the representatives of the people to the White
House I have faith to believe that the Executive will heed the
2313




19
voice of this nation, expressed by such vast majorities in House
and Senate and by every sign that indicates the wish of the
American people. [Applause.]
The cause of Spain is manifestly waning from week to week.
The rainy season will soon come on, and then the stars in their
courses will fight for Cuban freedom. An end will come to Weyler boasts and savageries. Our action here will speedily be followed by results great and practical, and the sufferings of thoso
unfortunate people, their tortures in prison pens and lonely
marshes and mountain retreats, will come to an end. They will
see the sunrise-the morning of a new and brighter day-and we
shall all be glad to say that we hailed the coming of free Cuba.
[Applause.1
Mr. HYDE. Allow me a single question. Are we tounderstand
that if the President should fail to take any action upon these
concurrent resolutions they would then be entirely nugatory except
as an expression of opinion and of our friendly feeling toward Cuba?
Mr. HITT. I will not assume that such a thing is possible;
therefore I decline to answer the gentleman's question. [Applause.]
Monday, April 6, 1896.
The question being on the conference report and the adoption
of the resolutions relating to Cuba, there were, yeas 246, nays 27.
The announcement of the vote was received with prolonged
applause.
2313
0O




b




Ambassador Bayard's Partisan Utterances


SPEECH
OF
HON. R. R. HITT,
Wednesday, March 18, 1896.
Mr. HITT. Mr. Speaker, I call up the special order, the resolution in relation to certain speeches delivered by our ambassador
to Great Britain. 
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Whereas Thomas F. Bayard ambassador of the United States to Great
Britain, said in a public speech delivered in Boston, England, on August 2,
1895 as follows:
"He (the President of the United States) stands in the midst of a strong,
self-confident, and oftentimes violent people-men who seek to have their
own way, and I tell you plainly that it takes a real man to govern the people
of the United States;" and
Whereas Thomas F. Bayard, ambassador of the United States to Great
Britain, said in a public speech delivered in Edinburgh, Scotland, on November 7, 1895, as follows:
" In my own country I have witnessed the insatiable growth of that form
of state socialism styled 'protections' which I believe has done more to foster
class legislation and create inequality of fortune, to corrupt public life, to
banish men of independent mind and character from the public councils, to
lower the tone of national representation, blunt public conscience, create
* false standards in the popular mind, to familiarize it with reliance upon
State aid and guardianship in private affairs, divorce ethics from politics,
and place politics upon the low level of a mercenary scramble, than any
other single cause. * * *
"It (the said policy of protection) has unhesitatingly allied itself with every
policy which tends to commercial isolation, dangerously depletes the Treasury, and saps the popular conscience by schemes of corrupting favor and
largesse to special classes whose support is thereby attracted. Thus it has
done so much to throw legislation into the political market, where jobbers
and chafferers take the place of statesmen:" Therefore
Be it resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that
Thomas F. Bayard, ambassador of the United States to Great Britain, in
publicly using the language above quoted has committed an offense against
diplomatic propriety and an abuse of the privileges of his exalted position
which should make him the representative of the whole country and not of
any political party. Such utterances are wholly inconsistent with that
prudent, delicate and scrupulous reserve which he himself while Secretary
of State enjoined upon alr diplomatic agents of the United States. In one
speech he affronts the great body of his countrymen who believe in the
policy of protection. In the other speech he offends all his countrymen who
believe that Americans are capable of self-government. Therefore, as the
immediate representatives of the American people, and in their name, we
condemn and censure the said utterances of Thomas F. Bayard.
Resolved further, That in the opinion of the House of Representatives public speeches by our diplomatic or consular officers abroad which display partisanship or which condemn any political party or party policy or organization
of citizens in the United States are in dereliction of the duty of such officers,
impair their usefulness as public servants. and diminish the confidence which
they should always command at home and abroad.
Mr. HITT. Mr. Speaker, two days after the last election,
which took place on Tuesday, the 5th of November, the ambassaSa               ~                                    21




22
dor of the United States to Great Britain delivered an address
in Edinburgh, in which he inveighed in a violent diatribe against
the policy, the dominant tenet in the political creed, of the Republican party in the United States. It was an amplification and
repetition of a plank in the national Democratic platform denouncing protection as a fraud and robbery. The question in the election that had just passed had been, in largest part, the question
between the protectionists or Republicans and their opponents,
the Democrats. The distinguished audience whom he addressed
had in the papers of that morning and that afternoon read the
details of the election in the United States, and no doubt with
great regret, all of them recognizing that with the coming ascendency of the party of protection in this country a policy was to be
expected which would have what they considered a depressing
effect upon British interests.
It was under these circumstances that this passionate partisan
speech was delivered by our ambassador on a foreign platform to
foreigners. It drew attention in that country and in every other,
and it again revived attention to a speech which our ambassador
had made a short time before, in August, at old Boston in England, in which he had said that his countrymen were "a strong,
self-confident, and oftentimes violent people-men who seek to
have their own way, and I tell you plainly that it takes a real
man to govern the people of the United States; fortunately in this
case there is a real man to govern the people of the United States
and hold their highest office."
These utterances excited painful attention and great regret all
over this country. They were brought to the attention of Congress as soon as this body assembled, but the House, moving with
caution, instructed a committee to ascertain whether such statements had been made by an ambassador of this country and what
action should be taken in the premises if they had. That committee, after due deliberation, reported a resolution of inquiry
which was adopted by the House, asking the President whether,
in fact, such declarations had been made by tle American ambassador to Great Britain; and if so, what action had been taken
thereon. By and by the President sent us all the correspondence,
with the information that all that was alleged to have been declared by our ambassador in Edinburgh last November was indeed
said by him, and that no action had been taken thereon whatever.
That is the case on which your committee have reported the resolutions now pending, expressing the disapproval of this House of
the action of an ambassador of the whole people of the United
States in making passionate, partisan declarations-in indulging
in anathemas aimed at a great part of his countrymen.
There was an implied doubt in the inquiry of the House, We
wished, we hoped, at the first news, that it would be found on examination that the declarations made by our representative abroad
had not been accurately reported; that it might turn out that he
had used such general terms that they could be accepted as not offensive to his countrymen; that it was perhaps mere "academic"
discussion of cold, general questions of political science, which, in
the condensed form of the news report, had seemed harsh and partis.an. But not so; all such hopes were dissipated by the full text.
When we came to read the very words, as sent by his own hand, it
was found that he spoke of a party cry, a partisan word, and in his
$113




23
first line strictly limited it to its harshest meaning. He sharply
defines "protection" as he denounces it, not as a general term in
political science, or as it might be treated in discourses in the
rench Academy or at a German university. He says:
In my own country I have witnessed the insatiable growth of that form of
state socialism styled "protection."
That which is styled I protection " in his own country is all that
he speaks of-exactly that and nothing more. The word "democrat," the word "democratic," the word "republican," the word
"republicanism "-all these have a general significance as they
are found in literature, in political science, and in history. In
that sense every member of the Republican party is a believer in
democracy as opposed to aristocracy; and every Democrat in this
Hall and in this country is a republican as opposed to a mionarchist. They have a general definition far different from what
they mean in his own country, where what are styled " Democrat,"
" Democracy," and ' Democratic " refer to the adherents and tenets
of a powerful political organization, and what are styled "Republican" and "Republicanism" refer to a party organization and a
party creed; and what is styled "protection" in this country, in
the strife of parties, is a party tenet-the essence of Republicanism. So it is known and understood by every boy on the street
when he sees the word "protection" inscribed on a transparency
in a political procession.
There was no mistaking his meaning. To such an audience,
depressed with the day's news of the success of the protectionists
in the elections in the United States on the previous Tuesday, our
ambassador broke out in bitter denunciation of what was styled
"protection" in his own country as "corrupting public life, banishing men of independent mind and character from the public
councils, lowering the tone of national representation, blunting
public conscience, divorcing ethics from politics, placing politics
upon the low level of a mercenary scramble, and throwing legislation into the political market, where jobbers and chafferers take
the place of statesmen."
It was said on this floor, when the question was first brought
up, that the President of the United States had uttered similar
sentiments in the past. He uttered them at home. in the midst of
political strife. The ambassador uttered them abroad, just after
an election favorable to protection, and after he had made a previous speech to Englishmen saying the American people were
self-confident and oftentimes violent, whom it took a real man to
govern, but fortunately they had a real man holding the office of
President.
If the gentleman who uttered those words had been an American citizen, traveling in his own personal private capacity, we
could have taken no notice of them, whatever might have been
our opinion of the good or the bad taste of an American talking
in that strain in other countries. If Americans when abroad
choose to reflect upon their country or their countrymen or their
institutions, it is their right; as private citizens they can do it.
But not so with a man who goes from our Government to the
court of the British Empire clothed with authority-who stands
for the majesty of the whole Republic-who represents every citizen in all this country. He is received as a public representative,
2818




24
and as such his statements are accredited, justly accredited, as
they would not otherwise be. When he speaks of his country he
represents his countrymen-he represents all of them; and his
words, whether to our honor or dishonor, are taken as the voice
of the nation. Therein we all were wounded when he spoke with
this bitter tongue of more than half his countrymen.
His predecessor, Mr. Lowell-a famous personality always and
everywhere honored, but who when ambassador was treated with
still greater respect, with the profoundest regard-when he was
speaking to an English audience one day, and reference was
made to American politics, said, " It is a rule with us, recognized
as most fit, that family affairs should not be discussed before
strangers." [Loud applause.] That same Lowell once delivered
an address in England with a title which could be perverted by a
narrow-minded man into a partisan word. The subject of the
address was "Democracy." But he treated it in a higher sense,
with a loftier spirit. It contained no partisan railing; and when
he concluded an Englishman would have vainly asked of his neighbor, " Is he a Democrat, or is he a Republican?" No; he was an
American, and only an American. He conducted himself in accordance with the duty of an ambassador in his action and his
utterances.
In truth, I believe there has not in a hundred years been a public utterance by any representative of the United States on any
spot of the globe, from the humblest consular agent to an ambassador, made either in eulogy or in denunciation of political
parties at home.
When the ambassador went to old Boston the account before
us says that he was taken on a special train, that the bells in the
city were rung upon his arrival, that flags decorated the public
buildings as the cortege passed, and that he was welcomed by
the mayor and dignitaries of the city. That gentleman had been
in Europe before, when he was not an ambassador, and when he
then arrived in towns the flags were not displayed on the public
buildings, nor the bells rung, nor special trains, nor mayors, nor
civic dignitaries necessary.
He was presented to that great audience in Edinburgh with the
profoundest respect as the American ambassador, and with such
surroundings our ambassador launched into these anathemas upon
his countrymen. Had he been at home, had it been before election, h  i     he might have used strong partisan language and it would
have fallen unheeded, but this was addressed to foreigners, and
every American of every party, of every shade of political opinion,
felt the impropriety.
When, by reason of the inquiry of this House, the President,
through the Secretary of State, sent to the ambassador for information as to his speech, the ambassador replied transmitting it and
justifying it. He challenged article 7 of the instructions to diplomatic officers as not having been violated. Think of it-an ambassador and an ex-Secretary of State defending himself against the
offended sense of propriety of the whole nation by citing the mere
strict letter, the bald letter, of a rule of the Department. He says
no political canvass was approaching in that country. What had
a speech denouncing a party in his own country to do with party
conflicts in England? It is prohibited by the regulations that any
officer in our service shall take part in the political contests of the
2313




25
country to which he is accredited. But no President, no Secretary of State, has ever deemed it necessary heretofore to caution
even the humblest or the most ill-informed consular agent that he
was not to go abroad and talk about our domestic politics. That
has never been included in the regulations. He says, in justifying
this strange speech:
The judgments so delivered were formed by me after careful deliberation.
Does anybody doubt that? Is that any justification? His old
speeches in other places, in partisan conflicts here, undoubtedly
expressed similar sentiments, and no one questioned his sincerity.
But that was in his campaigns at home, when he was not an ambassador, but an ordinary Democratic politician trying to catch
votes. What has that to do with the gross impropriety of taking
these violent sentiments, these partisan likings or dislikings to
other lands, and uttering them when acting as the representative
of all the people? In this justifying dispatch he seems unconscious of the real nature of his offense.
He wounded the feelings of all Americans at home, not because
he censured Republicans or Republican tenets, not because he was
a Democrat-that we knew from other sources. Had a Republican, acting as ambassador, indulged in railing at the Democratic creed or its adherents as degrading and corrupting public
life, is there a man in the whole country among the millions of
Republicans who would not have felt hurt, humiliated, and offended
at such a gross impropriety and injustice an the part of the representative of all the Democrats as well as all the Republicans in the
United States?
There lies the offense; not in the sincerity of the belief, not in
the truth or falsity of what he utters; that has nothing whatever
to do with it. The seventh article of the instructions in their
spirit prohibits any such course, and the sincerity of the belief of
the man who uttered such sentiments has nothing to do with the
question.
One of the essential qualifications of a diplomatic agent is to observe at all
times a proper reserve in regard to the affairs of his Government.
That, Mr. Speaker, was issued by Secretary of State Bayard.
[Applause.]
It is forbidden to diplomatic agents abroad to participate in any manner in
the political concerns in the country of their residence; and they are directed especially to refrain from public expressions' of opinion upon local,
political, or other questions arising within their jurisdiction.
It is deemed advisable to extend a similar prohibition against public addresses, except upon exceptional festal occasions, in the country of official
residence. Even upon such occasions the utmost caution must be observed
in touching upon political matters.
If our representatives abroad are to be cautious in touching on
political matters in other countries, how much more in touching
upon those that reach the quick sensibilities of the millions of
their countrymen at home?
Now, when this was reported in the papers some were incredulous, some censured, some criticised, and some regretted. The
press of the country, with almost absolute unanimity, rebuked or
censured or criticised the passionate partisan strain of the ambassador. Even the English press, which was in sympathy with
the political economic views of the ambassador, felt and expressed
28X8




26
also their sense of the impropriety of the utterances. One of the
great London journals, explaining to its readers the close relation
of protection to American politics, illustrated the irritation of the
American people at the utterances of their ambassador by saying:
How would we feel if the British ambassador at Washington had delivered
a speech at some public assenmbly in America in favor of Irish home rule and
denouncing the Tory party, that prevailed at the last election?
The London Times, in a comment on the speech, which is a
curious mixture of patronizing and contempt, said thatSpeeches such as those made by Mr. Bayard would not be delivered by a
European diplomat, and even in Mr. Bayard's case they were rather surprising.
Now, after the declaration by our ambassador that the political faith of one of tlhe.great parties of this country was degrading
and corrupting, after he had taken a declaration found in the
national Democratic platform, that protection is a fraud and a
robbery, and translated it into his own more impulsive, specific,
and passionate phrase, what action did the President take with
reference to it? None whatever. Not a suggestion of admonition,
although he had delivered his "judgments after careful deliberation" in such strain as this:
In my own country I have witnessed the insatiable growth of that form of
state socialism styled " protection," lwhich [ belikve has done more to foster
class legislation and create inequality of fortune, to corrupt public life, to
banish men of independent minid and character from the pulblic councils, to
lower the tone of national representation, blunt public concience, create
false standards in the popular mind, to familiarize it with reliance upon state
aid and guardianship in plrivatte. affairs, divorce ethics frlom politics, and place
politics upon the low level of a mercenary scramble, than any other single
cause. * * * It —
The policy of protectionhas unhesitatingly allied itself with every policy which tends to commercial
isolation, dangerously depletes the Treasury, and saps the popular conscience
by schemes of corrupti,r favor and largesse to special classes whose support
is thereby attracted. Thus it has dolne so much to tlhrow legislation into the
political market, where jobbe rs and chatferers take the place of statesmen.
Does that refer to the displacement of parties in this Hall from
the aisle on my right to the aisle on my left? The result of the last
election has in fact so increased the Republican or protectionist
members of this House that they now occupy it clear around from
the end of the -Hall on my right to the aisle on my left, beyond
which the Democrats extend one-third of the House, instead of the
great majority they formerly had. Is there anyone on the floor
so bitterly imbued with partisan sentiment that he would utter
in any presence such a slander as that the displacement on this
floor by the last election put " jobbers " and " chafferers " in the
place of " statesmen "? Could we, would any Republican here, find
it in his heart to say that the result of the previous election where
we were displaced and the Democrats given control of this House
put jobbers and chafferers in the place of statesmen? No Representative of a district here on either side would use such language.
Is that the language for a representative of the whole people of
the United States? Had action been taken by the Executive, as
has been so often done in cases of indiscretion and improprieties
far less than thi by our officers abroad, this might have passed
without notice by the House. But the President replies to our
2313




27


inquiry that though months have gone by no word. even of admonition, has been given to this offending officer.
Mr. Speaker, the indiscretions and the offenses of consuls and
ministers abroad have often been rebuked by admonition or by
censure, and sometimes by recall by the Department itself.
There are innumerable examples of this. One of the early ministers we sent abroad was James Monroe, afterwards so justly
famous, then young in the public service, and who indiscreetly
made a glowing address in the French National Convention a few
days after the fall of Robespierre in 1794. It was undoubtedly
an ill-advised thing to make such a speech to that blood-stained
dreadful assembly. For that he was rebuked by an admonition
from the Secretary of State, and General Washington wrote a
few words about it, which it is worth while to read and ponder
to-day in connection with the pending question:
The truth is Mr. Monroe was cajoled, flattered, and made to believe strange
things. In return he did or was disposed to do whatever was pleasing to
that nation, reluctantly urging the rights of his own.
It often happens that a minister takes on the hue or opinions of
the country where he resides in its contests with other countries.
I have seen that occur. In the contest between Chile and Peru in
1881 it so happened that our ministers to those Republics came to
Washington on leave of absence at the same time, reporting at
the Department on the same day. I heard them both. Each
stated that the country to which he was accredited was in the
right and that the other was the aggressor, and they spoke almost
as if attorneys for those Governments. That is but natural, and
it is a caution constantly given to our representatives to beware of
it, but we never before had one who needed cautioning to prevent
his speaking against his own people.
The ambassador himself justified his course in his letter before
us to the Secretary. He sends a copy of this speech issued by the
"Printers in Ordinary to Her Majesty." His speech has been
reprinted in this country as a partisan pamphlet by the New England Free Trade League. The committee charged to consider this
question has reported resolutions censuring such utterances. Is
it not time that Congress should speak?
The minority in their report say that the proposition to censure
by resolution is "unwarranted and unprecedented'." Whether it
is warranted or not I think nearly every citizen of the United
States is perfectly qualified to answer, and the press of the United
States long ago answered.
It is not unprecedented-far from it. The very last Congress
passed a resolution to censure Mr. Stevens, minister to Hawaii.
The minority find fault with this as an invasion of the functions
of the Executive with which Congress should not interfere. It is
not so considered by the President. The President, by his influence and pressure upon Democratic members in this House, drove
through a resolution, by the votes of reluctant members here, censuring Minister Stevens, who, it was alleged, had been too strongly
zealous for his country, though the Democratic committee of the
Senate afterwards found on careful examnination that he had acted
throughout within the line of patriotic duty. You who were
members of the last House, many of you, hnow that that vote was
reluctant, gathered up from men who disliked it to the very last
moment. I heard them myself in conversation disavow their symZa3




28
pathy with the resolution, but they said they would yield because
it lay so close to the heart of the President. He was then bent on
overturning the Hawaiian Republic and restoring the Queen.
We have often had ministers who went to the verge of indiscretion in the performance of their duties, where they were influenced by the public opinion where they resided, taking sides with
that country in its contests with neighboring countries. But in
none of these cases was fault found with the patriotism of the
minister, nor did he indulge in any criticism of his own country.
So, too, within a few days the Spanish minister in this city has
been criticised for some public utterances, but they were not harsh
judgments of his own people or any part of them. Minister
Stevens was not condemned by the Democratic majority of this
House for any word or act against any of his countrymen. If
that was an occasion for a resolution of censure by the House,
the gentlemen who voted for it must agree that this is a far more
fitting occasion for the House to act.
In these resolutions the House lays down a just rule for all our
diplomatic and consular officers in all countries-that they should
not in public speeches display partisanship, or condemn any political party or party policy or organization in the United States;
that such conduct is in dereliction of their duty, impairs their usefulness, and diminishes the confidence they should always command. Such a rule of conduct I think ought to have the vote of
every member of the House and the assent of every American, so
that it will never again happen that an ambassador representing
the seventy millions of the great Republic will anywhere in the
world forget that he represents, not a party, but the whole people,
and that it is his duty not to darken the good name of any part of
them. It is a wrong to the country he represents, to that great
Republicwith whose majesty and dignity he is clothed, and to all
the people for whom he speaks in all his public utterances. [Applause.]
Friday, March 20.
The question being on the adoption of the first resolution, there
were-yeas 182, nays 72.
So the first resolution was agreed to.
The question then being on the second resolution, there wereyeas 192, nays 59.
So the second resolution was agreed to.
The question being then on the adoption of the preamble, it
was agreed to without a division.
238


0




Venezuelan Boundary Commission.


REMARKS
BY
HON. R. R. HITT.
Wednesday, December 18, 1895.
Mr. HITT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the House
for the immediate consideration of the bill which I send to the
Clerk's desk to be read.
The Clerk read as follows:
A bill (H. R. 2173) making appropriation for the expenses of a commissio i
investigate and report on the true divisional line between the Repub li
Venezuela and British Guiana.
Be it enacted, etc., That the sum of $100,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for the expenses of a commission, to be appointed by the President,
to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between the Republic
of Venezuela and British Guiana.
[Loud applause.]
he SPEAKER. The question is upon unanimous consent to
the present consideration of the bill which has been reported to the
House. * * * Is there objectiont [Afterapause.] TheChair
hears none. [Loud applause.]
Mr. HITT. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word in explanation
of the bill and its purpose, which I trust will satisfy everyone in
this House-and I will say it without mentioning this side of the
House or that side. I hope we have not two sides of the House
when it comes to a question of this kind. [Loud applause.] The
President of the United States on yesterday sent a message to this
House, at the conclusion of the reading of which the House adjourned; there was hardly time for deliberate action; and it might,
perhaps, have been deemed precipitate if taken at that time; but
we have all examined it after having heard it read from the desk.
After a general discussion in that message of doctrines, policies,
and national interests, there is a request made directly by the Executive to this House for action to aid him in the exercise of his
Executive functions.
It is a part of the Executive function to ascertain the facts relating to any question in negotiation with a foreign country. The
gravity of the case is such that the President suggests a mode of
determining a cardinal question in the controversy, and he asks
us to cooperate with him by enabling him to appoint three or more
men to examine the records and evidence and the facts involved.
In this contention between two great Governments the first fact
for us to remember as patriotic Americans is that the success of our
country in its contention depends, above all, upon our presenting
a united front, so that all Americans shall appear to be one and
that our Government shall speak for all the people of the United
8S13                                             29




80
States. [Applause.] And the prompt response of the people's
representatives here, according this small sum of money to pay
the expenses of an investigation, which the President says shall
be carefully and judicially made, and with the least delay possible-a suggestion of promptness which I am sure was made in
good faith and will be so carried out by an American Presidentwe answering in that spirit which becomes Americans and
promptly granting the appropriation, the spectacle will be presented to the foreigner, to our opponent, of a Republic that is as
one man. [Applause.]
In negotiations of this character any officer charged with the
duty of representing his Government is hampered and the opponent is encouraged by every word of dissent that comes from his
home. Every criticism behind the officer's back puts him at a
disadvantage, and hesitation by this Congress, the postponing of
this simple question of an appropriation to aid the President in
performing an Executive function, would be construed by the
British press and the British Government as evidence that the people of the United States were not in accord, that his action in the
matter had some relation to party tactics, and that he did not
speak the voice of the American people.
Let us answer and do our duty, all of us, now. We shall have
long days in which to discuss the Monroe doctrine and the exact
words in which it should be formulated if we do not agree with
the precise terms in which Mr. Olney or the President has put it.
But on this particular matter now presented discussion of various
views only confuses and gives aid and comfort to those across the
sea. Any disclosure of dissent here-and at bottom there really
is none-any appearance of dissent would not aid, but would
hamper, those who are clothed by the Constitution with authority to speak for the nation and charged with this great duty. I
hope, therefore, that the House will proceed to pass the bill without delay. I have made these few remarks, not from any desire
to speak or debate myself, but merely as a suggestion by way of
guidance to the immediate action which I believe we ought to
take, and in which I hope all will concur.
And now, Mr. Speaker, unless there is some considerable body
of gentlemen here who desire discussion, I will move the previous
question.
Mr. DINGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman a slight modification in the bill. It appropriates $100,000,
and I would suggest that he add the words "or so much thereof
as may be necessary."
Mr. HITT. I accept that amendment.
MIr. CRISP. I ask the gentlemam to withhold the demand for
the previous question for a moment.
Mr. HITT. I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, together with all on this side of the
House, 1 rejoice that tie gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HITT] has
been recognized to ask consideration of the bill which has just
been read at the Clerk's desk. It does seem to me that there can
be no division in this House as to the propriety of the immediate
passage of that bill. For a great many years there has been a controversy as to the divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. We respectfully invited Great Britain
to submit the controversy between that Government and the
313




81
Republic of Venezuela to arbitration. Great Britain has declined
arbitration. Now, what are we to do? If the American people
have a fixed opinion upon any question, it is the opinion that no
European country shall be permitted to acquire territory on the
American continentby force. [Applause.] Now, the question is,
What are we to do —
Mr. HITT. Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentleman at his request, and I was glad to do so, because he is a very distinguished
and experienced member of this House, but I yielded for what I
supposed was to be a suggestion about the bill, and I beg the gentleman now not to try to precipitate general debate upon this
subject.
Mr. CRISP. Surely he will accord to me the privilege of occupying as much time as he occupied; especially as he has presented
this morning the bill which I tried to introduce yesterday.
Mr. HITT. But I beg the gentleman not to go into a discussion
of the merits of the question at this time.
Mr. CRISP. I did not intend to do that. I simply desired to
suggest that, inasmuch as Great Britain has declined arbitration
of this controversy, we are bound to ascertain, and to ascertain
speedily, on which side lies the right, and that is the object of the
President's message and of this bill. If we are not to have the
assistance of Great Britain in ascertaining the facts by means of
an arbitration, then we must ascertain them for ourselves, and we
ought to do it at once.
The suggestion of my friend from Maine [Mr. BOUTELLE] to
wait until a committee is appointed means to wait three weeks,
while we should at once authorize the appointment of this commission and the payment of its expenses so that it may proceed,
as I have just said, to ascertain where the right is; and everyone
may rest assured that when we ascertain where the right is we
have the courage and the manhood to maintain it. [Loud applause.]
Mr. CROSVENOR. Mr. Speaker —
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois moves the previous question.
Mr. GROSVENOR. Will not the gentleman from Georgia
TMr. CRISP] allow me to ask him a question? I was trying to get
is attention while he was on the floor. [Cries of "'Vote!"' "Vote!"]
Mr. McCRCEARY of Kentucky addressed the Chair while the
Speaker was proceeding to put the question.
Mr. McCREARY of Kentucky. I ask the gentleman from Illinois to yield me two minutes only.
Mr. HITT. The gentleman will pardon me; I can not. I know
the patriotic spirit which animates him; but he will have to pardon me. I can not do it.
Mr. McCREARY of Kentucky. I simply desire to say that I
heartily indorse the bill offered by the gentleman from IllinoisThe SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois does not yield.
Mr. HITT. I can not yield.
The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the previous question.
Mr. BOUTELLE. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will not
press the previous question without permitting me to ask him
what the scope of the resolution is.
The question being put on ordering the previous question, it was
ordered. [General applause.]
213




82
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
Mr. HITT. I ask that the Clerk read the whole bill.
The SPEAKER. The bill as amended will be read.
The Clerk read the bill as amended by inserting after ' $100,000"
the words " or so much thereof as may be necessary."
The question being then put on the passage of the bill, it was
passed.
[The announcement of the result was received withloud applause
on both sides of the House.]
On motion of Mr. HITT, a motion to reconsider the last vote
was laid on the table.
0




I



C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




DEC 101934
UNIV. OF,icCH,
LIBRARY


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
III     II IN  I
3 9015 02327 5657.i~ ~;i**~~*i** i; ~..._ll/III*.. i jpIS




iiiiHisia